1992-04-07

[Stage Direction]
41 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 7, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture in relation to its study of the implications of communications and culture for Canadian unity.
This report consists of a two-part submission. The first part of our submission was to the special joint committee on a renewed Canada early in February in which we addressed the subject matter. That report and submission are contained as an appendix to this report. The main report is a series of recommendations which address the fulfilling of the constitutional promise in the role of culture and communications in that respect.
One of the major realities that we came to grips with was that the constitutional issues in our country are as much cultural in context as they are political, and if we are ever going to reach a lasting constitutional accord we certainly must first of all reach a lasting cultural accord.
In that respect, if I may just quickly state, that does not mean one common mould for Canadians but rather the realization that our common ground is a rich diversity.
In closing I would like to quote quickly from one sentence in the report: "That is the essence of belonging to Canada, being able to share in its diversity, its geography, its people, its cultural expressions and its political institutions. It is simply not necessarily desirable
nor indeed possible to build a national model for Canada based only on our similarities. Rather the key to Canadian nationhood is a recognition and appreciation, indeed a sharing, of our differences".
I would like to express appreciation to my colleagues on the committee and to our staff for a job extremely well done. The committee requests that the government responds to this report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. The first concerns the cuts in transfers to the provinces for health and especially for education.
The signers of this petition say that almost half a billion dollars was cut last year and a quarter of a billion this year. All these decisions make a mockery of words like globalization, productivity and competitiveness. They also note that students will have to pay six months more interest on their loans. They want the government to meet its responsibilities to ensure a promising future here in Canada.


Ron J. Duhamel: The second petition is with respect to the use of foul language on radio and television.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to ensure that the CRTC monitors very carefully the use of language on radio and television. They feel that there is too much foul language unnecessarily so being used. They believe that it undermines parental efforts to set a good example in the families. They point out that foul language is not necessary in any language in order to communicate.

April 7, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I present you a petition from many of my constituents today. They humbly ask that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provide balanced programming, combining information, education and entertainment programs for a varied audience, as well as offering the best foreign programming. They want most CBC programming to be Canadian in content, to feature Canadian actors, both in French and in English, to meet the specific needs of the regions and to help Canadians share information and ideas.
They humbly ask Parliament to adopt measures to provide the CBC with the resources needed to strengthen it so that it can be a fundamental instrument of Canada's cultural sovereignty by offering all Canadians a first-class service.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first one relates to the immunity from taxation that aboriginal people have in this country by virtue of their aboriginal treaty rights.
The petitioners call on Parliament to fulfil its responsibilities to First Nations in Canada by taking immediate steps to rectify the deficiencies of the GST policy guidelines in order that those guidelines will respect the tax immunity of First Nations both on and off reserves and including those who do not as yet have reserves.


Robert Evans Skelly: The second petition relates to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The petitioners call on government to recognize that it had promised a freeze on UIC premium rates for three years.
Since 1989 unemployment insurance fund premiums have increased by more than 50 per cent.
The petitioners call on the government to immediately freeze unemployment insurance premium rates for both employers and employees and that there be no further cuts to unemployment insurance benefits.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, finally, a series of petitioners from all across the country, recognizing that the government has cut back on the allocations to the aboriginal post-secondary education program, call on the government to maintain the funding for that program and rectify any deficiency in the budget allocations to ensure that all eligible applications for Indian and Inuit post-secondary education are fully funded.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 273 will be answered today.


Mr. Hughes: For the period February 5,1992 to March 23,1992, what has been the (a) total cost (b) cost per question (c) cost for this question, to the government for answering Order Paper Questions?


Albert Glen Cooper: (a) & (b) Questions answered during the period of February 5, 1992 to March 23, 1992:
Question No. Approximate Question No. Approximate
	Cost		Cost
4	$ 79	182	$ 27849	134	187	33750	127	192	29651	130	193	4,605100	70	194	412102	4,100	195	471103	87	196	254110	5,385	198	744113	1,775	199	108123	3,890	202	65
April 7, 1992

Government Orders
Question No.	Approximate Cost	Question No.	Approximate Cost126	180	205	65133	850	209	81136	229	210	35143	298	211	50147	425	212	280148	39	213	130149	39	214	70150	39	217	215152	9,220	221	47158	531	222	124166	353	225	242173	123	226	523175	229	227	78176	186	229	30177	272	231	72
TOTAL COST: $38,402
(c)	$30.


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


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. Ill, 151 and 233 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. Ill, 151 and 233 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: For each fiscal years since 1984, what has been the total hospitality expenses incurred by each Deputy Minister?
Return tabled.

Question No. 151-Mrs. Stewart:
For each fiscal year since 1989, for each department, how much money was budgeted for staff training?
Return tabled.

Question No. 233-Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):
How much of our GNP is from international trade; what countries contribute to this trade; what is the contribution breakdown of these countries to the total percent of international trade within our GNP; with how many of these countries do we already have bilateral trade agreements?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Monique Vezina (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, on September 17, 1991 the Minister of Justice tabled in the House of Commons Bill C-31, which is the culmination of efforts to reduce the inordinate delays that are currently possible in extradition cases.
The need for the amendments contained in this bill, I would suggest, is urgent. Canadians are deeply concerned about the legal system operating as an impediment to Canada being able to return persons wanted for trial or sentence to foreign jurisdictions.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
One source of the excessive delays is the dual tracks available for the appeals of extradition decisions. The extradition process has two stages: the judicial stage where a judge decides whether there is sufficient evidence against the person requested by the foreign state to subject him or her to surrender, and the executive stage where the Minister of Justice has to decide whether to surrender the requested person.
Currently in an extradition case, an appeal of the decision of the extradition judge and a review of the decision of the Minister of Justice are held consecutively. A decision of the extradition judge is subject to basic court proceedings.
An appeal of the decision can then be heard by the provincial or territorial courts of appeal and eventually by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is only after appeals, if any, have been exhausted that the Minister of Justice is requested to surrender the fugitive. A decision of the Minister of Justice can be reviewed by the Federal Court and then by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The provisions of the bill detail the means available to challenge the judicial and ministerial decisions which are made after Canada receives an extradition request from a foreign state.
Bill C-31 also presents a means to avoid the use of these two lengthy tracks which are now available to challenge decisions in extradition cases and delay surrender. In particular, the bill provides a right of appeal of decisions rendered by the extradition judge to the provincial or territorial courts of appeal on specific grounds.
It also provides the same courts with the power to review decisions of the Minister of Justice. In other words, the same courts will hear appeals and review decisions of the minister. It thereby creates a general ability to deal with these issues in place at one time.
Therefore, in most cases appeal and review procedures will be combined into the provincial or territorial courts of appeal. That level of court will have a comprehensive power to control the appeal and review processes, as well as examine both judicial and ministerial decisions and ensure that appeals and reviews are conducted efficiently and early.
To further reduce delay, time limits within various steps in the extradition process are stipulated in the bill.
First the fugitive generally has 30 days after a judge finds there is sufficient evidence to order surrender within which to make submissions to the Minister of Justice. Only where it is appropriate may the minister receive submissions after the 30-day time period.
The requesting person or requesting state has 30 days after the judge's decision to file a notice of appeal regarding the court's decision. Subject to limited exceptions, the Minister of Justice is required to decide on surrender within 90 days of the decision by a judge that there is sufficient evidence to extradite the fugitive.
The bill provides recourse if the decision on surrender is not made within the stipulated time period. The fugitive can apply to be released if the Minister of Justice does not show cause why a decision about surrender was not made within the 90-day time period.
As well, if the fugitive has not been removed from Canada within a period of 45 days from the time the surrender order has been made by the Minister of Justice or after the appeals from such an order has been taken, he or she may make an application for release. These clear-cut and time specific procedures will expedite extradition cases.
Additionally, proceedings will be streamlined by the ability of the judge in an extradition case to hear arguments based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms instead of the current situation whereby the judge hears such arguments. This particular amendment permits all legal matters related to the extradition hearing to be dealt with by the judge at one time.
While the effects of the amendment are basically to speed up the extradition process, it does not remove appropriate protections for the person sought. Alleged charter violations will be dealt with and appeals and review are provided of the decisions made by the judge and the minister.
Therefore, in addition to expediting the extradition process, the bill ensures that the person sought is afforded appropriate protections. Injecting greater efficiency into our extradition process will not occur at the expense of the rights of the person sought. I believe the bill strikes the proper balance between the clear need for efficiency in extradition cases and the importance of safeguarding the rights of individuals.
April 7, 1992

I think that Bill C-31 deserves swift passage by the House of Commons and hopefully by the Senate. It is a step in the right direction. It is something that I would suggest to the extent that a consensus can be determined within Canadian public opinion. I would suggest to this House that there is a consensus that changes need to be made in Canada's extradition laws.
Mr. Speaker, you were in the Chair yesterday when I pointed out that the present law in Canada provides for more avenues of appeal, more judicial review for a fugitive who is involved in this procedure than Canadian citizens are entitled to if they are charged with a Criminal Code offence. I cannot believe that there are any Canadians who would agree that such a situation should be allowed to take place in this country.
Yesterday I indicated at the report stage that this is the first of two looks at Canada's extradition laws. We would hope to table in the House of Commons later this year further changes to the extradition laws. This was needed and it responded to legitimate concerns Canadians had on extradition law in Canada. I might add it also responds to concerns that have been voiced in this House by the hon. member for Peterborough.
In the speeches on the contraventions bill yesterday- inasmuch as this is public security week and there are a number of justice initiatives that are being proceeded with-I indicated that this bill we are discussing at third reading stage is in response to what many Canadians have told us, what petitioners to the House of Commons have told us. It also responds to the concerns of the member for Peterborough, and I think that is what a good Minister of Justice should do.
I did not get the chance to mention this yesterday but a number of members pointed out that the changes to the contraventions bill were in response to concerns, among others, from the hon. member from Parry Sound-Mus-koka.


An hon. member:: The Law Reform Commission.


Rob Nicholson: The hon. member says the Law Reform Commission. I will digress for a second. I did not refer to the Law Reform Commission. The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys indicated that the Law Reform Commission suggested changes in the Contraventions Act in, I believe he said 1976.
Government Orders
I could say to him that if he believed in the Law Reform Commission his government could have done that in the intervening eight years that it governed Canada but I did not want to digress too much.
The hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam mentioned that to him. It is one thing to say the Law Reform Commission is very important-and I believe their suggestions have been important-but it is quite another to say that we did not act on what they had to say for eight years when we had the opportunity.
I will say this about the present Minister of Justice. She has reacted in the Contraventions Act to the concerns of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Musko-ka and then in this bill, the extraditions bill, she has responded again.
Although it is not their nature to be cynical about some of these things, hon. members might say that I am saying this because I am a parliamentary secretary. I will tell them I am saying it because it is true. It is a fact.
This particular Minister of Justice has gone out of her way to try and accommodate the legitimate concerns that have been expressed within the House of Commons, within the committees of the House of Commons, and has responded to the legitimate concerns of petitions that have been tabled in this House. That is a good thing.
I think back to the gun control bill. I had a reporter stop me after that bill passed third reading and he said: "You know this was a very uncontroversial end to a controversial bill". It was supported by all except, I believe, 12 members of the House of Commons. You may ask how that would be possible, how something as difficult as that subject is for members of Parliament, would find a consensus like that.
I would suggest to the members of the House that one of the reasons we are able to come together was that the minister listened to the committee members under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Kitchener. She had a look at what members for all political parties had to say and she responded. She responded to what they had to say and came up with a better package, a package that protects Canadians.
It was the same with the Young Offenders Act which we recently dealt with. Those were amendments and changes that Canadians were asking for and I believe

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
Canadians appreciate it when they see their concerns are being responded to.
The bill we have before us today at third reading, as I indicated, should quiet the concerns expressed by many Canadians, including the hon. member for Peterborough. I think it is to the credit of this particular Minister of Justice that she has responded in a common sense, reasonable way to what Canadians have been telling us. This is an excellent piece of legislation.
I can say to the members of the House that they will be doing their constituents and certainly their country a favour by helping move this bill through the process and send it to the other place. It is good legislation and it responds I think to the common sense concerns of all Canadians.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. I agree with my colleague opposite that in some respects the legislation is welcomed and is something that we should be pleased to see before the House and, hopefully, it will soon be law.
However, I do not think the government should congratulate itself on its major accomplishment with respect to this bill because it really does not do the job and it does not really deal with all of the problems that are affecting extradition. All that it really deals with, Mr. Speaker, and I know you will be concerned about this, is the streamlining of the appeals process. There is a lot more to extradition than just the appeals process. What is left unsaid in this legislation is probably greater than what is said and that, quite frankly, is a problem and something that should be addressed very quickly.
I just have to quote from the Canadian Bar Association when it made its comments to our committee. I quote at page 2 of its brief.
The proposals were directed solely at process with no attempt to make changes to substantive provisions of the Extradition Act.
Later on, it says and I quote:
Subsequent substantive amendments may have an impact on the amendments contained in Bill C-31. The section would have preferred that the entire review take place simultaneously so as to co-ordinate amendments dealing with process and substantive changes. Amendments passed under Bill C-31 should therefore be subject to further review at the time of further substantive revisions.
What we are faced with at this time is a situation in which we have the government tinkering again. It has tinkered with the young offenders bill. It is tinkering with Bill C-36 on parole and temporary absences and it is tinkering with extradition. This is a tinkering government that does not really want to get down and deal with the hard issues that face extradition. In fact, when the minister came before our committee she indicated that there are very substantial changes that are going to be necessary under extradition law.
This aspect we are dealing with is the second stage, quite frankly. After there have been hearings and decisions made, we are then into the appeal process and that is the part we are doing first. It is the classic case of the cart before the horse. We should know what the government intends to do with extradition law before we start dealing with the appeal process.
That being said, I think we all agree that there are some benefits in what the government has done. We all have remembrances of the Ng and Kinder cases and some of the other cases that have been before the Canadian extradition process and know that, in large measure, those cases took anywhere from five to six years to be dealt with. Obviously we need some change and some improvement in the system and this bill goes to that. The process is streamlined, the appeal process will work a lot quicker. That is beneficial because there was the concern raised by a number of witnesses, some people say yes and some people say no, that Canada was going to become a safe haven, that there was the process that would take forever to be entertained, appeal after appeal after appeal.
In that sense, this cuts that to the quick and we do proceed rather rapidly with appeal, but there are still the substantive issues that have to be dealt with. I think that we should require a commitment from the government. I suggested this in committee and in fact moved an amendment which was defeated, that there be a sunset clause with respect to this particular bill with the main purpose of forcing the government to come forward with the balance of the substantive changes that are necessary. The government and members opposite saw their way in the opposite direction and said: "No. We will allow this to go and we will not put pressure on the government to come forward with the new substantive changes".
April 7, 1992

I believe that to be a mistake. Now is the time to deal with it in totality. We have to take a holistic point of view when we recognize that we have problems with respect to a particular law like extradition or, for that matter, young offenders or parole and all of those criminal justice type issues. Instead the government has said no to my amendment and said no to speeding up the process and forcing the government's hand. We may be delayed for years and years before we see the substantive changes that are necessary.
Substantive changes that really have to be looked at very soon are in the area of evidence before the different hearings. That evidence is basically affidavit evidence prepared by solicitors and people outside the jurisdiction for submission to our courts. We have heard of a number of cases in which the evidence has been fraudulent, misleading and insufficient. That has caused delay and, as well, misled the whole process. Some people who give evidence have vested interests in seeing things happen in a certain way, so their evidence is tainted or slanted in order to achieve that goal.
We find with the extradition process that a lot of the evidence that is before the minister and before the panels and boards that deal with it, as well as the courts, is improper evidence, evidence that under our judicial system probably would not be accepted. We have seen a number of cases of that and we had a lot of expert testimony. Again I suggested in committee that perhaps in certain cases we should amend the rules and allow cross-examination of the person who swears the affidavit. You would have to apply to a judge, there would have to be some extenuating circumstances to require this, but essentially you cannot allow somebody to lie and give improper information in another jurisdiction and not have that person available for cross-examination or to justify what they had to say.
The Canadian Bar Association indicated in its testimony that far and away the most difficult theoretical, practical and real problem in extradition today is exactly that point, that the whole process is based in some cases on improper evidence, and the ramifications of that are obvious to all who realize what it means to have to react to improper evidence. We have even seen it in our criminal justice system with the number of people who have been convicted of crimes that they have not
Government Orders
committed because of improper evidence, improperly obtained, and perjured testimony. In the extradition process we face much of the same thing.
We say to the Minister of Justice: Get on with it, clean up the whole process; let's not just tinker with these little things like appeals, let's get into the substantive issues that have to be dealt with.
In addition, there is a possible conflict, and I am not sure whether it really exists or not, in that the Department of Justice is the department that presents the evidence at the hearing and it is also the officials who advise the minister who makes the decision. There is some argument to be made that we should take a look at whether or not the Department of Justice should be presenting the cases or whether other lawyers should be. We had evidence on both sides of that. Quite frankly, I am not sure which is the best approach. It seems to me that there is some potential for problems in that particular area.
As well, we have heard a lot of talk about Canada becoming the safe haven that I referred to earlier, and whether our whole process has set that up. All we have to do is think about our present situation in which we in Canada do not support the death penalty. Under extradition if there is a threat of the death penalty in another jurisdiction, the process starts to have an impact that would see that a person would not be sent to that jurisdiction because of the death penalty. The argument again is that maybe somebody commits a crime and then comes to Canada. Because it is a murder, they want to be safe in our jurisdiction. The Ng decision I think put that to rest and made sure that that would not take place.
Another positive amendment and one that I think we are all supportive of is the situation in which the legislation presently provides that if somebody commits a crime in Canada, they must serve the total of their sentence in Canada before they can be extradited.
The effect of that is obvious. If I have committed a murder in California or Texas, I am going to come to Canada and continue to commit crimes, and perhaps even a murder, so that I will not be subject to extradition back to Texas or California. Those are positive amendments to the existing legislation and are moving the bill

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
and the law in the proper direction, but there still is a lot more to be done.
I am dealing with a case now involving Spencer and Lamont, two people who are in jail in Brazil. Looking at the problems that they face in extradition and highhanded justice, I think we can take some confidence in the fact that we have a fair and just system by comparison to what is going on in other places. These people are now, apparently because of the way the minister is proceeding and refusing to give an order to request that they be expelled, languishing in a Brazilian jail awaiting a treaty which can see them brought back into Canada.
These are the types of problems that we face in both extradition and exchange of criminals. That whole area is what has been referred to by the Canadian bar as a very difficult area and one that requires a holistic approach, an approach which deals with all of the problems.
One final point. I know the NDP has proposed an amendment to deal with a further appeal period. I can see the advantages of that although we have had testimony on both sides with respect to that particular appeal process. I again refer to the Canadian bar which talks about that. If I can read the evidence in a question that I asked:


George Saunders Rideout: Yes, that's what it was. Ng was swept off to an awaiting plane. As soon as the verdict came down, it was "start your engines" as far as the plane was concerned. He felt that was manifestly unfair, that it had precluded another possible avenue. I gather you say no.


Mr. Anderson:: We have entrenched rights today under our Charter. Prior to the Charter, we had significant rights based on the common law and a fine judicial history of our courts, with some blights like everybody has. As one of my philosophy professors once said, the right of unlimited appeals is not a right we can afford. The Supreme Court of Canada recently said the right of appeal is not a right the Charter protects. So at some point you have to say "off you go".
As we analyse the amendments put by the NDP, we have to make sure that the proper balance is there so that all rights are protected but that we do not have a process that gets us right back into the mess that we were in before with the extradition bill, that is appeal upon appeal upon appeal. There is some thought that you can appeal to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations or the World Court in The Hague. At some stage, there has to be a limit.
In conclusion, I would say that we are pleased with the direction and the thrust of this legislation. We are pleased to see it come forward. We are critical of the fact that the government is only tinkering. It is time to put tinkering aside and start to deal with substantive issues like extradition and see that a full bill is brought before the House.
We have to recognize that we will probably be tinkering with these tinkerings because of the failure of the government to come forward with a holistic bill.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, as NDP justice critic, I am pleased to rise and speak on this bill. If I might, I would like to congratulate the member for Niagara Falls, the parliamentary secretary, for a clear presentation on third reading of this bill. He has been with the bill throughout. Also, the member for Moncton was positively critical. He covered some of the points that I want to cover, so I could perhaps move on to some other points in the course of my speech.
I want to say right off the bat, we in the NDP are supporting the bill. We have tried to expedite it as quickly as we could in all the stages. We proposed an amendment yesterday where we thought there was a fault in the bill. It was defeated although it did have the support of the Liberal Party. I am grateful for that.
As the member for Moncton said, this is only phase one, act one in the drama. There will be a subsequent bill.
Let me backtrack a little bit. The problem was that the old system clearly went on too long.
First, extradition means that a crime is committed in another country. The person flees to Canada and the other government asks the Canadian government to extradite that person back to their own country so the person can be tried in that other country for the crime.
From an extradition hearing you could go for a writ of habeas corpus to an appeal to the relevant provincial court of appeal, say to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, then an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. An appeal of the minister's decision could be made to the Federal Court, then to the Federal Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of Canada. It clearly was too long. The case of Charles Ng showed that.
April 7, 1992

As I have pointed out in the House you have to be careful that the law is not made on the basis of one case. The Ng case tended to go one way. But we have had other cases in the past, like Leonard Peltier for example. It now appears that this native American leader, who is still in Leavenworth jail in the United States, was extradited from Canada under fabricated evidence. That was a real blot on Canada. It was a lesson for us that we have to have a balanced process.
The old system was too long. We have to streamline the system. I think that is what we are doing in this bill.
While I am on my feet I want to make some positive criticism. I am quoted in The Globe and Mail this morning: "Campbell tables justice bills. NDP Waddell calls communications exercise phoney". I am not backing off from that; I just want to clarify it.
The parliamentary secretary said today in his speech that this is public security week. It is being called Law and Order Week or Protection of the Public Week.
Yesterday I said that more has to be done than to just issue press releases and call press conferences when you have very little to say and hype the public into thinking that somehow this government is enacting a slew of bills that will protect the public. If you really want to protect the public by a series of justice bills, you have to move in four areas.
One area is rehabilitation because people are being warehoused in jail and when they get out they commit more crimes.
Second is access to the courts. That includes poor people so you do not cut the Court Challenges Program. It includes aboriginal people. You work towards an aboriginal system of justice. You do not reject it, as the Minister of Justice has. It includes a reform of legal aid and includes a reform of the courts. That is access to the courts. That is real change in the judicial system.
Third, look at future ideas and planning. The parliamentary secretary mentioned the Law Reform Commission in his speech. The member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys said yesterday that the idea for the contraventions bill that we debated yesterday had come from the Law Reform Commission over a decade ago.
Government Orders
This government cut the Law Reform Commission. I am all in favour of saving money and cutting government fat. The Prime Minister pays $800,000 to get his press clippings in the morning and we lose the Law Reform Commission that was bringing forward new ideas. As one of the members said yesterday, only Zimbabwe and one other country in the Commonwealth are without law reform commissions. It provides new ideas and one of the new ideas we need is in the area of extradition. We have to look at that.
The fourth point that I want to make in terms of public security is that we have to have another look at the juvenile law. There is clearly discontent out there in the country.
Those are four concrete, positive suggestions. If you want to have a public security week you move in those areas.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned gun control. Yes, we did work together on gun control and it was a step, but let us keep going. Let us make sure we get the Orders in Council to stop these paramilitary weapons flowing into Canada. That is part of public security as well.
There is a feeling in the country, and I suspect members are picking this up, because I certainly am in my riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam which is a suburb of Vancouver, that people are increasingly concerned about their own security. They have the feeling that Canada is becoming more violent, like the United States. That is why we are all trying to work together to get solid bills.
I say to the government and I say to the minister, forget the press releases, forget the hype. Let us have law and order, not law and ornaments.
Let me go back to dealing specifically with this bill. The member for Moncton made a good point in his speech. He said really this is just the beginning and that we will be looking at presumably another extradition bill. He suggested that maybe we had the cart before the horse. He quoted from the Canadian Bar Association.
I want to quote from one of the witnesses, lawyer David Gibbons, who is a distinguished criminal lawyer from Vancouver. He came before the committee on this

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
bill. He said this and I quote from page 22:5, December 4 of the justice committee's transcripts. He said:
In my view though, it is unfortunate that Bill C-31 deals merely with the appeal and review process and not the entire extradition process. You might find yourselves in a legal conundrum when you go back to deal with the extradition process, having already put into motion a new set of appeal and judicial review processes. In my view, it is always better when you are revamping and reviewing legislation to start at the beginning and work to the end, to the appellate process. You end up with a better piece of legislation if you do that.
I think that is a good point. That is what the member for Moncton was saying. That is what the government is faced with when it brings in further legislation on extradition.
I want to say to the government when it brings in that legislation, one of the things that we have to do is review our extradition treaties. This is really a matter between state and state. International law is made up of customary practice, treaties, and decisions of international courts. Those are the three bases of international law. Treaties are the big basis, like the international legislation which they really are.
We have to have a look at our treaties. I looked at some of these treaties just briefly. We have a treaty that someone could be extradited who is charged with procuring a miscarriage, but not on computer crime.
We are living in a world where there is transnational crime now. This is a smaller world where criminals operate on a world basis and crime is committed across borders. That is why it is called transnational. These treaties are a bit out of date.
Piracy on the Great Lakes is an extraditable offence, but computer crime is not. You wonder what kind of treaties these are and where we are.
I asked the government in my speech on November 7, 1991, on the second reading of this bill in this House: What is the state of the new extradition treaty with the United States? I still have not received any particular answers.
I saw the case of a Canadian citizen, a truck driver named Richard Bilodeau, who was grabbed in the United States when he went across. He then had a heck of a time trying to get bail and get back to Canada. There are a number of cases like that that cause me deep concern.
I say to the government, let us look at these treaties. They are outdated. Give us some idea of what is happening with them. Also, we would like some idea of when it is going to bring in part two, act two of extradition. We want to know what is the basis of that.
We still keep having problems with different cases. I was looking at a case, the Lind case, which occurred back in 1974. I will just summarize this case.
The fellow came from Sweden. He is an egg farmer north of Toronto. He is grabbed and put in jail because Sweden has a warrant for him. They say it is fraud because you can extradite on fraud. He sits in jail for awhile, nothing happens and he finally gets out. Sweden does not proceed with the charges. He goes back to farming and they grab him again. At some point in the case there are lawyers going around on the long Easter weekend looking for a judge so they can serve the judge on a writ to get the fellow out of jail or to file a notice of appeal at the last moment.
It is an example of a system that was not working very well and it will not be cured entirely by this bill.
So Mr. Lind is grabbed and put in jail again. It turns out that the $300,000 fraud turns out to be a $15,000 fraud. But it is not really fraud; it is a tax evasion count. I am not commenting on whether this man is guilty or innocent in Sweden, but it is a tax evasion count.
Why did they go on fraud? Because they could not extradite him on tax evasion. That is not in the treaty nor in the Swedish practice, so they had to charge him with something else. Eventually, after this fellow goes through all this and spends a fortune for lawyers, the Swedes drop the case.
There are all sorts of problems, as the member for Moncton alluded to, as to who is prosecuting, who has conflict, how you find out information.
I looked at some of the lawyers' material about how they were trying to deal with the Department of Justice and get information from them when the Department of Justice was acting as counsel for Sweden. The Department of Justice generally has to protect Canadian citizens, people in Canada and the Canadian judicial system and the integrity of that system. But there were conflicts there and I point to that as another case that was not working very well.
April 7, 1992

