1992-04-06

Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod) moved:: That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be changed to indicate that only those votes which deal with government expenditure, grant or charge on the public revenue and sponsored by the Minister of Finance are considered to be votes of confidence in the government and no member other than the minister may move a motion which would increase public expenditures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to debate this important issue, an issue that could have a tremendous impact on the way in which this House works.
There are several reasons why I put forward this motion and let me elaborate on them.
First of all, I am very interested in seeing a strengthening of the role of the private member in this House, which means private members on all sides of the House. By enhancing the role of the member, it enhances his or her ability to fight on behalf of his or her constituents, to represent those people. That is what I am doing today by putting forward this motion, speaking on behalf of the people of Macleod.
This motion would help ensure that the cabinet remains extremely responsive to private members on all sides of the House, responds to their needs and the representations they make on behalf of their constituents.
I also would like to remove the myth that is, I think, widely held, that the party Whip tells me as an MP how I should vote on every motion, every time I stand up to
record my vote. I stand up in this House to vote to represent the interests of the people of McLeod. There are times when I feel resentful of the implication that somehow I am told what to do, I am not party to the consensus that is arrived at, that we as a party put forward in motions and bills in this House. The other myth which has even less basis in truth is the myth that somehow the Prime Minister tells me how to vote on all issues.
We as a party work together. We come to a consensus. We fight it out. We have hammer and tongs discussions in caucus over issues that are important. We arrive at a decision and present that common front to the House. If I cannot agree I am fully free to stand up and vote against motions. I would like to have this motion accepted by the House to help eliminate those myths.
Another reason, and it comes directly to the next point, is that I would like to eliminate the risk of defeating a government over an issue that is really not a confidence motion. In an objective analysis, you stand back from it and say, should a government be defeated on this particular motion? In many cases there are issues that are before the House that should not cause the defeat of a government if they do not pass. They may well be objected to by members on the back bench on this side, or in the front, or in the back bench on the other side.
In a more general sense, I hope that this motion speaks to a sense of direction about the need for fundamental reform of central institutions in Canada. There is a general interest in the Canadian population to see a wide, fundamental institutional reform.
I had the privilege to serve on the Canada renewal committee and we heard this often from people who spoke to us. As we travelled across Canada people spoke of the need for Senate reform. I firmly believe in that. I believe we need to get on with that as soon as possible.
They spoke of the need for House of Commons reform. This is within the spirit of that need and I really hope that we can make some progress on this today. People spoke of making institutions like the House of Commons more responsive to the needs of the people of

April 6, 1992
Private Members' Business
Canada. This is one such measure that would help achieve that objective. The motion responds to that call and I believe it is absolutely the correct direction in which we need to go.
The motion is a significant issue which is of interest to all Canadians. It proposes fundamental changes to the rules of the House of Commons. Its purpose, in simple language, is to make all the votes in the House of Commons free votes except for those votes on money bills sponsored by the Minister of Finance.
As a result the government will not fall if it loses a vote on an issue that does not deal with money. That is the initial intent of this motion.
It will have a substantial change in the way in which this institution works. In effect, it will help open up the legislative process. It will ensure that some of the debates that now take place in private caucuses will take place more often here on the floor of the House of Commons.
All of us have had the experience of people telling us we did not speak for them on such and such an issue. People genuinely believe that if they do not see any evidence of their point of view being reflected in debate, they do not know that their point of view has even been taken into account. In most cases it has because we have had the debate in caucus.
For example, in the Alberta Conservative Progressive caucus, we take the issue to the national caucus and put forward our point of view. We then hammer away on issues that are important to us. None of us wins the day all the time. In a House of Commons of 295 members, nobody is ever going to win his or her point of view all the time. Even the Prime Minister does not win all the time.
It is important to get this debate out in the open a lot more to help strengthen the point of view, show the way in which legislation is developed, and the influence that we as individual members and Canadians as citizens have upon this institution.
I do not have to tell people here that Canadians in many walks of life have a lower opinion of this House than was the case 20 or 30 years ago. This is true of all
institutions in society. We have an opportunity to help rebuild the credibility of this institution because it is so important in society that the central institutions, the law-making bodies have the respect of Canadians and that Canadians feel that the House of Commons and the Senate genuinely reflect their objectives and their part of the country.
I have received a lot of comment over the last year since I introduced this motion in the House. Let me just quote from one. It is an editorial in the Nanton News entitled "Free Vote is Overdue". Let me just read a couple of paragraphs.
His motion, which is long-
"His" is referring to the member of Parliament for Macleod.
His motion, which is long overdue, would allow MPs to vote on issues according to their own judgment, and not necessarily follow the party line.
As it stands now, if a motion by a cabinet minister is defeated, that is shown as a non-confidence vote for the government and an election must be called. There's little wonder government members follow the party line, when their very jobs could be in jeopardy.
The motion introduced by Hughes is exactly the kind of down to earth, grass roots thinking his constituents expect from him. He's right when he says people are calling for a more visible and effective voice in the nation's capital.
It remains to be seen whether Hughes' Tbiy teammates will be quick to adopt his motion. It was however, one of the promises made in the last Speech from the Throne.
It also remains to be seen whether MPs will vote independently, even if the legislation allowing them to do so is in place. You'll have to excuse Canadians if they adopt a wait-and-see attitude on the actions of politicians who have let them down numerous times in recent years.
This editorial, while endorsing the general concept that I have put forward, also raises some of the other fundamental issues which I think we have to deal with in this House. I look forward to that debate.
We have an opportunity to make an historic change. It is a chance to renew the faith of a sceptical Canadian public. The motion is all about making individual members of Parliament more effective in the job they do for their constituents and I cannot think of a better place to do this than in Private Members' Business. Canadians want and deserve these changes and I think this is our opportunity to respond.
April 6, 1992

