1992-03-20

Hon. Gilles Loiselle (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee B.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, just before I say one or two words about this particular bill, I would like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Labrador and the hon. member for Churchill for their co-operation in the speedy dispatch of this bill to a legislative committee where it can be studied in all its appropriate detail.
I have just a few words. This is second reading of Bill C-52, the Yukon Waters Act. It is one of two bills, the other being Bill C-51, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, that are important to northerners and indeed to all Canadians who have an interest in water management in the north.
Northerners have a special relationship with the environment. They see it as both productive and fragile. Above all else, they are keenly aware that the environment and especially the waters must be protected. Bill C-52 acknowledges and recognizes the value of Yukon's water resources. It also acknowledges that the legislation enacted in 1970, the current Northern Inland Waters Act, needs updating to be in tune with the requirements of the 1990s and indeed the requirements of the next century.
The new bill addresses inconsistencies and weaknesses that have come to light. It would be wrong to leave these problems uncorrected.
The amendments are an excellent example of what can be achieved through co-operation and consultation. By streamlining the administrative arrangements for water use in the north and by correcting the weaknesses in the current legislation, we are addressing the expressed needs of northerners and we are focusing on sustainable development and protection of the northern environment. This should and will turn into jobs and economic growth.
I recommend this bill for speedy passage so that we can move on with that task. I urge hon. members to give their support to the amendments to provide a solid basis for future water management in Yukon.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I would simply add to yesterday's comments that we support both these measures. We feel they are long overdue and necessary measures to give the people in those areas authority over their resources.
In my remarks yesterday I indicated that in spite of the fact that land claims were going on, all parties felt it was important to go ahead with these measures. However, I think we should insert a caveat and say that it does not mean that we should let up at all in our efforts to settle land claims.
Land claims are an important item throughout the north. It is at the top of the native agenda and it should be at the top of the agenda of this House and of the government. Land claims must be settled and people who live in the north must have more control over their resources, over their communities and over their lives.
The fact that we are seeing Canadians paying so much attention and giving so much prominence to the rights of native people in the constitutional debate and the very positive participation of the native people in the constitutional debate simply highlights the necessity for all of us to make every effort to see that land claims are speeded up and are settled with fairness so that people in

March 20, 1992
Government Orders
the north can live their lives not simply with control but with dignity.
So I would simply add that caveat to my remarks of yesterday. On the other hand, we do support these measures and intend to give them speedy passage.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I will not be speaking very long on this bill.
This bill is very similar to its companion bill, C-51, which we dealt with yesterday in the Elouse of Commons. It is my understanding that the bill has been the result of extensive consultations with the Yukon government and I know that our office was certainly informed of the developments as they went on. It is my belief that the legislation will improve the situation and allow for a lot more local control over water resources in the Yukon territory.
We have insisted that this go to committee to make sure that if there are any groups that feel they are adversely affected by this legislation, they have the opportunity to appear and to make sure, even though this bill appears to have gone through a proper process, that they are consulted and will not be adversely affected by the legislation.
Again, from the knowledge that we have of this legislation and from the consultations we have had with the Yukon government and with our leader, who happens to be the member for the Yukon, we believe that the legislation itself is very positive.
If I can just add a few remarks to my colleague from the Liberal Party, I recognize that in the Yukon the territorial government has signed a very extensive and comprehensive agreement with the Council of Yukon Indians and with federal officials.
I attended the aboriginal conference this last weekend in Ottawa where, in my group, one of the negotiators for the Council of Yukon Indians, Vic Mitander, was there. It was interesting how people, both white and aboriginal, from all across the country kept referring back to the comprehensive agreement that had been signed in the Yukon. They have looked at such things as large land settlements and the impact on the different regions in different parts of the Yukon, where concerning areas, such as wildlife, they had set up joint management boards to make sure that the native people and their
traditional right to harvest the wildlife was included and part of the environmental planning. So it was a very comprehensive bill.
It recognized the inherent right to native self-government. It recognized that this was a very important issue, and it made sure it was not just lip service. They actually dealt with the problem.
Another interesting aspect of that settlement was the fact that it allowed for local negotiations to carry on for a number of years, recognizing that within the Yukon territory there were different situations in its various parts. If one group signed off something in an earlier period, perhaps in the next year or two, and another native group got a much better deal three or four years down the road, then the original signing group would have the right to reopen.
That is a positive and progressive step to rights. Something that seems good in one year, something that seems adequate in 1992-93 may not be adequate five or six years later. I think what we have in the Yukon is a living agreement, and I do not believe that the legislation we are passing in the House today would adversely affect that.
With those few words, we are happy to have this bill go to committee to see if there are any representations against the work that has been done.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Carried.


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

Hon. Monique Vezina (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-64, an act to amend the Northwest Territories Act, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
March 20, 1992


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find the House is in agreement with the reality that we would like to move through all stages of this bill in sequence. Maybe you could check with the House. There may be people at different stages who want to make brief interventions, but that is our intention.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, yes indeed there is concurrence that this move forward quickly.

I just wanted to point out that as I understand it, this is the second time an extension has been sought. I am told that if a third extension were necessary, it could be very difficult. So the message has gotten through. Let us go ahead, but please let us try to solve this question as soon as possible.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, again it is my pleasure to speak on this piece of legislation.
I would expound upon the comments of the Liberal member that we recognize this is an extension for the Northwest Territories to allow more time to put in the required legislation.
We have a letter from Dennis Patterson to our leader dated March 13, 1992. It was written on behalf of the Yukon government and requests that this legislation be an extension for one final time. I think it is very important that the requirements of the language act be adhered to, recognizing the native diversity in the north and recognizing the difficulties that do exist in the Northwest Territories because of the number of communities and the vast size of the territories.
At the same time, I am very pleased that the Northwest Territories Minister of Justice has said in his letter to us that this is an extension for one final time.
I concur with the passage of this legislation. As was indicated by the government whip, we would agree to passage at all stages at this time.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders


Monique Vézina: moved that Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. DeBlois in the chair.
Deputy Chairman: Order! House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Northwest Territories Act.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported.
Monique Vézina: that Bill C-64 be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall this bill be read the third time? With leave of the House, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Monique Vézina: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Churchill has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be delaying this bill but after reviewing the short words that I gave on second reading, I would like to read the full text of a letter we received from the Northwest Territories Minister of Justice into the record. I think it would help people who are watching and who are concerned about official languages to further understand what has happened and to make sure there is no belief that there is any delay involved. The letter which we received by fax from the Northwest Territories Minister of Justice, Dennis Patterson to our leader states:

March 20, 1992
Government Orders
I am writing to let you know about a request I have made to the Honourable Kim Campbell to extend (for one final time!) the deadline of March 31, 1992 for translating regulations into French. My department has been working flat out and has airlifted help from Ottawa in addition to assistance supplied by the editors of the Canada Gazette. Even with that help, the Department of Justice expects the revision will not be completed until the end of the summer. In an abundance of caution, the bill passed and assented to yesterday in the Legislative Assembly fixes a new date of September 30, 1992.
The government of the Northwest Territories has worked hard and opened a considerable amount of (federal) money to meet the obligations established by Parliament. All of the statutes are now published completely in bilingual form and all bills proceed through the Assembly in both English and French. All new regulations are produced and published in both languages. Most of the backlog of regulations is translated and the first of four volumes of regulations has been sent to the Territorial Printer.
The Honourable Kim Campbell has undertaken to introduce the necessary legislation as soon as the appropriate Bill passes the Legislative Assembly here. It would be a shame if Parliament could not amend the Northwest Territories Act quickly with all party consent before March 31 and I seek your support to ensure that valid health, public safety and social assistance laws continue to protect the residents of the Territories.
Yours truly,
Dennis Patterson
I think that it is very obvious from the letter I have just read into the record that the Northwest Territories is committed to have the regulations translated by September 30 of this year and I think it is a very reasonable extension under those conditions.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to thank the hon. member for Churchill for his statement, because I thought it was the right thing to say. The letter he shared with us is very important at this point in our deliberations and it is good to have it on the record, in Hansard, for all Canadians. It is an important principle for this country. We belong to a really bilingual country and it is fitting to point that out in the present climate.
So I again thank the hon. member for Churchill for what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I in turn would like to commend the hon. member for Churchill for his good words, for reading
this letter and the encouragement it shows for linguistic duality, that is French and English in Canada.


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


Some hon. members:: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The vote is on the motion of Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, March 19, 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.
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be given the opportunity to address this particular bill today.
I want to begin by saying that these federal-provincial agreements such as Established Programs Financing agreements are not really agreements per se. This is a misnomer. How can it be an agreement when in fact the federal government has on a number of occasions unilaterally breached them, reduced them. An agreement means that at least two people want to do something in common with known rules of changing or whatever business they were intending to do. In this particular case that is not the situation, so I think I need to make that statement initially.
Let us recognize as well what this is all about. We are talking about Bill C-60. This is a massive assault, as a number of people have recognized before, on post-secondary education funding in Canada. It is also a massive assault on health care services.
March 20, 1992

Government Orders
Let me share with the House that contrary to a promise made by the government not to change the transfer formula, it was in fact reduced in 1986 by 2 per cent. It was in fact changed in 1990 by 1 per cent. In 1991 it was frozen and that freeze was extended to 1995.
What do all these changes mean? It means that from 1986 to 1995 there will be 30 billion fewer dollars transferred to provinces for health and education. That is roughly $20 billion less for health and close to $10 billion less for education. That is why I call it a massive assault on health and education.
Let me also share the most recent data I have received. For example, in 1990-91 there will be 315 million fewer dollars transferred for education. In 1991-92 there will be 594 million fewer dollars transferred for education. This is cash. Some of us will know that there are both tax transfers as well as cash transfers. The tax transfers do not put any money on the table in spite of what federal government officials will say. They basically permit the provinces to raise the taxes and they take the flak for it.
What the provinces want, what the provinces need, and what the students require is more cash. We are all knowledgeable about the current situation where the students have been hit extremely hard. Tbition fees are on the increase. Student debt is sky-rocketing. It is becoming increasingly difficult to get an education in this country.
What do these massive cuts mean to Canada? What do they mean to Canadians and Canadian students? First, they damage our competitiveness. Let us not doubt that for one moment. We talk about increased productivity, more competitiveness and globalization. They do nothing to enhance those matters in any way.
The most serious impact is on the poorer provinces. When we look at the Atlantic provinces and the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, they are the ones that are the most hard hit. Those are the provinces in which parents hope their children will get the kind of education which will permit them to develop those provinces so that they can make their rightful and full contribution to Canada. Those are the provinces that will be adversely affected by these kinds of measures.
Let us look at the economies of these provinces.

The Atlantic provinces and especially the western provinces-in this case only Manitoba and Saskatchewan-have been hit very hard. In Manitoba, the Canadian Forces Base in Portage la Prairie was closed, all kinds of subsidies in the farm sector were cut, and I could go on. This is in addition to what these provinces have already experienced. I did not mention the Atlantic provinces, the fisheries, unemployment, and so on.