Before I sit down, I want to just talk briefly about one of the other problems of extradition that we have in the world because this is relevant to the whole question of extradition and to Part II of this act.
Right now there is a UN resolution No. 731 which says that the state of Libya has to extradite two nationals accused of blowing up the Pan Am jetliner flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. I believe some Canadians were victims-the House can correct me if I am wrong-but, by and large they were Americans and other nationals, including a good friend of mine, a Swedish diplomat. The UN has asked Libya to extradite those people and Libya has refused.
Let me just quote from an interesting source, the King of Morocco, who commented on this. He said: "If the accused were judged in Libya that would not be credible. If they were judged by an American or English court"- let me add a French or Canadian court-"that too, might not seem credible". That is because there might obviously seem to be a bias, the question of getting a fair trial. I think they would get a fair trial but other people may not, especially in Libya. It seems to me that the solution is an international court of criminal justice. We have heard nothing about this from a government point of view.
In extradition there can be the problem of situations in which four or five states are claiming the hijacker, in which a number of states are claiming the person who is caught. A good example is the Achille Lauro case. Where to extradite that person? We could send him to an international criminal court if there was such a body.
In the area of drug trafficking there are countries that are afraid to extradite people to the United States for trial because they are afraid of the domestic political situation and the violence, Colombia for example. In Colombia part of the Supreme Court was assassinated because of that very situation.
However, if they could send it to another country-my friend in the Liberal Party mentioned a case in Brazil. Perhaps a state, in this case Brazil, might be able to send the Canadian nationals not to a Canadian court for trial but to an international criminal court for individuals, not the World Court which is for states.
Government Orders
It seems to me this is an idea whose time has come, and it has been around since the Nuremberg trials in the 1950s. The International Law Commission has drafted a model statute for the court, a model criminal code. It deals specifically with the the extradition of people like leaders of the world, for example Saddam Hussein who has been accused by the world of environmental crimes regarding the oil wells in the gulf as well as international war crimes.
It can deal with hijackers. It can deal with genocide and drug traffickers, it can deal with some other aspects of modem crime including environmental crime, computer crime and international banking scandals. We live in a shrinking world. We live in a world in which not just one jurisdiction can claim an alleged criminal but many jurisdictions.
This extradition problem is not going to go away. We are not going to solve it with this particular bill.
The Government of Canada should at the sixth committee of the United Nations in the fall support the idea of an international criminal court. That will add to the whole aspect.
I ask the parliamentary secretary to take that to heart as I know he will.
Let me conclude by saying that we looked for a balance in this bill. I think we have it. Time will tell. We tried to balance the Ng case from the Peltier case. One case does not make good law. The Ng case took a long time because it had to go the Supreme Court to determine whether it was possible to extradite someone to a jurisdiction that still has the death penalty, in this case California. The Supreme Court decided that the minister could do that.
We still have things to clarify. The other day the minister extradited someone to Florida but said she did not want the death penalty to apply. What is the basis of that decision? How does that work? What are the judicial practices?
Those are the things that we need to do in part two of the bill. Here I think we have a balance. I ask the government to be open in the second part. I ask it to introduce an early bill quickly and forget the hype. Get right to the substance. Get right to what Canadians want to address. Canadians want security but they also want a fair judicial system and that is what we as a House have been working toward in this particular bill.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would have been in order if I had asked a question before I went into my remarks. I was a little slow in standing. Could I ask a question prior to my remarks?
In general I tend to agree with the thrust of both opposition parties in their support for this bill. I also agree that there are other things that need to be done and will discuss that a little later.
I would like to ask a question of the member from Port Moody-Coquitlam who spoke.
When we in the justice committee were addressing this subject the then justice critic for the NDP announced his intention to introduce a bill. He wrote letters to people across Canada describing which changes he would support. This letter went out from the member for Burnaby- Kingsway. In his letter, he says:
There are too many steps in the appeal process and his bill would address that. The legal requirements that a fugitive who has been accused of an offence in Canada, not the extradition offence, or who has been convicted and sentenced for a crime in Canada, cannot be surrendered until after he or she has either been acquitted or has finished serving the sentence imposed by the Canadian court is unacceptable.
In other words, he wanted to change the bill to allow these people to be extradited during sentence. With those provisions in a bill the then justice critic would support it as a great step forward.
I wonder about the change of policy of the new critic. The NDP now do not want a bill until after everything is in it. All these things the member mentioned were not in the NDP's support for a bill. Only the two things that are in this bill were in the NDP's support for the bill. That letter went out to everyone including the Ottawa head office of Victims of Violence and other groups working to speed up the extradition process.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the member is getting at. He has been dogging this issue and I congratulate him. I do not agree with all of his positions but I congratulate him for his doggedness and determination. It is a good example to all members of the House.
Also, my riding is Port Moody-Coquitlam. I know some members have problems with it. Port Moody was the original terminus of the transcontinental railway. It is on the first part of the ocean that comes in by Vancouver
and then unfortunately they moved it a few years later to Vancouver and then Vancouver grew up. I am quite proud of Port Moody and that is why it is the name of the riding.
What we are after is a fair bill and it seems to me that we identified the problem, as the hon. member has. We cannot have a fellow charged with murder in the United States and waiting for extradition commit an offence to stay in Canada to avoid being extradited for as long as possible. The hon. member made that point at the committee. A guy in jail might assault a jail guard, might even kill a jail guard, to stay in Canada to avoid the death penalty or a harsher sentence somewhere else. That is one of the reasons. We were, as was he, trying to identify that as a problem.
As to there being another bill, that is what is happening. We are supporting this bill. We would like to see it all in one bill. We would like to see it all dealt with. I set out in my speech, as did the member for Moncton set out, the different issues that we must still approach. Do you really think that piracy is a crime in the Great Lakes but computer theft and viruses are not? We have to get this thing modernized.
As I pointed out, there are gaps. For example, the present world crisis, the Libyan situation in which we must get an international system of extradition with an international court. There are all these things to do but I think this bill is a first step. I am prepared to compromise a bit to get this bill passed and to support it. Is the hon. member going to do that? I look forward to hearing his speech on it.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question just prior to my remarks I am totally supporting this bill. This bill goes a long way toward dealing with cases similar to Ng's and Kindler's.
The Supreme Court decision that came down will enable us to move in a more expeditious fashion to get these persons extradited from Canada. I was a wee bit concerned about the qualifications put on to things that the member opposite would like, namely that he would like to take away the rights of funds from the federal government to challenge these matters to someone who is being extradited.
April 7, 1992

I could not agree with that. They are American citizens. They are up here and have committed crimes back home. I would not want to think that we were going to make available to them millions of dollars to pursue the ad infinitum appeals that might be available to them through that part in the budget in which we remove that money from the purpose of challenging. I hope we will continue to leave it out of that category for challenging.
I made a note of all members who supported changes to the extradition at the time when we first were dealing with it. From just after the 1984 election right up to the 1988 election we compiled petitions with more than 130,000 signatures wanting to expedite the extradition laws in this country. Not only did we receive that many petitions from all sides of the House but the government received over 90,000 personal letters, which were delivered in cartons to my office and later turned over to the then Minister of Justice, asking that we see some expediting of this matter. That was in 1989.
Since that time, the all-party justice committee has put forward a report strongly supporting expediting these cases through the courts and eliminating some of the appeals. In addition, there was another legislative opportunity between second and third reading. The discussion that took place showed a willingness-not to say that the NDP do not support it, the NDP is now prepared to support it as the Liberals always have been.
The only unfortunate thing that happened to me in the discussions and debates around this bill was that when my private member's bill was before the House, I could only get the support of the Liberals. I never did get the support of the NDP. Finally, on division, it went through on the eve of proroguing. The session ended and we lost that bill.
In one respect I am happy at having lost and not passing either of my bills or any of my resolutions. I at least have a bill now that deals with it and speeds it up even more than my bill did. I allowed them to move through one case in the provincial court to a case in the federal court and work their way through there. I felt that extradition should be in a federal court rather than just a provincial court. That is the only difference. It was rumoured that my bill did not include the matter of being able to go before the courts on habeas corpus. It
Government Orders
did include that but not in the appeal stage only in the first set, when they were in the provincial court. When they are in the provincial court habeas corpus was permitted in my bill.
There are a lot of national groups in Canada that we all owe our support to for helping this come to fruition. We can never forget the hard work of Victims of Violence, whose headquarters are here in Ottawa, in giving us the opportunity to talk to some of the victims of Ng in the United States. Victims' families came up. We met with them. We gave the opportunity of a press conference to those people who lost children, adults and parents at the hands of Ng, according to the charges laid. They have not been heard yet in the United States.
They were concerned they were never going to be able to try Ng. The witnesses were dying and moving. It had gone on for so long that they were having trouble putting together witnesses for a trial.
We too appreciated the encouragement to send him back once that major hurdle was overcome and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that we could send back from Canada to the United States someone who might be executed if found guilty in the United States. I return to the question of why that clause is in the treaty. The clause is in the treaty where it gives the opportunity to have that exclusion of the death penalty if requested. It was put there by the Americans, not by the Canadians. The Americans, when the treaty was first drawn up, had no death penalty in place. Canada did, we had it on our books. We could execute people for a certain number of things. We were going through periods of moratoriums and not doing it but we still had it on the books.
The Americans wanted that provision in our treaty, that they could take back to the United States someone or they could send someone to us to be tried for a crime, providing we did not apply the death penalty to those American citizens.
We have set an example through the Department of Justice, through the Minister of Justice, that when a Canadian goes down to the United States and is wanted for a homicide in the United States, we can ask that the Canadian not be executed. We have done that with one case in the last two or three months and we might do it in others. I think we owe that to Canadians. If we do not have capital punishment in Canada, then we should be able to go to our friends in the south and ask them not to

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
execute a Canadian who is incarcerated for trial on homicide offences.
I have no trouble with that, as long as we do not have capital punishment on the books here. That is not to say that I have changed my view on the need for capital punishment in Canada. But since we do not have it, I respect Canadian law and I respect it being applied to Canadians who might commit violent crimes in the United States and being able to ask the American government not to execute them if they are found guilty. I can live with that without any trouble at all.
I think it needs to be said that this bill has been a long time in coming. We have been working on this collectively in committees and in the House, with three different Ministers of Justice, and finally a justice minister has brought forward a bill which means, in essence, that if an American comes up here and commits a crime in Canada and we sentence him to life in jail for the crime that he commits in Canada, we now can, according to the treaty, release during sentence and send that person back to the United States. It is important because we would want it as a benefit for us if it went the other way.
That is one thing in the bill which never was in the act before. The act said "they shall serve" their sentence. The NDP said it wanted this amendment at one point in time-and I referred to that earlier-and I have been fighting for it for seven years. I felt that prison guards and law enforcement officers would be at risk if an American was incarcerated for a minor offence, one who was wanted for the death penalty back in the United States. The only thing he could do in order to stay in Canada for the rest of his natural life would be to kill a prison guard, and then the act says "he shall serve out his sentence".
I do not go for preambles and understandings and white papers and intent, I like to see it in the act. That is a great accomplishment in this bill, that if someone like Ng gets up here and kills someone, he will not have to serve out his entire life sentence in Canada.
There have been a number of things said about what is needed in the bill. The Minister of Justice very recently, as a witness before the all-party standing committee,
itemized for the benefit of the committee members what she is studying and intends to table in this House during this sitting of Parliament.
First, the redefining of extraditable offences. That would be a great step forward in shortening the requests for extradition, if we had defined what is extraditable.
Second, the consolidation of the Extradition Act and the Fugitive Offenders Act, which has been referred to in this House many times.
The third one is codifying pre-hearing procedures including arrest of person sought, commencement of proceedings and judicial interim release.
Fourth, codifying procedures and evidentiary rules at the hearing.
Fifth, specifying safeguards to be considered as grounds for refusal of surrender by the minister.
Sixth, in providing for postponement of surrender or temporary surrender where the person is wanted on Canadian charges which provides a more elaborate framework than what was being proposed for the amendment of section 24.
The other important thing that we have been able to accomplish in this extradition bill is to have, while we still had that opportunity to spend $1.5 million on Ng, we still have that ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada that we can now send back as a final court of appeal, someone who is requested to be extradited back to the United States if it has the death penalty there.
That will remove a lot of the options open for appeal. What the minister has in this bill is two guaranteed steps at which her points on extradition and whether she wants to release them or not could be intervened at the second hearing. If that appeal hearing in the provincial court carries that the person shall be extradited, then all they have in their third step is a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
This is cutting the process from nine hearings before to two now. The minister joins in at the appeal stage of the first hearing and a possible third before the Supreme Court.
April 7, 1992

I suggest that the possible third hearing will be minimal in light of the fact that the Supreme Court has already made the decision for the time being on the matter of the death sentence.
I also would like to lend support to the governments in the United States that helped in bringing to the attention of Canadian people the concern about justice being applied to Americans who were serving lengthy times in prison here and wanting them to go back.
We had the governors of Ohio and California, and a host of people in the United States trying for six years to get Ng back to face trial. The fact that when the ruling was made and the minister moved in and, to answer another one of our concerns, the quick flight back to the United States before the United Nations heard the case.
If the United Nations is going to listen to extradition cases here in Canada, before we send them back after nine courts of appeal have been listened to and heard, then I think that the United Nations is running out of work to do. I do not think that would have happened and I am so pleased that we did not waste any time in extraditing Ng and Kindler back to the United States.
I think all members in this House would like to support this bill. I hope it is passed without objections, without any negative votes so that we can represent about 95 per cent of the Canadian people who have been looking for this for seven years.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member who just spoke a question. How does this government bill differ from his private member's bill? Could he tell the House that?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I had two private member's bills. One was approved in this House on division at second reading just prior to prorogation. It allowed the extradition hearing to be held in conjunction with the habeas corpus, but no appeal.
My bill stated that when they wanted to appeal that, they would go to the federal courts, and we would take it right through the Federal Court process, the trials division and so on. It meant that my bill reduced it from nine to six. I still had all of the federal side to deal with and the opportunities there were to the minister, perhaps, to move it directly to the Supreme Court, if she so wished, if the challenge was on the charter.
Government Orders
I went through the extradition hearing, the one provincial hearing, over to the Federal Court for the federal court hearing, the Federal Court appeal which led to an appeal at the Supreme Court. My bill had three in the provincial courts and two in the federal courts. I had five. Bill C-31 has two, plus one possible, making a total of three. It cuts down the process further than my bill did. That is why I am supporting this bill. I did not feel when I was writing my bills that I wanted to take it out of the federal arena and put it in the provincial one. I wanted to take it through the federal side as quickly as possible after the extradition hearings.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Is the hon. member saying that he feels this government bill is better than his bill or does he feel his bill was better than the government bill?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: That is an easy question to answer. I think this bill is better. If I could reduce it to one hearing, it would be even better. If anyone can come up with a bill where one hearing is held, I will support that too.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to stand in the House to debate third reading of Bill C-31. I am very pleased that the member for Peterborough is here today. I enjoyed listening to his speech, as I enjoyed working with him on his private member's bill.
Like the member for Peterborough, I felt very strongly about the extradition bill that is in effect now and will be changed as a result of Bill C-31. I want to congratulate him on the work he did. As he has said, he presented two private member's bills on this subject. I was not the critic for my party on the first, but I was fortunately on the second and immediately joined with him in support of what he did. He acknowledged the support of our party and I thank him for that. That is a very non-partisan statement. It shows the sincerity of the member and I appreciate it.
He says too that Bill C-31 is better than his bill in the regard that it is down to two, possibly three, steps where his was five. I agree with him on that. I think this is a better bill.
I also say in his defence and in support of him that his was the only bill we had. Had it not been for his private member's bill, quite frankly, I am convinced that we would not be here today in this House discussing Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act. As he said,

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
he lost his bill because the House went into a new session but the government came forward with this bill.
We have fought long and hard in this country over the years for a new extradition act. The existing Extradition Act goes back to 1877. As the member for Port Moody- Coquitlam has said, it is full of antiquated provisions, as are the extradition treaties with various countries. These need to be changed. There is no question about that.
We have a lot of good things in this bill. For instance we have the fact that the country, seeking to have the fugitive returned, can apply on the same basis that if there is any criticism that both sides can make that criticism to the judge; it is not only the country seeking extradition that is able to appeal on points of law. They are able to appeal on points of fact as well. This is an important situation because if they were excluded from appealing on points of fact, then of course we would have to start the extradition process all over again and that would be a waste of time. I feel that we are benefiting from this new process.
A lot of the hype on extradition came as a result of the Ng and the Kindler cases which were being discussed at the same time as the hon. member for Peterborough was presenting his private member's bill. There was a very deep frustration in this country that two fugitives such as Kindler and Ng would be here in Canada, escaping the jurisdiction where they had allegedly committed the crimes. In the case of Ng, we had to keep him in this country for six years at a cost of approximately $70,000 a year. He was taking advantage of the nature of Canada and the strong protection rights in Canada to escape the jurisdiction in the United States and the punishment which had been assessed against him.
As the member for Peterborough said, the Supreme Court made an important ruling. That ruling states that if a country has the death penalty and is proposing to subject the fugitive to the death penalty, that is no reason to turn down an extradition application. I think that is important.
As well, it has been said that in Canada we have the right, if a Canadian is in Canada and is being sought to be returned to the United States, to turn down the application for extradition unless the other country gives the undertaking that that Canadian citizen will not be given
the death penalty. I think that is fair. As has been said by the member for Peterborough, why subject some Canadian to the penalty in the United States that the person would not be subjected to in Canada. It has always been the position of this party that that would be the case. We would need to have that undertaking before we would return a fugitive to the country seeking the extradition.
I say that in relation to a situation that was mentioned by the member for Moncton, the case of Lamont and Spencer, two Canadians being held in a Brazilian prison. Spencer was sentenced to 10 years and Lamont to eight years for the alleged abduction of a Brazilian businessman. Those sentences were increased to 28 years. These people are still in the Brazilian prison. The fact situation and the law are both in question by many experts in international law and law in general in Canada. We have sought to get these two people returned to Canada.
I think these two people should have some protection from the Canadian government as well. We on this side have requested, certainly the member for Moncton has and other members have, that the government do more to bring these people back to Canada to serve their sentences. They have already served 30 months. Many experts in Canada feel that is a fair sentence, a fair penalty for what they have done.
Be that as it may, we still feel, regardless of who is discussing the matter, that there is an injustice as long as the government is not going to do more to bring these people back to Canada. The problem is that the government says: "We are negotiating an extradition treaty with Brazil". That is not the point. They do not have an extradition treaty. We do not know how long it is going to take. The government knows that when people say things are going to be finished quickly that they are not always finished quickly.
For instance, in this case the minister is saying that there is going to be a second part to the extradition amendments. What we have here, the appeal provision, is the first part. We have it thanks to the member for Peterborough. Once again, as has been suggested by the member for Moncton and the member for Port Moody- Coquitlam, this is not sufficient. This is not to exonerate other governments which have had the chance to change the extradition laws. I do not want to get into that. You could talk about that forever. The fact is this is the
April 7, 1992

government in power and we are dealing with laws that have existed since 1877.
Why do we not have more in this bill? Why have we not dealt with more of what needs to be done to correct the deficiencies in the extradition process? This is not right. The member from Moncton referred to it as tinkering. That is being generous. It is stonewalling. It is being taken into the 20th century kicking and screaming, soon to be the 21st century.
This government seems to resist change. It seems to be following the course of history and the course of society. It seems to be reluctant to deal with what is happening in our society at the present time. It is always playing catch-up. It seems to be losing ground.
Sure, this is a good bill. This is a good provision, but this is obvious. This is motherhood. We cannot possibly not accept this because it is so needed, but it has been needed for a long time. It is because it is so obviously needed that we say to this government: "For heaven's sake, can't you see there are other provisions that are obviously needed in this bill?"
I do not accept the government's word that there is going to be a quick follow-up to that. I am sceptical I am afraid because I have heard the same undertaking with respect to the Young Offenders Act.
Last fall we had another one of these weeks where the government was putting through justice legislation. We were dealing with the Young Offenders Act. I talked to the minister. She did not come to committee, but I wrote to her and spoke to her. She assured me that there was going to be a second stage of changes to the Young Offenders Act. In a letter she assured me that she expected to have that second stage ready by December 1991. It is now April and we do not have those changes.
In this House we cannot just accept that. If it is wrong it should be corrected. It is not sufficient to say: "I will give you a piece now and I will give you another piece of the legislation later on".
The Department of Justice is a vast expanse of rooms and bodies. There is a lot of ability in that department. To see the small retarded flow of legislation necessary for our contemporary society is not sufficient. It is not meeting the demand. We have to be cognizant of that. We have to continue to tell the government not to give us this business about working on something else. As the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka said yesterday, it
Government Orders
was 1985 that he first wanted the changes to the Contraventions Act.
We need these changes. Society is moving very quickly. As I have said, I have hope that in this case, as it was in the case of the Young Offenders Act, the minister will come forward with this second stage quickly and that there is a sincere effort taking place in the Department of Justice to do this. We will not know of course until the changes are actually presented.
There are a couple of other concepts that are very important here in addition to the fact that we can return somebody to a country that will subject that person to capital punishment. There are two other areas, two other principles, that are very important.
The government has said, and I agree, that the right to unlimited appeals is not a right that this country can afford. What we want are reviews that are competent and comprehensive. I think this bill is going to look after that. The number of appeals is not the important thing. It is whether justice is done to the fugitive. That is the important thing. The fact that we have reduced the number of appeals is important. We have not reduced the comprehensive nature or the quality of the attention given to the rights and the demands of the fugitive.
The other point is that the Supreme Court recently said that the right to appeal is not a right which the charter protects. That is important to remember. It is something we have got to really keep in mind. We have got to keep that in mind so that we are mindful of the fact that while it is not a right that the charter protects, it does not deviate from the right of the individual to have his or her concern given quality attention. While there are appeals, we must make these appeals very important and we must give that the necessary attention.
This is why I objected yesterday to the government not agreeing to the motion put forward by the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam with respect to the fugitive being able to be whisked away after a hearing, but before the fugitive has had a chance to file for an appeal. It may be as the member for Peterborough said, and I tend to agree, that appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada may not be that frequent, but the right is there. If we have given the right, we have to give the means to abide by the right. We have to give the individual the right to make that application. Frankly, I am not sure that it is not there now, but I am not convinced that it is there. Evidently the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam is

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
not convinced that it is there. I think, from the submission of the Canadian Bar Association, it is not convinced that the right is there.
There are still some outstanding issues, as has been said. The committee was concerned, as was stated here this morning, as to whether Canada would become a safe haven for criminals. That has been addressed. I do not think that is going to be a concern as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and as a result of this legislation.
The committee heard about the problems of the evidence of the hearings, as has been stated by other speakers, and this is important. We do tend to get a lot of fictitious information. The evidentiary rules are something that are going to have to be looked at very, very carefully.
There is the potential conflict of the Department of Justice as the lawyer for the country seeking the extradition on the one hand and the minister having the rights that she has with respect to being able to deal with this question. I think an important step has been made here and our party supports this legislation. We are pleased that the government brought it forward so quickly after report stage yesterday so that it can be put into place.
I hope that the parliamentary secretary will convey to the minister the concern of this party that so much is not coming forward, that there is almost a retardation of activity from the Department of Justice.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned the Law Reform Commission and the fact that it had dealt with the contraventions issue in 1976 and why the former government did not bring it forward. That is certainly a point, but that is not the point that I was trying to make obviously, as the parliamentary secretary will I am sure understand. The point was that this idea germinated with the Law Reform Commission as another example of the importance of the Law Reform Commission in this country. We hope that the Law Reform Commission will be reinstated after this government has had a chance to reconsider this very frivolous action of doing away with it
and that it will be allowed in the future to continue the good work it has done in the past. I want to say this is going to do a lot. We are awaiting the next step from the government on other changes.
I want to thank the member for Peterborough and all members of the House, frankly, for the interest that they have had because it has been important. It has been the feeling of the members of Parliament in general that changes needed to be made that, in a large sense, prompted this bill that we have before us today.


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

Hon. Frank Oberle (for the Minister of Finance) moved: 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 third time and passed.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the third reading debate on Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
This bill extends the fiscal equalization program that previous speakers from both sides of this House have described, and rightly so, as the cornerstone of fiscal federalism in Canada. Equalization is one of the links that bind this country together.
It is the result of more than 20 months of consultations with the provinces, both at the ministerial and departmental levels. Mr. Speaker, because of these extensive and intensive consultations, the provinces are very satis-
April 7, 1992

fied with this extension and the proposals for improvement.
The amount of time required to carry out these consultations also explains why this bill was not introduced in the House earlier. I think that hon. members will agree that it was important to start by defining the extension of equalization well. Now it is important to implement it.
In theory, our legislative deadline really was March 31, when the existing five-year equalization program ended. In practice, however, there is still some time left before cheques stop being made out. As hon. members are no doubt aware, this bill must receive Royal Assent by April 16. That, Mr. Speaker, is the deadline in practice. We have no intention of waiting until the last minute, and I doubt that it is the intention of any member here.
Besides these important provisions relating to equalization, this bill proposes to confirm that the federal government has the power to enter into agreements with the provinces with a view to simplifying their mutual fiscal administration system. That is to say that this bill will foster co-operation between federal and provincial levels of government in collecting taxes for each other and simplify the payment of taxes for individual taxpayers as well as for public authorities.
There are two parts to this bill: the extension of equalization and improvements to fiscal administration.
Hon. members know that the commitment to equalization payments enshrined in section 36(2) of the Constitution is to enable provincial governments to provide public services of comparable quality at a similar level of taxation. Since equalization payments are made only to the less fortunate provinces, they are the most progressive of the major transfer payments to the provinces. In 1992-93, the government will give about $8.5 billion in equalization payments to the "have not" provinces.
In renewing the equalization program, this bill makes a series of fair and generous improvements, especially if you consider the federal government's budget situation. These improvements will give the provinces over $400 million more in 1992-93, including a permanent annual
Government Orders
payment of $200 million and a one-time payment of $200 million. The size of these improvements in this difficult period highlights the government's commitment to the principle of sharing in our country.
The renewal program will be financed within the present budget framework. The budget priorities will be reordered. The government maintains its commitment to reducing the debt and the deficit. All the provinces that receive equalization will benefit from the renewal measures in two ways: the improvements will increase payments under the program and provide an additional one-time payment, and no growth limit will be set on equalization for 1992-93.
The bill makes four parts of the renewal program possible. First, the equalization program will be extended for two years. Second, improvements will be made to the measurement of tax potential. Third, a technical irritant related to the effect of equalization on another federal transfer program, Established Programs Financing, commonly called EPF, will be eliminated.
The effect of this irritant was to reduce EPF cash payments to the disadvantaged provinces. All the affected provinces will be compensated retroactively for the revenue that they had to forgo and this bill will prevent a similar situation from recurring.
The bill extends the equalization program for two rather than five years. The government will continue its extensive consultations with the provinces during this period. The two-year extension will give impetus and flexibility for further changes as part of the ongoing review of the three main programs for transfers to the provinces. Besides equalization, they are the Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan.
I said earlier that this bill deals with equalization and does not directly concern the other major transfer programs that I just mentioned. Nevertheless, the other transfers have often been discussed in connection with this bill. Perhaps the title of the bill could be misleading. Despite its title, the bill has only a marginal and positive effect on federal contributions for post-secondary education and health.
The marginal effect on health and education arises because the bill takes into account the provinces' concerns about the interaction of the transfer program for

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
health and education, called Established Programs Financing, with the equalization program.
On a few occasions, this interaction reduced the cash amount part of the EFP paid to the provinces that get equalization payments. This bill will solve that problem.
I feel it is essential to remind everybody that this legislation has to do with the equalization program. It does not directly affect the program which governs transfers to provinces for health care and education, nor the Canada Assistance Plan. Nevertheless, since the issue of main transfers was raised during the debate, I will briefly look at this whole issue.
In 1992-93, the fiscal year that started on April 1, total transfers to provinces will reach approximately $39 billion. For the fiscal year that just ended, those transfers totalled some $37 billion. This represents an increase of more than 5 per cent over a year in the total transfers to provinces. Mr. Speaker, this is an increase of 5 per cent in spite of the economic situation and the reduced federal revenues.
The members will understand that a 5 per cent jump means that the federal government is increasing its transfers to provinces at a rate higher than the growth of federal programs' expenses.
The federal government is more generous with the provinces than with itself. This year is no exception. From the fiscal year 1984-85 to now, in 1992-93, transfers to provinces will, on average, have increased 5.4 per cent per year.
Mr. Speaker, I wandered from the central issues related to the bill because I felt it was important to deliver a simple message. Not only are transfers to provinces increasing this year but, on average, they have increased every year since 1984-85, when they totalled $25.6 billion. Transfers will reach approximately $39 billion for the fiscal year that started on Wednesday. This represents an increase of $13 billion compared to 1984-85.
Mr. Speaker, that was my digression. I will conclude by talking about the fiscal measures included in the bill.
This bill provides measures that will facilitate the administration of federal taxes by the provinces, and conversely. These measures will, among other things, facilitate the administration of the federal tax on goods and services by the provinces, as well as the collection of provincial sales taxes at the border by federal customs officers. So far, only Quebec has agreed to harmonize its
tax so as to make possible such agreements, but I hope that the other provinces will follow suit.
Moreover, these changes will simplify payment agreements and banking arrangements when concluding administrative agreements.
For example, if a province administers a federal tax, the taxpayer will be able to write only one cheque to the province, both for the federal and provincial taxes. These arrangements can cover income as well as sales taxes.
This type of agreement ensures a better and more effective administration of taxes, thereby contributing to the improvement of our tax system.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a fair and generous renewal of the equalization program while maintaining budget accountability. Also, by facilitating the mutual administration of taxes between the federal and the provincial governments, those tax measures will help improve the tax system of our country.
Mr. Speaker, those are positive objectives that are not controversial. The provinces approve the renewal and the improvement of the equalization program, and I believe that all Canadians are very supportive of initiatives aimed at making our fiscal administration more simple, more effective and less costly.
Today, the members of the House have an excellent opportunity to support an initiative that has the support of Canadians. I hope that we will all seize this opportunity by ensuring a quick passing of this bill.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague.