Private Members' Business
I presume that some of our colleagues opposite may want to point out some detail of this motion which may be flawed in wording or with which they might not agree and use that as a reason to disagree with this motion. One of our colleagues opposite says "never" and I hope that is the case.
In anticipation of that I would like to propose an amendment which would go even further and clarify the intent of this motion. I have heard from lots of Canadians in addition to the editor of the Nanton News and I have had the opportunity to respond to some of those very legitimate criticisms.
I seek permission to introduce an amendment to my motion which would read as follows:
That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the
phrase "indicate that" so that the motion now reads:
That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be changed to
indicate that all votes, except for those that deal explicitly with the
matter of confidence in the government be considered as free votes.
If I may clarify that, I think this amendment should be accepted because it seeks to spell out when a vote is a free vote or when it is a confidence vote and when it is not. The original motion spelled out specific votes. This amendment does the same, but in a more clear manner and in a way which responds to criticisms I have heard from Canadians.
I ask for the support of the House in order to put that amendment forward.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I may remind the hon. member that the mover of a motion cannot present an amendment to his own motion. Strictly speaking this motion is not in order.
That being said, if the hon. member seeks the unanimous consent of the House, and since the Chair is the servant of the House, if hon. members present wish to give their unanimous consent, of course the Chair will act accordingly.

Is there unanimous consent to integrate the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Macleod?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: Can we debate that, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: After taking the matter under advisement, the Chair wishes to remind hon. members that unanimous consent is required to receive the motion.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier:: Debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We have consent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is what we would call imaginative rule making.

In other words, this makes for very flexible rules. However, I feel it is entirely unacceptable for a member who moves a motion to move an amendment to his own motion in the course of the debate.
First of all, the amendment would need a seconder and we would have to know exactly what kind of amendment we have before the House. We have not seen the document, and it has not been circulated. You have a copy, Mr. Speaker, but I do not. I heard the amendment, but I did not see the text. I have not yet read the motion, which in any case I do not think is in order, but I fail to see how you could ask for unanimous consent to accept a motion that is out of order. Either it is in order or it is not. If you say it is in order, then you seek the unanimous consent of the House to put it to a vote, and it is therefore debatable.
I do not think the Chair could say that Christmas Day is June 25. We all know that is impossible. You might get unanimous consent for presenting a motion like that, but it would not be accepted by the members of this House. In this case, I do not think the Chair has the authority, and I wish you would tell me on what grounds you would have the authority to, first of all, ask the House for unanimous consent, to do what? To let the hon. member move an amendment to his own motion? I doubt you can do that, Mr. Speaker.

April 6, 1992
Private Members' Business

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that you may want to ask for unanimous consent. I do not think you have the authority to seek unanimous consent in a case like this. This is my own view and I would like you to quote for me chapter and verse of which book gives you that authority to ask for unanimous consent.
Although I may be in favour of the motion originally, I may want to amend it. It is for us to decide. It is for the House to dispose of that, riot for the member himself to say that he did not make it very clear so he is going to clarify my main motion by having an amendment put by the mover of the motion. I find that to be totally out of context. Even a junior member of the House would tell you that is quite unacceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: On the same point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I just want to intervene for a few moments to contrast the arguments of my hon. friend who has a great deal of experience with the rules and procedures of this House.
I think you are perfectly in order, Mr. Speaker, to ask if something can be done by unanimous consent, because unanimous consent allows the House to supersede its own rules and procedures. I think what you are doing, rightly so, is offering that option to the House. Should the House decline that, of course the hon. member could not proceed because that in fact would be outside the rules. A unanimous consent question is always in order and is always a question that is left then to the decision of the members who are here today.
I think, in contrast to my hon. friend, you are in fact in order to do that and I would certainly encourage you to do just that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I would not want to prolong the debate unduly since this is the time reserved for Private Members' Business and I think that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the debate. That being said, the House can always suspend the rules that it has set for itself. The House can call it one o'clock even though we know very well that it is 11.30 a.m. right now. So, from that, I take the comment by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier as a refusal to give his consent and I suggest that we return immediately to the
main motion of the hon. member for Macleod, who still has five minutes.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. friend put a request to move an amendment and failed in obtaining the necessary unanimous consent. I wonder if there might not be consent of the Chamber to allow him to refer at least the subject matter of his motion to the standing committee or the House management committee which is seized of this subject.
It would then give private members credit for their work and concern in this area, and it might be a good opportunity for the hon. member to further his arguments before a group that is considering just that subject.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary is making a valid point. He is chairman of the Standing Committee on House Management. I see no objection to sending the motion to that committee for further study, but as it stands, not in an amended form.
If the committee wants to propose an amendment to the House, I think that is quite justified. I would not oppose sending it to the committee for further study, because I think it has merit. I do object to members rising in this place and trying to play around with the rules to make it more receivable, in the sense that it is more acceptable maybe for the member to move an amendment to his own motion.
I do not think we can do that today if we want to be taken seriously by Canadians. I think the committee that looks at this motion would probably be very sympathetic to it and possibly would approve of the principle at hand.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene briefly. There are really two matters before us. One is the question of referring it to the House management committee, which I do support. The second one is whether it is appropriate to refer the motion as originally introduced or the attempt to amend it.
On the latter part, certainly others in this House in the round of debate would have the ability to make the attempt. I think the question is: Should the mover of the original motion be allowed to correct his ways at the beginning of the debate? I do not think it is appropriate, so I would suggest that we move on with debate and
April 6, 1992

Private Members' Business
allow the member to finish his presentation. He may wish to talk about the reason for this proposed change to it, as to why someone else should move it, but I think we can get on with it.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I have a clarification. Can you tell me how much longer I have to speak?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: So that it is quite clear, I believe that there is not consent to change the rules as they apply to this motion at this time. We are still debating the original motion of the hon. member for Macleod, who has up to five minutes for his speech.