The impact of all these cuts is being felt, as I indicated, in the smaller provinces, the poorer provinces and in the whole of Canada.
We have to remember that some of these cash payments will dry up by 1996. That is very important to remember, because come 1996 there will not be any more cash on the table for some of the provinces. We have to remember that a Canadian labour market survey has indicated that most businesses, roughly 80 per cent, believe that the single most important factor to increasing competitiveness is better training and retraining, in other words, more and better education. We have to remember that many of the policies this government has pursued have not been conducive to that, not only because there has been less money but because there have been the compounding factors of the recession: in abundance high unemployment, poverty, social assistance.
In 1985 total education and training expenditures were
7.3	per cent of our total spending. In 1991 it was 6.4 per cent. That is a dramatic drop, extremely acute.
We also have to remember that it is in the context of enrolment being at an all-time high. We have our resources on the one hand which are being pushed down, squeezed and reduced and then we have our student enrolment on the other hand which is increasing.
Between 1985 and 1989 the growth rate in education spending was 2.3 per cent compared to inflation at 4.2 per cent. There again is a dramatic statement with respect to how those expenditures have been compressed.
These are statistics from Statistics Canada. I do not want anyone to get the impression that I have made them up in order to try to impress people.

March 20, 1992
Government Orders
Another interesting statistic is education and training as a percentage of GDP. It declined from 1.3 per cent in 1986-87 to 1.1 per cent in 1988-89. This is another dramatic reduction. Between 1986-87 and 1988-89 Canada's real GDP increased by 15.4 per cent. Over the same period of time while we had this increase of over 15 per cent, our operating grants to universities increased only by 1.1 per cent in real terms. Yet the number of students attending universities increased by 7.5 per cent.
Let us look at this. We have growth of 15 per cent. We have real increases to universities by 1.1 per cent and student growth at over 7 per cent.
I want to quote something that you will find very interesting, Mr. Speaker, as will other members in this House and those who are watching us. When the Prime Minister was the Leader of the Opposition he said:
We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment, according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement. We believe that financing post-secondary education is an important priority for both levels of government.
That is what the Prime Minister said, and I have outlined what has happened since then.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, speaking in the House in 1982, roughly 10 years ago when he was in opposition, said that EPF, Established Programs Financing, moneys and tax points that are transferred for health and education "could have disastrous effects" because there were reductions then "on the universities and colleges, on hospital funding and on the operation of hospitals". He continued:
Let us not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments: Let us solve these problems not on the backs of the hospitals and universities; let us solve these problems outside that arena.
That is what the Prime Minister and the former Finance Minister had to say.
I regret that my time is coming close to the end because I had so many more things I would have liked to have said that I know Canadians would have been interested in finding out about. But perhaps I will have an opportunity to do that in the near future.
Our concern is that there are some positive steps in this bill and there are a number of technical improvements, but I think it masks the major problem, which we are not talking about.
I want to terminate with perhaps one observation. Why is this being extended for two years? People are saying: " Because we are rediscussing that it is being reviewed". That is a possibility, but looking at the government's record for sharing openly, I have to wonder if there are not other reasons. Is it because cash is going to run out then, or are there other particular concerns?

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the impact of this bill is considerable. Although it has a number of very positive aspects, it raises a number of questions, because as you know, there has been a very severe cutback in transfers of funds to Canada's colleges and universities.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, this is an odd little bill. It does not really do anything very much, but in failing to do anything very much it does very little in a variety of areas.
It touches on the equalization program and in so doing, more or less renews that program for a period of further negotiation. It makes a minor change to the Established Programs Financing program, basically for the purpose of preventing the equalization payment ceiling from cutting EPF payments. A more bizarre concept it is difficult to imagine, but that could be the case as the legislation is now crafted. As well, the bill sets the groundwork for harmonization of provincial sales taxes with the goods and services tax.
It is a very broad brush the government is using in this bill and very thin paint indeed.
For the reason alone that the bill seeks to create a regime that would allow for harmonization of provincial sales taxes with the goods and services tax, our caucus will be opposing the bill. We are irrevocably opposed to the goods and services tax and see no reason that we should support moves which would make its imposition on Canadians that much easier. Our goal, in fact, is to remove the GST, to destroy it, to replace it with a fairer
March 20, 1992

taxation system based on progressive income tax and not regressive excise taxes.
However, in saying that, I should note that this is not the only move this government has undertaken in an attempt to compel provincial governments to adopt its taxation regime, to come into the tent.
[Editor's Note: Power interruption.]
When the federal government alters the income tax system in such a way as to make it less progressive, more regressive so as to reduce the burden on those who can most afford it and increase the burden on those who can least afford it, those changes automatically carry over to the provincial taxation systems that are reliant on the federal income tax system.
Now what does this mean? Over time it means that the revenues which provincial governments need to come up with, their contributions to schooling, health care, education, transportation, the host of revenues needed for the of services that provincial governments supply, are cut back, just as they are cut back federally because of the alterations in the federal income tax system that have starved that system more and more over the last 20 years. For example, the tax breaks to corporations that have resulted in a circumstance where now corporations pay roughly 15 per cent of the total of income taxes collected in Canada, whereas 20 years ago they paid between 30 and 40 per cent on average.
What this has done is that it has starved provincial governments for necessary funds because they are reliant on the federal taxation system to generate those funds. This has meant that increasingly they have had to rely on other sources of revenue to meet their commitments in education, health care and social services and the broad range of services they provide.
Yet what has been happening simultaneously is that the sources of income for those programs, the federal transfer payments, have been severely restrained too. What this has meant over time is that more and more fiscal pressure has been devolved from the federal government on to the provincial governments.
They have lacked the fiscal resources with which to address those new pressures and thus, have had three choices. In the first instance, they could raise their own taxes. It is assumed by the current federal government that will be the avenue chosen, and it is preparing for this harmonization of the GST. It thinks that having put
Government Orders
enough pressure on provincial governments, it has left them no choice but to hop on board the GST cash cow.
There are two other alternatives available to provincial governments. They can in turn devolve that fiscal burden on to their municipalities. This is precisely what has been happening in Alberta and I believe has been happening elsewhere.
They can simply reduce services. This too has been happening across the country, such that everywhere in this country the education system now is not what it was 20 years ago. Everywhere in this country there are line-ups for hospital beds that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. Everywhere in this country there is poverty that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.


An hon. member:: It is because of the unions.


Ross Harvey: I just heard an hon. member across the way say it is because of the unions. How this kind of bizarre, twisted thinking could be held by an adult eludes me. The remarkable and appalling fact of the matter is that it is precisely this kind of thinking that seems to animate the legislation we repeatedly get from that side of the House.
I would just note that having created this fiscal crisis for provincial governments, the federal government now seeks to use the vehicle of harmonization with the GST to force provincial governments into that harmonization, thereby legitimizing further this wholly illegitimate tax. And do you know what? It may work. God knows there are provincial governments out there that are in terrible fiscal shape, that desperately need whatever sources of revenue they can cobble together with which to attempt to continue to provide Canadians in their jurisdictions with the services that Canadians ought, by right, to be able to expect.
So, yes, Mr. Speaker, it may work. But it will not work for long. One way or another there will be an election in this country within the next 18 months. Either the government itself will go to the people or it will be forced to by constitutional deadlines. When that happens, this government will be defeated. The only question is what will replace it?
I can say this, if the government currently in place is replaced by a New Democratic government, the GST will be gone. As well, the trade deal will be gone. A number of truly regressive and reactionary measures will be gone, but they will be replaced in this instance by a

March 20, 1992
Government Orders
taxation system which will be such that we will no longer have to worry about ceilings on established programs funding. We will no longer have to worry about harmonization of provincial and federal sales taxes because we will have returned to a system of progressive income tax based on ability to pay.


An hon. member:: What a statement.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I do not usually have the experience of literally bringing the House down, but I fear it may yet happen. That will be a most happy day for Canadians. With those words I will leave you to deal with these problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I simply want to point out to hon. members that we have had a power failure and are now running on a generator until everything gets back to normal, hopefully as soon as possible.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak to Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. This bill has several components and I will just point to two.
The first one is simply an extension of the equalization and transfer payment system for another two years. I would like to say that in general this type of legislation continues for five years. Therefore, I ask why this government at this time is only renewing it for two years. Would it create a situation of difficult planning? I think this is again another tactic by this government to keep provinces hostage to federal-provincial relations.
The second component of this bill relates to the creation or changing the base year for the ceiling provision. The base year being used at the moment is 1987-88. The proposed legislation, Bill C-60, would make 1992-93 as the new base ceiling, thus creating a situation where there would be no ceiling for this year if this legislation is passed.
What the substance of this bill about transfer payments and equalization. Equalization as a concept for
Canadians was developed at the time of Confederation so that those who had less would be helped by those who had more.
What do we see today? Large numbers of homeless people wander the streets of major Canadian cities. That is what the editorial by Duncan Cameron says in the Canadian Forum. It is true. And what did this government do with the budget in February? It cut the program for co-op housing, trying to remove the choices from those who come from the poor sector of our society, those with low income. They will have no choice; they will have no shelter over their heads.
Where is the heart of this government? Where is the heart of this government insofar as it plays a leadership role in trying to equalize the wealth across the country so that Canadians will have a decent standard of living for all, not only reserved for a few.
This government has had a crusade and that is the deficit crusade. But it has forgotten to take into account that there is another more important crusade and that is about children.
Has this government introduced a program to fight child poverty? No, it has not. In my province of Manitoba, 22 per cent of all children are poor. How can a so-called country of plenty tolerate a province having 22 per cent of all children suffering in poverty? There is no program.
There is the so-called child benefit package program that is supposed to improve the welfare of the poor, this package itself is not indexed to inflation. So over a period of perhaps six or seven years, the benefit will disappear. I really think that the package is an election gimmick. It is to start in 1993, just about three months before the proposed election that the Prime Minister said a few months ago would take place. There is no sense of equalization in this country. So any legislation introduced along this line by this government becomes suspect as to its intent.
In fact, since this government took power, federal spending represents now about only 16 per cent of the gross domestic product and by 1995-96 will fall to 14.5 per cent. No wonder we do not have a sense of national purpose in this country any more. And the government
March 20, 1992