I appreciated her comments, and I must say she touched on some very important issues. I intend to do that as well, and there are also a number of questions I think should be discussed and which we should try to understand.

Bill C-60, as we have already been told, really extends the equalization of transfer payments.
It is important for all of us and for those Canadians who are watching to understand there is $39 billion that is transferred in equalization, EPF for health and education, and for the Canada Assistance Plan. That is roughly $8 billion on equalization, $20 billion on EPF and $7 billion on CAP. That comes up to $35 billion. The other $4 billion is a number of other transfer payments.
April 7, 1992

Those three large programs represent roughly 90 per cent of those transfers, and they are obviously very important.
This particular bill deals primarily with equalization and only indirectly with the other two. As you well know, when we extend these agreements it is normally extended for five years. In this case it will be two years only because we are told that there is a review going on.
The concern that I have is there is no specific time line with regard to that particular review. I would like to call upon government to ensure that the review is a visible process, that it is clearly outlined, that it indicates exactly what it intends to do, that it identifies the participants, who will be involved in that review along the way, and that it also states what a specific time line for the completion of the review will be.
I think that is very, very important because the assumption here is that the review will be completed before there is another change that is required.

Since these programs have a very substantial impact throughout the country, we must be absolutely sure what is going on in terms of the review being done at this time. When will it be completed? What will the implications be? What exactly does the government want to do?

I have also noted that in this particular bill, there is a change of the base year from 1987-88 to 1992-93.1 bring this to your attention because now, as a result of that change, there is no ceiling for this particular year.
The question that is raised automatically is: Why has there been a change? It is really quite unclear. I have not been able to understand it. Clearly, when I have raised the question, I have not received a satisfactory answer.
I want to commend the government for having brought forward some improvements. There are tax base improvements to update and improve the measure of the fiscal capacity of the provinces. That is important because it really assures those provinces that do not have as much as others, relatively speaking, will be rewarded
Government Orders
financially with respect to these transfers in a more sensitive way. In fact, there is going to be a $200 million payment made to adjust that insensitivity that occurred in the past.
It also recognizes the provincial concerns about the interaction of EPF and equalization. There is an interaction between these two programs which is important. It will be retroactive and it will also be implemented to respond to future needs. That is a positive improvement which I applaud.
There is also a detailed framework for the administrative agreements dealing with all types of taxation. I understand the government's desire to have an agreement in place where provinces want to harmonize certain taxation systems. I am referring specifically to the GST.
We know that Quebec has indicated an interest in harmonizing its particular system with the federal government. Clearly that needs to be in place, not only for Quebec but also for other provinces that may want to do that.
Let me just talk briefly about this equalization program. It is important for us and for all Canadians, in particular, to understand its importance.
As I indicated previously, we talk about $8 billion being transferred and we recognize that equalization is really the cornerstone of fiscal federalism. Without this equalization there would be tremendous disparity in the country. There is already significant disparity, but it would be even much more than it is today.
The intent of those transfers is to provide reasonably comparable services at comparable levels of taxation. So no matter where I live in this great country, I should be paying comparable levels of taxes in order to obtain the same quality of services normally found elsewhere.
Perhaps people will know that seven provinces benefit from this at various levels because of their wealth base. There are three provinces that contribute, namely Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. All of the other provinces receive something.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
This particular transfer, this $8 billion transfer is an unconditional grant. It ensures that the quality of services available to Canadians no matter where they live is roughly the same as it is elsewhere with the same level of taxation. You receive it depending on the wealth of the province. If it is less than a certain accepted standard then you get it.
There is a ceiling to ensure that the costs do not go up too dramatically. It is related to the GNP. There is also a floor to ensure that if there are reductions, the provinces will not lose so much money that they will not be able to accommodate. These are positive features that existed in the past and continue to exist.
As I indicated, equalization is to provide a similar standard of service, or quality of life if you wish, with comparable taxation. However, in spite of the increase of this particular unconditional grant, the quality of life still differs significantly from one province to another and from the provinces to the territories. The levels of taxation do vary a great deal as well. While it is an important program-

Although this is a key program, the cornerstone, as the hon. member said earlier, it is still not enough to guarantee that the quality of the services to which we are all entitled as Canadians will be the same across this country.

If anyone doubts that, we could look at the quality of lodgings we have throughout the country, the number of independent dwellings and other types of dwellings. We could also look at the availability of services, such as health care, education, ambulance services, fire-fighters and so on. We could also look at the food banks that we have in this country today. They vary a great deal from one area to another which would suggest to me that the quality of life is still significantly different and the number of unemployed varies a great deal also. While this is an important measure to bring about-

-a better balance in terms of the quality of life we have in this country, we still have a long way to go. However,
there are positive changes, which I applaud, and I hope the government will continue to look at ways of further developing this potential.
I would like to comment briefly on transfer payments for health and education. If we consider the transfer for health and education I mentioned earlier, this is still the largest share. As I said before, we are talking about $20 billion, more or less. If I am not mistaken, $12 billion of this amount consists of tax point transfers-in other words, a transfer of authority to the provinces to increase their taxes. The federal government has withdrawn from certain sectors to allow the provinces to raise taxes themselves, but there is still a total of $8 billion in cash payments which is quite substantial.
We must remember that since this government came to power, it changed the formula for transfer payments for health and education, and as a result, between 1986 and 1995, for instance, $30 billion less will be transferred. In other words, there will be about $20 billion less for health and $10 billion less for education, especially at the post-secondaiy level.
Meanwhile, in spite of these Draconian cutbacks, the deficit remains very high, more or less at the same level it has been. The debt has more than doubled. I know that previous governments are responsible to a certain extent, but I think it is unfair to say it was all their fault. What I find particularly sad is that college and university tuition fees have skyrocketed, so that soon students will be unable to continue their education at the post-secondary level.
Student debt has increased tremendously, which will prevent students from continuing their education, if it has not already done so. This is a very serious problem. In addition to these cutbacks, there is also the GST on books and other learning materials. As you know, and I have raised this matter several times in the House, we had the 3 per cent tax on loans for students who need the money to continue their education. The government said that it wanted to remove the tax-soon, I hope-but on the other hand, the government has abolished the six-month period of grace.
April 7, 1992

According to my calculations, which have not been challenged by the government, even if the 3 per cent tax is removed, which represents about $20 million, it maybe putting an additional burden of $30 million on these students. So there will still be a problem.
I simply want to point out-

Talking about EPF transfers for health and education, particularly dwelling on education, we have some serious problems in that domain and there have been serious cuts. I am really concerned that our competitiveness, our productivity, our ability to meet challenges such as globalization will be compromised.
Those members who have travelled within their ridings will note that post-secondary institutions in terms of building and equipment are not at all what they ought to be.
Let me finally come to the third segment, the Canada Assistance Plan. As my colleague has indicated, it is not directly involved, but it is an important part of the transfer payments. It involves $7 billion.
It will be recalled that the government has decided to put a cap on CAP for three provinces, that is, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. That means basically that their social expenditures, if you wish, will be limited to 5 per cent. That is, the government will only match up to 5 per cent of their particular expenditures. I am concerned about this.
If we look at who will be affected, we know that it is going to be the poorest of Canada's citizens and that is unfortunate. We know as well that it will affect the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, clothing, utilities and household supplies. There are a number of programs that will definitely be affected that are essential to Canada's poor. I mentioned dental care, essential living services for disabled persons, foster homes for abused children, safe housing for abused women and subsidized child care for low income families.
While the federal government does not directly establish those particular programs, it does participate in the funding of programs such as the ones that I have mentioned.
Government Orders
My concern is that the poorest of the poor, those people who need those particular programs in order to enjoy a certain quality of life that is comparable to that in other parts of the country will in fact suffer. In other words, their difficulties will be borne increasingly by them and by the provincial authorities.
The government has been contested and, as you well know, it has won that contest in a court of law. But that still does not give it the moral right to abandon its responsibilities to the poor and disadvantaged Canadians.
I have argued before that in dealing that way, the government is off-loading on to those who are less able to pay and on to the backs of the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that, aside from what has already been done, what this review needs-in fact, it is already under way, if I am not mistaken-is a comprehensive view, to find out how we can respond to the needs of the provinces and the territories and the needs of their residents.
In terms of ensuring that our quality of life is comparable across this country, Bill C-60 is an improvement, but actually, it merely continues the status quo with a few small changes. What we need is a thorough review, a thorough assessment that will tell us what we can achieve in this country when we are deeply and firmly committed to ensuring that every Canadian enjoys a comparable quality of life.

My final comment is as follows. I applaud some of the improvements which have been made. We have to recognize that it is the extension of the status quo, that there is a review going on. I would like to see a public process with a time line that is identified, with an identification of all the major players who are going to be involved and with a good idea of where the government intends to end up. It is one of the more important undertakings in terms of assisting have not provinces and the citizens who live within their borders. What we really need is an in depth look at how a federal government such as this one and others that will follow can respond sensitively and in a common sense way to provinces, territories and their citizens in order to ensure that the quality of life is comparable whether we talk about health, education or any other services that we expect,

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
that they be within levels of taxation that are not terribly different from other jurisdictions.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is good to join this debate today because the extension equalization payments for our provinces throughout Canada are an important source of security for those provinces in order to be able to do their economic planning and their preparation in terms of budgetary considerations for the next two years.
We are very pleased to see and we will support this bill which extends the equalization payments to the seven poorer provinces across this country. That is the major impact of this piece of legislation. It changes the formula for these equalization payments so that those seven poorer provinces across this country will receive an extra $422 million this coming fiscal year and an extra approximately $200 million for each fiscal year after that.
We are talking about something which is important to the poorer provinces in this country. We are also talking about one step in a whole process of reviewing the transfer payments system in this country. The present system of transfer payments has been so subverted, so undercut, so badly abused by both the Conservative government and the Liberal government before it that the provinces throughout Canada are facing extremely difficult financial circumstances, regardless of which province we talk about. In the case of the seven poorer provinces that received equalization payment support during the period from 1988-89 to 1991-92, the payments to the provinces under the equalization program were constrained. That cost even the poorest provinces in this country a total of $3.1 billion for that three-year period. That was one part of the way in which the transfer payment promises of this government, commitments which had been made by the federal government to the provinces, were changed unilaterally by the federal government and led to an increased financial burden on the poorer provinces across Canada.
The second way in which this squeezing of provincial government revenues has taken place has been through the Established Programs Financing system, that set of transfers which deals not with equalization, but deals with health care expenses and deals with education.
These changes which have been put into effect, starting with the Liberals back in 1982 and carrying right up to the Conservatives in this most recent budget, have had the effect of significantly holding back the promises which the provinces thought they could count on when they first entered into the EPF arrangements in 1977.
In addition, all the provinces of Canada were supposed to receive 50 per cent of the payments made under the Canada Assistance Plan, which covers things like day care, welfare assistance for people who lose their access to unemployment insurance and a whole host of support systems for the disabled. All of these transfer payments to people across Canada are supposed to be covered half by the provinces and half by the federal government.
What the federal government put into effect was a system by which it would not cover that 50 per cent commitment, that promise, that guarantee which it had given to the provinces. It simply unilaterally tore that promise up and said it would not honour it for three of the provinces in this country: Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.
In the case of these Canada Assistance Plan payment promises, we are talking about a total cost so far to the provinces of over $6 billion, promises which this federal government has simply taken and decided to rip in half, decided that this was something that it could simply forget about despite the fact that these were commitments made as part of this government's promises to all the provinces in this country.
The total amount of money lost since 1982-83 on the part of broken promises from federal Liberal governments and federal Conservative governments to the provinces of this country has been $41 billion. It is no surprise that we have got problems of national unity in this country in the face of that kind of undercutting of transfers to the provinces.

It is not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that many provinces find it hard to be proud of his or her country. One cannot be proud of his or her country when the federal government continues to make promises and not keep them. What did this government do? It forgot its promises about health, education, welfare and equalization.
April 7, 1992

We have seen the provinces lose a lot of money-$41 billion in all. Mr. Speaker, that is quite a pile of money that the federal government forgot.

The result for provinces across this country has been disaster for health care systems, disaster for educational systems, disaster for people who have felt squeezed on social assistance, disaster for health care, disaster for day care assistance, disaster for people who have counted on support for the disabled. Forty-one billion dollars was lost to the provinces.
For my province of Ontario, this has been something which has been particularly bitter and particularly difficult. The province of Ontario gives each year $16 billion more to the federal government than it receives back in terms of programs, $16 billion. The province of Ontario has faced serious difficulties with respect to the immense rise in social assistance payments which the province has faced, because of the free trade deal, because of the fact that the federal government has put unemployment insurance changes into effect that has shifted people quickly off unemployment insurance help, put them instead on welfare assistance. These changes have led to increases in, for example, one of the richest cities in this country, the city of Toronto, of 29 per cent in the number of people on social assistance in the past year. With that increase of 29 per cent, what has the federal government done? It has chosen this especially difficult period to cut back the amount of support which the province of Ontario is receiving from the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan.
In this past year, the province of Ontario has lost in terms of sheer promised commitment from the government of this country close to $2 billion, money that was promised to Ontario under the Canada Assistance Plan. We look at every other province in this country and see that in eight of the ten provinces 50 per cent of the Canada assistance payments comes from the federal government. British Columbia gets hit. British Columbia receives approximately 39 per cent of Canada assistance payments from the federal government.
However Ontario gets hit especially hard, especially unfairly, in view of the extreme increase in welfare assistance which our province and our municipalities have had to endure. We have seen increases of 29 per cent in Toronto, increases greater than that in the county
Government Orders
of Essex which I represent. The increases there are close to 50 per cent in this past year.
What do we see? We see that for the province of Ontario the level of support going to our province from the Canada Assistance Plan has fallen to only 31 per cent of the total.
You cannot keep a country together by treating one province as the milk cow for the rest of Confederation, by taking an extra $16 billion a year from the province of Ontario and then turning around to that province and saying: "You have a problem with increased welfare payments. You have a problem because of free trade. You have a problem because of our changes to unemployment insurance that we the federal government put into effect. We are not going to help you. We are not only not going to help you, we are going to make things harder for you. We are going to reduce the amount of Canada assistance payments which you will be able to count on from 50 per cent of the share to the current level of only 31 per cent of the share".
You cannot do that and expect people to feel that it is fair. You cannot do it and expect my constituents and those constituents across the province of Ontario to feel that this is what Confederation is all about. Confederation is about people working together. When provinces have problems it is about the country treating those provinces with problems fairly.
We support this piece of legislation because it gives $422 million to the poorer provinces that need it in this country. What has happened to that extra $2 billion that should be going to the province of Ontario under the Canada Assistance Plan? What has happened to the millions of extra dollars that should be given to the province of B.C. under the Canada Assistance Plan? What has happened to the billions of dollars that should be going to all provinces under the Established Programs Financing system promised to all provinces?
The federal government has simply ripped the promises up. It has forgotten about its commitments to the country as a whole. We simply cannot continue as a unified country if we continue to do that. We are going to support this legislation today but I plead with this government to use the next year-we tried to get the government to accept an amendment yesterday-to see to it that all transfer payments are put back on a fair basis in this country. At the very least, see to it that the Canada Assistance Plan covers the cost which the

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
federal government promised it would cover for every province.
In the province of Ontario we have seen, as a result of the federal government's direct transfer payment changes, an increase in the provincial debt of $11 billion. That is 28 per cent of the provincial debt in our province, 28 per cent has come from the actions of this government.
Yesterday, a throne speech came down from the Government of Ontario pointing out that for this fiscal year alone there will be a loss to the province of Ontario of $4.5 billion because of the policy promises which this government has simply ripped up. We cannot continue with that.
We cannot continue to off-load the problems of the federal government, created by the federal government, on to the provinces across this country and then force those provinces to deal with the fact that they are very tightly squeezed financially and as a result they have to reduce what they would like to transfer to hospitals or education. Our hospitals and schools across this country are under threat. We must ensure that the federal government keeps its promises to ensure that in the future we do not get into this kind of unfairness.
That is what is needed in this country. I hope that is what we will see from this government in the next year.


Frank Oberle: Just briefly, I would very much appreciate if the hon. member could inform us how he would arrange for the federal government to be able to make these payments which he says need to be made.
The Ontario premier has told us that Ontario has been short-changed by the federal government to the tune of $14 billion. In the case of British Columbia the figure is $3 billion. One would assume that the figure for Alberta would be $3 or $4 billion. The total figure is close to $20 billion.
We also know from the papers tabled in the House by the President of the Treasury Board that the federal government, even today, only uses 11 per cent of its entire income to run the total operation of the federal government after we have paid the interest on the debt, after we have paid the other transfer payments which
include CAP, the Established Programs Financing, which pays for education and health care, and the transfers to the provinces.
I would ask this simple question of the hon. member. Since it is quite obvious that no further cuts can be made in any other area of federal expenditures would he have increased the federal deficit this year from $30.5 billion to $50.5 billion? Where would he find the interest next year to pay for the debt? Could the hon. member answer this logical, simple question?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to answer that question. However let me correct the minister if I can first.
He has suggested that the government's deficit was $30.5 billion. Let nobody believe that. In fact, in the government's own budget the deficit is $31.5 billion. We are talking about an even bigger deficit and bigger problem.
I am one of the people who signed the unanimous report of the finance committee just a few months ago saying that there is no business anywhere in this country at the federal level to increase the deficit of this country now.
We cannot do it. It cannot be afforded. Liberal and Conservative governments have got us into a position in which we now pay 35 cents out of every tax dollar for interest payments on the national debt. That is not something that can continue. It must be dealt with.
How would we deal with the problem of the provinces being squeezed and the federal government facing a deficit problem? We would take some of the unfair, ineffective tax loopholes which exist and get rid of them. We would reallocate the money to the provinces.
Specifically, we would get rid of the business entertainment tax deduction which costs the federal government $1 billion a year and which has been called by the editor of Canadian Business, not by a New Democrat, the biggest tax rip-off in this country. We would get rid of that.
We would eliminate the capital gains tax exemption of $100,000 which goes to people who speculate on the stock market. We are not talking about the exemption
April 7, 1992

for a principal residence or the capital gains exemption for selling your farm or a small business.
We are talking about the speculative capital gains exemption for playing the stock market. We would eliminate it because over 60 per cent of the benefits of that tax break go to people whose individual income, not their family income, is-believe it or not-over $100,000 a year.
We would gain $1 billion be getting rid of the tax deduction for entertainment and $2 billion by eliminating the capital gains tax exemption. We would transfer that money to expenditures on transfer payments to the provinces and that would see to it that the Canada Assistance Plan would be fully funded at 50 per cent for every province across this country, as should be the case.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the member.
The transfer to the provinces is distributed on a 50 per cent basis under the CAP. There is absolutely no control of how the provinces increase their program spending.
We have a situation in which the federal government is reducing its program spending and the provinces are increasing theirs, and increasing the demand on the federal treasury.
I would like to ask the hon. member how to control the spending under the transfer payments if provinces are allowed to continue their program spending and increase it by as much as 12 per cent when the federal government is reducing program spending, or holding it in line at 2 per cent, 2.5 per cent or 3 per cent?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let us not try to rewrite history. The Canada Assistance Plan provides 50 per cent support for agreed programs. No provincial government can establish a new program and the federal government simply has to pick up 50 per cent of it. These have to be agreed programs between the federal and provincial government. They have to be agreed programs.
What has actually taken place is that the provinces have been faced with increased welfare payments be-
Govemment Orders
cause the federal government unilaterally decided to change the unemployment insurance system. It decided that it would see that people moved off unemployment insurance much faster.
At the same time, it created a situation with the free trade deal whereby there were far fewer jobs and much more unemployment. The result was that in province after province, welfare costs have skyrocketed, through absolutely no fault of the governments themselves.
In fact, the Government of Ontario, to take just that example, has put a much tighter level of limitation on increases in welfare payments per individual than has been done by the federal government with respect to any of its programs. There has been a very direct and strong effort to control expenditure per person but the number of persons has increased dramatically, as I have said, in the city of Toronto by over 29 per cent because of this federal government's policies.
The government then turned around and said: "We are going to put a cap on the Canada Assistance Program". The result has been that the very increase in payments created by this government has had to be paid for, not by this government that caused the problem, but instead by the provinces that did not cause the problem and yet are left having to pay the bill.


Mr. Jim KarpofT (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into this debate. It is a critical debate, looking at the federal government's involvement in transfer payments. We have to look at the place of transfer payments within the Canadian federation.
Transfer payments have become an integral part of the concept of what Canada is. It is part of the glue that holds this country together, in which the federal government on behalf of the provinces collects money and redistributes it to those provinces for a number of programs. It redistributes it for health care and post-secondary education, in terms of the Canada Assistance Plan for income assistance, child welfare, child protection and equalization payments in which it basically raises money from the wealthier provinces and redistributes it to the poorer provinces so they have the opportunity of providing their citizens with the same services and resources the more wealthy parts of Canada have.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
That is part of the fundamental concept of Canadian federation as we have known it for the last number of years. Any attack on that is an attack on the Canadian federation.
One of the reasons we are facing a crisis in this country concerning the Constitution and whether provinces feel there is reason to remain within Confederation is because of the unilateral and high-handed cuts the government has made to transfer payments.
People in the country are starting to say: "What is the purpose of belonging to a federation like Canada when you have a government that can unilaterally, without consultation, change the whole basis of the system", particularly as it relates to the programs that are being attacked. These are the social programs that Canadians value so highly.
This attack started really in the late 1970s, accelerated under the Liberals in the early 1980s and has become a style of government under this Tory government. One begins to wonder whether in addition to being an attack on social programs, it is not in fact a philosophical attack on the whole question of universality and availability of social supports because this government does not philosophically agree with it.
The only difference between the Tories and the Reform Party is that the Reform is a little more honest. The Reform Party, without any question, stands up and says: "We no longer believe in universality. We do not want universal old age pensions. We will no longer support universal, accessible health care for all people. We do not want family support programs. We do not want availability of day care on a universal or even on a needs basis." The Reform Party is at least honest, they stand up and say it.
This government is saying it very strongly by its actions.
I want to briefly run through some of the programs that have been attacked by the attack on transfer programs. Let us start with the EPF, Established Programs Financing. The cuts are going to be, by the turn of the century, about $90-some billion, $64 billion for health care, the balance for post-secondary education.
This money was expected by the provinces. Let us remember how it was allocated. It had nothing to do with expenditures, which I hear them talking about, which is the Canada Assistance Plan. The fact that the provinces increased their expenditures had nothing to do with the obligation of the federal government to increase its transfer payments.
The transfer payments were to be increased solely on the economic ability of this country to pay, the economic ability of the country to pay being measured by the Gross National Product. The EPF was established on that basis, that there was no increase except when the federal government was in a financial position with the growth of economy to increase transfer payments.
Of course the Liberals got the federal government into debt and it has been accelerated by the Tories. Neither of those parties have come to grips with the question of the national debt and how to service that national debt. The government is using that now to say that it can no longer afford its obligations.
Members of the government repeatedly get up and say that the economic future of this country depends on an educated work force, on leading the world in research and development, on leading the world in the number of scientists, professionals, engineers, innovators, that we must increase our training, we must increase our competence if we are to be competitive. I would agree with them. However, why would they then turn around and cut the very money that provide this to the provinces for post-secondary education? I begin to wonder whether they really believe this or are they playing fast and loose with the Canadian electorate by verbally saying one thing, but in reality doing something else.
It is the same with health care. They say they really believe in a national health care program with national standards that are enforceable by the federal government. But they have basically gutted the Canada Health Act because the transfer payments have been cut so low that within the next two to three years there will be no more money transferred to most of the provinces.
With the loss of cash there is no way that the government is going to be able to enforce the Canada Health Act. I can very well see a federal government saying to the province of Quebec: "We're not going to allow you to introduce user fees. We are not going to allow you to restructure your health care system the way you want to because we philosophically disagree with it.
April 7, 1992

Because we are no longer giving you money that we can withhold to force you to do that, we are going to take your money for poor children away from you. We are going to withhold your money from the Canada Assistance Plan that is going to feed hungry children in the city of Montreal or we are going to withhold your money for child protection services. We're going to simply say you can stop providing protection services to sexually abused kids, to children who have been neglected because you will not conform with what we want in health care".
There is not a hope of a federal government doing that. That is why it is absolutely vital that transfer payments with cash involved are maintained in EPF.
We have this dichotomy with the federal government talking a nice line that it supports these things, saying that it really believes in increasing our competitiveness through education, through research and development and then on the other hand withdrawing the capability of the provinces to do it, saying that it really believes in a universal, accessible health care system but making it increasingly impossible for the provincial governments to deliver.
I want to talk about two provinces in particular as it relates to the Canada Assistance Plan. One of the things that has happened in the federal government's approach to transfer payments is that it has decided that it is not even going to be unfair to all provinces. It is going to be selectively unfair.
Perhaps when the government introduced the changes it had much more foresight than I thought. Maybe it realized that by the time this was implemented, it would be NDP governments that it would unfairly treat. That should tell us something about what the government anticipates is going to happen in the next provincial election in Alberta, that it realizes that probably there will be a New Democratic provincial government.
What the government has done is arbitrarily, based on no rational criteria, based on no principles, simply said: "We're going to select provinces and hammer them". The reality is that 50 per cent of all income assistance applicants reside in those provinces. Fifty per cent of all kids who live in poverty reside in those provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The Flouse took recess, at 1 p. m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, less than two weeks ago, on World Theatre Day, we paid tribute to the people of the stage, all those who make the theatre a favoured mode of artistic expression, the liveliest art. Yvette Brind'amour was one of them. Last Saturday the curtain fell on this great lady of the theatre.
Bom in Montreal in 1918, Yvette Brind'amour turned to the theatre fairly early. Around 1948, she founded the Theatre du Rideau Vert with her close friend, Mercedes Palomino.
Dedicated to light theatre and dramatic comedy, the Rideau Vert gave Quebecers a taste for French theatre while it gave their best dramatists an opportunity to show them in a typically North American context. Ms. Brind'amour had the inspired idea to put on Michel Tremblay's play Les belles-soeurs, although it was almost the opposite of the kind of play the Rideau Vert usually presented.
Yvette Brind'amour's theatre is now legendary. The curtain has fallen on an actress by tradition and a brilliant director who made a mark on Quebec theatre. However, the curtain rises again on a heritage that is very much alive, the theatre, to the public's delight.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, recently there was another reported increase in same day

April 7, 1992
cross-border shopping trips to the U.S. This leaves small retailers in border towns with no reason for optimism.
In one town in Canada where retailers banded together and gave out gasoline discount tickets, there was an amazing turnaround in the entire retail sector of the town. Since the price of gasoline in Canada is recognized as the biggest single reason for shopping in the U.S., would the government not think it appropriate to drop the 8.5 cents a litre federal tax on gasoline in order to stabilize and improve the economy of our border towns and encourage Canadians to shop at home once again.
Why does the government not follow the lead of New Brunswick in its recent budget and lower the tax on gasoline to deter cross-border shopping and revive the commercial life of Canadian border towns.