Kenneth Gardner Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and distinguished, experienced colleagues opposite and on this side for their advice in dealing with this question.
I believe that there may well be an interest by other members in this House in putting forward the motion to amend which I attempted to do myself. I would certainly hope that is the case because it is important. There is a difference between simply trying to define what question should be a question of confidence and what question is not a question of confidence in this House.
It is not something that is easily defined. Perhaps the best way to define it is by simply saying any motion which essentially defines itself as a motion of confidence. That way members opposite from all of the parties not in the government could put forward a motion and define it as a motion of confidence. They could put forward their motions. The government could choose to put forward its motions indicating when it is a question of confidence and when it is not.
Perhaps that helps us get away from trying to define a long list of times or specific types of motions which are questions of confidence and which are not questions of confidence. The amendment which I sought to put forward today seeks to do that.
I would at this point accept the advice of my hon. colleague from Peace River and seek the unanimous consent of the House in order to have this motion referred to the committee which the hon. member for Peace River chairs, the House management committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Macleod has just asked the House whether he would have unanimous consent to have this motion referred to the committee on House management after it is considered here. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since there is not unanimous consent, I give the floor to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on this motion today, flawed as it is. I recognize the hon. member has tried to make changes in it. I think he became aware of the concerns that I had about the motion when the motion came before the subcommittee of the House management committee to decide whether or not the motion should be made a votable one.
I indicated that it was completely unacceptable in its present form because it in effect gave the government the power to decide what items were to be considered votes of confidence, which in some ways it has already. But at least under our current practice there is some constitutional convention that certain votes in this House be regarded as matters of confidence.
I would not want to presume to give an exhaustive list to the House on this important issue, but certainly the list would include votes on specific motions of non-confidence which the member appears to have omitted from his motion which I think are clearly matters of confidence. Those arise generally during the debate on the budget and during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
In addition, I submit that a defeat on a major supply bill, such as an interim supply bill or the final supply bill, would constitute a failure of confidence in the government and would require the resignation of the government or possibly a dissolution of Parliament.
April 6, 1992

Private Members' Business
In addition to that list, I think a defeat on a major government bill that had been the basis of an election campaign and which the government put forward as one of its major planks would constitute a serious lack of confidence in the government. I would cite as an example of that a defeat on the free trade bill. Similarly, a defeat on a major budget bill might also constitute a question of confidence, but it would depend on whether the bill was rejected outright or whether there was some other difficulty with it.
Those are areas where I submit the government has an obligation at least to look at the vote as one of confidence. The idea that we should set up a set of rules in the House dealing with the issue is one that I am not in agreement with.
The other side of the coin that I think is important is that the government itself may consider certain matters to be votes of confidence and may choose to resign if it loses them. I think that the option for a government to make that kind of decision is one that needs to be open, should the government elect to use its position to say a defeat on this matter will result in an election or in resignation.
I think the government must always have that right, to be exercised at any time. If the rules of the House say that the government cannot do it in effect by listing those things which are matters of confidence, I think we have done a disservice to our system. The parliamentary system works by convention. Everything is not written. There are certain rules that are unwritten and perhaps their imprecision is helpful. We have some cases where the rules are bent one way. Sometimes they are bent another.
I think the advantage of our system is there is this flexibility because the matters are not put down in writing. Having said that, perhaps the intent of the hon. member was to lessen the strictures that the government places on him, as one of the government's backbenchers, to vote with the government. I can understand his anxiety to get away from having to vote with this particular government at any time. If that is his intention, I applaud it and I would invite him simply to come over to this side of the House and vote against it at every opportunity. He might feel more comfortable, but that is unnecessary to this debate.
What he is trying to do is free up votes in the House of Commons, and I commend him for that effort. It is something that is worth while. The question of freeing up votes is an interesting one because the debate is carried on in two planes. We have those who say we must have more free votes in the House. They urge members to break ranks with the party at every opportunity and vote in accordance with their own conviction or the view of their constituents, depending whether the two coincide. Presumably, it is to represent their constituents better, either by voting in accordance with their own view or that of their constituents. That is one argument.
The second plane or argument is that you free up votes by removing confidence votes from the House, by having fewer of those. Once that is done, particularly members supporting the government would feel freer in then-votes because they would know that their vote would not bring the government down. It would not result in an immediate election. They would then know that they can express their disapproval of government policy by voting with the opposition and indicating they are opposed to the bill the government is proceeding with.
Frankly, it is the second argument that should be pursued. That is really the hon. member's intention, I think, in his wording. In my view, declaring free votes in this House will not help our political system. What we need to do is say that there will be fewer votes of confidence in this House. When voting on a bill like plant breeders' rights or the bill dealing with the transportation of hazardous substances, which we debated on Friday, or the bill we will be debating later today, a loss on one of those bills would not constitute a loss of confidence in the government. To my mind that would make sense. I am not sure there would be many who would argue that a loss on one of those bills would, in fact, constitute a loss of confidence in the government.
I have no doubt that if the government lost one of those bills in this House, the government would then introduce a motion of confidence and have it passed. The time to make that change is at the next election campaign when the governing party can announce in the next election that it will not regard votes on minor bills as matters of confidence. If that happens, it will free up votes in this House, which I think is a laudable aim.
April 6, 1992