tries to introduce this bill in an attempt to camouflage its intent.
About transfer payments, one of the major institutions that will suffer will be our medical system. Now this government has continued to say that Canada cannot afford costly health services. This is the Conservative myth for the truth is quite different.
Canada's expenditure on health care as a proportion of the national economy, the public sector spending from 1978 to 1987 has risen only from 5.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent of the gross domestic product. Since 1982, expenditures have been steady at between 6.3 per cent and 6.6 per cent of the gross domestic product. So forget about the Conservative need. In fact, I should point out that Canadians spend in total about 40 per cent less per capita in real dollars for health care than Americans do and our country has a better health care system.
So do not let this government destroy that medical system with its transfer payments. It is predicted by the year 1996 there will be no medicare for Quebec. Perhaps by year 2003 or 2005 there will be none for the whole country and we cannot allow that to happen.
As a consequence of this debate there has been discussion about user fees. In Winnipeg, in the Tory riding of one of the members on the government side, user fees for medicare have been proposed, that patients be billed extra by institutions. It was also proposed at the Tory convention held in Toronto.
Let me say that to date the World Health Organization has said that user fees are not the answer in reforming our health care system. In fact, Canadian studies spanning 20 years consistently report that user fees are a deterrent to accessing health care services. It would be the poor and the elderly living on low incomes who are deterred from accessing medical care should user fees be imposed.
There is a challenge for us to reform the health care system. To date there has been block funding for health care contributions and post-secondary education contributions. On examining this concept I think this was an accident when it was first conceived as legislation. Today there are national standards for national health care but there are no national standards for education.
I ask whether it is better to consider that we split the funding for post-secondary education and for health but reserve the cost transfers for health so that we will be
able to maintain the national standards of universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public non-profit administration.
This government instead of going with many, many bills, is not addressing the real issue of today insofar as transfer payments to the provinces are concerned. That is giving appropriate transfer payments to the provinces so there will be no cry from them, so that they will not have the cutbacks on hospital beds, the increasing waiting lists for necessary surgery.
On that note I would just like to say that unless this government develops the creativity and the will that it will preserve medicare and contributions for post-secondary education, it will be a sad day when these two systems are destroyed.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I too am delighted to participate in this debate today on Bill C-60. I realize I only have a couple of minutes before Question Period. After Question Period I will be continuing with my remarks on Bill C-60, which is legislation to deal with federal-provincial tax arrangements as well as health and education transfers.
It is health and education transfers that I want to talk about today. Those are two areas that mean a lot to the people in my riding. I am sure health and education are extremely important in every riding of this country.
Since 1986, this government has reduced the growth in health and education transfers. The EPF, Established Programs Financing, was to grow by the rate of the GNP, the growth in the economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It being eleven o'clock a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, it is extremely encouraging to most Canadians today when we reflect upon the powerful statement of support for Canadian unity which Premier Bourassa made in Quebec's National Assembly yesterday.

March 20, 1992
He has placed himself clearly and firmly in favour of one united Canada. By this expression he has demonstrated impressive leadership which renews the confidence of all who pursue this common vision and mission of one Canada.
Let us now continue to move forward as a nation to resolve our constitutional discord with understanding, compassion and common sense. There is new momentum to keep Canada whole; there is new commitment to attain that goal in all corners of our country.
Bravo, Mr. Bourassa, and my congratulations to you and to all your fellow Quebecers.


SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, every year the Department of Fisheries and Oceans turns on the power and other services and starts dredging small craft harbour facilities on April 1.
This year because of the freeze on non-essential spending, fishermen are concerned that these services will not be provided until the money manages to filter down to the regional office in Charlottetown.
Fishermen spend a great deal of time on the wharfs in spring getting ready for the lobster fishery in early May. Any delays in providing services could mean delays for fishermen in a very competitive fishery.
I urge the government to turn on all services at the wharfs and provide all necessary dredging immediately to allow fishermen to make a proper start to the fishing season.


INTEREST RATES
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Finance says that a 1 per cent increase in short-term interest rates increases the federal deficit by $4 billion. Canadian interest rates are 3 percentage points higher than U.S. interest rates. If the difference between the Canadian and U.S. interest rates was reduced to one-half a percentage point as it was during
the 1970s, we could cut our deficit by $10 billion annually, or alternatively use the savings to institute a municipal public works program for much-needed infrastructure such as transit roads and sewers, thus recognizing, as the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech, "the important contribution that adequate infrastructure makes to our competitive position, while at the same time creating jobs in a fiscally responsible manner".


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Tomorrow is the international day for the elimination of racism. It is a day to acknowledge the work of many Canadians who believe in justice and a time to renew our commitment to ridding our society of inequalities.
Unfortunately, this government has clearly shown its lack of commitment to the elimination of racism and discrimination by the indefinite deferral of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, which includes $12 million of the Japanese-Canadian redress settlement, inaction in redressing past injustices of the Chinese head tax, and the internment of Ukrainians, Germans and Italian Canadians, and the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program.
Canadian unity requires equal opportunities for all Canadians, which can be achieved by eliminating racism and discrimination.
Pauline Pellie, an aboriginal elder, told the recent Aboriginal Conference: "We want to be heard, to be respected, to be equal". This is what all minorities in Canada want.


KIDNEY MONTH
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my appreciation and sincere good wishes to the Kidney Foundation of Canada on the occasion of Kidney Month for 1992.
The Kidney Foundation of Canada enables Canadians affected with kidney disease and related disorders access to information on prevention, diagnosis, treatment and specialized services. In addition, the Kidney Foundation, with the help of thousands of donors, raises significant sums of money which go toward research, patient services and public education programs.
March 20, 1992

The Kidney Foundation of Canada urges all Canadians to sign a donor card or the consent portion of their driver's licence if they have not already done so.
I invite all Canadians to join in saluting the Kidney Foundation of Canada and wishing it continued success in its important work of promoting public awareness of kidney disease, supporting excellent research and in encouraging donor donations.


IRANIAN NEW YEAR
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, March 21, our first day of spring, is celebrated by Iranians throughout the world as new year's day, or Nowruz. Nowruz, which literally means "new day" is a secular observance of the start of the Persian calendar, the arrival of spring and the renewal of life on earth.
Nowruz festivities have taken place for over 2,500 years, making them one of the oldest observances of nature by humankind.
Iran, formerly Persia, is one of the most ancient civilizations on earth, with so much to offer modem societies. Our own national mosaic has been richly enhanced by those of Iranian descent who have chosen Canada as their home and contributed so much to our way of life.
I wish happy Nowruz to all Canadians of Iranian heritage and thank them for bringing their rich culture and Nowruz to all Canadians.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I asked my constituents how I should vote in the Flouse of Commons.
In response, Rick Mitchell of Campbellville writes me: "Please do not be afraid to break party lines to vote on polity legislation according to what your constituents want. You cannot please all your constituents but you will win their respect by representing us".
Phil Moddle of Acton adds this: "I sympathize with your concerns about effectively representing a diverse group of people and opinions. However, never forget that the vocal minority are only a minor part of your
constituency. The other 90 per cent silent majority needs you to do what is right in your heart as only you can properly assess the impact of these decisions. Issues such as referenda, MP recalls and so on bother me because they simply indicate that people do not understand what a Parliamentary democracy is".
I thank my constituents for their advice and understanding.


CHALLENGE '92
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's announcement of the Challenge '92 budget by the Minister of State for Youth proves once again that the government is a master at playing shell games with Canada's future. This morning's statement in no way reverses the irresponsible trend set by this government.
Since 1985, 41,000 summer jobs for young people have disappeared as a result of this government's cuts to the SEED budget. Last month, of the 32,000 full-time jobs that Canada lost, 22,000 were held by young people. In 1990, 726,000 students had to work while they studied in order to afford rising tuition fees, lab fees and higher living expenses.
These depressing statistics are only a small sample from a very long list. Students are the architects of Canada's future prosperity and this government's shortsighted outlook is robbing them and our nation of a promising future.
I urge the minister to review his commitment to the youth of this nation and restore funding to an acceptable and responsible level.


CUSTOM COMBINERS
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, for decades Canadian and American custom combiners have crossed the Canadian-American border to assist with the harvest in each other's country. This practice provides an important employment opportunity for combine owners and crew. In addition, it is a vitally important service to farmers who require such help during the crucial harvest season.

March 20, 1992
Unfortunately, Canadian custom combiners and their employees entering the United States have been and are being subjected to more restrictive regulations and red tape than has been and is the case with their American counterparts entering Canada. In fact, some Canadian custom combine operators have believed for several years that they are being unduly harassed. As a result, they are frustrated and angry.
Our custom combine operators do not seek revenge. They do not ask that access into Canada be made more difficult for their American neighbours. They ask only that the rules regulating their entry into the United States and their activities there be as fair and just as those which the Government of Canada places on their American counterparts entering and working in our country.
Surely this request is both a reasonable and a just one.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada has a paid informant program that is out of control.
Since the Conservatives took office in 1984, informants received $836,078 in cash payments, averaging $2,900 each. Revenue Canada claims it does not know the actual number of informants nor does it know the citizenship of the informants. It has advised me in writing that in at least 30 cases, payments have been made to non-residents of Canada. This creates an interesting situation where Canada's tax man is paying informants with hard-earned Canadian tax dollars and the informants pay no income tax. This program is so popular that the Minister of National Revenue has more than doubled his payouts since last year.
Despite a written denial tabled in the House on Wednesday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans also has a special cash fund for paying informants. Since 1984, when the Tories came to office, The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has handed out cash to informants in amounts ranging from $50 to $2,000. These secret budget items are hidden in the operations and maintenance accounts and like the business write offs for escort services, reveal the real Tory morality.


HIGH SPEED TRAINS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted with the transport committee's latest report on high speed trains and the feasibility study that is now being done for the Quebec City-Windsor corridor-1,215 kilometres long-where about half the country's population is concentrated. This corridor would be much longer than existing high speed railway corridors in Europe.
In addition to the many industrial benefits, the socioeconomic advantages, and the potential for exports, setting up a high-speed railway line could very well make Canada a centre of excellence for high speed railway transportation.
Mr. Speaker, building a high speed line, at an estimated cost of five to eight billion dollars, will represent the biggest private investment this country has ever known. This genuine revolution in transportation could generate the construction of 23 corridors in North America, with economic spin-offs and investments totalling $200 billion.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, once again the government has shown that profits and trade are more important than protecting the environment and the health of children. In refusing to ban the export of tetraethyl lead, the Minister of the Environment has said it is all right for Canadians to manufacture and export products that will lead to irreversible intelligence loss, memory loss, behavioural problems and nervous system damage in children in Third World countries.
These are the victims of a decision on behalf of Canada to continue exporting tetraethyl lead, but the minister says: "Oh, that's all right, we are going to tell them it is banned in Canada, that we are protecting our children and poisoning their children". That does not make it all right.
March 20, 1992

The minister has the power to ban the export of tetraethyl lead and end this environmental racism and I ask him to do so. I ask him to table the reports on which this shameful decision was made. I ask the Minister for International Trade, in particular, to assure Canadians that we are not-


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


PROUD TO BE CANADIAN TOUR
Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Shawville, Quebec are organizing a "Proud to be Canadian Tour" on Saturday, March 28 next, that will consist of various endeavours which will seek to heighten our awareness as Canadians of the very privileged status we enjoy as a democratic and prosperous country.
These different endeavours are scheduled to coincide with Canada's 125th anniversary and consist of activities that will nurture a lifelong relationship with our heritage and flag, encourage stronger ties among all Canadians for further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles, and to promote our tremendous pride in being Canadians.
I would like to thank the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Shawville, Quebec for their most worthy efforts to bring us all closer together today and in the future.