FOOD BANKS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, in Saskatoon and across Canada, the level of food bank use is tragic and should be an embarrassment to the government.
Food bank use in Saskatoon is up 20 per cent over last year. That is 660 more families living in poverty in Saskatoon than last year. An estimated 55 per cent of these food bank users are children.
As a result of being poor, over one million of Canada's children will not be as healthy, not do as well in school and not live as long as more affluent children.
It is a mystery to me why the government does not take this information to heart and start investing in the future of Canadian children now, not at some date in the future when it decides it can afford it.
It is time to stop using the deficit as an excuse to keep Canadian children hungry.


SEFARAD 92
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, Jews throughout the world remember! On March 31,
1492, Spain issued an order expelling all Jews from the kingdom. Political intolerance and religious fanaticism thus ended the most thriving Jewish community in Europe. Sephardic Judaism, which had been there from time immemorial, reached the peak of its development. It was a golden age if there ever was one, since the three great monotheistic religions and three cultures met, merged and grew together.
Thanks to the caliph's open-mindedness, Arabs, Jews, Christians and Moslems shared their sciences and their arts to give the western world the best. Exclusivity and rejection of difference brought it the worst: fire, exile and ashes.
From these ashes new communities were born, both in the Mediterranean basin and in this hemisphere, America. Holding the torch of their memory high, we celebrate this renaissance today with all communities in the world, especially the one in Madrid where King Carlos has finally offically revoked the shameful decree.
We thank him and say, "Welcome to Sefarad 92".


VIMY RIDGE
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 75th anniversary of a remarkable Canadian success story, the Canadian Corps capture of Vimy Ridge.
There is scarcely a person in this country who has not heard of Canada's impressive victory on April 9, 1917 and how, with ingenuity and determination, our citizen soldiers accomplished in three days what the strongest armies of Europe could not accomplish in three years.
As the first wholly Canadian operation of the war, Vimy Ridge marked the coming of age of a country that less than 50 years previous was a colony of Great Britain.
On its 75th anniversary we salute the brave Canadian veterans on the battle of Vimy Ridge. May their many comrades rest in peace for which they fought.
April 7, 1992


LE SALON DE LA JEUNESSE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the organizers of Le Salon de la Jeunesse, a pro-youth event which is taking place in Montreal this week.
It is encouraging that Canadians understand the importance of youth. Unfortunately this government does not.
As I travel across the nation with the joint Liberal committee on youth, I am constantly reminded of this government's failure to address the needs of young Canadians. The 405,000 young people on the unemployment rolls, the 30 per cent high school dropout rate, the 700,000 children dependent on food banks all testify to this government's cold indifference to our nation's youth.
We must put an end to the culture of neglect the young have been subjected to under this Conservative government.
Le Salon de la Jeunesse is a positive step toward addressing the needs and concerns of Canada's youth. I once again applaud the organizers and urge this government to take note.


VIMY RIDGE
Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this week we remember and pay tribute to Canada's great victory at Vimy Ridge 75 years ago.
In capturing the ridge, 3,000 courageous soldiers gave up their lives to secure a victory where previously our allies had been unsuccessful. With that victory, the Dominion of Canada took its place among the nations of the world.
This year, as we celebrate our 125th anniversary as a nation, it is especially cogent to remember and give thanks to those who gave their lives to preserve our freedom 75 years ago.
It is a particular honour for me today to speak of World War I because by coincidence I am visited by my grand-aunt, Marguerite Hawken who is the sister of two of those World War I veterans. They were Gordon Gunn and Stewart Gunn and they, along with thousands of
Canadians, fought so that Canada and all peace-loving nations could be free.


INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, last fall the Public Service Alliance filed a complaint with the International Labour Organization, the ILO, claiming the government's failure to bargain violated three ILO conventions with respect to freedom of association, this at the time the Prime Minister was angling for election as director general of the United Nations.
One would think that the Prime Minister, even if he was only contemplating a post at the UN, must have a very high regard for the UN and what it represents.
The International Labour Organization is the industrial relations arm of the UN. It is the world court for industrial relations.
I am sure that the Prime Minister will be shocked and dismayed to learn that his President of the Treasury Board has ignored the ILO's request that he respond to the Public Service Alliance complaint.
I appeal to the Prime Minister to insist that his minister show the level of respect for the UN that I know he would be pleased to show.

[Translation)


ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION IN COMMERCIAL MATTERS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, in Quebec we have a non-profit organization that offers arbitration and mediation services in commercial matters. I am referring to the Quebec National and International Commercial Arbitration Centre, an institution created by and for Canadians which plays an important role in helping companies weather the globalization of our markets. These institutions are an excellent mechanism for settling trade disputes. Fortunately Canadian companies now have access to the same mechanisms as their foreign competitors.
Established in 1987, the centre has acquired a sound reputation, both nationally and internationally. Today the centre helps many companies deal quickly with counterproductive disputes and, in so doing, contributes

to the growth of our economy. Mr. Speaker, the Quebec National and International Commercial Arbitration Centre deserves the recognition and support of the Canadian government.


PENSIONS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, 37 cents, that is all this government says seniors deserve.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare said that as long as people are fighting for their jobs, he will stand by the decision to raise pensions by a measly 37 cents.
What the minister has forgotten is the hundreds of thousands of Canadian seniors living in poverty. There are more seniors living below the poverty line today than there were in 1980.
In response to my question on the pension issue last week, the Minister of National Health and Welfare said he would fight for the unemployed, people taking wage cuts and children. What happened to fighting for seniors?
The time has come for the government to make a serious commitment to seniors and give them a pension increase they can really use and allow them a decent standard of living.


IRANIAN EMBASSY
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, the recent storming of the Iranian embassy in Ottawa was a most abhorrent act. This act is not in keeping with the peaceful nature of Canadians.
Therefore, I request the minister to review the status of the citizenship of those involved in this criminal act and wherever possible eject from Canada those who have chosen to ignore Canadian laws and have preferred to retain their interest in political schemes that support violence as a means to an end.
Canadian citizenship is a privilege, a privilege that is earned by supporting a peaceful mentality. It should not be used as a political mechanism to hide behind while fighting the battles of another country.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are familiar with the current trade controversy involving Canada's softwood lumber products and Canadian made Honda cars. Both are clear examples of American trade harassment. Where are the Yankees going to strike next?
The answer may lie in a speech made the other day by a Washington trade analyst who said the U.S. is investigating evidence that Canadian Durum wheat sales to the U.S. are violating the free trade agreement.
Carol Brookins said her country is considering a legal challenge of Canadian Wheat Board selling and pricing practices.
Canada had better take this latest threat seriously. Ms. Brookins' speech was sponsored by the U.S. embassy here in Ottawa. The Americans do not like our Wheat Board and it is quite apparent they have adopted a strategy of trade harassment.
This should be a warning to our federal government. This is no time to be caught napping. Canada's interests are at stake, especially the interests of our farmers.


WORLD HEALTH DAY
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I am pleased to inform the House that today is World Health Day and that this year's slogan is: "Heartbeat, the rhythm of health".
The theme for 1992 was selected to bring to the attention of all citizens of the world the importance of heart disease as a major individual and social problem. World-wide, one out of every four deaths is due to diseases of the heart and arteries. In Canada, these diseases cause almost one-half of all the deaths registered annually.
April 7, 1992

Moreover, heart disease represents a major burden for all societies, not only in terms of human suffering but also as a result of high health care costs and the loss of productivity.
Let us make World Health Day 1992 a success by working individually and collectively to prevent and control cardio-vascular disease in the days and years ahead.


CANADA POST
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, why can the House of Commons not receive answers to straightforward questions from Canada Post?
In response to a series of questions I asked about the number of closures Canada Post planned for this year, Canada Post president Don Landers said:
We have a corporate plan where we identify the possibility of conversions in relation to natural opportunities and that is the way in which we work out programs through the course of the year.
Then he said:
Somebody can die and so forth, but we have some idea of what 1he conversion rate would be and we do not approach it as closures but rather we approach it as a change in the type of service.
And, "When you say closing again, it is a conversion".
Mr. Speaker, obviously the only way to receive information and answers from Canada Post is to insist that senior management in Canada Post be sworn in as witnesses in front of House of Commons committees. Otherwise we do not get the truth.


UNITY HOCKEY TOURNAMENT
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, when you hear Shawville Pontiacs, North York Canadians, Portage Terriers, Dartmouth Whales, Kelowna Elks, these are just five of 60 bantam hockey teams from across Canada, some 1,200 young people, playing this week in the Unity Hockey Tournament in Toronto.
Our national sport does unite Canada, and these young athletes are playing their hearts out for the love of this country. Along with MPs of this House I want to thank the Minister of National Defence, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, and the Secretary of State for their great assistance.
Oral Questions
I want to thank the private sector, sponsors such as API Landmark, Bell Canada, Burger King, Canadian Airlines, CCM Mascula, Danford Local Restaurants, Druxie, Holiday Inn, Maple Leaf Gardens, McDonald's, MTHL Pizza Hut, PMCL, Purolator Courier, Senate Printing, George Smith Canada Cup Trophies, SkyDome Tours, Strathcona Hotels, TSN and Canada Post.
There is a missing element. Our parliamentary channel would be a welcome addition during its free time. I ask the NDP to change its position and support that televised use today. All Canadians would like to enjoy the joy of hockey.


GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario are getting tired of the politics of confrontation. Yesterday they got another dose as Premier Bob Rae brought down a throne speech which devoted more time to bashing the federal government than trying to be constructive. The premier knows that one of the major economic problems we have in this country is the inefficiency caused when governments refuse to co-operate or adopt conflicting policies.
Bob Rae's horrific deficit will turn into a legacy of tax increases for Ontarians. His refusal to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST means more civil servants, higher costs, and continued headaches for business people who have to maintain two separate sets of books.
The people of Ontario want common sense in government. I call on Bob Rae to throw off the cape of ideology and co-operate with Ottawa for a speedy economic recovery.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['agree with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada obviously have that right. We are considering how we will give effect to the commitment in the throne speech.\nI think the Leader of the Opposition would join with me in wanting to ensure that the process of discussion among governments also be as successful as possible. The ideal situation of course would be if the people in Quebec, when they had to come to their decision, which we know is established by law in their province, would know that there are proposals for constitutional change that have the broad support of the governments of Canada and of the people of Canada.', 'April 7, 1992\nGovernment Orders SAMSON CREE NATION']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In Montreal, at this veiy moment, free trade talks are being held by Canada, the United States and Mexico on the 21st floor of the Queen Elizabeth Hotel. It seems reporters have better luck asking the Americans or even the Mexicans about what is going on. In fact, the

April 7, 1992
Oral Questions
Mexicans told them quite clearly what their position was on their energy policy, which is not on the table at all.
When will the government let Canadians know what its objectives are in these talks? After all, the government should realize that Canadian citizens will have to pay for the unsatisfactory way the government is conducting negotiations with these two countries.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, it has always been quite clear what the goals of the Government of Canada are in the NAFTA negotiations. They have been read in this House many, many times.
Obviously improved access to the Mexican market. We want useful extensions to the FTA, if that is at all possible, and we want to preserve what is best in the free trade agreement with the United States.
Obviously this is exactly what any Government of Canada would be at the table for.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question on trade matters.
Today we realized for good why the Americans have imposed a 14.5 per cent tax on Canadian softwood lumber. We know what they want to achieve. They would like the jobs we have in that industry in Canada to be transferred to the states of Washington and Oregon.
I would like to know from the government when it will make clear to the Americans that the Canadian woods are for jobs in Canada and that we will never export our jobs in that industry to the states of Washington and Oregon.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if there is any confusion about that in anyone's mind, it surprises me that it should be in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition. That has always been the Canadian position and always will be the Canadian position.
I should, however, point out to my hon. friend that the Americans do have an absolute ban on exports of round logs and raw materials from federal lands in the Pacific northwest. We have from time to time issued export permits for some materials that are simply surplus to our needs, and that would I suppose continue to be our practice.
I agree with my hon. friend that the senators have given us a proposition now, as I understand it, to terminate the imposition of an import tax if we were to open up our border for export logs. We are not looking at this proposition seriously.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are so many questions in trade that I would like to ask a third question.
The beer industry in Canada has to accept the decision of the GATT, but it is very important for it and for the workers in that field to know clearly from the government-and I would like to know that from the Deputy Prime Minister-what it intends to do.
Will it accept the push by the Americans who want no period of adjustment, or will the government say very clearly today that it will give two, three or four years to the industry to adjust to this new reality?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has already clearly indicated its position on this matter. We propose a three-year adjustment period, and that is exactly what we will fight for.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. In response to my question two weeks ago, the Minister for International Trade said that the U.S. and Mexican positions on textiles were unacceptable. My question is this: What does he intend to do to ensure that his Minister for International Trade does not change his mind during the current talks in Montreal, as he did during the free trade talks with the Americans in Washington?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear what we want in terms of textiles. We want to ensure that the NAFTA maintains and improves the preferential access to the United
April 7, 1992

States market that we obtained under the free trade agreement.
We do not want to lose that. We do not intend to lose that.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, Montreal's manufacturing industry provides over 20 per cent of all the jobs in the metropolitan area, and these jobs are threatened by the current talks between Canada, Mexico and the United States. What does the government intend to do to reassure 200,000 Montreal workers whose jobs are threatened by these negotiations between Canada, United States and Mexico? What is going to be done for 200,000 workers in Montreal?


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the first thing we are doing is being in constant consultation with the industry and the workers. We do not want to see extensive losses of jobs overnight in Montreal and we are going to do our best in these negotiations to prevent that.



Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. There are now a million and a half people out of work in this country. The government says it can do nothing because of the deficit, and it is doing nothing to create jobs in Canada. Could the finance minister tell us whether he has explored all possibilities for increasing revenue in order to create jobs in this country?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, indeed that is the case. I think the hon. member on reflection, when she looks at the budget, will see that there are many initiatives in it which will not only preserve jobs but create new jobs and improve Canada's competitive position.
Dealing with specifics, the budget contained a proposal to use funds from individuals' RRSPs to encourage the
Oral Questions
housing sector. I think the hon. member would agree that has stimulated the housing sector.
Also my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, announced on February 3 the first home loan insurance program. I am pleased to say-and I am sure the hon. member would be pleased to note it-that some 12,500 Canadian households have made use of the first home loan insurance program. That constitutes an investment of $1.2 billion in the housing industry.
That is bound to have a stimulative effect not only on the house building industry but indeed on the provision of supplies, articles and appliances to those new homes. I think the hon. member would find that very encouraging.


CORPORATE TAXATION
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance.
My question was related to raising revenues. The minister has often talked about the deficit. All of us are concerned about the deficit.
The minister has also consistently overlooked one source of revenue that he has not tapped. Certainly we know that middle income and poor Canadians cannot pay one more cent in tax, but what about the most single untapped resource, and that is profitable corporations?
Let me give an example. In 1990 North Canadian Oil made $39 million. It paid its chief executive officer almost $500,000 a year in salary and did not pay one cent in tax to the Canadian government.
Will the government introduce a minimum tax on profitable corporations so that we can get the revenue built up in this country and that those people who are suffering because they do not have jobs will be able to have jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member has failed to recognize that as a result of tax reform and the broadening of the tax base as it applies to corporations across Canada, additional cash taxes paid in 1988 as a result of base broadening were $1,570 billion. It is pretty clear that tax reform has had an effect upon a fair and more equitable tax system.

April 7, 1992
Oral Questions
What I think the hon. member is getting at is the position of the New Democratic Party to scrap the capital gains tax exemption. Many of the corporations to which she refers are either claiming back their previous losses or in fact claiming their exemptions under capital gains.
If it is the position of members of the NDP to reaffirm the fact that they want to scrap all capital gains, why do not stand up and say so? In many respects that is what is reducing the over-all taxes paid by companies, small companies and farmers, I might say.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is the policy of the New Democratic Party that the profitable corporations pay their fair share, that we stop penalizing low income and middle income citizens, and that we get rid of the GST that penalizes every Canadian regardless of income and has been hurtful to small business.
I will be very clear about the NDP policy to the Minister of Finance, but the Minister of Finance says that I have neglected to observe about how corporations have not paid interest on their deferred taxes. No, I have not neglected to observe that. Nor have I neglected to observe that Ranger Oil paid no taxes in 1990 on $41 million in profits and that Canadian Pacific Ltd. paid no taxes in 1990 on $48.3 million in profits.
When is the minister going to stand up to the corporations, force them to co-operate and institute a minimum corporate tax?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member overlooks the fact that from time to time corporations and all businesses have losses and that they are able to carry those losses forward to future years and claim their losses against the income of earlier years.
I guess the hon. member is suggesting a budget like that which was brought down by the province of British Columbia. The federal government moved in to provide tax breaks to individuals and to corporations to create jobs and create new opportunities. The provincial Government of British Columbia came in and socked a $750 million tax burden upon individual Canadians in B.C. as well as corporations.
I think the corporations have really made very clear what they think of that. It is not going to create new jobs. They may move out of the country or they may move to Alberta. In so far as Bobby Rae's Speech from the Throne is concerned, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce had this to say: "The Government of Ontario is continuing along the same destructive path that has already wreaked havoc on Ontario's"-


Some hon. members:: Time, time.


Some hon. members:: More, more.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of the Environment. As part of the North American free trade talks, the government is committed to negotiating a corollary agreement on the environment. So far, we have received no information whatsoever on the contents of that agreement or Canada's objectives.
Could the minister give the House the assurance that the government is not only negotiating common standards for all three countries but that any new exports from Mexico to Canada will be conditional on the way these standards are applied?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House of Commons that when the environment ministers for Canada and the provinces met in British Columbia just a few weeks ago, we had the opportunity of having the Under-Secretary of State for Mexico for the Environment give us the outline of the situation that is happening in Mexico.
I was very pleased, and I am sure the environment ministers from the provinces were pleased, to know of the exact regulations that are being put in place for those companies that are setting up businesses in Mexico.
We do know that there are environmental problems in Mexico. There is another whole system in place that the Mexican government has in order to clean up those
April 7, 1992

organizations and those companies that are presently in business.
We are very pleased with the progress that Mexico is making. In fact, the Government of Canada has assisted in the enforcement of some of the environment regulations that Mexico is enforcing.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the problem is very clearly one of enforcement and the description of the state in Mexico as expressed by the minister is simply not in conformity with the facts. Let me ask another question which speaks to the public's right to know the state of mind of this particular government.
The minister has promised an environmental review of the deal. Will the terms of reference of that review call for the enforcement of common environmental standards? Second, will it call for the enforcement of common workplace health and safety standards? Finally, will it call for a clear transition program in which new exports from Mexico to Canada will be geared to the achievement of those standards?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, the North American free trade agreement is being negotiated as we sit here today.
It is being negotiated on those trade principles. In a parallel accord, the environmental principles are being negotiated. Of course, the North American free trade agreement is subject to an environmental review in total.
I think that the hon. member should be very clear on the concern that is expressed by our government and by Canadians, of the importance of this issue. Indeed, we are looking after those.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The United Nations Conference on Economic Development in Brazil this June must produce tough new international agreements to save the world for future generations.
It is now or never, but the government knows that the United States is deliberately blocking progress on global action. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Can Canadians have the assurance of the government that the Prime Minister will personally persuade his good friend, the President of the United States, to change his position on
Oral Questions
global warming, energy use and other urgent, environmental problems?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that the member of the opposition appreciates the value of the Prime Minister's close relationship with the President of the United States.
This is not what we usually hear from the opposition benches. I can assure the hon. member that the Prime Minister will use his influence with all world leaders to try to get them to support the objectives of the UNCED conference he will be attending in Rio de Janeiro.
His special effort is going to be directed at the overfishing question and getting support for our resolution on the right of coastal states with respect to straddling stocks. I will pass on to him the hon. member's advice as well.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Deputy Prime Minister who is here in the House to speak for the Prime Minister.
Unfortunately, the minister's answer shows a failure to understand the crucial importance of Brazil and the crucial importance of the Americans' negative, destructive position on international agreements.
Does the Prime Minister not know and does the government not know that the international community is counting on Canada to bring the United States to its senses and to the table?
I ask again: Will he give Canadians the assurance that the Prime Minister treats the participation of the United States, the positions it has taken with the utmost urgency? Will he persuade the President of the United States to be at the table to take a reasonable position?


John Carnell Crosbie: The Prime Minister of this country is in charge and gives direction with respect to the policies and approaches of this country.
He will naturally be urging the President of the United States and other leaders who attend at Rio de Janeiro to support the causes that we are supporting in connection with UNCED.

April 7, 1992
Oral Questions
I do not think the hon. member should be too negative toward the prospects. I understand that about 90 per cent of the comprehensive action plan known as agenda 21 has been approved. There is a good chance that agenda 21 will be approved, as well as other key issues.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the release today of a letter from U.S. politicians calling for free trade in Canadian raw logs confirms what a New Democrat delegation to Washington, D.C. found last week. The U.S. is using a countervail action as an end run for an out and out resource grab. Our log export policies are designed to encourage jobs at home.
Will the Minister of Forestry tell this House if his government has made a clear statement that we will not agree to free trade in logs? Has he communicated that to the United States government?


Frank Oberle: One very good reason we would never agree to a proposition like that is simply because we do not have any surplus logs to trade. All of the logs that are sold in Canadian markets are committed under agreements for licence to existing industry.
Unlike the position of the United States, there have been minor exceptions where material that was surplus to our needs and was committed to industrial conversion has been allowed to be exported under a licence that is reviewed from time to time and issued.
There are no surplus logs. There is no intention of the federal government or any of the provinces to get into an arrangement that would allow the export of raw materials, round logs, to any place in the world including the United States.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Our delegation to Washington met with commerce department officials who advised us that the commerce department has yet to decide whether the dispute settlement mechanism applies in the softwood lumber case. They have just asked for a legal opinion on that matter and have just done that to determine whether it applies.
Can the minister tell this House if the government has a clear ruling from the United States that the dispute settlement mechanism, as weak as it is under the FTA, can be used to solve this dispute? If he has such a decision, will he table it in the House?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I find this interesting. A couple of weeks ago the same member was arguing that the free trade agreement was responsible for the mess we got into with the lumber MOU. Now he is worried that the free trade agreement may not be the solution to the lumber agreement.
I can tell my hon. friend that regardless of what the commerce department has decided, the MOU is clearly annexed to the free trade agreement. We have decided that we will avail ourselves of all the remedies that are offered to us under the free trade agreement to appeal this decision and win.