I do not think we can free up votes in this House simply by saying that party strictures are abandoned. Members are going to vote with their party on most occasions because parties represent a coalition of interests. Members band together in parties because they believe they can be more effective working together than working apart. If each member of this House made his or her own decision on every issue, we would have real difficulty in coming to decisions in this place because members would be voting all over the map. There would be an unwillingness to compromise, to make a decision that is in the best interests of everyone.
The advantage that the party system provides to the Canadian voter and is often forgotten is that it forces members to compromise. They get together and say: "1 will vote for your bill on this if you will vote for my bill on that". It is that kind of compromise that is made behind the scenes and in party caucus in many cases that affects the outcome of votes in this House, gets bills through and it makes the country work. It does work.
If we take away all those strictures and say it is a free for all, we will find that members are ganging up in coalitions that are out to break or stop the passage of certain bills instead of trying to do something constructive.
The party disciplinary system has its place. We need it. We can do with more free votes. I submit that the way to get it is to reduce the number of votes that are considered to be ones of confidence in the government.
For the benefit of the House, the Standing Committee on House Management has been dealing with this issue. There have been discussions. There has been an excellent document prepared by my good friend Professor Franks of Queen's University on this very issue, prepared for the government and released to the members of the committee. The committee is continuing its study. The subcommittee on parliamentary reform is drafting a report at this time, part of which will include some statement concerning free votes in the House of Commons and the confidence convention as it applies in this House. I am sure that at some point a document will
Private Members' Business
come forward from the committee for discussion in this place.
While I welcome the hon. member's motion, I suggest that the wording of it is very seriously flawed. I appreciate the opportunity to have a brief discussion about it in the House. I believe it will come back. I urge the hon. member to continue his efforts and perhaps file a new motion later which may get drawn for debate as this one has and we can have yet another run at the issue.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I too want to participate in this debate. The unamended motion before us deals with two elements. The first is that only those votes which deal with government expenditure and proposed by the Minister of Finance would be excluded. Second, no member other than a minister may move a motion which would increase public expenditures.
The motion basically is redundant as far as the first part because the Standing Orders have been changed as a result of the McGrath report to allow a different view of confidence motions. We have argued in this House on a number of occasions, particularly as they relate to opposition days, more technically known as supply days, that governments need not consider the motions as a matter of confidence. We have had some movement.
Members will recall the motion that my party submitted for an opposition day. It was amended, I believe, by the Official Opposition. It was with regard to GATT. The government decided that this was not a motion of confidence. It was providing an over-all direction to Parliament and specific direction to the Prime Minister. One wonders whether he has actually followed up on that. He was supposed to go out and meet with somebody. So the House has the power and the government has the power to make that determination now and have availed themselves.
On the other hand, when the Official Opposition moved a motion under its opposition day reaffirming support of medicare, the government chose to consider that a motion of confidence. One wonders whether the government in fact was a bit worried about what it has been doing to medicare by the changes in funding to the provinces, but that is for another debate on another day.

April 6, 1992
Private Members' Business
The government has taken both sides on this issue. I welcome the member's initiative to try and get some clarification. As he knows, the government itself, two days before he tabled his motion, promised to open up Parliament, to provide greater opportunity for private members to participate. Perhaps if he had not been in such a rush to follow the government's agenda, he might have been able to come up with the solution that he tried to introduce into this House a few moments ago.
There are two other elements in this. People have been using freely the phrases "free votes" and "confidence votes" as if they were one and the same. They are not. There is no restriction in the Standing Orders that prevents the Official Opposition, the New Democratic Party or the group of independents to have a collective vote. At any time at all my caucus can decide on any issue that members are free to vote as they wish with no guidance, no direction and no whipping from the caucus. In fact, we did that. When this House cast a vote on whether or not we should be in the gulf during the war last year, we asked the House to make it a free vote, that members be allowed to vote their conscience. The government said no. Even though the question of abortion was a free vote, it was a matter of conscience. Even though capital punishment was a free vote, it was a matter of conscience. To a lot of us war is a matter of conscience as well.
So we freed up our members. We made a caucus decision. We took a vote with a show of hands in our caucus as to whether or not it should be a free vote. We also debated the merits to provide some understanding of the members in terms of the issue. To say that a confidence vote is a free vote for everybody is not the case.
A confidence vote is a very specific tool that governments use to sustain themselves as government because if a government loses a confidence vote it loses the right to govern and it must go back to the people of Canada to get a new mandate or attempt to get a new mandate.
There are areas that this government has moved on that would suggest to many are not matters of confidence.
We have the coastal trading act which started 15 years ago coming through the system. It made it to the House just before the 1988 election was called. It got through the House and to the Senate. There were some disagreements between the parties but it was not part of the government's platform as pronounced in either the 1984 or 1988 campaigns. It was bringing a piece of legislation up to date.
Those types of matters could be looked at as issues not to be deemed confidence and not as part of the government's mandate or agenda where there could be come flexibility.
We have to recognize that part of the reason for the call for free votes in terms of the public view is really for change in the confidence vote system because people are angiy about the decisions the government has been making.
I found it interesting that the member's initial wording basically said that anything the Minister of Finance does we have to support.
Is the GST not from the Minister of Finance? Is that not the most hated tax this country has ever seen? Members on the government side like to suggest that if they had had the right to vote according to their conscience they would not have done it.
I would like government members to get up in this House and explain how they voted at their convention in Toronto a year ago. I assume, like our conventions, it is mandatory that they show up as a member of Parliament. I think it was 95 per cent of the delegates who endorsed the GST, after the fact, after this government had rammed it through.
Well you cannot have it both ways. You cannot be calling for free votes to try to appease your constituents who hate that tax. You cannot say you would have voted differently if you had had the right to a free vote.
They did not vote differently at the convention. The GST was in line with the philosophy and the approach of the Conservative Party and the Conservative government and the Conservative memberships. They do not deny that. They make no bones about it.
To suggest that things would be different if we had free votes is not the case. If there were free votes for everything but what the Minister of Finance does, the vast impact on Canadians is through the Minister of Finance, whether it is the GST, the income tax, the corporate tax-or should I say the lack of corporate tax-all of those things affect every Canadian on a daily basis.
April 6, 1992