CANADIAN AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the long disgraceful process of destroying the Canadian airline industry and turning it over to the Americans is reaching its climax.
First there was deregulation by Liberals and Conservatives. Then the Conservatives kept the ball rolling with the privatization of Air Canada. Now the last barriers to Americanization are being removed.
American Airlines, in return for buying no more than 25 per cent of Canadian Airlines' equity, will assume effective control. The reservation system and Pacific Rim schedules will quickly be tucked in American Airlines' back pocket. All that will remain will be rationalization of the North American schedules, including domestic Canadian flights.
Thousands will lose their jobs and Canadian Airlines International will exist in name only. Then it will be Air Canada's turn. Spumed by Canadian Airlines, Air Canada will have to seek an American suitor too and that will complete the destruction of the Canadian airline industry, once one of the finest in the world.
Another stunning triumph for the Liberal-Tory wrecking crew.


RADIO AND TELEVISION PROGRAMMING
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks I have received petitions from over 1,500 constituents who are concerned about the use of improper language on radio and television.
I believe, as do many other Canadians, that Parliament has a responsibility to ensure that the CRTC, the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, carefully regulates the use of foul language in radio and television programming.
Many of my constituents believe that the efforts by parents to discourage the use of foul language should not be undermined by the radio and television networks, especially those funded by the Crown.
My constituents have asked me to call upon Parliament to ensure that the CRTC is vigilant in enforcing strict rules of conduct insofar as the use of inappropriate language on radio and television are concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could have the attention of the House for a moment. There have been some electronic difficulties and, as a consequence, the microphones are not working in the aisle which is headed by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and the hon. member for Windsor West.
I am sure that hon. members would have some relevant suggestions to make to the Speaker concerning this, but in the interest of proceeding effectively with Question Period, if it is necessary for any of those members to speak, the microphones on each side of them are working. If that is not sufficient, the members can change their seats with other members.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure the House and the public that the interventions of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and myself did not cause this power failure, no matter how vigorous they may have been.

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
March 20, 1992
['Mr. Speaker, on a more cheerful note, this being the first day of spring and in keeping with a long-standing tradition, I have the pleasure today on behalf of all of our colleagues from British Columbia to display the evidence that at least in one part of the country, namely British Columbia, spring has arrived in fact.\nThe daffodils with which the members have adorned themselves this morning come to us courtesy of radio station CKNW of Vancouver. This annual ritual is designed to celebrate the unique characteristics of our region of this country, but it has a very special significance this year.\nSpring is a sign of renewal and a sign of hope. Let those of us who are privileged to serve our country in this House of Commons be inspired during this season of the year to renewed strength and courage to face the challenges that lie ahead, to keep building on the foundations of a strong and united country and to achieve the greatness to which our nation is destined.\nMarch 20, 1992']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday, the Minister for International Trade claimed that a new GATT agreement would facilitate free trade negotiations between Canada, Mexico and the United States. Does this statement mean that the government changed its position and that it will not sign an agreement with the United States and Mexico before we can renew the GATT agreements?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Tkade):: Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear that the priority of the Government of Canada in trade negotiations is the Uruguay round.
We are at the same time negotiating with the Mexicans and the Americans on a North American free trade agreement. Both of those can go forward. One does not have to go forward ahead of the other.
The comment that I have made, though, is that with certain elements agreed upon in the Uruguay round, the multilateral negotiation, it removes those matters from the table for the Mexican negotiations and therefore would make the North American free trade negotiations easier to conclude.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is a report today in the Financial Post that the office of the U.S. trade representative is establishing a Canada watch committee. It sounds to me like a trade CIA. According to the report, one of the first things the committee is planning to do is to launch a public relations campaign to try to convince Canadians that the free trade agreement is working for them.
Is the minister aware of the new American PR committee, and does he think that it is the proper thing for the Americans to do at this time?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. friend should be welcoming this sort of interest on the part of the U.S. trade representative. I think he and we, from time to time, have some criticisms to direct toward the Americans on their conduct of the trade relationship between Canada and the United States.
If this signals a concern on the part of the U.S. trade representative about the state of the relationship between Canada and the United States in the area of trade, then that certainly can be welcomed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with the minister because it is very unusual for a government to come and make propaganda on another level or in other nations. This is not just a bunch of small level functionaries, as the Prime Minister would say, but this is an office under the leadership of Carla Hills and she is a member of the Bush administration.
So now that big business in Canada is no longer willing to put up money to defend the free trade agreement, does the minister find it normal at this moment that the American government will have to pay to come to tell Canadians that what is good for America is necessarily good for Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that my hon. friend should be jumping to these sorts of conclusions.
We make our views known in the United States. We have advertisements in the United States. We have literature that we distribute to people who have interests in U.S.-Canada trade relationships so that they are aware of our views. If the Americans decide this is something they would like to do, that is part of a better understanding of the relationship.
If the Americans were going to put forward views that we fundamentally disagreed with and we felt that they were distorting the understanding of the picture, you can be absolutely sure that we would be speaking out very strongly both here in Canada as well as in the United States.
March 20, 1992


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. On the eve of a North American free trade agreement, Canada is simply not doing enough to build its industrial base.
In order to get us ready for this agreement, what concrete initiatives will the government take to adapt our industrial structure and modernize our economic base?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me put things in perspective.
We have some $2 billion to $2.5 billion of two-way trade with Mexico and we have some $250 billion worth of trade between Canada and the United States. There is a fundamentally different order of magnitude in the trade among the three countries.
My hon. friend asks what we are doing to prepare Canadian business. One of the things that we have done is to launch the prosperity initiative which is a broad dialogue both with Canadians in general as well as with 31 industry sectors where we are seeking to have an in-depth dialogue with them on the things that are necessary for these industries to compete on a worldwide basis.
These discussions I can tell my hon. friend have been very forthcoming, very productive. There will be reports that he will be able to review sometime within the next few months.
There will be an action plan announced by the steering group sometime in the early fall that will set out what all Canadians should be doing, what the federal government, what other levels of government, what management, what labour, what educators, what scientists, what Canadians as a whole can be doing to respond to the global challenges in economic policy and in the actions that they can individually take.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
I wonder if the minister lives in this century if he does not know now what we should be doing. In terms of
Oral Questions
wages, workplace safety, and the enforcement of environmental standards Mexico lags far behind Canada.
In terms of manufacturing capacity however, that country is moving up the curve at an incredible rate. Make no mistake. Mexico is going to be the base for a massive thrust into North America on behalf of the Asians and on behalf of the Europeans. We need more than empty words and studies and lowered inflation rates to meet this kind of competition.
The question is, beyond the talk and empty studies that are simply confirming what every person in this country really knows, what is the government actually doing to gear the country up for the real world that lies ahead?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend was in the private sector and he knows that governments cannot ensure that companies are productive and competitive. It is up to the management and the workers in those companies to do the things that must be done to ensure their competitive position.
I can tell from the look on my hon. friend's face that he agrees with me.
In addition to what I have just said one of the key elements that we are trying to espouse and to encourage in the work that we are doing in these industry studies is the adoption of things such as total quality management. My friend is also very much aware of the impact of total quality management on the productivity and the effectiveness of a company because of studies that have shown that the companies which accept total quality management can improve their productivity by 20 per cent.
This is one of our objectives in the prosperity initiative.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to address a question to the Minister of International Trade. We have just heard him reject the de Grandpre report which was asked for by this government to keep a promise by the Prime Minister that there would be the best adjustment programs by the government anywhere in the world.
Now we have heard them deny that.

March 20, 1992
Oral Questions
My question is for the minister concerning the proposed North American free trade agreement with the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Despite the secrecy required by the Canadian government for information, the Mexican Senate has had open access with the ability to discuss the details.
I want to quote from a letter I have from a Mexican senator relative to article 402: "Article 402 refers to the extent of obligations, i.e., no goods shall be discriminated against by states or provinces of another country under the argument of state sovereignty especially in the United States and Canada".
I want to ask the minister: Does he agree with article 402 which would prohibit a province through its provincial government to do some preferential buying of its own products here in Canada and at its own budget expenditures?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, possibly the hon. member might give me the benefit of that letter, rather than just dropping it on me in the House this morning. Since he has read from it, he should be tabling that letter in the House of Commons.
My hon. friend has also, in the preamble to his question, said that I just rejected the de Grandpre report. It is that sort of distortion-


David Barrett: You said it was a business responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister may wish to complete his answer.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what I wanted to say is that we accepted a large part of the de Grandpre report contrary to the distortion of my hon. friend.
One of the primary considerations and primary recommendations of the de Grandpre report was to increase the amount of training that we do for Canadians who are between jobs. That was precisely the purpose of Bill C-21 in the last session. It increased the amount of training moneys by some $750 million.
I would expect that my hon. friend would take back the ill-advised remark that he just made.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, since I cannot enter into debate on the previous answer, I will just say that we certainly have a difference of opinion.
I want to refer again to this letter which I will table. By the way, I understand that the minister has been requested to table the letter he referred to yesterday from Senator Gephardt and I hope that the minister will table that in the House today.
In this letter from the senator to me, which I will table in this House and have made public over the last two weeks, there is detailed discussion sector by sector of the draft bracketed treaty. I refer specifically to article 402, and if the minister is not familiar with article 402, of course, he can refer to this document.
In general, is it correct that the agreement will have a clause that says: "No goods shall be discriminated against by states or provinces of another country under the argument of state sovereignty, especially in the United States and Canada". Would that agreement signed under this wording prohibit a province from doing preferential buying in its own province with its own budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to a quote that I made in the House yesterday.
I might say that this quote is in a publication called U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Reporter. I would be happy to table this excerpt. But I might go on to say that Hills has classified the U.S. negotiating position as secret and congressional staff members must have security clearance to view the documents. That is counter to what my hon. friend has been saying, but I would be happy to table this document.
My hon. friend has been putting two questions to me on very specific items of the negotiations. What I was saying in the House yesterday was that there was an opportunity to do that in committee, which my hon. friend did not take advantage of.
He was braying like the donkey I was referring to yesterday and trying to make some political points. He did not take the opportunity to ask some specific questions on what the free trade agreement would entail or not. I would invite my friend to come to the committee
March 20, 1992

meeting and engage in that sort of discussion or possibly, if he could get over his political hurdles, to come to the briefings from officials that we had yesterday afternoon.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I have a document from a Mexican senator and what I have asked for is the same privileges that a Mexican senator has had to quote specifically from the article, specifically write letters about the draft bracketed agreement.
Why can members of Parliament not have the same access and the same rights that Mexican senators have been given about this specific agreement? Why not?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Mexican senators have seen a copy of the Mexican text. They have not seen a copy of the Canadian text and they have not seen a copy of the American text. The briefings that they have been getting are based on the Mexican text.
The Mexican government has certain objectives in a free trade agreement. We have certain objectives as well.
I invite my hon. friend to come to the briefings and receive the-


David Barrett: I want the same access the Mexicans have.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to make myself heard over the braying of the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Windsor West.



Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance. This week we learned from the annual report of the Bank of Canada that average salaries at the bank rose 6.6 per cent in 1991. This was almost double the average wage growth and a full 1 per cent higher than the average rate of inflation last year.
Why did the government agree to a salary increase at the bank much higher than it allowed its own public servants and almost double the national average for
Oral Questions
Canadians? Why this "do as I say, not as I do" approach when it comes to wage increases at the Bank of Canada?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, in 1990 the board of directors, which runs the affairs of the Bank of Canada, under the Bank of Canada Act approved a salary scale increase of 4.75 per cent for the year 1991. Because it began on January 1, 1991 it was before the government brought in its restraint program.
I think more importantly, for the year beginning January 1, 1992, the bank's board approved a package which included no increase in the basic wage rates or salary ranges and a freeze of senior managers' salaries. This is their zero year at the bank.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my figures come from the 1991 report for a time when the Governor and the Government of Canada were lecturing Canadians about wage restraint. The government owns the bank. The deputy minister of finance of this government sits on the executive committee of the bank's board of directors.
How can the government and the bank expect to be taken seriously by Canadians when they talk about wage restraint under these circumstances and in the face of the plain figures in the government's own report from the Bank of Canada for 1991?


John Horton McDermid: The article overstates the increases because of the downsizing at the Bank of Canada. The increase is 4.75 per cent for the year 1991.
For 1992, the increase is zero. This is their zero year. They are abiding by the wishes of the government at the Bank of Canada.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of National Revenue. As the minister will know, a former employee of his department, Mr. Ted Reid, informs us that in 1986 Revenue Canada issued a memo permitting businesses to keep over-collections of the federal sales tax, thereby short-changing taxpayers of Canada by some $100 million.

March 20, 1992
Oral Questions
I want to ask the government: when did it discover this issue? What measures has it taken to preserve the integrity of our tax system in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this matter was raised some time ago in the House of Commons, I believe it was about a year ago. At that time the Minister of National Revenue made a statement on behalf of the government.
The matter has been raised subsequently by the Revenue Canada employee referred to in my hon. friend's question. The matter has been a subject of considerable analysis and examination since then because of the nature of the complaint. Subsequently the complaint was brought forward by the former Revenue Canada employee and it is now, at the Revenue Canada employee's request, before a Manitoba court. Under the circumstances, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, is it not ironic that Canadians are being gouged by the GST while others are pocketing $100 million of taxpayers' money?
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. How will he explain to Canadian taxpayers, to ordinary people who are being bled white by the GST, that 100 million of their tax dollars were given in that fashion? How can the government justify such action?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend is a fair individual. I expect that he would withhold drawing certain conclusions, as he has just done, until this matter has been heard.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question on the same topic is for the same minister. This ruling was made in 1986. In 1988 when he was Minister of Finance he wrote a letter to one of his own constituents and in the letter he said: "An adjustment now would thus
constitute a windfall gain to the firm unless it was passed back to customers in the form of price reduction".
The government has been aware of this loophole since 1986. It did not act to close it. It did not act to inform small business and consumers. Why, when such a significant change was made, which increased tax refunds to corporations to the level of $150 million, was it not gazetted? Why was that not sent out to all small businesses and consumers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have referred to the matter that my hon. friend has raised in response to a question from the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I have stated that at this time it is in appropriate to go further than what I have just said.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is a civil suit in Manitoba. I asked a question not about the court case, but why this government, knowing that it had made a very significant change for which forms are out there now with former civil servants, making sure that corporations get this money from the federal government with no responsibility to make sure that small businesses and consumers that were over-charged receive the money in the end. Why did the government, knowing what was happening-and it has known for five years-not inform the public? Why is the rip-off occurring? Why is the customer who overpaid in the first place not getting the money?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to that question.


AIR DISASTER
Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, the FAA of the United States has told me that it is continually investigating new information as it comes to light regarding the Arrow air disaster in Newfoundland, Canada's worst air disaster on Canadian soil.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport, is the government aware of these ongoing investigations by the FAA and in particular, of a criminal investigation ongoing?
March 20, 1992

Does the government not feel ashamed that it refused to reopen the case, even after Judge Willard Estey, who was not allowed to look at any new evidence, concluded that the findings of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board were completely erroneous? Does the government not feel ashamed that it is now leaving it to the FAA in the United States to find the real cause of Canada's worst air disaster on Canadian soil?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we would be ashamed if this had been the conclusion of Justice Willard Estey. After the Canadian Aviation Safety Board of the day completed its investigation in 1985-86 of this very unfortunate accident of December 1985, because of the inconclusive results of the investigation by the CASB, we asked Justice Willard Estey to look into it. His conclusion was that no further investigation was warranted.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, he concluded that the real cause was not what the Canadian Aviation Safety Board said it was.
On Wednesday, I spoke on the telephone to one of the chief criminal investigators in the security division of the FAA in Washington. He had to go to a pay phone to feel safe talking to me. From that information, I then recited what was in a report on the administrator's desk in Washington on Monday, the number of pages and who signed it concerning this case. Only then did they admit to me that they have had a criminal investigation ongoing since January 1991.
I will give the minister the name and the telephone number of the chief investigator if he wants to know it. Will the Government of Canada now reopen this case and demand to be full partners in the investigations that are ongoing with the FAA, and this time to demand that the U.S. military and the FBI and authorities in the United States and Canada, who have any knowledge of this subject, be forced to give full disclosure? The families of the 256 victims deserve to know why their loved ones died.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this person might have requested to go to a pay phone because of the member, if he was speaking to him in the same voice that he is now speaking.
Oral Questions
The truth of the matter is that there have been all kinds of allegations since the conclusion of Justice Estey's report to the government. There are ongoing allegations and insinuations. There has been no new evidence brought forward, but if there is any new evidence, we will certainly examine it and then act accordingly.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs.
In his recent statement regarding resistance fighters, the Minister of Veterans Affairs stated he was planning to return war veterans allowance to its original purpose.
I would ask the government to assure the veterans of Canada that it was referring to resistance fighters only, that it was not announcing a plan by the back door that would cut veterans off the war veterans allowance when they reach 65 years of age?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, is out of the House of Commons on business. I can assure the hon. member that the goal of my colleague is to provide the best possible assistance to all war veterans.
He will certainly be sensitive to the concerns raised by the hon. member and will want to give reassurance to war veterans that everything that can be done by the government in order to support them properly and to recognize their important contribution to Canada will be done.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister.
I would ask, in that case, when members of this House might expect that legislation will be brought forward pertaining to war veterans allowance, legislation which will be necessary to implement the changes that the minister recently announced?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my hon. friend a date today. My colleague, as I mentioned earlier, is out of the House today. I am sure that he will be in touch with my hon. friend early next week when he is back in Ottawa.
Oral Questions SMALL BUSINESSES

March 20, 1992


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for small businesses.
In the February budget, measures were introduced to assist small businesses that are in financial trouble in the midst of this recession. I would like to ask the minister just what steps have been taken to make small business aware of how to request the provisions of that program and particularly what instructions or encouragement has he given to the banks and to chartered accountant firms to help to implement that program?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his veiy responsible question.
This is an important part of the budget provisions that affects small business, the Small Business Financing Program. It is recycling, in part, a program that existed before 1987. There is an interpretation bulletin out there, Interpretation Bulletin 507, I think it is, which I encourage people in the small business community to take with them to their banks.
I have spoken to the Canadian Bankers' Association about this. It has indicated that it will co-operate. I have just written to the CEOs of all major banks, plus the CEOs of the other financial institutions, to make them aware of this program and to get them sensitized to its importance. That has been done.
It is important to know, though, that the legislation necessary to support the program is in the drafting stage. Since this was part of the budget, the program is in force as of now from the date of the budget. I would encourage all small business people with financial problems to apply for this program if it suits them and I would encourage them to see their financial institutions to ascertain the necessary information.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the imposition of the U.S. penalty duty on value added to softwood lumber has forced many British Columbia wood manufacturers to consider moving their manufacturing facilities south of the border and to export rough beams or cants which will be liable to only one-third of the duty that would be imposed on remanufactured wood products.
This will dramatically reduce the number of jobs in the remanufacturing and secondary wood processing sector which was to be the promise for future jobs in the B.C. forestry industry. It will also reduce the availability of raw material for the B.C. remanufacturing sector.
What action does the minister of trade plan to take now to counteract the impact of the 14.5 per cent softwood duty on value added in order to prevent the export of B.C. softwood remanufacturing industry south of the 49th parallel?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the concern my hon. friend has expressed. It is something that I have discussed with the people who are wholesalers shipping into the United States as well as the remanufacturers. I fully sympathize with the concerns and the anger they have expressed in this matter.
We have discussed this and we are continuing to discuss this with the U.S. department of commerce and the U.S. trade representative in order to see whether there is a way that we can have some adjustments to the way the bonding is required, comparable to the way that this was done back in 1987.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister is aware of the urgency in this situation.
Soder Industries, a remanufacturing firm connected with International Forest Products, has already moved to the U.S. and other major firms have plans to follow.
I have a letter from Skagit County Economic Development Office in Washington state offering tax incentives, tax credits, and low interest loans to lure B.C. firms to move to Skagit county.
By the time the minister has finished his discussions or has gone to the free trade panel, a substantial part of that industry will already be south of the border.
What action will his government take immediately to fight U.S. subsidies and to ensure that wood remanufacturing jobs remain in British Columbia?
March 20, 1992


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that we fully understand the urgency of the situation and are taking action right now in taking the matter to the U.S. administration in order to get a change in the way that this is proposed.
I would caution my friend, and through him his constituents or people taking precipitate action on this, to allow the process to unfold. I would hope we will be able to address his concern, which is not a concern limited to British Columbia but is in other parts of the country as well.


INTEREST RATES
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Bank of Canada rate dropped by 17 points and analysts are saying today that interest rates in general should continue to decline.
My question is for the minister answering for the Minister of Finance. The Bank of Canada rate is 7.65 per cent. Inflation is 1.6 per cent. Yet the chartered banks this week jacked the five-year mortgage rate up to 10.5 per cent, even when their own analysts are saying that rates should drop in the future.
Does the minister have any advice for the banks like: let's stop gouging consumers?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, the bank rates did drop 17 basis points yesterday. That is most encouraging. During the last few weeks we have seen some volatility in the marketplace. The banks and mortgage lending institutions have increased their rates somewhat.
However, we are encouraged at the drop in the bank rate yesterday, together with the good news of our exports being up 4.6 per cent in the month of January and the inflation rate today holding below 2 per cent. There is some very good news out there.
To answer specifically the question of my hon. friend, the mortgage lending rate business is a very competitive business. We have seen the Bank of Montreal leading the way in lowering rates and so on. I am sure that with the drop in the bank rate we will see further movement in the mortgage rates as well.
Oral Questions IRVING WHALE


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Irving Whale is a sunken oil barge off the north shore of Prince Edward Island that contains 3,100 tonnes of heating oil which is slowly leaking from the barge. This sunken barge is an environmental disaster waiting to happen. It has the potential to destroy our north shore fisheries, damage our beaches and threaten our tourist industry.
Will the minister advise the House what action the government has taken since we last asked this question in December 1990?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I was in Prince Edward Island a few weeks ago. I remember having discussed this matter with our officials at the time who are closely monitoring what is happening around the wreck of the Irving Whale.
If I remember correctly, there is a study being undertaken now to determine what is the best course of action. We have to be careful not to assume that there is a simple method by which we can extract this wreck and deal with the problem of its oil content. We would want to proceed carefully to make sure that whatever measure we contemplate would be as environmentally sound as possible, given the special circumstances we are dealing with.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, that study has not been undertaken. In February 1991 it was announced that a study would be undertaken to provide advice on how best to deal with the Irving Whale. That was over 13 months ago, and this study has not even begun.
How can the minister say with a straight face that his government is concerned about this issue? After 390 days a contract for this study has not even been tendered. What is he waiting for?