POVERTY
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In metro Toronto, the number of Canadians on welfare increased 8 per cent since the start of this year to a staggering 167,444 men, women and children. In terms of the welfare bill for just Toronto in one year, it is approaching $1 billion.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, how can the federal government remain so indifferent to this Toronto reality when the government's central economic program is the primaiy culprit forcing Canadians into such a desperate and undignified circumstance?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, like my friend I deplore the situation we face today in terms of the people who have to depend on the welfare system. He talks about what we are doing. We transfer over $6.5 billion to the provinces. A large part of that money goes to Ontario. That amount has not been reduced; it has been increased.
With the reality we face today and the necessity to improve the economy if we can reach the purposes we have in terms of control of the deficit and the debt and also continue to support the provinces the way we do, I believe that if we are not able to immediately overcome
April 7, 1992

the problem totally, by working together we can improve the situation.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Minister of Finance.
Another crumbling indicator was that in March the number of Torontonians utilizing food banks established a new record from the previous month to over 143,000 people. In fact, in one week six food banks closed because their shelves were suddenly empty.
How can the government refuse to budge from its economic ideology? This is where the problem is. It is not necessarily in transfers, but in putting Canadians back to work. How can it refuse to budge from its economic hard line when the result of a do nothing, stay the course, do not worry approach is institutionalizing poverty in Canada? It not only constitutes an attack on the poor in this country, but also on the working and the middle class families of Canada.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member feels very deeply about the serious situation in the city of Toronto and indeed the situation that is faced by many Canadians throughout the land.
I ask him to consider the fact that if he thinks for one minute that governments can borrow their way out of this difficulty, he would want to reconsider that. All that will do is increase and impose an increasingly heavier tax burden upon the productive sectors of our society and with it the prospect of continuing to add to the national debt and the cost of servicing that debt.
We are trying to address this in a balanced way. The budget that I brought down had a number of initiatives which we believe will help in providing a better environment for job creation, restructuring and modernizing, so that jobs can be created. We expect that over the next five years 1.5 million new jobs will be created.
I realize that that is very little comfort for those on welfare today. But the fact of the matter is, as my colleague has indicated, over $6.5 billion has been paid to the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan. For this fiscal year it will be in excess of $7 billion. The expenditures and the transfers from the federal government are not declining. They are increasing. We are going to do the very best we can in maintaining that
Oral Questions
balance, while at the same time keeping our eye on bringing the deficit down as well.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, talking about jobs to the Minister of Finance he will note today that the municipal leaders from across the country are here again to discuss national infrastructure programs.
The provinces and municipalities support a plan to split the cost three ways with the federal government. The long-term deterioration of roads, bridges, waterworks, sewer systems and sewage treatment plants constitutes a threat to the environment, public health, public safety and economic development. This is not irresponsible spending. This is an investment in Canada's competitiveness.
Will this government give the Canadian economy a boost and create the thousands of jobs that were just talked about and invest in Canada's crumbling infrastructure?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the items that has been discussed quite thoroughly at the first ministers' conference.
We have indicated from the federal government's point of view our intention to explore ways and means of improving the national highway system. We have indicated as well that in the area of airport development through the private sector we are going to encourage that kind of development.
We have also indicated that projects like the Prince Edward Island fixed link is certainly something we are promoting and want to encourage. As the hon. member suggested, that will improve our competitiveness and also provide jobs and economic activity. All of these things are being considered I can assure the hon. member.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the small step taken by this government, but we need a much more giant leap with respect to solving these problems.
At the recent first ministers' conference there was an agreement to study. The last thing we need in this country is more study of this problem. There is no need for further delays. These projects are ready to proceed now. Infrastructure expenditures represent costs that

April 7, 1992
Oral Questions
will be needed to be incurred in any case, so it is pay me now or pay me later.
Why does this government refuse to act co-operatively, and I stress the world co-operatively? Why will this government not invest in Canadian municipalities and Canadian jobs not tomorrow but today?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the reference the hon. member made to the first minister's meeting and the exploration of ways and means to finance projects like the improvement of the national highway system, I remind the hon. member, as I am sure he has been reminded before, there is only one taxpayer and what we are attempting to do is explore ways and means to fund these projects in the most effective way possible.
It is one thing to say yes we will go ahead, it is another thing to try to identify the funds and the source of those funds so that these projects can go ahead.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the GST and water.
In a March 10 bulletin the Department of Finance admitted that the application of the GST on water had been unfair. However, 2,000 Saskatchewan families in Martensville, Warman, Dalmeny and Osier still pay the GST on their water in spite of the government's promise not to charge the GST on basic necessities when the tax was introduced.
Why will the minister not include water within the definition of basic groceries, which is surely where it belongs, so that these Canadian are treated fairly?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this government made a commitment even prior to the introduction of the GST when it replaced the old federal manufacturers' sales tax to review any item and any industiy and any sector where improvements could be made to the systems. Numerous improvements have already been made.
The hon. member refers to one specifically. I believe that a level playing field has been found in respect to the sale of water.
If the hon. member has any specific recommendations to make, we would be very happy to take them under consideration because this government is committed to making any improvements on this and any laws that are before us today.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister is prepared to look into making changes because these 2,000 families in Saskatchewan still pay the GST on their water. That is not fair and the Department of Finance bulletin said so.
My supplementary is for the same minister. In spite of the Saskatchewan government's offer to ensure that the federal government does not lose any revenue on the GST and water situation, the Minister of Finance is insisting on changes in the way Sask-Water Crown corporation does business, changes that will result in significant further increases to these 2,000 families.
Will the minister undertake to ensure a resolution of this matter which takes into account the Saskatchewan situation and ensure that these Canadians are treated fairly and will not have them paying more GST for their water?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I already answered the specific question with the hon. member's first question.
Let me make a point in so far as Saskatchewan is concerned. If the hon. member is really concerned about the citizens of Saskatchewan, he should go to his provincial government and let it know that as a result of it withdrawing from the harmonization of the provincial sales tax with the GST that in fact every citizen of Saskatchewan is suffering as a result of that withdrawal by that government.


HUNTING AND FISHING
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings -Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
April 7, 1992

Representing a large rural eastern Ontario riding in which Napanee, Ontario, and a large portion of the Bay of Quinte are located, this area is considered the walleye capital of Canada with over 10,000 registrants for fishing tournaments the first weekend in May.
Canadians are concerned about the conservation and the impact which native rights are having, and could have, on future hunting and fishing, particularly in areas known as sanctuaries. Can the minister explain what action the federal government is taking on the interim enforcement policy to hunt and fish for food in order to clarify existing treaties and laws concerning native peoples and the application of laws of other jurisdictions which pertain to natural resources, specifically hunting and fishing?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a question which is of extreme concern to many thousands of residents of the province of Ontario. I should clarify that in Ontario the provincial NDP government has jurisdiction over hunting and fishing and conservation regulations.
About a year ago, after the Sparrow decision of the Supreme Court which instructs Canada and provinces to deal generously with the aboriginal food, fishing and hunting rights of First Nations' people, the Ontario government brought in interim guidelines without prior discussion, consultation or negotiation with affected parties. Now it is negotiating agreements at the regional level. We are observing these negotiations and encouraging a co-operative means of resolving these questions.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries.
If, as the minister says, the Prime Minister is looking to the United States in the overfishing fight for support, we are on even shakier ground than I thought. Last year the Prime Minister went to Europe and talked to political leaders about foreign overfishing. Now he is about to do the same thing again.
Can the minister tell us if there is any reason to believe that this week's meetings are going to be any more productive than last year's, which were a complete flop? Will he tell us whether the Prime Minister intends
Oral Questions
to send a signal to those people to focus their minds on something like the possibility of some trade sanctions?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is on a visit to France, I believe, for the next several days. He will meet with the President of France, Mr. Mitterrand. This subject was on the list of the items to be discussed, overfishing by the European Community off the east coast of Canada.
Later in the month he will be meeting with Mr. Delors, President of the European Community; and the Prime Minister of Portugal. These will be important subjects that will be pursued then as well. The Prime Minister is making every effort to have the European Community observe the principles of sustainable development and conservation and cease their overfishing off the east coast of Canada.
I do not believe that our diplomatic campaign should cease simply because some people do not have a great deal of faith that reason and diplomacy can be successful. I notice that Premier Wells, although he takes a more belligerent attitude, went to the UNCED conference in New York last week and engaged in some diplomatic proceedings and negotiations. Surely that is the way a civilized nation proceeds in connection with such issues.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, a good dose of reality helps your faith somewhat.
Spanish and Portuguese vessels are using fine mesh nets on the Grand Banks to catch young flounder. It is scandalous what they are doing. They are catching flounder that are only a couple of years old and only weigh a few ounces.
I want to ask the minister, who mutters aloud from time to time about taking unilateral action to put an end to this piracy, to tell us what that action is that he keeps muttering about from time to time, and under what circumstances would he take it? Why does he not take off the external affairs muzzle and say what is on his mind.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any of us in this Chamber, in fact anyone in the country, needs to spend much time or effort trying to convince Canadians, especially Newfoundlanders, that these predatory practices of overfishing should cease. Where we have to

April 7, 1992
Oral Questions
do the job and where the hon. gentleman might be of some help-


Mr. Peterson:: Do not flounder.


John Carnell Crosbie: I say, might be of some help, if he brought the message to those who need to hear it. That is the public and the governments of the 12 nation states that make up the European Community. There is still much work to be done. I will be inviting him to join delegations to Europe this year. We are waging a campaign to try to sway public opinion in those countries. He will be invited to come along and do his share rather than simply expostulating in the House of Commons in a manner that is not really going to achieve very much.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, we heard that three U.S. senators more or less suggested that the Canadian government could drop the countervail on softwood lumber if it would allow exports of Canadian logs to the United States. Do the Deputy Prime Minister and his government not think it is high time Canada took a firm stand and turned down this pretentious offer from the Americans, who would like to see us export our logs whole to the United States?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question twice before in Question Period. Were it not for the clear position we have had in the past, the American senators would not ask to have it changed. We could not be more firm in our position in this regard.
I want, however, to point out to my hon. friend that there is presently a trade in logs which is both ways. Some of the mills in the maritime provinces depend on raw materials that they import from the United States under an arrangement of special permits.
There are small quantities of logs that are sold out of British Columbia that are surplus to our needs. One would assume that two reasonable neighbours would continue those arrangements. But for the wholesale opening and export of raw materials, be it logs, minerals, or anything else from Canada, the answer is no and it will remain that way.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary for the same minister.
As the minister knows, the 14 per cent countervail duty on softwood lumber is having a devastating impact on softwood lumber mills in northern Ontario. Some 328 mills across the country are supposed to be exempt from this duty because they purchase their timber on the open market or in some cases, in my constituency, they purchase their timber in the United States. One company alone is going to pay over $1 million countervail duty this year.
When is the minister going to take responsibility and ensure that the United States recognizes these exemptions because the timber is being purchased on the open market or in some cases in the United States and have this countervail duty removed. Surely what is going on now is totally unfair.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I answered a similar question yesterday. The pain has been eased somewhat by the fact that there has been a veiy significant increase in lumber prices over the last three months which has cushioned to a large extent the effect of the renewed imposition of the countervail duty.
I should, however, point out to my friend that we are painfully aware of the specific circumstances which he describes. We had asked for the exemption under the new arrangement and the commerce department or the panel dealing with the issue simply refused to look at it on the grounds that there was not sufficient time.
I can tell my hon. friend that this issue is being addressed in a very special and aggressive way with the United States. We are hoping to get a solution to this problem in the event that the larger issue cannot be resolved right away.
April 7, 1992


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
In an effort to control the impact of noise on surrounding communities, transport officials at Pearson International Airport have promised to move ahead with a tough timetable for phasing out noisy stage two aircraft.
Could the minister tell me and the residents of Bramalea-Gore-Malton if this promise is being applied to the new carriers that are scheduled to begin operations at Pearson in the summer of 1992.


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member knows that night flight restrictions are already in place at Pearson airport on chapter two aircraft. We will introduce regulations pretty soon and start consultation on a decision to phase out as of December 31, 1995, until 2002 all the chapter two aircraft. This will apply to existing air carriers and new ones.


THE CONSTITUTION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Lately the government has shown a renewed enthusiasm for a referendum so that the Canadian Constitution will be approved by the people of Canada. Agreement or no agreement, it will have the stamp of the people of Canada so there will be no dispute after it is over. Will the government consider referring Bill C-287, the private member's bill of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, to the justice committee right away so that members of Parliament can look at the legislation and be ready when this legislation is needed?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that suggestion. As he knows, the private member's bill is a quite complex bill that would deal with referendum law generally in the country.
Oral Questions
The government is considering various means by which we can give effect to the undertaking in the throne speech for consultation with Canadians. A plebiscite would be one instrument, a referendum would be another.
I simply want to make it clear that from our point of view it is very important, particularly in the next few weeks, to ensure that the multilateral process of consultations among federal, provincial and territorial governments be given every opportunity to work. We would not want to take any action which would suggest any commitment other than that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the minister will not impose any threat at all or change the pattern. It was a commitment that this government made to this House in the Speech from the Throne a year ago. In order to make sure that things open at the right time, we have to be ready. No one can take any objection to the fact that we are doing our homework right away so that there will be no rushing at the last minute that will create a controversy. They will know exactly where this government and this Parliament stand.


Charles Joseph Clark: agree with the statement of the Leader of the Opposition that the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada obviously have that right. We are considering how we will give effect to the commitment in the throne speech.
I think the Leader of the Opposition would join with me in wanting to ensure that the process of discussion among governments also be as successful as possible. The ideal situation of course would be if the people in Quebec, when they had to come to their decision, which we know is established by law in their province, would know that there are proposals for constitutional change that have the broad support of the governments of Canada and of the people of Canada.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders SAMSON CREE NATION



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper."]
Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Federal Court has ordered the department of Indian affairs to negotiate the transfer of $404 million in oil and gas royalties held in trust by them to the Samson Cree Nation and its trust company, Peace Hills Trust. It is estimated that the Samson Cree have lost up to $100 million in potential investment income because of Indian affairs mismanagement of their oil and gas royalties.
If the minister of Indian affairs really believes in self-government, will he authorize his officials, who are meeting with the Samson Cree Nation in Edmonton next week, to take immediate steps to transfer the oil and gas royalties held by the government in trust to their rightful owners, the people of the Samson Cree Nation?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, consistent with the desire of this government to replace many of the outdated provisions of the Indian Act which involve trusteeship with new alternative forms of legislation and the means being made available to bands to administer their own funds and lands, we are certainly working toward a proper legal framework wherein Indian trust accounts can be turned over to the band leadership.
In this case, the hon. member is raising a matter which has been the subject of deliberation before the courts. My officials are in negotiation about the matters raised by the Samson Indian band and a decision will be forthcoming soon.



Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Walter Carter, Minister of Fisheries, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FEDERAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate the hon. member for Surrey North had eight minutes left.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue the presentation I was making before the noon hour break.
One of the things that is repeatedly happening is that this government is dumping the problem on to the provinces and then limiting the financial ability of the provinces to pay for the results.
I would like to mention three basic areas in which this is happening. Two years ago the federal government changed the Unemployment Insurance Act. Basically it dumped the responsibility for premiums on to small businesses, local municipalities, hospital boards and workers.
When the government withdrew its $3 billion contribution to UI it then limited the number of weeks a person could qualify for UIC and increased the number of weeks they would have to work. These actions resulted in an increase in the number of people going from unemployment insurance to welfare.
Of course, when they went on to welfare the feaeral government was responsible for 50 per cent of the cost under the Canada Assistance Plan. Then the government took the next step, which was to limit its obligation under the Canada Assistance Plan to 50 per cent in the three larger provinces.
This is inequitable because it is not applied fairly. It has meant that both the province of British Columbia and the province of Ontario have had to pick up the additional people on income assistance that should have
April 7, 1992

been on UI with no assistance from the federal government.
There are other programs and other social problems which the federal government is simply washing its hands of and having the provinces pick up.
I want to talk a little bit about foetal alcohol syndrome, which we are just beginning to recognize as a serious health, educational and social problem in this country.
Our committee on health issues has been examining that issue. Last week, people from the city of Vancouver appeared before the committee. They pointed out that in the downtown core of Vancouver 30 per cent of all children born in the last two years suffer from foetal alcohol syndrome.
Eighty per cent of these kids end up in the care of the Superintendent of Child Welfare. There are costs which the province must pick up in terms of provision of services to those children in care. They also provide preventive services to women who are likely to produce children with foetal alcohol syndrome.
They provide counselling services and day care. They provide support for women's shelters, housing and social housing, all at the expense of the province. We know that for women who have a foetal alcohol syndrome child the likelihood that the next child will also have the same medical and social problems is dramatically increased.
The way to prevent this is to provide a variety of support services to that woman on an ongoing basis. These support services are now being paid for under the Canada Assistance Plan, which has been capped.
There are a couple of things the federal government could do, some of which would cost it no money. They would cost absolutely no money and would prevent the occurrence of foetal alcohol syndrome.
First, it could enforce the lifestyle advertising ban on beer and spirits advertising.
We are not supposed to allow breweries to use lifestyle advertising to promote the increase in drinking, particularly among young people and people of child-rearing years. However this government has refused to enforce
Government Orders
it. The CRTC has refused to enforce it. The government has simply washed its hands of this problem and is saying to the provinces: "We are going to limit the money you have to deal with it, but we are going to force you to deal with it".
It could also introduce a national uniform program to demand labelling on all alcoholic beverages and in all establishments that serve alcohol with a health warning pointing out the dangers to the foetus of drinking during pregnancy. That would not cost the government any money. It could introduce that universally across this country and it would go a long way toward preventing the problem of foetal alcohol syndrome.
This is a federal government that is refusing to act in an area in which it could take a positive step to prevent a very difficult medical and social problem. Yet at the same time it is saying to the provinces: "We are going to leave you with that problem of caring for those kids, of providing services and foster care, of providing services in health centres, support services to the families trying to deal with these very difficult children, but we are going to cut your financial support by limiting the Canada Assistance Plan".
Even in the area of health promotion and health education and research, which the federal government is responsible for and which has an impact on this type of social problem, the federal government has cut back.
This is again an example of the government's off-loading of social problems and social responsibilities on to the provinces, while at the same time it is curtailing the provinces' ability to cope with them.
I want to speak again about one of the other program areas in which this government is very famous for getting up and saying how much it is doing, programs to deal with violence against women. With much fanfare it announced that it was going to spend $137 million over five years to promote programs to deal with the problem of violence against women. It turned out that it was only going to spend $15 million last year and $20 million this year, or $35 million over the two-year period. At the same time it is taking away billions of dollars from the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario by putting a ceiling on the CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
B.C. last year lost $160 million. Over a five-year period it will lose $1.2 billion. Ontario this year is losing $1.2 billion and over a five-year period will lose in excess of $6 billion.
In this period that the government says it will be spending this marvellous total of $137 million it has taken away $7 billion from two provinces alone. What is that $7 billion used for? It is used for shelters for women who are battered and abused; it is used for child protection services, to investigate family violence and child protection; it is used for counselling services, to assist women who have been abused or attacked; it is the very foundation of protecting women through social programs that assist them to deal constructively with family violence.
The government is talking a nice line with its glitzy $137 million PR program, while at the same time it is withdrawing $7 billion actually used to fight the program. This is the fundamental philosophy of this government, to unload the problems on to the provinces.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comment of our colleague. He will know that, as he mentioned himself, his own province of British Columbia has really been short-changed by the transfer payments, more particularly by the cap on Canada Assistance Plan. No matter how much welfare and other costs increase in that province, and in my own province of Ontario, the province is forced to shoulder the burden of any additional costs above 3 per cent over the amount of the previous year.
In the constituency that I represent in eastern Ontario there are extremely high unemployment rates. In my riding, in Hawkesbury, Alexandria, or other communities, unemployment rates are probably nearing 15 per cent. This is within about 50 miles of Parliament Hill. People sometimes think, those watching the House or the several thousand Canadians who read Hansard every day, that those living near Ottawa are well off. There is this wrong image of Ottawa as a so-called "fat cat city".
People living in Ottawa are not necessarily rich to start with but the minute you go some distance out of this city it does not get any better, particularly in my area where the economy is worse. It is a very beautiful area but nevertheless we are suffering terribly at the moment from unemployment and the social costs have increased.
I want to ask my colleague if he thinks it is fair that the federal government, by abdicating its responsibility the way that it did, has caused an increase in not only the burden of the province, but in my own province of Ontario, an increase in the burden of the municipalities, who ultimately pay 20 per cent of the welfare costs. Under our welfare rules in Ontario 20 per cent of the costs, as I said previously, are paid by municipalities. The long and the short of it is that we are paying for welfare by the acre in the province of Ontario and it is increasing dramatically as a result of this government's cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.
I want to ask my colleague if he agrees with me that this action on the part of the Conservatives is extremely unfair to residents of Ontario and British Columbia.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I appreciate the question of my hon. friend. I would even like to move a little closer from his riding, right into Ottawa-Carleton.


An hon. member:: Ottawa-Carleton is part of the problem.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: There was a 41 per cent increase in the number of people applying for income assistance in the Ottawa-Carleton district. The costs have gone up from something like $290 million to $350 million. To my understanding-and I may be out of date, so the figure may in fact be higher-there may be a cost of $12 million that will be passed on to local taxpayers simply because this federal government has reneged on its responsibility to fulfil its statutory obligation under the Canada Assistance Plan.
One of the things that the Tories keep talking about is the deficit. I wonder if they can understand that the deficit is not only the fiscal deficit but also the amount of money we spend in this country on unemployment insurance and on welfare. The two of them are really the deficit. That amounts to not $30 billion this year but the something like $35 billion now being spent on UIC and welfare in this country. The total deficit is really in excess of $70 billion.
April 7, 1992

If we took action to reduce the expenditures for unemployment and welfare we would be reducing the deficit. Let us say it costs an extra $5 billion to reduce an expenditure of $15 billion, but even then we would be $10 billion ahead.
Somehow this government has developed a system which allows it to put the cost on somebody else. It has put the cost of UIC on the workers and small business. Local hospital boards pay additional UIC premiums. It is costing my school board an extra $1 million in UIC premiums, money taken away from education. The federal government is saying: "We are not going to consider that a deficit because we do not have to pay it". Well, I will tell you, the taxpayers of this country have to pay it.
Somehow the government has to get a different accounting system. The deficit is not only what is on its books but it must look at the human deficit being caused by the increase in unemployment, the human suffering when people are forced to go on income assistance. Many of them lose their homes and their cars.
In effect, the government is saying that it is only concerned about one figure. It is not concerned that in the province of British Columbia this year, out of a total deficit of $1.7 billion, $1.1 billion is a direct result of cutbacks in federal transfer payments. In Ontario, something like $5.4 billion is also attributable to the federal cutbacks.
I see that I am out of time.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting aspects of the debate on Bill C-60 is what comes with governing, the sense of responsibility that comes with governing. One of the things I noticed in this House in relation to Bill C-60 is that the NDP from B.C. and those members from Ontario are now up on their hind legs in defence of their respective governments. It is very interesting. The responsibility they have to exercise now is ringing home in the minds of most of those members.
I simply want to remind them that in this system of transferring dollars to certain other provinces in Canada, there are basically only three provinces in the last number of years that have been in a position to be able to do that. In other words, seven have not provinces are
Government Orders
being supported by three provinces, namely British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.
The question I have for the member is this. If we are to transfer more dollars to the provinces at this point, where do those dollars come from if we do not borrow them? Where do they come from?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I think it might take me a little longer than two minutes to give the Tories a lesson in economics. There are several things they could do.
They could bring in fairer taxation. They could tax some of their corporate friends, the wealthy that have made millions and millions of dollars and paid no income tax. They could plug some of the tax loopholes that they and the Liberals have developed for the multinational corporations over the years. They could bring in fair taxation where people earning $100,000 a year would not benefit from 60 per cent of all the capital gains tax. They could bring in a fair taxation system.
They could have dealt with their high interest rate policy and reduced interest rates 3 or 4 per cent on an average over the last three or four years which would be saving $16 billion a year in interest payments. That is $16 billion they could have been transferring to the provinces to deal with these programs.
If they had transferred that money to the provinces, the provinces would have been in a position to create some of the necessary jobs so that our unemployment rate may have been lower. Even the federal expenditures would have been lower.
They have this blind mentality and can only focus on their deficit. The federal government collects the taxes in this country and transfers them to the provinces but where would they be if it was reversed? What if the provinces had the power of taxation and only transferred to the federal government what they wanted? What would the Tories be saying now if the province of British Columbia, which was supposed to transfer $20 billion under established programs for the federal government to carry out its responsibility, all of a sudden said: "Hey, we are not going to do it, we are going to unilaterally cut you back $2 billion." Would this government say that was fair?
We had an Established Programs Financing Act. We had a Canada Assistance Plan in legislation in which there was agreement. That was as much a division of federal powers as anything in the Constitution. We had a Tory government, unilaterally, without consultation,

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
break that federal agreement the same as if it was breaking our Constitution.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I get the distinct impression that my good friends, the ministers of energy and of health, are about to tell the House some good news. Why else would they be in such a jovial mood? Surely they take no comfort in what they are doing in this particular bill.
My friend from Carleton-Charlotte, inadvertently I am sure, misrepresented an important issue. In responding to the previous speaker the gentleman from Carle-ton-Charlotte, in talking about transfer payments which are payments in respect of established programs, made a statement about how three provinces were supporting seven provinces.
First of all, I suspect he was confused with the mechanism under another program, the equalization mechanism, whereby certain provincial treasuries receive certain moneys from the federal government, depending on their economic situation. So his comment did not apply to the right program. Even if it had, if he were upfront talking about the matter of equalization, which he was not but if he were, I say to him that he was badly misrepresenting that situation as well.
Nobody in this country, no province has to carry any other province on its back. That is not what equalization is about at all. Equalization allows certain taxpayers in certain parts of the country to have their money spent in other parts of the country, in other provinces.
For example, in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, why could a case be made for equalization? Why should taxpayers in two or three other provinces of Canada be sending money down to Newfoundland and Labrador?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that in 1949, when Newfoundland joined Canada, one of the items it was obliged to sacrifice was its manufacturing base. It was a small base, but we did manufacture a number of items. As a result of the instrument that brought about Confederation, that manufacturing base and the jobs that go with it were wiped out.
I will give the House a related example. Prior to Newfoundland's joining Canada in 1949, we had a very thriving processed fish industry, particularly in the salt-fish sector. We had a very thriving, vital saltfish sector with markets in many parts of the world. We exported everything to other countries.
In the terms of agreement between Newfoundland and Canada in 1949, minutes of the negotiating sessions between the two teams, the team representing Newfoundland on the one hand and Canada on the other, the negotiations leading up to the joining of the two countries as one in 1949, clearly show that the whole processing of fish sector was jettisoned as part of the agreement between the two countries.
What was the trade-off? Maybe the first question that ought to be asked is: Why was that done? The reason it was done was very simple and very explicit in the dialogue of that day. Some of the provisions allowed that manufacturing base to thrive in Newfoundland, and in particular allowed that fish process operation to thrive in Newfoundland before Confederation. Some of the parameters that allowed these two industries to go forward and thrive in Newfoundland prior to Confederation had implications that suggested they might threaten the manufacturing base of central Canada. It was not that we were going to take over its manufacturing market. We are not saying that. If I had time I could be more detailed and more specific, but allow me to say now, Mr. Speaker, that at that particular time the lobby of central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, was successful. As a result we were obliged to say goodbye to a couple of the sectors of our economy that had served us very well.
If we are going to buy into a deal like that there had better be some trade-offs, and the trade-off in a word was equalization. As one Newfoundlander I do not believe I have to stand here 43 years later and apologize for taking something that was provided for in 1949 to address a particular grievance, to address a situation that was not of our making in the first place.
We joined this country with our eyes open and quite willingly. When we joined in 1949 we were not the basket case, the bunch of welfare bums that we are misrepresented to be some days around here. We were a country in the black. We had a bank balance, which is more than I
April 7, 1992

can say for this country these days. We were in the black and we brought with us resources.
If you are looking for a third reason, Mr. Speaker, as to why we received some equalization, we brought with us resources, the resources of the continental shelf that we keep talking about in this Chamber. The fish, the marine resources, are part of Canada today because they were brought into Canada by the marriage of Newfoundland and Canada in 1949. That is why Canada has fish off its east coast and that is the only reason it has fish. The fish were the resource of Newfoundland brought into Canada.
Why do the steel mills in Hamilton, Ontario operate these days? Because they get their iron from Newfoundland, from Labrador, the largest exporter of iron ore of any province in this country. The smelters to process that iron further and to make steel out of it ought to be in Labrador, ought to be in Newfoundland. However, we drive the stuff half way across the continent so we can process it in Hamilton, Ontario.


An hon. member:: What is wrong with Hamilton?


Roger Simmons: The member asks: "What is wrong with Hamilton?" The only thing I can think that is wrong with Hamilton is that it is not in Newfoundland. He comes late to the debate, but that is not unusual for him. He missed the context of what I was saying, but I enjoy his interventions from time to time however uninformed they might be. There is nothing particularly wrong with Hamilton. The member misrepresents what I was attempting to say. There is nothing wrong with Hamilton. That is not the issue. It is not a matter of playing one part of the country against another. That is a zero sum game. Nobody wins in the end. That is not the issue. I was responding to his colleague from Carleton-Charlotte who had inadvertently, I am sure, misrepresented a couple of issues in this House. In the process I was attempting to tell the House why it is that the equalization is not some crumbs from the table that we accept shamefully in Newfoundland.
Equalization was part of a deal that we made in 1949, a deal which required us to give up a fair amount, including the processing of our raw materials in so far as iron was concerned, including the manufacturing sector that I mentioned before, including in particular the processing of saltfish-
Government Orders


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In passing I have taken notice that the member mentioned my riding of Carleton-Charlotte. I am not sure if he did that in the sense of not understanding the issue or not identifying the riding properly, but I am not sure of what point he is alluding to in my speech or remarks in the last couple of days. If he could clarify that, I will certainly respond to those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: We are not in
question or comment period. We are on debate.


Roger Simmons: I thank my friend from Carleton- Charlotte for returning to the Chamber on this, but did I understand that I said his riding improperly?


Gregory Francis Thompson: No.