It is the Minister of Finance who decides what money is going to go to health, to transportation, to external affairs. That is his budget. That sets the framework for the total operation of this country.
Having said that, the government of the day has the right because it has a mandate to govern the country. There is no question in my mind. So when we say we want to free up the government we have to recognize that it has certain responsibilities.
The government has the responsibility to manage the country properly. We may differ as to what properly means and we always differ on that because we all come to this House with different philosophies.
The government does have that right, but it also has the responsibility to ensure that what it does helps not hurts the responsibility and requirement that at some point it has to go back to the people.
The freest vote of all is the vote at election time. I sure wish we would have one soon.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the intent of this motion and wish to commend my friend for Macleod for presenting it.
It deals with two important issues, issues that all of us have talked about and have been approached by constituents about for many, many years. I regret we could not get unanimous approval of his earlier motion to refer the subject matter. I sincerely hope that we can reconsider that issue.
I listened to the member for Macleod during his presentation and I agree with the editorial support that he quoted. People are calling for a more open, more visible system of government. This is an issue that is of concern to many, many Canadians.
Like the member for Macleod, I was elected and I came here to represent my constituents. Their interests come first. Many of those people have the impression, gathered from reports of confidence votes, that we are nothing but a group of trained seals in this place. We do not have the opportunity to really speak out and fully represent them.
Private Members' Business
Every weekend when I go home, constituents express frustration with the debates and the votes they see in this place. Most of these people have a very strong feeling about Canada. They have a strong feeling about the issues that are in front of us. They want to express themselves and they want to participate. They want to see their representatives in the House of Commons participating freely.
The member for Macleod has identified two issues that Canadians do have strong feelings about and two issues that many Canadians do not fully understand. They are issues that have generated and will continue to generate much thought and discussion. Yet to the public, it seems that we are limited to this very short debate. We agree in this place that we need a better definition of just what a vote of confidence is and what it should be.
I do not agree with the earlier argument that was made that we should wait until the next election. It should be debated and it should be researched now.
I agree with the principle that was raised earlier by my friend that perhaps the mover should not be allowed to make an amendment to his own motion during private members' hour. I do not think that that issue was decided on its merits.
So I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe:
That the motion be amended to strike out all the words after the
phrase "indicate that" so that the motion now reads:
That the Standing Orders of the House of Commons be changed to
indicate that all votes, except for those that deal explicitly on the
matter of confidence in the government, be considered as free votes.
With the amendment, I would also seek the unanimous approval of this House to refer the new subject matter to the Standing Committee on House Management for further discussion and report back.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before you put the amendment to debate, I would like to ask you to rule on the admissibility of the motion.
If one reads the motion that all members of this House got in today's Projected Order of Business and one compares that with the amendment that has just been proposed, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that that amendment is quite in conflict with the principle enunciated in the motion that appears on today's Order Paper.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
I do not know if you will rule or have time to rule, but I wish you would immediately rule that that amendment is out of order basically because it introduces a concept called free votes which is not at all similar in the main motion put by the member for Macleod.
I take it that what the member for Macleod was trying to get at was to get the motion to the Standing Committee on House Management which indeed at this time is looking at this whole issue. He knows that. I know that. Everyone in the House knows that. But my point to you, Mr. Speaker, is if the order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I apologize, because the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is one motion in amendment at report stage to Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act.

The motion submitted by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam will be debated and voted on.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-31 be amended in Clause 4
(a) by striking out lines 42 to 45 on page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"23. (1) Subject to section (2), a fugitive shall not be surrendered
(a)	until after the expiration of thirty days after an order of surrender in respect of the fugitive is made by the Minister of Justice under section 25; or"
(b)	by striking out line 2 on page 6 and substituting the following
therefor
"the court and the expiration of any period of time in which a further appeal or application for leave to appeal to another court may be filed.
(2) A fugitive may inform the Minister, in writing, that the fugitive does not propose to commence an appeal or proceedings for a judicial review in respect of any matter arising under this Act, and where the Minister is so informed, the fugitive may be surrendered forthwith."
He said: Let me just bring the House up to date as to where we are on this bill. This is the extradition bill.
Extradition is when someone commits an offence in another country, comes to Canada, is arrested in Canada, and then the other country applies to Canada to extradite that person.
A good example was the Charles Ng case. My friend has just said it is a bad example and that is part of the reason we have the bill. Mr. Ng was alleged to have committed a number of murders in California. He came to Canada and was arrested here, luckily, over an incident. It was actually a shoplifting theft incident in Calgary, I believe. He then went to a Canadian jail and awaited extradition.
Our extradition laws have been in need of revamping. I think we would all agree, every side of the House would agree with that. Certainly we got a thorough airing of the law in terms of the number of appeals that Mr. Ng went through. Most of us thought it was too long; some people would cut it very short. A number of us felt in the House that what we have to do is get a balance to get a fair procedure.
I underline this to the members of the House, the reason the Ng case went on so long was that Ng challenged through his lawyers the principle of whether Canada could extradite or send someone back to a country that had the death penalty for murder when we do not have the death penalty here. The Supreme Court decided that in fact Canada could send people back to a country that had the death penalty.
The minister does not have to do that. Just recently the Minister of Justice in extraditing someone to Florida said: "I will extradite the person to Florida as long as you give me an undertaking that the death penalty will not be asked for'. There is some fairly wide discretion.
April 6, 1992