Jean J. Charest: As I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, my information is to the effect that the government-and I think it is in co-operation with the Department of Transport, if my memory serves me correctly-monitors regularly and systematically the wreckage to ensure that we know what is going on.

March 20, 1992
Oral Questions
I will be happy to look into this matter and to come back to the hon. member to see where we are at and to see whether we should not do anything specific to deal with this.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
On Monday, 28 refugees will be deported to Lebanon after spending two and a half peaceful years in Montreal with their families. I want to ask the minister: how can the government deport refugees to Lebanon when for security reasons we have not yet reopened our embassy in that country, when war continues in south Lebanon, and when there is terrorism throughout the country?
I want to ask the minister if he will use his humanitarian discretion and stop these deportations immediately.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and members of the House should know that we do not make wholesale deportations of people to Lebanon or to any other place where there are difficulties.
Each case is looked at. There is a review on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for each case. This has happened and will happen in this case like any other.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. I visited those 28 refugees yesterday in Montreal, and their deportation is scheduled for Monday and Tuesday next week. As I mentioned, our embassy in that country is still closed. A war is still going on in southern Lebanon. How can the minister consider deporting those people? Where is Canada's humanitarian spirit?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the member is trying to tarnish Canada's reputation for dealing with refugees, but the people to whom he refers have gone through the refugee determination process. They are not refugees. They were not found to need Canada's protection and, in this case as in all others, the law will be applied.


SMALL BUSINESSES
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, earlier in Question Period, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism indicated that he had been in touch with the banks urging them to co-operate in connection with the budget measures announced in relation to small business.
One month after the budget the banks are still saying that they have no knowledge of these programs and are not prepared to do anything about them. If that continues, is the minister prepared to use the facilities of the Federal Business Development Bank to put these measures in place because, as the minister knows, many of these small businesses are just barely hanging on by their fingernails?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, what we have done is that we have spoken to the Canadian Bankers' Association intensively to make sure that we have the best possible designed program for the SBF program. It has some suggestions for improving it. That is what we are going to incorporate into the circular which we will have out shortly.
We are communicating this and within 10 days time the member will have the new circular. In the meantime he should know that he can use Interpretation Bulletin 507 from the 1987 program, take those to the bank managers, and get work under way.
* sfc *


ENVIRONMENT
James Ross Fulton: Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Yesterday Canada's environment ministers endorsed the federal commitment to stabilize Canada's contribution to global warming by the year 2000 at 1990 levels. Would the minister tell this House what base line figure the ministers used yesterday as the actual 1990 CO2 emissions for Canada?
March 20, 1992

Is it the National Energy Board figure of 517 megatonnes? Is it the Energy, Mines and Resources figure of 508 megatonnes, or is it the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers at 467 megatonnes?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that as a result of work done with provincial ministers of environment, with territorial ministers of environment, and with my colleague, the Minister of State for the Environment, there was an endorsement yesterday of this important goal, contrary to what seemed to be the general thrust of the statement made by the minister of energy in Ontario. There was also an endorsement in recognition of the fact that some work had been done with departments of energy throughout Canada in dealing with this issue.
We are going to concentrate on three areas essentially: first, by identifying specific actions; second, by anticipating and preparing for potential changes that climate change may bring about; and third, by improving scientific understanding.
Part of that work is going to include perfecting the information we have on the inventory side and putting forward more action in terms of reducing emissions. That will include resolving the issue the hon. member is bringing forward in terms of identifying a clear consensus on the base line year.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, someone must be able to tell Canadians what the actual releases in 1990 were. Otherwise this whole exercise does not mean anything.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. In the September 1991 tabled response to the standing committee report Out of Balance, the minister on page 7 committed the federal government to examining the feasibility of the all-party recommendation for a 20 per cent reduction from the 1988 levels by the year 2005.
When can Canadians expect the publication of this study which apparently has been put on hold within the minister's department?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will recognize that a lot of work has been done in this area. We must not lose sight of the fact, for example, that for the first time we know of deputy ministers of energy and environment met recently to deal with this issue. It is going to require
Points of Order
a great deal of co-operation within government and within jurisdictions to attack this problem.
We, in response to the member's question, have taken a position based on what we think is a first step. As he will know, the climate change convention is going to be very much part of the conference happening in Rio de Janeiro in a few weeks from now.
We hope through this climate change convention to engage countries from all over the world. That is the first priority that this government has set. Whether we will go beyond that or not is something that we will want to examine at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I have several points of order and I will try to take them as I have received notice.


POINTS OF ORDER
Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the answer I gave yesterday, March 19, in this House to my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa South, since I think I may have involuntarily misled the House.
As I already said, the government has nothing to hide and I would point out that Judge Virgil Moshansky has indeed tabled his report to the government. That report will be made public next week.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Mr. Speaker:: The other matter I might deal with was the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca with respect to a document from which the hon. minister read. The hon. member is not here. Does the minister want to comment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I tabled the document that I referred to this morning, but I would be interested in my colleague's paper. My understanding is that that particular reference was to the Mexican text. I just wanted to confirm that since that is what I had expressed in my answer.

March 20, 1992
Points of Order


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I would just note two things. The first is that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca has already said that he will happily table the document from which he quoted, I would assume today, as soon as copies are available.
Second, his point of course was that there is at the very least a convention, if not a Standing Order, which holds that when a member reads from a document, especially a letter or other communication, "in an attempt to influence debate" I believe is the exact wording, but it applies as well in Question Period-at least, that has been the practice here-that it is incumbent upon the member, should he be asked to do so, to table that document.
That was the point raised by the hon. member yesterday and one on which he asked you to rule. I understand that you are now delivering yourself of that ruling. Is that correct?


Mr. Speaker:: I may have misunderstood what I heard. Perhaps the hon. minister can assist the Chair. I thought the minister said that he had tabled it. I think that is the end of it.


STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that I raise this matter not in an attempt to assess any blame but rather to prevent the setting of what in future might prove to be a discomforting precedent.
I have here a copy of a committee notice dated yesterday afternoon at 4.30 p.m. and I understand circulated this morning for a meeting of the finance committee next Wednesday, March 25, for the purpose of considering Bill C-60, an act to amend the federal-provincial arrangements, et cetera. It notes that the business of the committee at that time in this consideration will be clause-by-clause consideration.
Although some may reasonably assume, nonetheless we do not know that this bill will be passed by this House and referred to the committee this afternoon. In essence what is happening here is the order of reference to the committee contained in the motion for second reading has not passed the House and thus, in effect, the committee is anticipating the will of the House.
This is not a grave matter. Everyone would acknowledge that. It is just that, unfortunately, what seems to
have happened here is that the anticipation of the order has included what would seem to be an omission of the possibility of the calling of witnesses by the committee for the study of the bill because the notice refers to clause-by-clause study which of course comes only after witnesses are heard.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your ruling that the committee cannot properly anticipate an order of the House in this fashion.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know that there is any need for a ruling.
I am advised that the notice has gone out by error, and I would hope that it would not be repeated. I do not think under the circumstances with that information coming to me from my table officers there is any need for the Chair to make any kind of a ruling.


COMMENTS OF MEMBER FOR CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if you had the opportunity to review page 8181 of Hansard in relation to the point of order I raised yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the hon. member that I have not had a chance to consider it fully.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, on a more cheerful note, this being the first day of spring and in keeping with a long-standing tradition, I have the pleasure today on behalf of all of our colleagues from British Columbia to display the evidence that at least in one part of the country, namely British Columbia, spring has arrived in fact.
The daffodils with which the members have adorned themselves this morning come to us courtesy of radio station CKNW of Vancouver. This annual ritual is designed to celebrate the unique characteristics of our region of this country, but it has a very special significance this year.
Spring is a sign of renewal and a sign of hope. Let those of us who are privileged to serve our country in this House of Commons be inspired during this season of the year to renewed strength and courage to face the challenges that lie ahead, to keep building on the foundations of a strong and united country and to achieve the greatness to which our nation is destined.
March 20, 1992



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


WORLD FRANCOPHONIE DAY
Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I should like to take a few minutes to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that today is World Francopho-nie Day.
As you know, March 20 was chosen because it was on that day in 1971 that the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation was founded, also known as the ACCT.
In addition to being the prime mover behind the francophone summits, this intergovernmental organization has also become the general secretariat for the Francophonie. Jean-Louis Roy, a Canadian, has directed the secretariat for the past two years.
For over 430 million men and women in more than 40 countries, March 20 has come to represent the beginning of an attempt to organize the francophone world as a community of states and governments that have the use of French in common.
Originally, Francophonie referred to a complex of cultural entities where French was spoken. Today, Francophonie more aptly designates a forum for dialogue and
Routine Proceedings
co-operation where communities from the south and the north can meet and build their future together.
After the initial cultural relations that provided the basis for this forum, the communities have now expanded their exchanges to include a number of crucial areas such as scientific and technical information, communications, the environment and the economy.
Mr. Speaker, the Francophonie came into its own with the advent of conferences involving heads of state and heads of government, which provided a new sense of purpose, a desire to include political dialogue as well and to consolidate its institutions.
The first francophone summit, held in Paris in 1986, attracted some 40 heads of state and heads of government.
Since then, the francophone family has grown, the attraction of the Francophonie being the strong links that have been forged for over 20 years through this institution.
The last summit at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris last November was the fourth francophone summit. Quebec City hosted the summit in 1987, and Dakar was the host city in 1989.
Three new countries had asked to attend the proceedings at the conference at Chaillot: Cambodia, Bulgaria and Romania, the latest addition to a community of states that are either fully or partly French-speaking.
Mr. Speaker, on that occasion, Canada proposed a joint statement in which heads of state and heads of government made a commitment to actively support the democratic process and respect for human rights. Furthermore, Canada decided to back up its proposal by undertaking to finance a unit within the ACCT to support democratization and human rights.
Canada also supported establishing a network of legal clinics for women.
Yesterday, as part of the activities around the World Francophonie Day, I hosted a reception-you were there, Mr. Speaker-for members of the diplomatic corps and representatives of organizations that are part of the Francophonie's extensive family. I took this