Roger Simmons: I am very sure to what I have alluded and I am glad I have the right member. He is the member for Carleton-Charlotte. In responding to the NDP member who had spoken previous to my taking the floor, the gentleman from Carleton-Charlotte made some reference to three provinces making payments to seven provinces.
Simply what I said to the House was that I believe the member for Carleton-Charlotte must have been thinking about the equalization program, because it is under that program, not under the EPF program which we are now debating, that kind of payment takes place. It is the equalization that has seven provincial treasuries access funds and in effect they come from the other three provinces.
I was saying that in that respect he had inadvertently, and I used that term several times, not purposely, misrepresented the issue. I use that occasion not to point the finger at my friend from Carleton-Charlotte but to show that Newfoundland is one of the seven provinces he mentions. Not only that, I hope I use the occasion to demonstrate that Newfoundland and Labrador receive equalization payments not in shame or not with heads bowed. We receive it because it is part of a bargain, a deal that was made and consummated in 1949, a deal that we locked ourselves into as a province of Canada at some price.
I used three specific examples in the area of the further processing of iron ore, in the business of manufacturing generally and in the processing of fish in the

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
saltfish sector to demonstrate the point I was making.
Let me come directly to this Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. Let us also be very clear on the mechanism here, the transfer mechanism. What is really at the heart of much of the debate is the notion that somehow a great big grand-daddy, a great big federal government with big fat pockets, is out of the goodness of its heart saying: "Here Newfoundland, here are a few bucks for health and Manitoba, here are a few shekels for your post-secondary education", and so on.
That is not the issue at all. The issue is very different. We really have to go back to the introduction of income tax during the First World War to understand that what is happening here is not a matter of a big kind-hearted federal government just giving out funds willy-nilly to the provincial governments. When the Income Ihx Act was introduced in 1916 or 1917, or whenever it was during the First World War, it was for a very particular reason, to allow the central government, the federal government, the national government in Ottawa to collect certain funds on behalf of the provinces and on its own behalf.
That is basically where this whole business began, the whole concept that the central government was best positioned to collect certain taxes. I realize that it goes beyond income tax to other taxes as well. Having collected those various taxes because it was best positioned to do so, it then sought ways to expend those funds to the betterment of the people of Canada.
In seeking those ways, that government and subsequent governments, whatever their political stripe, because they have all been Conservative or Liberal over the years, found out very quickly that most of the issues needing some amelioration and some betterment-health, welfare, education-were all in provincial jurisdiction. They are all matters which under the Constitution fall not under federal jurisdiction, but provincial jurisdiction.
There developed Established Programs Financing. There developed a stratagem of finding ways to take the
money which had been collected by the federal treasury and filter it out to the provinces so that they could pay for post-secondary education. The idea that somehow the big rich uncle is giving out to the provinces is a misrepresentation.
In principle what is happening is the central government is doing what it ought to be doing and no more. It is on behalf of all Canadians helping to see to it that people in all comers of this country have adequate access to health care, post-secondary education and so on. That is the mechanism.
Depending on who is on that side of the House, we hear speeches about the mechanism I have just described and which has been in place since 1916 or 1917 with refinements and improvements over the years. It was not called EPF at the time, but certainly that was the genesis of these transfers. Now we hear great speeches about how somebody over there last week or last month or since they came to power invented the wheel again and came up with all these ideas. They became even richer uncles or aunts of the provinces and gave them even more money. They produced tables called the "Growth of Federal Transfers" to the provinces.
I put it to any Canadian listening from any part of this country. If he or she took his or her family income or individual pay cheques and went back from 1984 to 1992 and put each year's salary on a little bar graph such at this, they would very quickly come up with a graph that looks much like this. They would find eight years later they are actually earning more dollars than they were in 1984. More dollars. But if I put to them the second question: "Do you have more purchasing power than you did in 1984?", the answer might be quite different.
I remember when I first went teaching in a little community on the north coast of Newfoundland, a community called St. Anthony. One of the staples there and one of the things I enjoy even now with all the cartons of fresh milk around is the old can of condensed milk for my tea. In those days it used to cost 14 cents a can. Now I suppose you pay 94 cents a can. Do not let anybody tell me that that means the farmer is making six or seven times as much money on the milk as he was in those days. Do not tell me that the farmers' purchasing power has gone up that number of times.
April 7, 1992

The fact is that while the government has put in more money in terms of dollars, it has not put more purchasing power. It has nicked away at the purchasing power. Therefore the ability of Newfoundland and Labrador and other provinces affected has been nicked away at, their ability to provide health care, post-secondary education, to look after those on the welfare rolls who through no fault of their own cannot look after themselves has not increased.
That is the tragedy. Under the guise of increases this government is making it increasingly miserable for those people to make ends meet and get their youngsters into university.
Education will be for the privileged and the elite if this crowd keeps going. It is absolutely miserable what this government is doing to the people of Canada.
While it is doing that, how is it treating the people making $100,000 a year? Since 1984, if you in this country earn $100,000 or more, under the tax changes brought in by this administration, you are paying $1,600 less in federal taxes than you were eight years ago. Your purchasing power has increased.
I cannot say the same thing for the people out there who want to put their youngsters through university, but this government keeps kicking them in the guts.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am going to step through some of what the member discussed in relation to his home province and the Atlantic provinces in general. Maybe he can reflect on my comments.
There is some commonality in our approaches to this, much to our amazement. When we are talking about payments to the provinces it is very important that we clarify. Basically, we are talking about three packages that we deal with in regard transfers to the provinces. We are talking about equalization, Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan.
I just want to remind the House that in his province those three payments account for something in the area of 40 per cent or more of the province's revenues. In my home province of New Brunswick they account for 39 per cent.
What I want to stress in relation to the member's statement in this debate today is that equalization
Government Orders
itself-this becomes very confusing back home-that one payment to my home province accounts for about 23 per cent of its revenues. Equalization alone to Newfoundland, considered in isolation, accounts for about 30 per cent of its revenue.
I want to emphasize that we have had some delay in the passage of this bill because of the NDP. I want to stress that, because it is so important to Newfoundland and New Brunswick especially. There is a payment on April 16 and on April 22.
A cheque on April 16 worth $40 million could be delayed because of the delay in the passage of this bill. Another cheque for $40 million, which is real money going to the province of Newfoundland, could be delayed on April 22.
As for my home province of New Brunswick, a cheque on April 16 for $39 million that we would like to send out to New Brunswick and a cheque that should be going out on April 22 for $38 million, a total of $77 million is in jeopardy because of delays caused by the NDP. Would the member please comment on that?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, this debate is not exactly about some emergency situation.
I could have told the Prime Minister the day that he took office in September 1984 that one of the regular matters that his administration would have to deal with is seeing that the money went out to the provinces and ensuring that the government had the legislative authorization to do so.
This is not exactly something that arose overnight. One of the onuses on the government House leader is to ensure that the legislation is brought in to allow for adequate debate. The Tories cannot presume that they are going to get it rubber stamped.
I say to him, and to the member for Carleton-Charlotte who raised the question, that this whole issue, the whole reason we are here, the whole reason there are 295 benches here and the Speaker is up there and there are staff at the table and pages and so on and so forth, is because this government, like it or not, is accountable to the Canadian people. That is why we have television, so that the people of Canada can hold this government accountable, particularly in the area of how it raises and spends money. The government House leader must

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
come clean with this House and introduce those bills so we have fair time to debate them.
My colleague from Carleton-Charlotte asked about those cheques. Mr. Speaker, you have heard some petty arguments in your day. Sir, do you seriously believe that a government that could ram a GST bill that is gouging $14 or $15 billion out of the Canadian public every year, that managed to ram that bill through with its majority by stacking the Senate and everything else in a week or so, do you think that if it really wanted to ram this bill through it could not get it through? That it is now going to tell us that cheques that are due a couple of weeks from now may not get paid? Where is my hanky? I am going to cry.
It will get its cheques through. If it wants to get this bill through it knows how to do it. However do not count on my support on this particular issue.


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Burin-St. George's speak about the loss by Newfoundland of certain manufacturing industries which it had, and the loss associated with the iron mine at Bell Island.
I regret that during the time I grew up in Winnipeg and lived a large part of the time since then in central Canada I never learned that. I did not learn it until my son went to Newfoundland 20 years ago. When we went to visit we saw Bell Island and we learned something about that, and we became more aware of the other industries including the former manufacturing industries.
I agree entirely with what he said about the significance of those industries and their disappearance in the deal with Canada.
There was a rich fishing industry for several centuries-it is having problems now-and the fishermen got a living out of it and the fish processors got a living out of it. Where did the rest of the money go? Did it go to Newfoundland or elsewhere? There was a rich timber industry that built ships. Who got the ownership of those ships? The men who cut the timber and built the ships got some wages, but who got the benefit of owning those ships? Was it Newfoundlanders mainly, or others?
There is now a large pulpwood industry, and I would ask him the same question. Does the profit go to Newfoundlanders or to others?


Roger Simmons: I thank my friend from Trinity-Spadina who knows the Newfoundland situation better than most of our colleagues not from Newfoundland because he has, as he indicated, a son there and has had occasion to visit there on a regular basis. I thank him for his question.
Let me deal with the last part first. In so far as the pulp and paper industry is concerned little has changed in that respect. There were some pretty rich deals made way back around the turn of the century with respect to the mills at Comer Brook and Grand Falls. I think Grand Falls was around 1905 and Comer Brook around 1910, or the other way around. Big British companies, who have since been succeeded by the North American conglomerates, were able to get from the government of the day great, embarrassingly large, timber concessions. They were locked away in perpetuity in some cases, certainly for very long periods of time in other cases.
The short answer to my friend from Trinity-Spadina is that as far as pulp and paper are concerned, other than the jobs that are provided, the people who get the return on the invested dollar, the return on the forests is as it always was in Newfoundland not the local people whose land it really is. That has always been a matter of great controversy in Newfoundland. I think he can tell from my response that I am on the same side of that issue as he is.
Let me return to the other issue, that of the fishing industry. We had merchants as middle men and so on. Indeed, the gentleman from St. John's West is known sometimes, not kindly among Newfoundlanders, as a fish merchant. It is a term of derision which has been passed on to us because the fish merchant was not only the middle man in the process but was often seen as the person who took undue advantage of the fishermen.
These were the days before cash incomes and that is a long story in itself. However to get quickly to the point, while the fish merchants of the day had an undue share of the pie, a lot of the benefits, particularly in the period just before Confederation with Canada, more so than is
April 7, 1992

the case today, benefited the people who were harvesting and processing the fish.
The other point that he raised concerned boat building. There was also a tradition in Newfoundland of a number of small boat building yards. There was a fair amount of local enterprise. There is still a fair amount of that now, but with the downturn of the fisheries there is not the same demand for new boats.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I want to contribute to this debate on Bill C-60 in its context as part of a process begun 10 years ago by the Liberal government, and continued and extended by this government, of restricting the agreed share of funding from Ottawa to assist the health programs, the post-secondary education programs, welfare and other social costs in the provinces of Canada. The programs are meant for all of Canada, but they are applied differently according to different circumstances.
It has been pointed out by some of my colleagues how much all the provinces have suffered, but certain provinces have suffered even more by the unilateral decision of the federal government to cut back its share. Federal ministers can get up and parrot the fact that they are paying more money this year than last year but they know full well that this payment has less purchasing power than last year's payment had, and much less purchasing power than the payments 10 years ago had.
I do not want to belabour that point. It has been made well enough. There has been a unilateral cutback by this government.
I want to deal with the question of who pays for those cuts. We have heard the government talk about the deficit by saying that it is concerned with the future of Canada. It does not want our children to be indebted. What we have not heard the government say is that it is concerned with the children of Canada who, if they live into the future, may or may not carry a burden of debt. If they have healthy life they may or may not have the ability in body, mind and spirit to pay those debts.
I want to refer to some of the situations in Trinity- Spadina and metro Toronto generally. In Trinity-Spadina I have been meeting with some unemployed people, including people who have not worked because of the free trade deal. As a direct and explicit result of the free trade agreement with the United States 600 men and women were dismissed permanently from the Inglis washing machine factory in my riding. That is not by any means the only factory. There are many clothing facto-
Govemment Orders
ries which have been closed permanently. Many others have permanently cut back in their employment. Ten years ago the recession meant that one-third of the jobs lost were lost permanently and now two-thirds of the jobs are lost permanently.
The government told us for a couple of years that there was no recession, then it immediately switched to saying there was a bit of a recession but we were coming out of it. According to the government we have been coming out of it for the last year and a half.
The unemployed people in Trinity-Spadina do not see that coming out. What they see is that many of them have been without a job for two years, with no prospects of a job today, certainly not where they used to work with the skills that they used to use to make money for the corporations that employed them. They have very little other prospects either, certainly not if they have families to feed.
I can think of one man who has been in Canada 20 years and worked 18 of those years. For two years, because of the unemployment insurance arrangement, he has been on training for about a year and a half. His training is about to come to an end because of the restrictions of unemployment insurance benefits that this government enacted. When his training ends this spring he does not know what is ahead. There are tens of thousands in situations similar to his.
Those people are some of the ones who are paying in their lives, in their bodies, in their children's health for this cutback enacted by the federal government. They are also paying for the free trade agreement, for the high interest rates over many years, for the high Canadian dollar. These policies wiped out many of the garment factories on Spadina Avenue that had been successfully selling to the United States before this government pumped up the Canadian dollar as an under the table cousin of the free trade agreement so that the United States, with the tariff barriers coming down, would not suffer from the import of clothing made in Toronto and other parts of Canada.
In Toronto the number of people on welfare has jumped since the beginning of this year by 8.2 per cent. In just a little over three months it has gone up 8.2 per cent. It is not because these people want to be on welfare. It is not because they do not want to work. These are people who were working and who believed they would always work until retirement age. As the man

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
I mentioned said, he is too old to hire and too young to retire.
This is because of the government's policy on free trade and because of the government's policy on cutting back unemployment insurance.
The number of people on welfare is 29 per cent higher than it was a year ago in Toronto. It does not mean that whereas there might have been 100 people on welfare then and 129 people now there are 29 more lazy people. They are not lazy. I see them working when they get a chance to study. I see them trying to develop some little sales enterprise selling children's clothes. It is tough to sell anything these days. I see them doing whatever they think of that could produce something to benefit them and their families, but the opportunities have been taken away by this government.
In March there were 105,491 cases administered by metro's welfare offices and that was 167,444 men, women and children. That is an increase at the end of last year from 98,000 cases, 154,000 people. These are people with flesh and blood and spirit and expectations and disappointments. These are the people who are paying for this government's policy of a free trade agreement and cutbacks and the other things that go with it in the Tory agenda. It is not only those people directly affected, but all metro taxpayers. This year it is expected that the tax bill for metro Toronto as a whole will be $1.2 billion. Out of that metro will have to pay nearly $187 million for metro's share of the welfare costs. That comes from other homeowners and other business people within metro even though most of them are still gainfully employed.
It may be that some people elsewhere think that the poor in Toronto are living off the fat of the land. I can tell you that the maximum monthly rate for those on welfare is $646 for a single person; $1,144 for two adults; $1,239 for one adult and one child and $1,448 for one adult and two children.
They can very well spend nearly all of that trying to rent-they have given up trying to buy-because the prices have been inflated by the people who also get the benefit of the exemption from capital gains tax on thenreal estate speculations. They take the money from the poor in two ways. They take it by inflating the land price and they take it by having their capital gains from speculation exempted so that the poor must pay the taxes those rich people do not pay.
I want to point out also that it does not stop with the pain or misery that was felt last year and this year or this year and next year. For some people the damage becomes more long lasting, perhaps permanent.
We can see what has happened to the cities in the United States, particularly their inner cities, since Reagan invented the wonderful idea of cutting the taxes of the rich. He cut the taxes of the rich and, of course, loaded them on to the middle and low income people. He also cut back services because he said that would make the country prosper. Well, except for a little glitch occasioned by the gulf war, the United States economy is in serious trouble.
After a decade of Reagan and Bush, the United States is in deeper trouble than it was 10 years ago. American cities can show us what happens when that policy is followed. We can see the beginnings of it in Canada. We are not so far along but I think we should take warning. The Toronto Star points out: "There is a downward spiral of the poor that drags the whole of society with it". It is also happening on a world scale, but it is certainly happening in many cities of the United States and it has begun in the larger cities of Canada.
The infrastructure is rotting. In American cities there is uncollected garbage. We have not seen much of that in Toronto and I hope we never do. In America the voters are alienated and 50 per cent of the people do not even vote in the federal elections. That is a democracy? It is their legal right, but why do they not vote?
Crime is increasing. Epidemics and disease, violence and drug use are increasing among desperate people. In the shadow of the White House the infant mortality rate is more than 23 per cent, more than seven times the rate of that in Canada but we will be heading there if we follow Reagan and Bush's policies on taxation and the cutting of services.
April 7, 1992

My point is that people are paying for these government policies. They are not necessarily paying in money; they are paying with their health, the health of their children and the future of their children because when those children grow up under those unhealthy circumstances, without decent diet, having to go to food banks monthly for a little food supplement, as do 700,000 now, they will not be as physically or mentally strong as they should be. If you want to put it narrowly, it is the future productivity of this country that is being undermined by this government's policy on taxation, on transfers to the provincial programs, and giving away the protection of our industry to their buddies in the American corporations.
I now want to go to the other side of the coin. I have talked about who really pays. Now I want to talk about who does not pay.
We always hear the same answer from the government benches that if you want to spend money on repairing broken roads or repairing broken children or whatever needs repairing, where are you going to get the money. They talk about the high deficit, the high interest payments on the deficit and say we cannot go any higher.
What they carefully avoid is any word about how they have let their friends get out of paying taxes. Some of it was begun before their time by the Liberal government but they have intensified it. One of the most obvious loopholes that has been mentioned and needs to be mentioned again is the exemption from capital gains tax. The first $100,000 is exempt. After that it is taxed at only 75 per cent. Of the people who get that benefit there are no friends of mine, no neighbours of mine. None of the people who work in the factories in Trinity-Spadina get that benefit.
Well over 50 per cent of that capital gains money goes to 1 per cent, the richest 1 per cent in the country. The people who need it least get it most.
We in the New Democratic Party believe that it is reasonable that a homeowner, including a farmer, be protected in the sale of a principal residence, and that a small business person be protected in the sale of a business which may be the only means of security in old age except for the miserable pension.
Government Orders
That does not apply to the big majority of the rich people who get this gift from this government.
Also, as has been mentioned, there is the business entertainment and meals subsidy. With this government subsidy is usually a dirty word. They do not want to subsidize anything. Everybody must stand on their own feet. But this government subsidizes the wealthy businessman who takes his friends to-and it is mostly men-the ball game or to a restaurant for a birthday party and charges it off as a business expense. A billion dollars per year goes to those who need it least, those people who can eat in the best restaurants at public expense, subsidized by the public.
We are sometimes told it is a benefit to the restaurants and the hotels. It would be a much greater benefit to the restaurants and hotels to cancel the goods and services tax. That is what is causing serious depression and unemployment in the entertainment industry in downtown Toronto, in Trinity-Spadina and nearby.
This government is taxing those who have very little money in order to give luxuries to those who have more than they need to live.
There is also the write-offs for capital depreciation. Everyone knows how capital is reckoned by a factory as depreciating at a certain rate while the machinery continues to be used and used and used, often for many more years. There is probably about $39 billion of taxes not paid or deferred on that machinery. Nobody knows when the deferred payment will be paid. Probably it will never be paid. Even if it is paid some time in the sweet by and by, that is $30 billion of interest free loans to those who are rich enough to own those factories.
I know businessmen and businesswomen in Trinity- Spadina who have begged banks or begged the Federal Business Development bank, or begged the Ontario Development Corporation for a bit of a loan, maybe $50,000, $100,000, $150,000 to tide them through the recession.
No, they are not good risks. They cannot have it. If they were multimillionaires, they would get far more than that as the benefit of these deferred taxes that they do not pay.
Finally, I want to point out that most workers in Canada, when they are lucky enough to have a job, are taxed at the source. I worked 18 years in a factory, and like everybody else, when I got my pay cheque, the taxes were already gone. So were some other deductions:

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation and by agreement between our union and the company, of course, a share of our insurance policy. The government makes very sure of that for anybody on a pay cheque. In this respect, of course, members of Parliament are almost in the same position as the rest of the public except that a quarter or a third of our pay cheque is considered tax free. It does not get that.
The government does less and less each year to find the corporations and to make sure that they declare all their taxable income and pay tax on it. Even though a dollar of expenditure checking up on the corporations brings $17 of return according to the Auditor General, even though in other words it is the best possible investment that any government can make, $17 for $1, the government keeps cutting back on the inspections of the taxation of the rich and the corporations because it does not want to discomfort its friends.
My point is it is the workers and the people who are not allowed to work who are paying for the policy of this government. It is the corporations and rich individuals who are not paying, and that is why our government and our country are in a crisis.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, Gas Additives; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, Rights of the Child; the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, Diplomatic Corps Security; the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, External Affairs; the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Immigration and Refugee Board.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to put a few remarks on the record. My colleague from Halton-Peel will divide my time. I do not think we are going to need 20 minutes each. I think it has all been said before, but we do want to reflect on some of the comments being made today on the other side of the House.
What I want to remind the viewers back home is simply this. We are debating Bill C-60. We are debating transfers to the provinces. The NDP is allowed to bring in everything but the kitchen sink in this debate. I think it is a little bit ridiculous.
When you think about it, it is really attempting to shore up the fortunes of Bob Rae in Ontario and Premier Harcourt in British Columbia. If you have listened to the Ontario members and the B.C. members who make up most of the NDP members who spoke in this House today, it is exactly that. It is shoring up their respective premiers. It has dragged in everything. I said "everything but the kitchen sink", but I was out of the House for a few minutes to attend the finance committee. Maybe in my absence they did bring in the kitchen sink, because everything else is certainly in there.
They talked about General Motors, Ford and Chrysler in Oshawa and Windsor. They talked about the demise of the industrial sector in Canada, but not focusing anywhere close to the reality of what is happening out there in the real world. They want to focus on Canada in isolation from every other comer of the world.
One of the things the NDP members mentioned this morning is the disruption of 350,000 manufacturing jobs in Canada. Maybe they are accurate. Maybe that 350,000 number is accurate.
They never focus on the four million lost jobs in the United States of America in an economy 10 times the size of ours. The number is relevant. Three hundred and fifty thousand jobs in Canada disrupted in the industrial sector, close to four million in the United States, but they never want to talk about that. All they want to talk about is this trade deal of ours with the United States of America. They never want to focus on the real numbers that are actually working in our favour. In the last year, our trade surplus with the United States has increased not decreased. How many times do they tell the Canadian people that? They do not want the Canadian people to know that.
It is a success. If we want to focus continually on our faults in this House, I guess we can all stand up on our hind legs and do a pretty good job because we are not a perfect nation. But we are working as we never worked
April 7, 1992

before to get through this recessionary period. We are doing a pretty good job of it in this country.
What that party opposite cannot accept is that it has a premier in power now by the name of Bob Rae who is finally realizing that with power comes responsibility and decision making. It is something it never had to do before in this country. I want to focus on the government of Ontario's throne speech of yesterday. I am going to quote a few lines from today's Financial Post and what it had to tell us about Mr. Rae. What they are attempting to do on the other side is lay all of their difficulties in our lap.


Mr. Samson:: No, just most of them.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Just most of them. I am glad he is on the record by saying "Just most of them". At least he admits that they are trying to dump them on somebody else.
Quoting from today's Financial Post with regard to yesterday's throne speech in Toronto:
Premier Bob Rae's government simply doesn't get it. Yesterday's throne speech in Ontario pays lip service at long last to the reality that "a strong economy depends on a flourishing business sector". But the NDP policies outlined in the speech betray a woeful absence of understanding as to how to achieve that goal. Canada's post-war prosperity has been due to its enormously successful trading relationship with the U.S., protected under the free trade agreement. It also has had to do with Canada's reputation of being a fair and attractive place to foreign investors.
That is something that the NDP missed. They do not understand how the economy operates. In the province of Ontario they are scaring away investors. Because they are scaring away investors, they are scaring away jobs. Jobs mean revenues for governments, when people are out there making a living and paying their taxes. What is happening in Ontario now that international companies are deserting Ontario? They are going some place else. The resulting deficit is growing in Ontario because the lack of confidence is creating some problems for those people. What is the Ontario government doing? It is unloading its problems on us. That is exactly what it is doing.
Coming around to Bill C-60, they did not want to talk about Bill C-60. They want to talk about something else and that something else has nothing to do with the reality. The truth is that over the years, we have
Government Orders
increased our payments and our major transfers to the province of Ontario. They have grown significantly in Ontario. I almost picked up Saskatchewan. I would not want to use those figures because they are even more in our favour.
Transfers to Ontario have grown at an annual average rate of 6.2 per cent since we took office. They cannot ignore that. Imagine, transfers to our largest province with the largest industrial sector, Ontario, this year will exceed $9.9 billion. That is spelled with a b, billion, $9.9 billion. That by the way will account for 20 per cent of little old Ontario's economy. That is what this Bill C-60 does. It continues those transfers to the provinces.
What these people have successfully done is hold this bill up. I mentioned earlier today that my province of New Brunswick is due to receive in the next couple of weeks or should have received $77 million from this government. That puts those transfers in jeopardy.
Maybe to people in rich Ontario it does not mean anything, but in a province like mine where we are depending on those transfers for 40 per cent of our revenues, we need those moneys. We do not want this bill stalled. As far as I am concerned, we will continually support the government in its desire to transfer those dollars to those have not provinces.
Let us not lose the argument. They do not want to argue on the specifics. They want to argue on vague generalities. They want to put the bogeyman into the darkness. No matter what area you are talking about, it is always the bogeyman behind the comer. That is not real. The reality is that we are doing a good job and we have not reneged on our commitments to the provinces. They cannot deny that.
I am pleased to support Bill C-60.1 will entertain any questions or comments from the opposition on this.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I will talk about Bill C-60. I have been talking about the subject matter of Bill C-60 ever since I have been here. I will do so in my own intervention subsequently.
The hon. member believes that the Conservative government has been a mad success, that it has done such wonderful things and that the real bogeyman is the NDP. He has spent much time talking about the NDP.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
What I would like to try to understand is what perversity of the Canadian population reduces Conservative popularity to 12 per cent, to create the most hated Prime Minister in the history of Canada, a Prime Minister that 70 per cent of Canadians say has not a snowball's chance in hell of being re-elected. All of that I suppose is a testimony to the tremendous success, the tremendous appeal and the responsiveness of this government to the Canadian people.
No, this hon. gentleman should spend less time worrying about his bogeyman and start asking the question of himself that this government has obviously failed to ask and that is, why does virtually every single Canadian, whether he or she is in a bread line, sleeping on the street, working in a factory about to close and worrying about their future livelihood, wait for just one thing, and that is for 1993 to arrive so people like him and his government will be driven out of office.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, they always say the proof of the pudding is in the taste and there you go. If you noticed in his remarks, he did not address Bill C-60. He went on the attack of the Prime Minister and his lack of popularity in the country. I agree totally with his numbers. If it is at 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent, that is not the issue. It does not matter. If the hon. member wants to ask me why he is low in the polls and why our party is, I will tell him why it is low. It is because as a government we are dealing with reality.
I can mention a number of the initiatives that we have dealt with that have not made me particularly popular, or my colleague next to me from Halton-Peel popular back home, but at least they have respect for us for having done what was necessary. What has happened in the last number of years in this country is that we finally woke up and said: "Listen, we have got responsibilities here". We have a mountain of debt over us and we have to deal with it. We can deal with it in a number of ways. First, we will have to take a look at reducing services in areas where we can, with the least amount of pain as possible. We will also have to take a look at increasing revenues. That is what we have done, if we take a look at the GST. That is what we did. We dealt with the reality that we need tax dollars to pay for the programs they enjoy back home.
We had to take a look at base closures, cuts in VIA Rail, changes to the UIC Act, and most of all the one that they love to rail against: free trade. That is one they love to attack, but it is not working because eventually Canadians will see through the facade.
It is interesting to note that everything we have done has proven right or is close to being proven right. For example, let us look at the base closures. We took a big hit on that one in Summerside, P.E.I. Summerside, P.E.I. is enjoying more prosperity than any other part of Prince Edward Island at the present time. There are all kinds of rejuvenation within the economy of Summerside, P.E.I. because the government went in and fixed the hurt that I suppose we inflicted on them with the base closure. That is a reality. We did not forget those people, and right now Summerside is prospering.
Let us take a look at VIA Rail. We took a tumble in the polls when we had to cut back VIA Rail services, but VIA Rail is now in a profitable position. It looks as if it can expand its operation, modernize its operation. It is a success story.
On the UIC act, for example, it was the same. We had to reform the UIC act. Now they blame us for having done that. We feel that Canadians have to be working to contribute to our economy.
Those are some of the realities we have had to deal with. It has been tough. It has not been easy. That is one of the reasons we are low in the polls.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the time was split, how much time remains?