One of the problems, as I have outlined before, is in an extradition case like Charles Ng there seems to be almost an abuse-not an abuse because you are entitled to an appeal-with appeal, after appeal, after appeal. There was delay. On the other hand, a decade ago there was the case of Leonard Pelletier, an Indian activist, an aboriginal leader in the United States, who history seems to say was extradited on fabricated evidence, affidavits. That is a blot on the Canadian justice system. Mr. Pelletier is still in jail in the United States.
We do not want that to happen. We have to find a fair way. All members of the justice committee, and I am looking at my friend from Peterborough, my friend from Cape Breton-The Sydneys and so on, tried to find some system that would be fair and have fair procedural matters but would not involve too long a delay.
What does my amendment do? My amendment catches a matter that I think is a fault in the bill. What happens is that when the appeals are exhausted, the minister decides under section 25, because it is a political decision at that point, a decision of state, to agree to the extradition as has been ordered by the Canadian courts, after all appeals have been exhausted. There is a tendency, and we saw it in a recent case, of suddenly the person is gone right out of the country right away. There was not even a chance for the lawyer to even meet with his client. That is pretty tacky, it seems to me, and not within the principles of justice that we should have in Canada.
My amendment simply gives a short period in which there can be a consideration of further appeals or a consideration of getting things in order before the person is actually extradited to the country that is seeking the extradition. It seems to me that is fair and just. That is not a long delay.
Not only that, I am following what the Canadian Bar Association said. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the Canadian Bar Association regarding the date of surrender. I quote their brief to the legislative committee on this bill: "A fugitive should not be surrendered to a foreign state until he or she has had an opportunity to exhaust all rights of appeal provided under the Extradition Act".
I am just checking my notes of what the bar said: "A fugitive should not be surrendered to a foreign state
Government Orders
until he or she has an opportunity to exhaust all rights of appeal provided under the Extradition Act. Allowing the fugitive an opportunity to exhaust such rights requires that he or she have a reasonable period of time following any decision to determine whether or not to file an appeal or to apply for judicial review. Paragraph 23(a) of the act, as proposed in Bill C-31, does not provide the fugitive with a reasonable period of time following a decision by the minister under subsection 25(1). Further, proposed paragraph 23(b) does not allow the fugitive a reasonable period of time following a decision by a court of appeal to bring an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada".
The recommendation that is set out is recommendation 12 of the Canadian Bar Association. I basically followed that in the drafting of my amendment which was read to the House.
We heard in the committee from Donald MacLeod, the lawyer for Charles Ng. If I might say parenthetically, I was very impressed with Mr. MacLeod. John Diefen-baker once said this: It is tough for a lawyer to take a pretty unpopular case. This was an unpopular case. MacLeod in my view handled it well. He handled himself very well in front of our committee. I think all members felt that way. Mr. MacLeod said before our committee, and I quote:
If surrender is effective before a Notice of Appeal is actually filed, access to the appeals process contemplated by the bill can be completely frustrated.
I draw the member's attention to what Mr. MacLeod said at page 13 of his brief. I quote:
As currently drafted, the bill makes no provision for automatic stays of execution during all appeal periods. If surrender is affected before Notice of Appeal is actually filed, access to the appeals contemplated by the bill can be completely frustrated.
I would suggest automatic stays such as those contemplated by former provisions of the Criminal Code for death penalty cases as means of guaranteeing access to appeal process, section 604 and section 607(3) of the Criminal Code as they stood in 1975.
There is a precedent.
I asked the question of some departmental officials who were with the parliamentary secretary, whom I welcome. I see him in the House, the member for Niagara Falls. The departmental officials rejected my amendment. They said that the amendment would mean cases like that of Mr. Obomsawin, who, it is reported,

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
wanted to be extradited immediately. They said the minister's hands would be tied.
That is not true. In other words, this is someone who did not want an appeal, "Just get me extradited". You will see from my amendment, clause 2, I say:
A fugitive may inform the Minister, in writing, that the fugitive does
not propose to commence an appeal or proceedings for a judicial
review in respect of any matter arising under this Act, and where the
Minister is so informed, the fugitive may be surrendered forthwith.
That takes care of that argument.
The second argument the department put up was that the amendment would mean a stay of execution of up to 120 days should the Supreme Court be in summer recess. They are technically right. July and August are excluded from the computation of the 30-day and 60-day limits normally applied to appeals, if you look at the Supreme Court Act and the Federal Court Act. How many cases will this actually affect? We are just talking of that period of the summer which affects everything in our judicial system anyway. Do we toss out the principle of fair and even-handed application of justice, the very principle of our right to appeal that the legislation recognizes, simply because the court has gone fishing for the summer?
There could be a short delay in some cases in the summer. That is a pretty weak argument, it seems to me, for arguing against my motion.
In the couple of minutes remaining, I would just draw the House's attention to the evidence of David Givens, a trial lawyer from Vancouver, who has done a lot of extradition cases, including the Reyat Interjit Singh case involving the bombing of the Indian airliner. Mr. Givens said that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Your maximum 10 minutes has now expired.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Could I just point out then, Mr. Speaker, that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give more time?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I thank my colleagues.
I would suggest you look in the Givens' statement. Look at some of the evidence in other cases, the difficulty lawyers have contacting their client, arranging
matters, talking further about appeals and so on. This amendment is not asking much. It is simply asking that after all appeals are exhausted and the minister is about to grant the extradition that there be a short period, as I say in my bill, of up to 30 days, to give counsel time to meet with his or her client, to look at the matter, to decide where they are going from there.
That is not unreasonable. As I said to the House, we in the NDP will support the extradition bill. I suggest the government might consider supporting this amendment.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this amendment. I have a concern, and I am hoping that the hon. parliamentary secretary can address it. Like the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, I have a concern on this. It is a fundamental concern.
My concern is not that the lawyer have a chance to speak with his client after all the rights of appeal have elapsed, to say goodbye or whatever he wants to do, take him to the World Court or whatever. We have here in this process a right of appeal. My concern is that upon having a judicial review of the order of extradition, the government has the power to whisk the person who is the subject of the extradition order out of the country before that person has the right to file a right of appeal.
I was not there to listen to the Canadian Bar Association's suggested amendment, but from reading this, this would seem to me to be their concern: that you have the hearing, the hearing is over and immediately upon the finish of the hearing, the person is whisked on to a plane and taken out of the country before that person has a chance to file an appeal.
That would seem to be a denial of the person's fundamental right under this act and under the fundamental right of justice actually. If, in fact, it is a question merely of the person being able to be taken out of the country immediately after the finish of the hearing of the appeal, I have no problem with that.
I feel that if there is a right of appeal, the person who is the subject of this hearing should be given time to speak with his or her lawyer about filing that appeal. To me, this is not clear. I would hope that the parliamentary secretary could give me some information and clarify this for me.
April 6, 1992