March 20, 1992
Routine Proceedings
opportunity to invite them to a preview of a special program on the Francophonie produced recently by TV-5. This program, which will be broadcast today, is unusual among artistic and cultural programs in that it emphasizes the tangible achievements of the Francophonie, initiated not only by summits but also by special ministerial conferences on the environment, culture, youth and sport. In the years to come, we would like to see more emphasis on the importance of this day and increasing involvement of Canadians across this country.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this special opportunity to remind hon. members that today, Canada is the only country that belongs to the Commonwealth, the Francophonie and the Organization of American States, as well as to the United Nations and a number of other organizations where our linguistic duality and cultural diversity are an asset.
Canada's membership and unique influence within some of the world's most important organizations are certainly cause to rejoice. In fact, thanks to this unique position, Canada has been recognized as playing a very special role in the world today.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, like so many others, I am a statistic of our policy on the francophone community. I come from old Acadian roots, but unfortunately my grandfather did not speak a word of French. I am now trying to correct that deficiency with my daughter, but it is getting harder and harder and I will tell you why.
Of course, we English speakers and French speakers in this House are celebrating the tenth anniversary of La Francophonie. It gives us a chance to show the world that we rejoice in the fact that our country has two official languages and two founding peoples. It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that since this government took power, it seems that the survival of Canada's French-speaking community outside Quebec is increasingly in doubt.
I will give you, for example, the comments made by the director general of the federation of francophone and Acadian communities of Canada, Marc Godbout, referring to the government's silence on the participation of francophones outside Quebec in the constitutional reform process. He said: "It's blocked from the Secretary of State Department to the Prime Minister's Office."
Mr. Godbout is quite right and I will tell you why. Since he took office, the Prime Minister has never met with the federation's representatives.
On March 18, just two days ago, the Prime Minister's lieutenant, Benoit Bouchard, made a stinging comment in the House, saying that even if francophones outside Quebec asked for it, they would not be at the negotiating table in the same way as the native people are. He said that the million Italian Canadians had not asked for anything. Again in the House yesterday, he repeated what he thought about the status of the French community outside Quebec and it is very unfortunate that it is being downgraded every day by this government.
On March 16, the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs said as he was leaving the House that he did not understand what the federation of francophone and Acadian communities wanted. On March 4, the Secretary of State of Canada really shook the francophone communities of Manitoba and Alberta by telling them that the federal government was withdrawing from its commitment to sign federal-provincial agreements on consolidating their institutional and community development.
Again, on February 26, Mr. Speaker, another highly placed minister in this government, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, announced the abolition of the Court Challenges Program, which since its implementation has given francophones outside Quebec an opportunity to exercise their rights to trials in French and education for their children in French, which have regular constitutional protection only in Quebec and New Brunswick.
In order to justify the government's decision to abolish the Court Challenges Program, on February 28, the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, another member of the Mulroney cabinet, told this House, and I quote: "We have built up a certain amount of jurisprudence and this program should now be funded by others, perhaps at the provincial level, or by non-government organizations". Moments later, a senior minister, the Minister of Justice, added: "We are in fact the only level of government that has been willing to fund these kinds of cases".
Considering that the Minister of Justice said straight out that no other level of government was going to take over, why stifle the voice of the French fact here in Canada? On February 26, a meeting of the committee on official languages was called but had to be adjourned for lack of a quorum, Mr. Speaker. Only one Conservative member showed up, and he was sitting in for one of the regular members of the committee. In fact, there has
March 20, 1992

been no meeting on the nature of the committee's mandate since May 1991.
Our critic on this issue, who has been fighting long and hard for the French-speaking community in Canada, Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier, urged and continues to urge the Prime Minister to reconsider his plans to abolish the Court Challenges Program.
There is more evidence, Mr. Speaker. A survey published in Le Droit shows how precarious the situation of francophones outside Quebec is, indicating that 44 per cent of Franco-Ontarian eighth graders have English as their first language at home.
I could quote more statistics. All this to say, Mr. Speaker, that we do want the Francophonie to be celebrated world-wide, but that we want this government to start by changing its policy of stifling the French-speaking community here in Canada. And we intend to keep fighting for the celebration of the Francophonie world-wide, but especially at home in Canada, where this protection is essential to the survival of our great-grandparents' language for the benefit of our children.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk today about the International Day of the Francophonie. Canada joins more than 40 member nations of the Francophonie, including Quebec and New Brunswick, to celebrate this day which is an opportunity to reflect on the challenges that we must face in this very important period of our history.
It is in 1986 that the francophone community project took shape. Since then, four summits have been held in Quebec, Paris and Dakar. More than 40 nations representing close to 400 million men and women participated in those events. The Francophonie is primarily based on language and a set of values.
The Chaillot declaration, which was passed at the conclusion of the fourth summit of countries using French in Paris last November includes a speech on the commitment made by member countries to abide by the principles governing fundamental human rights. However, there is an enormous gap between reality and the rhetoric used by the members of the Francophonie.
The Francophonie is still at the consolidation stage. It
Routine Proceedings
is important that this organization faces the challenges regarding human rights, democratization and development.
Last October, the Prime Minister said that Canada would not subsidize repression and violations to freedom because, in the field of international relations, nothing is more important than the respect of individual liberties and human rights. However, the final Chaillot declaration makes no mention of this compelling link between aid and democratization.
My New Democrat colleagues and myself have often stressed the need to put an end to bilateral aid granted to governments of countries that violate human rights, and to restructure development aid so as to give it to non-governmental organizations that work in these countries.
The fact is that while Canada subscribes to a clear commitment to democracy as evidenced by its declaration at the Paris summit, our country also supports structural adjustment policies that create a bigger gap between the rich and the poor, and we also continue to provide financial aid to repressive governments.
Even if the Mulroney government has promised to cut its aid to repressive regimes, the Minister for External Relations announced a year ago a $5 million subsidy to the authoritarian government of Rwanda, which is a member of the Francophonie. Yet a recent report from the group Africa Watch denounces widespread violations of human rights by the Government of Rwanda. In fact, the situation continues to deteriorate.
The record of several other countries of the Francophonie is not much better. Yet no action was taken at the last Paris summit to fight the blatant abuses that exist in countries of the Francophonie.
The Francophonie must look at the human rights issues and recognize that decent health care services, housing and adequate food are just as basic and important as traditional civil and political rights.

March 20, 1992
Routine Proceedings
The challenges are enormous: protecting the environment, supporting the economies of African countries, promoting the French language, not to mention the emergence of eastern Europe countries such as Romania and Bulgaria. I hope Canada will realize that our most important contribution to the Francophonie is the reaffirmation of the principles of democracy, peace, rule of law, true respect for human rights and equality, as well as a healthy environment.


POINT OF ORDER
David Barrett: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding in an order of this House that I have to seek unanimous consent to enable me to table a document to which I referred during Question Period.
I therefore ask for unanimous consent to table that document.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I do not object to providing unanimous consent today to table that document which I am sure is to the benefit of all members.
But I would like to indicate to the House that there are several occasions when opposition members have documents which we want to make available to Parliament and to all members and that consent is often denied to opposition members. Yet government ministers can avail themselves, or actually they do not have any choice, they have to table documents upon request of the House.
I would ask the House to consider that in the future, the same kind of courtesy should be afforded to opposition members who want to provide useful information to the House, notwithstanding the rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the member the opportunity to table that document?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions, both of which have been certified correct as to form and content.
The first petition deals in part with the proliferation of adult triple-X magazines and video stores in Scarborough. It makes the point that pornography has a destructive effect on women, children and also on men.
It calls specifically on Parliament to strictly uphold the present laws on obscenity and it is signed by 322 residents of Scarborough.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which refers to something that is continuing to bother a number of the residents of Scarborough West in particular, and that is the application of the goods and services tax on feminine sanitary products such as tampons and pads.
This has been brought to the minister's attention on more than one occasion, however, these petitioners again ask the government to remove the goods and services tax from women's sanitary products.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased also to present two petitions. The first petition is from a number of fishermen and others from Murray River, Montague, Murray Harbour and Sturgeon who depend on the small craft harbour's facilities.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge government to ensure that the necessary repairs are made to the slip at the small craft harbour facility at Graham's Pond, Prince Edward Island.


Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of people on Prince Edward Island which indicates that the undersigned believe that indexed pensions for all Canadians are essential and they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain full inflation protection for our federal public employees as a demonstration of the commitment to full indexed pensions for all Canadians.
March 20, 1992


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Malpeque has nine minutes.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my remarks today on Bill C-60.
This is important legislation, legislation which deals with federal-provincial tax arrangements as well as the health and education transfers to the province, that is the Established Programs Financing, the money that the federal government gives to provinces to spend on education and health.
I am pleased to speak today on these two areas because these are important areas to my riding, as I am sure they are to all ridings across this country. They are areas that the government should be making priorities.
But it is really doing the opposite because what it is doing is reducing the growth of transfer payments to the
Government Orders
provinces for education and for health. Tb give you the figures, Mr. Speaker, these cuts the government has made result in a reduction of $9 billion by 1995 according to the Canadian Association of University Teachers. That is for education alone.
The health transfers will be reduced almost $20 billion by 1995. That is the record of the government where it has cut the growth of funding to education and health.
Let us look at what this Conservative government promised before coming to power. When he was opposition leader, the present Prime Minister said, and these are his exact words: "We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement. We believe that financing post-secondary education is an important priority for both levels of government".
That is what the Prime Minister said when he was Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately he has not carried through with that commitment because what we have had are changes in that formula. In fact we had one in 1986 and another change in 1990 which amounted to a reduction of money going to the provinces.
I also want to put on record a remark that was made by the present Minister for International Trade before he became the Minister of Finance. He told the House of Commons in 1982 when he was speaking on the established programs funding: "The Established Programs Financing reductions could have disastrous effects on universities and colleges, on hospital funding, and on the operation of hospitals. Let us not make hospitals, universities, and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial government. Let us solve these problems, not on the backs of the hospitals and universities. Let us solve those problems outside the arena". That is a quote from the Minister for International Trade when he was in the opposition.
Clearly the government has not kept its word. Here we have cuts. As I said we had a change in the formula in 1986 and another one in 1990.
The government is doing exactly what the Minister for International Tirade said it should not do. What it is doing is solving its financial problems on the backs of the