Gregory Francis Thompson: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it is because the time difference or the time allotted over here has something to do with the facts. We do address the issue, we do address the bill, and we do not try to disguise it in rhetoric.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind the hon. member that the government party has indicated to the Chair that it has split the time for speeches into 10-minute segments. That is why I must give the floor to the hon. member for Halton-Peel for 10 minutes only.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter this debate and to say a few words. I will not be overly lengthy in what I have to say, but I
April 7, 1992

would like to reinforce some of the comments made by my colleague from this side of the House.
Bill C-60 is about transfer payments. It is about the amount of money that the federal government collects on behalf of provincial governments and then shares with them. We have a complex system of taxation in Canada. It frustrates a lot of people, I know. There are unfairness and inequities in the system. It is far from being perfect.
In Canada we have adopted the system that the federal government collects tax revenues and then shares it with the provinces. We do not tell the provinces how to spend the money. It is simply a transfer of a lump sump that goes to the provincial coffers and then provincial legislatures, provincial governments, decide where they will spend the money.
One of the first accusations and allegations of members opposite who are critical of the government is that the federal government is cutting back on funding for medicare and education, which is not the case because the federal government just gives a lump sum of money to the provinces and tells the provinces they can spend the money how they see fit. If there is a shortage in terms of funding for health care or for education, it is because of the spending priorities of the individual governments that receive those funds. That is the first point I would like to make.
Second, while the critics of the government keep insisting that transfer payments are being cut to the provinces, it is not true. Transfer payments are increasing year over year. Perhaps my hon. colleague when he has a moment will be able to hand me a few facts and figures on the exact amounts for this year. I know for the province of Ontario the funds have increased substantially, and this year there will be almost $10 billion given by the federal government to the province of Ontario.
Major transfer payments in total have grown at more than 6 per cent a year since the government came into power. Now 6 per cent is pretty good considering that the inflation rate right now is around 2 per cent. We have a year-over-year increase in the amount of money that is being transferred from the federal government to the provincial governments. It is not true when anybody stands up and says that there are cuts in transfer payments.
Government Orders
The Ontario government yesterday brought down a Speech from the Throne. A lot of people were expecting a lot of big things from that speech. They were looking for some creativity. They were looking for some signal that the Rae government has some way it has discovered to stimulate the economy: some magic bullet, some rabbit out of a hat that the federal government had not been able to find, something so dramatic and different that the Government of Ontario would be able to do what the federal government in some instances has not been able to do, and that is instantly and overnight kick-start the economy.
We were looking for the rabbit out of the hat, and what did we get? Fed bashing. We got one level of government standing up again and saying: "All our problems are to be blamed on another level of government. We are pure. We are blameless in this. It is all the federal government's fault".
We had the premier of Ontario saying that the federal Minister of Finance was to blame for all his problems. In this House today we have had members of the NDP standing up and saying: "It is all the federal government's fault. Don't blame poor Bob Rae".
What Bob Rae has just come to understand is what other levels of government has learned. There is no magic solution. There is no silver bullet. There is no trick hat with the rabbit inside. It just does not work. Economies move on fundamentals, and as long as we do not have the fundamentals right we are not going to have a good economy. It does not matter how much we try to play partisan politics or bash another level of government, it is not going to work.
For the electors, for the voters, for the citizens, for the people who are looking for leadership, they are not getting it there. It is just bashing another level of government.
I would like to make another point. For those people, whether it is in Quebec, Ontario or Alberta, who keep talking about what they get out of Confederation, we need to remember that Canada is not a balance sheet. I know there are people in the province of Alberta right now who have been running econometric models, trying to see how much Alberta has paid into Confederation as opposed to what it has taken out.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
Those people who have a problem with Quebec nationalism will sometimes say: "Look at all the money that has gone into Quebec. It is more than they have paid into the rest of Canada". There are those in Ontario who say they are sick and tired of paying more into Confederation than they are taking out of it. All of that is pretty divisive and all of it is also pointless.
The whole idea behind transfer payments and equalization payments is that Canada is not a balance sheet. Canada is a country that is diverse, that is wonderful, and that is worth all of us sharing what we have. Some of us have more resources in some areas; some of us less in others. The whole point of Canada is that we balance, we equal, we make fair, we support people. That is what this bill is all about. It is about fairness and balance. It is the reason we have a country, that we have not fallen apart and that the 49th parallel has not been erased.
This is Bill C-60. It seems dry on paper. A lot of economic and fiscal arguments can be made on one side or another. It is Canada we are talking about, about a spirit of sharing in this country that means an awful lot to us.
I think it is not helpful when one level of government stands up, facing the same economic problems as another level, and just lays the blame at the feet of those other politicians. That is not helpful. It is only through transfer payments that the parts of Canada, the sums of Canada, are encouraged and supported. But they can only have strength from the other parts of the country if the whole of Canada is strong. Making the whole of Canada strong is what this federal government, despite its unpopularity, has been trying to do.
That is not easy because we have to address the fundamentals. It means competitiveness. It means deficit reduction. It means a country where 40 cents out of every tax dollar are not flushed away in interest payments and that they can go to Ontario or the premier of Ontario for his social programs because they are not being wiped away in interest payments.
Until we get to the day when we can solve that fundamental problem, we are always going to have this argument of dwindling resources. To get deficit reduction and to get the debt under control is very unglamorous and very unpopular. The government knows it and
the Prime Minister knows it, but there is no economic alternative.
Bill C-60 is at the heart of Canada. Transfer payments are at the heart of the Canadian identity. Deficit reduction is at the heart of effective transfer payments because if we do not have deficit reduction we will continue to be knee-capped by the growing debt of this country. Whoever caused it, whatever government is responsible, it does not matter. The point is that we should get rid of it before we move on.
If we want to move on and get to the point where the premiers really want to move Canada forward so that they can fund their own programs then surely members opposite have to support the government in its over-all agenda.
I would like to conclude in the final two minutes that I have by saying that I believe the people of Canada know that we are on the right track. They may not like it and it hurts a lot of times.
I have just been sitting here doing correspondence to some of my constituents. I have just grabbed a handful of letters and read a couple of comments. This letter comes from James Hall of Caledon. He writes: "I feel veiy strongly that Canada will lose its high standard of living fast if it does not keep ahead of world competition. It needs to concentrate on knowledge based industries and enterprises. This means the best education system in the world. Currently we have one of the worst in the western world. We need money for that, not money in interest payments but for education".
Norman Clement of Ganges, British Columbia writes: "There are simply no practical alternatives. The Prime Minister, the cabinet and the caucus are doing meaningful work in terrible times. There is simply no money to spend on programs and initiatives which might earn popularity". Exactly my point.
J. W. Cargill of Bolton writes: "I will feel happier when Canada starts living within its means. We have nothing for that rainy day and are being forced to borrow more and more against the future. With close to half the national debt owing to foreigners it is pretty scary".
It is scary and it is particularly scary when we have a lot of politicians and entrenched interests in this country which are trying to obfuscate the truth. The truth is that Canada continues to drown in a sea of debt. The individual Canadian taxpayers know it. We know it in this
April 7, 1992

House. What is needed is leadership and quick passage of Bill C-60.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke made some points and I would just like to address a couple of them.
The member said that as a result of Confederation some of the responsibilities were transferred exclusively to the provinces. Some of those responsibilities were health care, education and social assistance programs. Along with that went an agreement of a 50/50 sharing process and the federal government would assist the provinces to fund some of those programs.
Why do we have transfer payments? The member is shaking his head. It is to assist the provinces to administer these programs.


Mr. Epp:: It was never part of the Constitution.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: They fall within the jurisdiction of exclusive responsibilities to the provinces and it was done at Confederation. That is where those rights came from.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Funding was never there.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Read the book. In any case-


An hon. member:: You do not know that is the case.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: That is the case and it is true. Why do we have transfer payments if that is not the case? They are to assist the provinces. Where is the money coming from? It comes from one taxpayer. The federal government is saying that it is meeting its responsibilities, it is getting the debt under control and it is getting the deficit under control. But the way it is doing that is by cutting back on the transfer payments to the provinces, the provinces that it gets the money from.


Garth Turner: They are going up.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: The provinces it gets the money from. It gets $5,000 per capita in Ontario and puts back $3,000. We know where the money is coming from. There is only one taxpayer.
Government members are very happy about the lowering of interest rates. They swell their chests and boast about how they lowered the interest rates.
Government Orders
The government is saving millions of dollars. It sells a million ounces of gold per year, making millions of dollars. It has just recently cut $100 million from the CJS program. This government is taking in billions of dollars and it is saving millions of dollars on all these cuts in programs it is doing away with.
I would like to ask the hon. member where the money is. What are you doing with it? Where is this money going? Where is the money from the GST, the excess, where is it going? The national debt does not go down and the deficit is not going down. Where is the money?


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the member will have a look in the budget that was tabled on February 25,1 believe, he will see exactly where the GST money is going.
The GST collected $16.4 billion in the last year which is just about the same amount that was lost with the cancellation of the manufacturers' sales tax, the building materials tax and the telecommunications tax. When those three taxes were removed it left a void that the GST has almost exactly filled, dollar for dollar.
There was a very negligible, marginal surplus. Probably there will be more of a surplus this year, which is good news. As the economy strengthens through 1992, in my opinion, the GST is likely to bring in a surplus over the amount raised in 1991.
I think that is good. The reason it is good is because government is establishing the debt servicing and reduction fund. Into that fund, by law, will go all the extra or surplus revenues of the GST and that fund is dedicated to reducing the deficit.
Canadians are going to have a guarantee. Life does not come with many, but here is one. There is going to be a guarantee that additional revenues, any windfall, any cash cow payments raised by the GST are going to go into a national savings bank account dedicated to deficit reduction.
That is what a lot of Canadians have been asking for. "Give us some guarantee that you guys in Ottawa are not just going to bring in a new tax to raise billions more and then have the opportunity of buying our votes back at the time of the next election". People are pretty cynical. They caught on to that stuff with previous administrations. They wanted some guarantee and now they are going to get it.

April 7, 1992
Government Orders
The earlier point raised by my friend across the way, again it is the same old story, that transfer payments are going down. I hate to strike him down with the facts, but I am going to have to.
In 1991-92, transfer payments totalled $37 billion from the federal government to the provinces. Next year, according to the government's own fiscal plan that will go to $38.9 billion. The last time I looked $38.9 billion was more than $37 billion. I guess that means it is an increase. Actually, it is an increase of 5.1 per cent which is an increase greater than the hon. member's wages or mine are going up. The government is year over year offering an increase to the provinces.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I listen to these debates and participate from time to time. Sometimes I find it absolutely disgusting. I want to take an example. My hon. colleague who just finished speaking has followed the typical Tory line that the transfer payments have not been cut.
When somebody indicated that year by year what increases in the dollar amounts were accorded were diminished and neutralized by a high inflation rate at a cost and dollar basis, no such claim could be made. Do you know what he said? He said the inflation rate is 2 per cent. That comes so close to being a deliberate untruth. He knows that the inflation rate in February was 1.7 per cent and it may be 2 per cent now. That is not what it was in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, or most of 1991.
My point is that we have an obligation in this House to be honest with the taxpayer.
I remember when I first came to this House, we heard from the beginning of this government taking office about the deficit, about the bottom line.
This is a government that came into power as the partner of corporate Canada. There is nothing wrong with that, although you say that the difference between this government and the New Democratic governments of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Ontario is that they do not just represent the corporate sector. What bothers them more than anything else is that it is conceivable that a government would try to be evenhanded with respect to the interests of labour and ordinary people and small business, as well as being concerned about the interests of the large corporations, the international corporations.
There was an interesting similarity between this government's attitude and the attitude of North American corporations and their management which has lead to the failure of both for too long.
It is that they looked at the bottom line as a short-term thing. The deficit was looked at as a short-term thing, just as the profits of the major automobile corporations, the other manufacturers were looked at as a short-term thing.
When I came into this House I said that this government has to think as our corporations have to think about long-term things. It is ridiculous to cut social programs and education and all of those things without being conscious of the impact in the long term.
Most particularly at that time I said that the deficit would get worse and worse. I could not have anticipated the free trade agreement at the time or the high value of the dollar but I said then that the deficit would become worse and worse as Canada lost its competitiveness. At that time I was talking specifically about Established Programs Financing and what was going on at that time.
I remember the Prime Minister saying at that time that if we were going to become part of the major league in the new global competitive economy that we were going to have to improve education, improve research and development, improve our technological performance.
I also heard him say that the federal government and the provinces were going to have to agree that there would have to be stipulated responsibilities for each government with respect to EPF particularly for post-secondary education. This would ensure not only that those governments would fulfil their responsibilities but that funding would also be maintained at the level which would support the post-secondary institutions in this country.
We have subsequently heard about a new emphasis on training and education that both hon. members mentioned during the course of their discourses.
April 7, 1992

But from 1984 until now this government has been unable to understand anything else except the shortterm, bottom line approach which has lead to a failure to do those things in our economy.
I mean yes, indeed, it was some measure of expenditures to ensure that our people and our industries were in fact ready to compete. Because there is no better way of eliminating a deficit than by putting people to work so they are not on unemployment insurance, so they are not collecting social assistance, but this government could not understand that simple thing. If we are going to have a competitive economy that makes profits, pays taxes and eliminates the deficit over the long term, investments had better be made in the short term so that can be accomplished in the future. This government failed to do that.
Not only that, as if it were not bad enough, before free trade it was stupid enough not to have made those structural changes in the economy by appropriate initiatives.
It then goes to work and introduces a free trade agreement which was supposed to be its industrial strategy. Let us just think of the consequences of entering into that agreement without having made those structural competitive changes that were necessary.
There were 400,000 manufacturing jobs lost, 1,000 jobs lost per day. The government would say that perhaps it is a temporary loss due to the recession. For comparison, four times as many plants have closed permanently in Canada as have closed in the United States. The difference we can attribute to free trade.
If we are going to talk about the deficit, let us talk about the impact on our economy of one single element coming out of the free trade agreement. That is the dollar that went from 72 cents to over 85 cents and killed the competitiveness of major industries in this country.


Garth Turner: It had nothing to do with free trade, Howard.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Oh, my God. He said it has nothing to do with free trade. It has nothing to do with free trade.
In document after document from the American side, from the Senate and the Congress, from the mouths of their negotiators was the clear statement that this thing was not going to work except with an 85-cent Canadian dollar.
Government Orders
That is exactly what we have. Whether you know it or not, that is what happened, and that has been a more significant contributor to the deficit, a more significant contributor to unemployment, a more significant contributor to the need out there for social assistance and unemployment than anything else.
Now we are told that the government has not decreased transfer payments. Let me read it to you: "In 1985-86, the share of federal revenue and federal cash transfers was 26 per cent." It is now 16 per cent. I do not know. It looks like that goes downhill to me, and I think that will be read as a decrease in the proportion of money being transferred to the provinces.
Now, you might be able to kid some of the people some of the time, you may even be able to kid yourselves a good deal of the time, but I promise you, you will not fool the Canadian people.
We have people hurting all over the place. I am not here to defend the NDP Government of Ontario or the NDP Government of Saskatchewan or the NDP Government of British Columbia. I am here to speak for the Canadian people who want this government out.
Canadians know now that they cannot get unemployment insurance for as long as they did before, and they have to work longer to get it in a climate where this government has wiped out their jobs for them.
Here in Ottawa right now, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is telling the government that in all the municipalities because of this government's cutback in transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan their welfare rolls have gone up and the burden on the municipal taxpayer has gone up.
Government members tell us that this is a good deal in the interests of Canadian unity. There has not been a single factor more damaging to Canadian unity than the existence of this government since 1984. If we are going to have Canadian unity, we had better get another government.
Canadians are expected to be concerned about the Constitution. By God, I am because I do not want to see this country destroyed. Those of us who fear its destruction will understand its source. It will come from the incompetence, the lack of foresight and the greedy orientation represented by this government. That will kill this country.

April 7, 1992
Private Members' Business
Everybody knows it. We talk about education and training and the government cuts EPF. It says: "Yes, we have increased it and so that is good." It has not been increased in real dollars and our universities are in a terrible state of affairs. Everybody knows it. Medicare is threatened. I could go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6) the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville) moved: that Bill C-304, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Canada Post Corporation), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee A.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to discuss my private member's Bill C-304, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Canada Post Corporation). The goal of my bill is to ban all future strikes by Canada Post employees.
This will be achieved by declaring Canada Post an essential public service so that strikes will be prohibited and strikers will be fined for their illegal actions should they choose to ignore this legislation and go on strike.
Canadians are no longer willing to be held hostage by striking Canada Post employees. Their strike this past summer caused severe financial harm and frustration to Canadians across this country. The residents of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville were very angry during the recent strike at Canada Post because their daily lives and their businesses were interrupted.
Many residents wrote to me. Ben Edwards of Markham wrote:
The cost on jobs, the economy and our international reputation as a progressive industrialized country is at stake. We are the only country that I know of that continually allows essential services to be constantly disrupted time and time again.
Mr. Edwards is right. Strikes at Canada Post cost Canadians. They cost people, businesses and our international reputation. Canada Post expected to earn a profit for the fourth consecutive year but instead, largely because of the strike, President Donald Lander expects a loss of over $100 million.
Throughout the world most industrialized nations are struggling through a global recession. Employed people in these countries are elated to have secure jobs. Yet in Canada, at the height of this recession we watched bewildered as unionized Canada Post employees walked off the job demanding higher wages and more job security. This is a group of employees with very secure jobs and an average hourly wage of over $14.
Maureen Hyman, a local businesswoman, wrote to me expressing her frustration and asking the government to take effective action. She wrote:
We have struggled in our family business to keep it alive through this crushing recession-and now, just when we thought we saw a glimmer of hope on the commercial horizon, we have been shot down by the Post Office. Only the federal government has the power to do something about it.
I am here today debating my private member's bill because only the federal government can act to put an end to these disruptive, damaging and unnecessary strikes. The most effective way to end these strikes is to adopt legislation to outlaw strikes at Canada Post.
In my riding, as in most ridings throughout the country, seniors, people collecting welfare, charitable organizations, and small businesses were hardest hit. These groups are the ones who depend on mail for the money that helps them get through each day. They deserve to have a postal system that is dependable, reliable and unfailing. Instead, the seniors who could not afford to wait for their pension cheques lined up in excruciating heat to pick up their money so they could buy food and pay their rent.
Today, Wayne Baker, a constituent from Markham who is the president of Older Adults in Action, said: "Pensioners get the most aggravation because of these strikes because they have to take buses to pick up their
April 7, 1992

cheques only to find that they aren't ready and they have to return the next day and try again".
He said that at least 80 per cent of the seniors he knows support my bill to declare Canada Post an essential service. Many charities also suffered a severe drop in donations. Art Brooker of the Christian Blind Mission in Stouffville called me during the strike to let me know how quickly donations had dropped off. The impact of the strike on charities like the Mission was very serious. Thousands of businesses were hard hit when their cash flows dried up.
Canada Post enjoys the privilege of being a monopoly. With this privilege Canada Post has an obligation to meet the needs of its customers-Canadians from sea to sea, including every Canadian business and organization. As a result of the fact that Canada Post is a monopoly, corporation workers are in a position to inflict economic harm and anxiety on innocent Canadians. Bill C-304 will protect hundreds of thousands of Canadians who suffered unnecessary anguish, frustration and economic hardship during the most recent strike and the other postal strikes that we have endured over the past several years.
In the fall of 1981 Canada Post was incorporated. One of the major contributing factors to the decision to make Canada Post a Crown corporation was a series of strikes that denied postal service to Canadians. It is clear that this change in status has not eliminated the problem of costly strikes. In fact, Canadians have endured three postal strikes since 1987.
The interruptions in mail service that characterized the 1970s, 1980s and now the 1990s can no longer be tolerated. The effects of these strikes have been devastating. I am not talking of a season's greeting card that arrived late. I am talking about the real hardships suffered by seniors who could not afford to buy groceries and had to arrange with their landlords permission for late rent payments.
These kinds of experiences are emotionally devastating for people on fixed incomes. The basic necessities of life, as we all know, are not negotiable.
I am also talking about businesses whose entire operation relies largely on the postal system. Businesses such
Private Members' Business
as publishing houses, charities and small direct marketing companies are particularly hard hit by strikes. During the strike, John van Velzen, who is president of a direct marketing company in Markham, wrote:
Our industry, which is Canada Post's largest customer, is virtually shut down during the labour difficulties at Canada Post. This will have a serious negative impact on employment in your riding.
What upset me most during the strike last summer was that so many people and businesses were struggling and continued to struggle after enduring a deep recession and the last thing they needed was a crippling postal strike. Canadians deserve better than this.
My legislation will ensure that Canadians can count on more consistent service from Canada Post than we have been getting over the past several years with numerous strikes.
An important aspect of this bill is that within 15 days of receiving written notice from the union or the Canada Post Corporation over a dispute the minister responsible for Canada Post will appoint a conciliation officer, commissioner or a conciliation board to address the needs and demands of Canada Post's employees and management.
I want to make it clear that this bill is not aimed at Canada Post employees. The men and women who work at Canada Post are very hard-working people who take their responsibilities seriously. This legislation is for Canadians.
The following inclusion in the Canada Labour Code is of utmost importance. This section reads:
No employee of the Canada Post Corporation shall declare or participate in a strike. The trade union representing such employees shall not declare or authorize a strike and the Canada Post Corporation shall not declare or cause a lock-out.
This legislation is also in the best interest of postal workers and Canada Post. A formal process used to avert a strike will benefit employees and employers who also suffer lost wages and revenue during strikes.
When it comes to delivery and other services, with the exception of strikes, Canada Post is becoming very efficient. In November 1990 Canadian Business Magazine wrote:
On a national basis, 97 per cent of the mail within the same urban centre is delivered within two days.

April 7, 1992
Private Members' Business
For the past three consecutive years the Canada Post Corporation achieved a profit. This is after 30 years of relying on taxpayers' dollars to keep Canada Post running.
Corporation president Donald Lander, management, and all Canada Post employees deserve a great deal of credit for turning this corporation around.
Canada Post also has the second lowest stamp prices in the world, and surveys show that very high levels of customers are satisfied with mail service. In 1990 independent auditors reported that mail delivered on time reached an all-time high of between 97 and 99 per cent.
It is clear that when Canada Post is functioning as it has been designed to Canadians enjoy a very efficient and reliable postal system. However, the corporation's strike record is dismal and Canadians cannot function with an unreliable postal system.
A Markham businessman, Wayne Urquhart, is one of many constituents urging the government to adopt legislation to ban postal strikes. He said:
I am tired of various postal unions holding us at ransom every few
years. In fact, many small business people like myself, as well as
neighbours and friends, would like to see a law put in place to
disband this particular union.
I agree with my constituents, such as Mr. Urquhart. We must act now, because if concrete changes are not adopted Canadians will be hurt again when the CUPW contract is up for future negotiation and the threat of a strike will loom again.
I do not want the people of Markham-Whitchurch- Stouffville to suffer at the hands of Canada Post's unionized workers. The only way to ensure that we do not have to wait idly by and watch as Canadian seniors line up for their pension cheques and risk heat exhaustion is by outlawing future postal strikes.
This is not a new idea. In 1987 I put forward a motion that would change the Canada Post Act and outlaw any strikes affecting postal delivery. It was debated in September 1988, but unfortunately it was not adopted at that time.
My more recent private members' bill is another attempt to make this much needed change to the section of the Canada Labour Code that deals with Canada Post.
This legislation is the only means to effectively and permanently bring about this change. As a nation we cannot continue to allow businesses, seniors and others whose daily existence is dependent on the cheque being in the mail to suffer.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, just to explain to some people who may be watching I was making sure that there was a Liberal speaker available and was told by the House leader's office that the Liberal member who will be speaking on this is chairing a committee and will take a few minutes arriving. Therefore, I will be speaking first.
The legislation before us in many ways blames the victim. The person who introduced the bill talked about the consumers and the businesses who suffered during the postal strike. That is true and it is a concern for those of us in this House. That is something we have talked about in this House. However, to take way the workers' right to strike is not the solution.
We did not have a long strike last summer. For that matter, this House passed back to work legislation if not in record time in almost record time. The legislation was not before this House for very long. We went into a legislative committee and met one evening to hear a witness from Canada Post, a witness from the union and then came back. After we had some assurances from the Minister of Labour this legislation ordering the postal workers back to work passed in very quick order in the House of Commons.
I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this bill because it gives me a chance to say that the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada were deceived by Canada Post. I would add that the Minister of Labour was deceived by Canada Post.
Last week, Don Landers, president of Canada Post, appeared in front of the consumer and corporate affairs committee of the House of Commons and I asked him questions.
As I mentioned earlier today in a different speech, I asked them about the closures of post offices. I could not get the president of Canada Post to tell the House of
April 7, 1992