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words at the report stage of BUI C-31, the extradition bUl. I hope to have the opportunity as well tomorrow when this comes up for third reading stage.
There are quite a few defects at the present time. Whatever else we can say about the extradition law in this country, I think we can say three things for sure. We can say that the law is enormously complex as it stands now. It results in long delays, and it requires a great deal of costly court time. It has those three defects, all of which I think most Canadians would agree should be remedied.
I suggest that the extradition bill that is presently before Parliament goes to those three problems that I find. The present legislation as it now stands gives an opportunity for an individual who is fighting extradition to get as many as three times in sequence the opportunity to have his or her case reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada; three times in sequence.
Tell me what other forum or what other law in Canada would provide that kind of opportunity for an individual. One of the problems, and perhaps the major problem with the extradition law in this country as it is now, is that it provides that individual who has come here far more remedies than are available to a person charged with a criminal offence under Canadian law. You get far more remedies, far more kicks at the can if you have come from elsewhere to Canada to try to pursue your rights than if you are a Canadian citizen charged with an offence in this country.
As I say, you cannot give me another case where you or anyone would have a case, a problem or a charge that could be reviewed three times in sequence by the Supreme Court of Canada. You cannot come up with any examples because it only exists in the extradition law.
That is why the government, rightly so, has come forward with the changes. With respect to the motion presented by the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, I would suggest that the effect of the amendment would be to prevent the surrender of a fugitive to a foreign state until either the expiration of 30 days after the Minister of Justice makes a surrender order under section 25 or the expiration of any appeal periods or any
Government Orders
periods in which to make an application for leave to appeal, whichever time is later.
Presumably the reason for the suggested amendment is to prohibit the surrender until after the relevant appeal periods have expired in their entirety, whether or not the fugitive has actually filed an appeal or an application for leave to appeal.
The amendments contained in Bill C-31, include a statutory bar to surrender where an appeal is actually pending. In other words, a fugitive could not be surrendered where a notice of appeal has been filed on behalf of that fugitive according to the provisions of Bill C-31. These provisions do not contain a prohibition on surrender during the periods in which an appeal or leave to appeal may be initiated, if an appeal has not actually been taken.
The reason that a prohibition on surrender of the nature contemplated by the hon. member's amendment is not included in Bill C-31 is that it increases, in our opinion, the likelihood of delay. Bill C-31, on the other hand, encourages appeals on behalf of the fugitive to be initiated promptly. This is consistent with the general aim of the bill which I indicated earlier, which is to reduce delays in the handling of extradition cases in this country.
A legislative prohibition on surrender within the statutory appeal periods, where no appeal has been filed as proposed by the hon. member, has the potential to be abused by fugitives who are seeking a means to stall a likely surrender.
For example, in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, this amendment could result in a delay of up to four months before an appeal is filed where the summer recess of the court is calculated as part of the period within which to apply for leave to appeal. Otherwise the amount of time permitted to appeal to the Supreme Court under the Supreme Court of Canada Act is 60 days.
Out of concern over opening up the possibility of inordinate delay, the government is unable to support the amendment of the hon. member for Port Moody- Coquitlam. Instead the government intends to re-examine the issue of forestalling surrender of a fugitive during appeal periods.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
A comprehensive review of all aspects of Canadian legislation in this area is taking place and certainly members of the government hope to introduce further changes to this area of the law later this year. In the meantime, I would suggest to hon. members, because of the possibility of delay, because of the possibility of abuse which goes contrary to the stated intentions of this bill, they turn down the suggested amendment by the hon. member.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, just on a small point.
My concern is with the fundamental right of justice. I think this is basically a very good bill. Our party has no problem with the bill over all. It is a step in the right direction.
As the hon. parliamentary secretary has said, there were far too many appeal processes that were not really necessary. But this bill, through the ability of the country to whom the person is sought to be extradited, has a chance to make application and the person who is the point of the extradition has the chance to appeal. I think it looks after these areas.
My concern, and I have stated it to the parliamentary secretary, is that while it gives the right of appeal to the person the government is seeking to extradite and says this person cannot be deported, turn this person over to the other country while this appeal is pending. The problem is, once the hearing is finished the government has the right to whisk this person out of the country before this person has an opportunity to speak to his or her lawyer on the question. There would be no way to file an appeal, therefore, the appeal cannot be pending if it is not filed. If the right of appeal is there why is the person being arbitrarily denied that right? That is my only concern and I think it is a valid one in the motion proposed by the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I just want to point out that there is no question and comment period at report stage. It is purely out of gentlemanliness, as a courtesy, that I recognized the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. If the hon. parliamentary secretary wants to answer the question, he may, but I would not want to set a precedent.