March 20, 1992
Government Orders
hospitals, the universities, and the colleges, and it is doing that by the cuts it provided in the formula for Established Programs Financing, which is the money to come to the provinces for education and health.
If we look at the effects that these cuts are having on the provinces, it means if, for example, the province of Prince Edward Island gets less money, it has less money to give the universities. In our case it would be the University of Prince Edward Island. At that university, as I am sure at all universities, tuition fees have increased tremendously. In fact, at the University of Prince Edward Island the tuition fee has gone up 57 per cent from 1985 to 1991. Over a period of six years tuition fees have gone up 57 per cent.
As I said, the government is giving the provinces less money, yet the cost of education is going up tremendously. We also have to look at the record of this government and the student loans program.
As I have just said, in my province of Prince Edward Island tuition fees have gone up 57 per cent, yet this government has not changed the amount of money given under the student loans program since 1984.
I have been calling on this government to look at that program since I was elected in 1988. I have tabled a private members' bill in this House. Hopefully that bill will be drawn and will force the government to look at this whole area. The student loans program as it stands today is very inadequate.
Another factor that will affect our education is that fewer people will be able to go to university. We will have people with all kinds of ability who simply cannot afford to get a university degree.
I am not the only one saying this. For example, in a Globe and Mail article of March 7, 1992, the headline says it all: "Only wealthy need apply". Students are graduating $25,000 to $30,000 in debt. People with ability but little money steer themselves away from a university education. According to the president of St. Thomas University in New Brunswick, and I quote: "We are getting to the point where only the wealthy and the near wealthy will be able to afford university education".
Another effect of federal education cutbacks, of course, is reduced competitiveness. This government talks about competitiveness, but we do not need any more talk. What we need is action.
This government pays big money for studies like the $1 million that was spent on the Porter study on competitiveness. Business and labour leaders are saying that the most important factor in improving Canada's competitiveness is better education, training and human resource policies.
I see my time is running out. I had many things I wanted to say about this legislation. I want to conclude by saying that it is very obvious that the federal government has not lived up to its pre-election promises with regard to the transfer payments. The effects of these cuts are being felt everywhere, from the factory floor to the university campus and the hospital ward.
Canadians expect better and Canadians deserve better.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b) because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 17 minutes.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-60 now before the House. As everyone knows, this bill tabled in the House on February 20 concerns equalization programs.
Needless to say, these equalization programs are the cornerstone of our Canadian economic union. In 1992-93, the government will make contributions totalling $8.5 billion to the provinces, and on the whole have not provinces will profit most from this.
It is important to remember that at a Ministers of Finance meeting on January 30 the federal Minister of Finance proposed a two-year extension of the equalization program, from April 1, 1992 to March 31, 1994. This program extension would entail an increase of about $400 million for the provinces in 1992-93; about half of this, some $200 million, would become permanent increases, while the rest, some $200 million also, would be temporary benefits.
As we all know, the program renewal proposal is composed of three different sections: a wider tax base, the maintenance of the equalization ceiling for 1992-93; and the elimination of some technical irritant concerning the interaction of equalization programs and Established
March 20, 1992

Programs Financing. This is of course one more program involving federal transfers to provinces. All Canadian provinces will receive benefits under the measures being discussed here today.
It might be important to discuss the components of this program.

The equalization as proposed in the bill for 1992-93 would be in the order of $31 million for Newfoundland, $5 million for P.E.I., some $35 million for Nova Scotia, $39 million for New Brunswick, $198 million for the province of Quebec, some $55 million for Manitoba, and $60 million for Saskatchewan. Of course, the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia do not qualify under the provisions that I have just enumerated.
The interaction with the Established Programs Financing needs to be raised a bit as well, I think. There is a recognition, of course, that there are provincial concerns about the interaction between the Established Programs Financing and the equalization calculations by ensuring that the value of the tax transfer and the determination of the program entitlements reflect the equalization ceiling estimated benefits to the province to be more than $200 million. This is a one-time payment for retroactive effects.
I do not want to take much more time of the House speaking to this bill. Because we are talking about transfers to provinces, maybe this is an appropriate time as well to raise the matter of other transfers and how they impact upon us as Canadians. In other areas we discussed the measures not that long ago in the House of Commons, areas of transfers to the provinces for the purposes of health care and social welfare. In those two cases, my province, the province of Ontario, and the hon. member who will be speaking momentarily, his province of British Columbia, those provinces really got a raw deal from the federal government because some of those transfers were frozen or at least they were capped to a maximum three per cent increase.
I think the President of the Treasury Board is nodding in agreement when I say this. In my own province of Ontario as a result of the recession, of course which was authored by the federal government and expanded upon
Government Orders
courtesy of the provincial NDP, they are very busy, as you know, chasing jobs away to the United States. Since they have taken over the provincial government, unfortunately, for many residents of my province, the NDP has had some success at chasing jobs away to south of the border.
Due to those two factors, we have an increasingly high number of people in Ontario who are on welfare, coupled with the effects of Bill C-21. Members will remember the notorious Bill C-21 of last session which cut back on the number of weeks that a person could get unemployment insurance. All of those things together have expanded the number of people who are on welfare in my province and elsewhere in Canada. In my province, there is a general cap on the Canada Assistance Plan transfers to those provinces.
That has made it such that it is becoming more and more difficult, particularly in a recession to take care of the increasing number of people who have fallen off not only the job market, but also they have fallen off the unemployment insurance benefits and have fallen on to the welfare rolls.
The unfortunate side effect of all of that has been that to a fair degree now we see municipal tax increases and to a degree, provincial tax increases, to satisfy the shortfall that was caused by the fact that the federal government put a ceiling or a cap on Canada Assistance Plan transfers to those provinces.

So, Mr. Speaker, the picture is certainly not rosy in our province. But being here to speak about the equalization issue, I thought I would take the opportunity to remind the government opposite of its role in the effective financing, not only of the equalization program, but also of the Canada Assistance Plan which, in my province, for example, is in serious difficulty.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I too wish that, at this eleventh hour, the government opposite would come back to its senses and at some time in the future would choose to make more generous contributions so that we can take care of those less fortunate people from the province that I represent here in the House of Commons as the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

March 20, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I too, wish to participate in the debate on Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. I am very pleased that the President of Treasury Board is in the House. I hope he will take note of some of the concerns that we have, especially a member from British Columbia with regard to this bill.
Really, what has happened-and of course I realize this is a housekeeping bill that the government is bringing in with regard to equalization payments and fiscal arrangements with the provinces-is that the government has systematically passed the burden of the national debt on to the provinces. There is no question about that as we look back and see the capping of the programs in British Columbia, in Ontario and in Alberta.
According to the programs the government brought in, it identified these provinces as being the richer provinces. Therefore it felt that it could cap them and let them fend for themselves.
At the same time as this is going on, changes were being made to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The government opted out of that program and put the total burden on the workers and on the companies. This again hits the provinces, every province, because it takes that extra money out of those communities. It comes directly out of the provinces and out of the municipalities.
The capping of the medicare and the post-secondary education programs again takes the money directly out of those provinces and the provinces have to come up with the extra moneys in order to provide those programs. That affects the municipalities and goes all the way through the line. As these things take effect those areas are affected.
I want to talk a little about the pressure tactics the government is using on these provinces in order to get them to come on line. It brought in the GST, and 80 per cent of the Canadian public does not want it. The GST is having tremendous effects on the provinces across Canada.
The federal government is trying to harmonize this program, and I want to use an example. In my riding I have three border crossings: one at Roosevelt, one at Creston, and one at Yahk, British Columbia. People are crossing that border not because they are getting better deals, not because of anything. Almost everyone who contacts me and to whom I have talked says it is in protest to the kinds of policies this government has brought in.
That affects the small businesses in my riding. That affects every portion of the riding. Coming back to fiscal arrangements, the government is trying to bring them about. But it is causing more problems with the policies it is adopting.
The government talks about competitiveness. It says that we must be competitive in this market because we have entered into a free trade agreement. Goodness knows the majority in my riding did not support the free trade agreement, but it is certainly suffering because of that free trade agreement.
Rather than a free trade agreement we would have preferred to see a sector-by-sector agreement that made more common sense than what this government has done in the over-all agreement.
Students are affected by it. The government talks about being competitive in the free trade market it is talking about. Yet it is systematically cutting back and stopping our students from being able to enter the system to upgrade their skills and produce the kind of competitiveness the government says will be required to meet the needs of the future.
In every field the government has put its finger on, it has created deeper and bigger problems. It has said to the provinces: "You must come on line with us". It is offering them a goody: "If you come and harmonize the GST with us, we will collect your provincial sales tax".
Those are the kinds of discussions that go on with each province with regard to border crossings and so on. That is not the way to bring people on stream. That is not the way to listen to people.
The government should have listened to the people, not brought in the goods and services tax, and looked at it in a more equitable way. During the GST debate-and
March 20, 1992

this affects the provinces-the minister said that the manufacturers' tax would be removed.
Did we actually see a decrease in the price of automobiles? Did we actually see a decrease in what the consumer was buying? I did not notice it. The people in my riding did not notice it. But they certainly noticed the extra 13 per cent, the 7 per cent GST and the 6 per cent tax on top of that.
The government is now talking about reaching equalization agreements and a housekeeping bill to bring about these kinds of things with the provinces for another two years.
It has not treated the provinces fairly, especially Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. It has singled them out and it has systematically, without any prior consultation with the provinces, introduced the bill into this House and brought about changes for those three provinces which are unworthy. We said so at the time and it certainly created an extra burden on the provinces because of that decision.
I heard the Liberal member who spoke just prior to me talk about the situation in Ontario. He said that the Ontario government is driving jobs to the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. Everyone knows that the free trade agreement is the cause of what is going on across that border. Everyone knows that had the Liberals stood up and fought against the free trade agreement, stood up and said so at the time and continued fighting it, this would not be happening. No, they flip-flop back and forth because the large corporations said to them: "Oh, you cannot do this". So do not blame the Ontario government for driving jobs out of the country. Take a look in your own backyard and to the kinds of things that went on. Stand up in this House and fight for the people of Ontario instead of blaming the Ontario government.
Stand up against the free trade agreement and let us bring in an agreement sector by sector. Let us not put our dairy workers at risk. Let us not put our farmers at risk. Let us not put other workers at risk because of an over-all free trade agreement. Again we come back to the provinces because every province is affected. Every piece of legislation that this government has tinkered with has caused great concern to the provinces.
Government Orders
It has caused the provinces to try to pick up the slack. The unemployment insurance program is a prime example as to how it affects the provinces. When you take the money out of those areas, you hurt the people that are involved. The government also says that it is trying to re-educate people. If it really wanted to be competitive, if it really wanted to educate the people, it would be contributing today one-third of the cost of the unemployment insurance program to ensure that the kind of educational programs, the kind of technologies that our students and our workers are going to need would be there. It has withdrawn its contributions to that program and made it totally the program of the workers and the employers.
If the government really wants to upgrade the education and the training techniques of the Canadian people and the Canadian workers, it has to get back into that program, start participating in it and start to build the kind of country we are going to need for the future.
The government is talking about a free trade agreement with Mexico and we are not even allowed to participate in it. As the opposition members we are not even allowed to know what kind of discussions are taking place. I want to say to the government on that issue and to all the provinces that will be affected by this, that it is going to affect every one of us. Because if it makes that agreement, the government will also suffer.
While we are talking about equalization payments, while we are talking about harmonizing, let us really look at the broad scope of what this government is doing.


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


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps you could enlighten me. I had understood that the government members were going to move a motion. Maybe I could take advantage of this point of order to allow the government Whip to get back to his seat and propose this unanimous consent motion. Perhaps he has been inadvertently delayed outside the House on the telephone.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It is amazing the degree of accuracy of guesses. I was on the phone and suddenly saw that debate had collapsed.
I think there is general agreement in the House, Mr. Speaker, to suspend if this motion is adopted.

March 20, 1992
Government Orders
I would propose the following motion to the House, and I think it has been negotiated. I move:
That notwithstanding any order of this House that if the debate is completed on the second reading stage of Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, the taking of any required division will be deferred until Tliesday, March 24, 1992 at 6 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the order that was just agreed to, the taking of the vote is deferred until Tbesday.
May I declare that it is 4 p.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Therefore, it being four o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.04 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 23,1992