Commons how many post offices they planned to close. I could not even get the president of Canada Post to use the word closure. He kept using the word conversions.
We have seen mass demonstrations in town after town, in village after village, in some of the cities of this nation, protesting those so-called conversions as they lose their community post office. I consider the answers that other members and I received from Canada Post to be evasive. That is a polite expression for what it did.
What Canada Post did in regard to the back to work legislation in front of the House and further in front of the Senate was more than just evasive. It deceived. I would go so far as to say that it deliberately deceived the members of this House. We were told by the Minister of Labour that there were eight or nine items left and that if we quickly passed the legislation there would be assurances that the arbitrator would be able to work quickly and resolve the outstanding issues.
That was last October and here we are April 7, 1992 and those issues have not been resolved. The reason they have not been resolved is that Canada Post did not restrict the arbitration process to those eight or nine items. Canada Post deliberately came back with a much larger package of items and basically said to the arbitrator: "You discover what we agreed to. You discover what those eight or nine items are because we are not going to tell you. We are not going to help you".
When I was in front of the consumer and corporate affairs committee last Thursday, I quoted Harold Duns-tan, the Canada Post negotiator, the vice-president in charge, who stated in the Senate: "The union will withdraw some of their extra items. Then we will get down to the basic numbers, the number of items that are really still in dispute".
The union went to arbitration. It honoured its commitment to the House of Commons. It honoured its commitment to the Senate. It honoured its commitment to the Minister of Labour. When it went into arbitration- and I have seen the documentation-it had a very small list of items that were still in dispute. Canada Post did the exact opposite of what it said in the Senate.
This legislation should not be denying the right to strike to postal office employees, the members of CUPW. It should be ordering Canada Post to negotiate in good faith. Furthermore, because I believe this is a very serious issue, I would recommend to this House that from now on, when Canada Post officials come before
Private Members' Business
the House of Commons committee, before they come in front of the Senate, if they are ever called to the bar of this House, they be sworn in as witnesses.
I find contemptible what they said and what they have done because they are in complete contradiction. I know that the Liberal member who has just now joined the House was in the committee when I quoted the words of Canada Post in its testimony in front of the Senate. Yet I could not get an answer from Canada Post. I could not get an answer as to why and what it said in testimony before the Senate was not honoured by Canada Post when it went into arbitration.
Often in this House we have to work on the basis of good faith. The opposition, the Liberals and ourselves, helped to speed the passage of the back to work legislation on the basis of information we were given by both parties. The Senate acted in good faith on the basis of that information. The Minister of Labour acted in good faith. CUPW, as many members will remember, ordered its workers back to work before the legislation was passed. It acted in good faith.
Mr. Speaker, I deliberately accuse Canada Post of misleading, deceiving, and not telling the truth to the people of Canada and to the Parliament of Canada. I think they should be held accountable for that.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-304, introduced by the hon. member for Markham- Whitchurch-Stouffville. Hon. members are being asked to consider a proposal that would have a major impact on collective bargaining in this country. We are being asked to amend the Canada Labour Code, Part I, so as to outlaw strikes and lockouts involving employees of the Canada Post Corporation.
In fact, we are being asked to restrict the collective bargaining rights of Canada Post employees and the Corporation itself.
There have been similar motions in the past. Various intervenors have asked for amendments that would have brought about significant changes in our collective bargaining system. Often, recommendations were aimed at modifying our labour relations system so as to prohibit strikes and lockouts. These recommendations are usually motivated by the impact work stoppages may have on

April 7, 1992
Private Members' Business
innocent third parties that have no say in disputes which, nevertheless, have a direct impact on their lives.
Hon. members will appreciate that labour disputes can be complex and that our present industrial relations system in Canada is based on practices that have evolved over the years. As we consider Bill C-304, hon. members must remember the essential role played by the right to strike or lock out in the peaceful settlement of many controversial issues raised during the collective bargaining process.
Under our system, employees and employers enjoy considerable leeway to settle their differences in direct negotiations where the State seldom intervenes. In many other countries, this basic freedom is not recognized, but one hopes that with all the changes that are now occurring in a number of countries in eastern Europe, it will soon be common practice.
The conciliation and mediation provisions in Part I of the Canada Labour Code provide employers and employees with the means to deal with the kind of impasse that occasionally occurs during collective bargaining. If the parties are unable to settle their differences through conciliation and mediation, they have the right, provided certain conditions are met, to call a strike or threaten a lockout, to convince the other party that they are serious about their demands.
In most cases the threat of economic retaliation at the last stages of collective bargaining is enough to convince the parties to reach the requisite compromise for a peaceful settlement. Today the number and frequency of work stoppages in Canada are practically negligible. In fact, they represent only a fraction of 1 per cent of total hours worked.
Without wishing to put undue emphasis on this particular aspect, perhaps I may point out that in 1991, the number of hours lost in this country as a result of work stoppages represented only five days per 10,000 days worked.
The system established by Part I of the Canada Labour Code provides for a series of measures to simplify the collective bargaining process and the application of collective agreements. After examining the dispute
settlement provisions, I am convinced they can be adapted to the various circumstances that may arise. Although no policy or procedure will ever be able to settle all labour disputes, the flexibility of the dispute settlement provisions in the Canada Labour Code is impressive and testifies to the reliability of an industrial relations system developed over the years. The series of measures provided under the Canada Labour Code does, I believe, offer the flexibility required for effective dispute settlement.
I would like to say very briefly that under this system, the right to strike or lock out cannot be exercised until seven days after the Minister of Labour has exhausted the conciliation measures open to him under the Canada Labour Code.
Furthermore, the minister may at any time appoint a mediator, in accordance with section 105 of the code, to assist the parties in settling their dispute.
According to section 79 of the code, before the report of the conciliation commissioner or conciliation board is made, the parties may at any time agree, in writing, to be bound by the recommendations in the report.
To recapitulate, these procedures provide employers and employees with a series of conciliation and mediation provisions that can help them settle their differences, as well as the option of submitting to a mechanism for achieving a final settlement, under which the parties agree to be bound by the recommendations of a conciliation commissioner or conciliation board.
These are a few of the main ingredients of the collective bargaining process in Canada. I would like to make two comments in this respect. First of all, the provisions of the Canada Labour Code give employers and employees complete freedom to negotiate the collective agreement they feel is the best in the circumstances, considering the business climate and the economic constraints affecting their industry. When conciliation or mediation is provided by a third party, the other parties reserve the right to direct the course of negotiations, the third party being there only to guide them and assist them in defining the parameters of litigious items, seeking a compromise and resolving the impasse.
April 7, 1992

I may add that this method is in every way similar to that used by the government in many other economic and social sectors. The government has urged companies in the private sector to take more initiative and to depend less on government assistance in expanding their markets. This approach implies that individuals and businesses are being urged to take responsibility for their own future and to seek new ways to ensure economic growth. If we apply this to industrial relations, it means that employers and employees will have greater responsibility for settling their differences without government intervention.
The provisions of the code on conciliation and mediation reflect this approach by making the parties responsible for the actual bargaining and dispute settlement, process. Part I of the code provides the statutory framework for the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees, in which the responsibility for dispute settlement clearly lies with the parties.
My second comment concerns the respect the parties must have for the collective bargaining system when they start the process.
Mr. Speaker, I believe my time is up.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I think you may find that there will be a consent of all parties to pass this bill at second reading and send it to a legislative committee.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the member of course is mistaken. This legislation, as the Conservative member who just spoke, is ill-advised, ill-informed and quite incorrect. I do not see why we should move forward. We just heard an excellent speech by the government explaining why its own backbencher's bill is stupid. Of course we are not going to help and of course we will not promote its movement to committee study.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I realize that there is not unanimous consent.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I noted that the hon. member perceived a consensus which I don't think exists. It seems it was all in
Private Members' Business
his head, because so far, no other member has spoken in favour of this bill, if I am not mistaken.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in recent years that such a thing has been tried. A few years ago, there was a parliamentary committee report which contained a recommendation to the effect that during a strike, Canada Post's monopoly on first class mail delivery would be abolished. This report had been prepared by the hon. member for Halton-Peel, who was the committee chairman, and I think that government members were unanimously for it, whereas opposition members were against. We certainly did not agree with that proposal.
Now, some two years later, here we are with another bill to abolish the right to strike for Canada Post workers.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not consider myself a big union man-I don't hide that. However, I must say that given the way Canada Post acts towards its employees, you do not have to be a genius to understand that those employees need some way to defend themselves from Canada Post management.
You and I, Mr. Speaker, and all other parliamentarians have to deal with this corporation almost every day and God knows that it is not easy, because they are trying to close down post offices in our ridings and have us believe all sorts of things and so on. I will not go into more detail, but it is not easy for a parliamentarian to come to terms with Canada Post. Imagine what it is like for a mail sorter in Canada Post. If we members of Parliament have difficulty being heard, imagine what it is like for people who work for that outfit. It is certainly not easy.
Mr. Speaker, I must also add that I am certainly not one to rejoice when there is a strike at Canada Post.
I think that it is awful, but why does it happen? It is certainly not all the employees' fault. That is rarely the case in any labour dispute. In the case of Canada Post, obviously the corporation has a large share of responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you quite honestly that in the long term, I would not want there to be any more strikes at Canada Post, that there would be no more need for the strike weapon. I even hope that both parties would agree that they no longer need the right to strike. That

April 7, 1992
Private Members' Business
would make me really glad and I think that all Canadians would be pleased as well. But wishing that they would no longer need the right to strike at Canada Post and taking that right away from them is not the same thing, because what is proposed today is to abolish that right. That is quite a different story.
If the postal workers' union agrees with Canada Post, Don Landers on one side of the table and Jean-Claude Parrot and his colleagues on the other, if they sit down and negotiate to abolish the right to strike and agree to replace it with something else starting right now, then they can go to the minister and tell him that they both agree there is a better way. That would not be the House or parliamentarians imposing what other people want on some people. It would be what both management and the union want.
I would really like that, because I do not want any more strikes at Canada Post either. I will conclude by saying again that I certainly do not want to support a bill that would unilaterally take away rights from workers at Canada Post and totally unbalance the situation in that corporation. It is so hard to find a balance within that outfit because, as I said before, things seldom go well there and often go very badly. That is not a recent situation, I am the first to admit.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues that I, for one, do not intend to vote for this bill. My intention is not one where I do not favour an end to strikes at Canada Post, there is nothing I would like better, but that is a different story. I do not think we should take away the rights of one party in favour of another. I would really wish, though, that both sides would get together and do their best to ensure that we do not have any more of those awful disputes that we had last summer or the summer prior at Canada Post. They were not good. Many innocent Canadians were harmed in the process. I will say it here: Some of the things that some of the workers did I found repugnant, they were awful, trying to prevent senior citizens from getting their cheques and so on. That was wrong. Some of the things that management did was worse. So there is no innocent party in all of this.
Who provoked who the most? I have my own suspicions, having had management of Canada Post at committee last week, but I will leave it at that, save and except to say that I cannot support this bill, even though
I would wish that there would be no more strikes at Canada Post. The removal of the rights of the workers completely is certainly not the way that I as an independent member-because this is private members' hour- would like to see it done.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words in support of Bill C-304, a bill to amend the Canada Labour Code with respect to the Canada Post Corporation. In effect, it declares Canada Post an essential service and removes the right to strike and the right to lock out the employees of Canada Post.
I have listened carefully this evening to the debate which seems to have revolved around who is right and who is wrong in labour disputes relating to Canada Post, whether or not the union is wrong in the way that it treats the situation and its attitudes toward a strike, whether or not management is wrong in the way that it treats the situation and its attitude toward a strike or a lock out.
The issue, Mr. Speaker, as you know, as I know, and as all Canadians know, is not the hardship on the union, not the hardship on management, but it is the hardship on the average Canadian. Where does the average Canadian stand in all this? What is the impact on an average Canadian when there is a strike or when there is a lock out and Canadians are deprived of their mail service?
I suppose there are not many Canadians who would not want to be deprived of some of the junk mail that goes through our post office services these days. I get letters all the time-I suspect you do as well-saying put an end to that, get rid of the junk mail.
It is an entirely different story when we are talking about first class mail, particularly if they are talking about a cheque, a cheque for a senior citizen, a cheque for a small business. As far as small business is concerned, the Canada Post system with its monopoly on first class mail is in fact an essential service.
As far as the senior citizen receiving a pension cheque, there are alternatives now, the direct deposit concept, which I advocate and which makes a good deal of sense but which is not without its flaws, its difficulties and its problems from time to time. For those senior citizens still concerned about getting a cheque in the mail then Canada Post is in fact an essential service.
April 7, 1992

If it is an essential service, should it be allowed to close down at any time and not only inconvenience but almost drive to the point of bankruptcy a lot of businesses and almost drive to the point of having to go to the food banks perhaps our senior citizens? I am one who believes that when we are dealing with an essential service the time has come to make sure that the mail does go through, and the mail does go through at all times. If that means that we have to remove the right to lock out, remove the right to strike, then that is what we are going to have to do.
It is not as if this is something that is unique, that is earth shaking, that does not apply in other cases, Mr. Speaker. You and I know that there are other essential services that do not have the right to strike and do not have the right to lock out. I think for one of many if not all of our police departments. They go through this process without the right to strike and without the right of management to lock them out. What they do of course is have a process of binding arbitration in which there is a decision made. Someone or some body of people sit down and listen to all the concerns on both sides and come to a decision which is binding on everybody. There is not a labour shutdown. There is in fact a decision made by a board of arbitration.
That is the way that it happens with police departments, fire departments, and other essential services right across our country. That is the way in my view that it should happen here.
There is a premium to pay for compulsory arbitration. We have seen time and time again that an arbitrator usually rewards the employees at a higher rate under compulsory arbitration than they do if it is a negotiated settlement. But that is a price that has to be paid by the public for the convenience of having a police department that is there all the time, a fire department that is there all the time, and in this case I believe the price that has to be paid for a post office that is there all the time. I hope that the House in its wisdom will see fit to pass this bill and send it to committee so that we can enact it and make sure that it is part-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, April 2,1992, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.
Government Orders

Therefore the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the item is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[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 third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It is my duty to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of Bill C-60 at third reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: On division.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is there unanimous consent to declare that it is six o'clock p.m. to begin the debate on the adjournment motion?


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the parliamentary secretaries have not yet arrived for the late show, so it might be a good idea to suspend the sitting until six o'clock.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Therefore I suspend the sitting until six o'clock.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.47 p.m.

April 7, 1992
Adjournment Debate SITTING RESUMED
The House resumed at 6 p.m.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this evening on an issue which has been of concern to me since before I was elected to the House of Commons. That issue is the worsening situation at the Heals Rifle Range in my constituency.
Heals Range is the responsibility of the Department of National Defence. I am sorry to say that in my dealings with the military on this issue, there is growing frustration. The increased use of the range by civilian users on weekends is making an already difficult situation much worse for scores of my constituents.
I have been in repeated contact over the past number of years with the office of the commander, maritime forces, to apprise him of the complaints of neighbours. I have also written to the Minister of National Defence.
These complaints regard the noise, particularly on weekends and also the lack of military supervision of the facility when it is being used by civilians.
The residents have yet to have these concerns satisfactorily addressed. Unbelievably, an additional issue is that the military, through a special Order in Council, funds the ammunition supplies for the B.C. Rifle Association to use at Heals Range.
There have been numerous meetings on this issue. The Hon. Andrew Petter, MLA for Saanich South and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for British Columbia has also intervened on this issue, as has the mayor and council for the municipality of Saanich. All of this and still no satisfaction.
The situation is getting worse, not better. When one of my constituents phoned to complain of shooting after the permissible time on a Sunday afternoon, the response was a request from the base for personal information from the complainant including a request for the social insurance number. This is not a response appropriate for the military who give repeated assurances of wanting to be good neighbours.
Sound readings taken in the area have been registered at 84 decibels. The municipality of Saanich by-law sets a limit of 45 decibels. Because the range is the property of the Department of National Defence, the municipality of Saanich has no jurisdiction.
Of additional concern to many residents is the prospect of a legacy following the 1994 Commonwealth Games. I am pleased to say that my dealings with the Commonwealth Games Society have been much more congenial.
Officials have assured me that the games facilities will be entirely portable and will be moved at the finish of the games. It is clear that the Commonwealth Games Society know what being a good neighbour is all about. The residents and their political representatives at all levels appreciate that.
In conclusion, it is increasingly clear that the only solution is for the Department of National Defence to phase out the Heals Range and relocate it to an area where the peace and serenity of a neighbourhood will not be violated.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the B.C. member with regard to the military range and the problems they are having in the Saanich area.
Unfortunately, my colleague is not available to respond, but I have noted her concerns with regard to the rifle association and indeed, the shooting after the time and the hours of limitations on that particular military site.
I also have to say I did hear her message loud and clear. Not only have the people come to her, the people of her riding, but also she has been in correspondence with the mayor and the local authorities and all the people of the Saanich area with regard to the problem dealing with this military range.
I do apologize once more that I do not have a direct answer. I will take her concern under advisement and be in touch with the Minister of National Defence within the next 24 hours.
April 7, 1992


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, on December 11, I asked the Prime Minister about the government's commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In particular, I pointed out one undertaking that the government made in signing this declaration and that was to ensure that the essential needs of children should be given high priority in the allocation of resources in bad times as well as in good times.
The response of the Prime Minister was essentially, and I quote: "What we are working toward by trying to restructure the economy to build new wealth is to have more genuine resources so that we can distribute them to people in need beginning with children". In the meantime, of course one million children in Canada go hungry.
On December 11 last year Canada did indeed ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and it legally commits Canada to live up to the spirit and letter of that convention. The ratification of the document was a laudable move on the part of the government but the real test of the sincerity of the government's intentions is in its actions, not in its signature.
The day after ratification the government released its long awaited report from the Sub-Committee on Poverty. Despite numerous submissions calling for drastic changes to present government policy and progressive action against child poverty, the resulting report was one that largely justified the policies of the current government, full of token gestures and band-aid solutions.
In fact, the report ignored the large majority of evidence from well informed witnesses to the sub-committee. Far from being a blueprint for action the report simply provided excuses for past and continuing government inaction. That is one strike against the government in its batting record on children's rights.
Strike two was the federal budget which announced the end of family allowance and the scrapping of the government's long-promised national child care program.
The government claims that family allowance has been replaced with a new and improved child benefits program, but the truth of the matter is that the new program is not an improvement at all. Indeed, independent studies show that after the reforms Canada's poor
Adjournment Debate
families will receive the same number of dollars as they did before the reforms.
It is surely unacceptable for the government not to provide adequate programs, adequate opportunities for Canada's poorest children. The proposed system for benefits will not provide adequate support to either welfare families or Canada's working poor families. To hail it as an anti-poverty weapon, as the minister has done, is nothing short of misleading.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development. When children relying on social assistance are getting anywhere from 44 per cent to 76 per cent of the poverty line, it is clear that their standard of living does not give them much chance to develop at all.
Welfare families will not see any gains from this new child benefit and the minister in response in this House said, and I quote: "There is though a real willingness to do the best we can to relieve those people," that is, those on welfare.
Between 44 per cent and 76 per cent of the poverty line, if that is the best the government can do for hungry children in Canada, it should be ashamed of itself. The government on the other hand seems to do a lot more for big business when it asks for money.
The UN convention also commits the government to take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child care services and facilities. In light of this, and in light of the government's budgetary statements, it seems pretty clear that the government's abandonment of its promise to institute a national child care strategy flies in the face of the convention which the Prime Minister so proudly ratified in December.
Canadian families in need of job opportunities could have told the minister and could have told the government that tens of thousands of parents, in particular single working parents in Canada, consider lack of affordable child care to be one of the greatest barriers to escaping poverty.
Finally, at the world summit in the fall of 1990, the Prime Minister committed Canada to preparing a national plan of action to implement the goals and actions discussed at the summit and to do so by the end of 1991. Canada is now three months late in meeting this dead-

April 7, 1992
Adjournment Debate
line and I do not think that speaks well of the government's commitment to its children.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I know that I can say on behalf of all the members of this House and indeed, on behalf of all Canadians that we share the hon. member's concern regarding child poverty. It is both a difficult and a challenging issue to address, but as the hon. member knows, it is not a new issue. On the contrary, it is a reality that has always faced our society and it has always faced our governments.
The government recognized the seriousness of this problem and that is why we are committed to the children and to their families and that is why currently the amount of some $15 billion each year is transferred to assist families and children.
In the recent budget this government announced a new child benefit. This is a major step forward in simplifying, targeting and enriching federal income support for children and for families.
Canadians will be receiving their new monthly benefit in January 1993.
We realize that child poverty is a complex issue and that more must be done. The family remains the basic unit of our society and anything that harms it affects all of us.
As the Prime Minister has said, when one child in a country like Canada is in poverty that is one child too many.
There is hope on the horizon. The federal government will be acting further, particularly to improve children at risk. This will include the release of Canada's action plan for children which will fulfil the obligation we undertook at the UN World Summit on Children. It will contain concrete proposals to address the problems faced by children at risk.
Of course we cannot do this alone, it takes all of us working together.


DIPLOMATIC CORPS SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary dealing with the attack over the weekend, April 4, on the Iranian embassy.
It raises the question of security surrounding embassies, for the people who live in those areas and their concern for their safety and also for the safety of those Canadian citizens who may work for those embassies.
I cannot help but recall the incident in my riding in 1985 when Armenian nationalists took hostages at the Turkish embassy. A security guard was killed at that time and the Turkish ambassador suffered serious injuries.
At the time, the former deputy prime minister, Erik Neilsen, said there would be an intensive review of security at all embassies in Canada. Further, the former secretary of state for external affairs is quoted in The Globe and Mail, March 13, 1985, as saying: "I emphasize that Canada has a duty and an obligation to protect the security of diplomats who are stationed here and we intend to honour that obligation."
I have 38 embassies in my riding and incidents such as the one that happened over the weekend certainly cause concern and disturb people.
Yesterday the Solicitor General, in answering a question that I put to him, said the measures that had been taken following the 1985 incident were basically that a special emergency response team was established under the RCMP. He noted that it had never been used since its establishment. The question to be put was where were they on Sunday?
I would appreciate receiving some clarification from the government about this special emergency response team.
The Globe and Mail of February 17, 1992 reports that this 50-member anti-terrorist squad is to be disbanded after a $31.5 million expenditure to develop it.
Is this team still in existence and, if so, what is it doing? Where was it on Sunday? If the team is being disbanded, is it true, as reported in The Globe and Mail that the army has taken over the duties? If that is not true, let us have some information as to what is happening.
April 7, 1992

The attack on the Iranian embassy also highlights the need for closer co-operation between the municipal police, the RCMP, CSIS and the army. In my riding the first reaction of any citizen is to call his local police. I understand that the Ottawa Police Force was the first on the scene of the incident on Sunday. I think that is understandable.
It is astounding, as far as I am concerned, to try to reconcile that our Canadian intelligence security agency in London, CSIS, did not know. Normally there is a four-hour delay, but on the weekend we changed our clocks to daylight savings time thereby adding an hour. Therefore there was a five-hour delay between the incident in London and the one here in Ottawa.
I ask the parliamentary secretary, given those questions-and I know the minister is trying to respond here with some substance-can he or she tell me exactly what has happened to the special emergency response team? Can he or she explain why there was the delay in getting information we required in Canada?


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question raised today by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, I would first like to mention the question he asked during Question Period on April 6 about what had been done since 1985 to ensure the safety of diplomats here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the RCMP has taken the following measures: a special emergency response team was created to rescue people taken hostage during terrorist incidents. It is probably the same group that was created and is in place. Embassies have been offered an advisory service to improve their own security. Training in the use of special weapons has been strengthened; cooperation between the RCMP and local police forces has been increased. Bodyguards and chauffeurs have been provided for the most vulnerable individuals when the threat warrants it. The training of protective personnel has been improved; technology has been used to update security and the response time of motorized patrols has been improved.
Adjournment Debate
With all these changes to the capabilities that already exist, I think that I can assure my colleagues that everything has been done to ensure the security of the diplomatic corps in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in February of this year I raised in the House a question concerning the arrest of an internationally respected spokesperson for the Penan peoples of Sarawak, Mr. Anderson Mutang Urud. At that time he had just been arrested. He was detained without any charge. He was subsequently released in early March.
Mr. Urud has been working peacefully to secure protection for a sufficiently large area of Sarawak, Borneo's fast disappearing tropical rain forest both to save biological diversity and to sustain Sarawak's indigenous peoples, particularly the nomadic Penan.
Sarawak is on the northern side of the island of Borneo which lies on the Malaysian mainland in southeast Asia. It is the largest state of the federation of Malaysia and is very rich in natural resources.
In Sarawak there are about 1.7 million people, half of whom are indigenous tribal groups. Virtually all of these tribal groups are dependent to some degree or another upon the forest for their survival. Only the Penan tribe has been totally dependent. There are about 9,500 Penan in Sarawak, 9,000 have been relocated into government resettlement camps, and there are only 32 Penan families who still live a completely nomadic life. This is one of the last nomadic hunter-gatherer peoples in the world.
The trees which are being cut at an alarming rate, primarily by Japanese companies, are of the greatest ecological and cultural value. They are the major fruit bearers, supplying food for monkeys, hombills and wild pigs, and in themselves are the major protein sources for the Penan and other Dyak peoples.
I had the opportunity to travel to Sarawak and to meet with Penan leaders. The situation there is truly desperate. It has been estimated that unless there is a significant reduction in the annual cut of the rain forest in this area, in perhaps eight or a maximum of 10 years the rain forest will be completely destroyed, and indeed the survival of the Penan and other indigenous peoples will be at risk.

April 7, 1992
Adjournment Debate
I want to take this opportunity again to urge the Government of Canada to support the concept of a biosphere reserve which has been proposed by the Penan Association. They note that the Penan have been careful stewards of the forest. They are dependent on the forest for food, medicine, building materials, water sources and spiritual well-being. The Penan rain forests are some of the richest on earth. They contain more plant species than any other and unique animal species.
Logging is destroying the Penan forest faster than any other area of commercial logging in the world. Therefore, they have called, and they are acting on behalf of all of the indigenous peoples of Sarawak, for the establishment of a biosphere reserve to protect Sarawak's last remaining primary forest, its unique wildlife and the Penan's right to their traditional way of life. I support this call and I hope that the Government of Canada will support this call as well.
As well, I want to pay tribute to the many Canadian organizations and individuals, including the Environmental Youth Alliance, the Wild Project of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Cultural Survival Canada and many others that have been in the forefront of the struggle for safeguarding this precious ecological heritage of this planet.
Anderson Mutang Urud is free. But, as David Suzuki, one of Canada's foremost ecologists has said: "if we can't save even a tiny remnant of the world's most ancient rain forest as a homeland for one of the world's only remaining hunter-gatherer tribes, there isn't much hope for the rain forest elsewhere or for any of us".
We must act, Mr. Speaker, on the plea of the Penan people for their survival.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The main issues here, Mr. Speaker, are the environmental and social concerns stemming from the depletion of the tropical rain forest in the state of Sarawak, Malaysia, as a consequence of logging, commercial agricultural use, subsistence farming and hydroelectric development.
The Canadian government is deeply concerned about the wave of deforestation in southeast Asia. The issue is very complicated as it involves not only environment, human rights and native peoples, but also Malaysian federal-state relations, Canada-Malaysia bilateral relations and Malaysian sensitivity to any outside interference, especially from western countries.
The government does not believe that logging should be banned in Malaysia. Nor do we think that a ban on importation of Malaysian timber would be appropriate or effective, not to mention the fact that it would contrary to our obligations under GATT. Rather, we believe that the ecological and economic values of forests must be carefully balanced through sustainable forestry management. Canada is taking a positive approach through its development assistance programs and through participation in international organizations such as the Tropical Forest Action Plan, the International Tropical Timber Organization and the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
Canada is the third largest bilateral donor for international forestry activities under Tropical Forest Action Plan and the largest per capita donor. This government is very aware of the hardships encountered by indigenous peoples, including the Penan as they are exposed to global economic forces. The Sarawak Agricultural Development Plan, a multidisciplinary agricultural planning activity, is a major Canadian project which will have significant benefits for all farmers in the region, including the native people.
On February 5, Mr. Anderson Mutang Urud, a prominent Malaysian anti-logging activist, was arrested in Sarawak under emergency ordinance powers for questioning. He appeared in court on March 5 and pleaded not guilty to the charges. He was then released on bail with a trial date set for September 21. We have no reason to believe that Mr. Urud was detained in connection with the activities related to the recent visit of the member for Burnaby-Kingsway to Malaysia in January.
Our officials will continue to monitor the situation as it develops.
Clearly, Canada is actively involved in assisting Malaysia and other countries to improve forestry management practices in the pursuit of sustainable development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 8,1992