Rob Nicholson: I am always pleased to speak a second time, Mr. Speaker. I am very enthusiastic about this bill.
I have heard the concerns of the hon. member. I can indicate to him that in our review of the bill in this area we will have a look at that to make sure we have struck a balance between the government's and the Canadian people's justified concern in seeing that these matters are held in an expeditious manner and are dealt with in a fair manner and the concerns expressed by the hon. member on behalf of an individual who is the subject of an order sending him back to his or her country of origin.
We will be having a look at it, but I think the present law has erred on the side of providing for too much delay, too much review and too much stalling. I think this is one of the reasons why Canadians have come forward and said to us that we must do something about extradition in this country because that kind of legislation is not working.
The hon. member says: "We have erred on the other side. Now we are trying to rush these people out of there". I can say to him that during the review of the bill, the witnesses who came forward and my interpretation of the bill, I think it does strike the balance. It is in conformity with the tenets of fairness that we expect within Canadian laws and within the Canadian judicial system.
I do not think it goes too far the other way in trying to hurry these individuals. That is certainly not the intention of the bill. It is that everyone should be dealt with in a fair but expeditious manner that takes into consideration our collective rights as Canadians to have a system that works and is not open to abuse.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time because I see that all three parties are supporting this bill.
I want to emphasize to the House how many representations I had from my constituents in Parkdale-High Park about this extradition bill. Their biggest concern is that the criminals we are harbouring in Canada have more rights than the victims.
April 6, 1992

I am pleased that finally all three parties are listening to what the Canadian people have been telling us and passing this legislation and, at the same time, being fair. The message I received was loud and clear: we are giving more rights to the criminals than to the victims. Hopefully this will end with the passage of this legislation.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Yes.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before calling in the members, I want to remind hon. members that pursuant to the item on the Order Paper divisions could-I did say "could"-be taken this afternoon at 5:45 p.m.
I want to make it clear, before calling in the members, that this vote is not automatically deferred until the end of the day. It can be taken forthwith, if the hon. members so desire. However, for the time being, I have no choice but to call in the members.


Iain Francis Angus: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been consultations and I think the Whip for the Official
Government Orders
Opposition will be informing the Table that the vote will be deferred until 5.45 p.m.


Mr. Cole:: Mr. Speaker, there has been agreement among the parties to defer the vote until 5.45 p.m. I think you will find there is that agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Just to make sure everything is quite in order here, I will put the question anyway. Then I will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe to move what he has just suggested.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.
John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is agreement among the parties to defer the vote you have just called to 5.45 p.m. tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize. I thought that by saying "call in the members" there would be a call of the bells. In any case this is a technicality. However, I want to make sure that we are following the rules of the House and I would appreciate a call of the bells. Then, I will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe.
And the bells having stopped:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government Whip to defer the division to a later time.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until 5:45 p.m. today, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
I apologize for any confusion, but the Chair wanted to make sure that the rules were well followed and understood. It is always better when things are explained before rather than after. I thank you for your co-operation.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FEDERAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There are four motions in amendment regarding the report stage of Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, standing in the name of the member for Essex-Windsor.

Motions Nos. 1,2 and 4 will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 4.

Motion No. 3 will be debated and voted on separately. [English]
I will now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to the House.


MOTION TO AMEND
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-60 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
He said: This bill in front of us today does two or three significant things.
Part of the bill deals with the extension and improvement of equalization payments for seven provinces throughout the country. We have no quarrel with that part of the bill, nor have we moved any amendments with respect to it.
A second part of the bill provides a guarantee of personal income tax revenues to provinces, and that
guarantee is extended for two years in the bill. We feel it is important that this bill have the effect of increasing the sense of urgency to deal with the whole set of problems associated with transfer payments in this country, as the federal government has been off-loading many of its costs onto the provinces by reducing the expected amount of transfer payments for the provinces.
We have moved an amendment which reduces the extension of this guarantee from two years to one year. Within this one year period, it should be possible to deal with some of the serious problems which exist with respect to other transfer payments besides the equalization system.
The third thing this bill does, which is what this set of amendments deals with, is make it possible for provinces to enter into arrangements with the federal government to effectively establish harmonization of sales tax regimes so the goods and services tax, which we so profoundly object to, can be harmonized with provincial sales tax regimes.
We have seen and heard from every manner of small business across this country. Whether this small business happens to be in the service sector, in manufacturing, the comer grocery store, or the diaper service that services your child, we have heard nothing but horror stories about the way the goods and services tax has imposed a massively increased administrative burden on these small businesses.
I have sat and talked with small business people in my constituency who have told me they have to take as much time now to deal with the administration of this tax as they do to promote their businesses. I can tell you about specific cases.
The Great Canadian Trading Company, for instance, is an important business employing people and selling Canadian items to tourists coming from the United States in the Windsor area. The owner of this business has told me she has to spend over half her time administering this goods and services tax. It is not because she is an uneducated person. It is because her business is a particularly complicated business. It is not large enough to justify hiring a specialist to look after the administrative problems of the goods and services tax. Her small enterprise purchases Canadian craft goods
April 6, 1992

from over 800 different suppliers from across the country.
That kind of business finds itself absolutely crippled by the goods and services tax. The government has suggested to us that we can somehow solve some of these administrative problems by creating one grand tax covering both provincial and federal revenues. It would be a super goods and services tax which would somehow make things easier for small businesses. It will not. It will make things more difficult for small businesses across this country. What is already a problem for firms, such as the one I referred to in my comments, will become an even bigger problem.
We have moved these amendments because we think they should be taken out of this piece of legislation. We think there should be nothing in this piece of legislation that gives any stamp of approval to the goods and services tax. As far as we are concerned, this tax should be eliminated from the arsenal of tax measures in this country.
If we get the chance to form the government after the next election it will be eliminated, and it will be eliminated because it is a bad tax. It establishes an inequality between small businesses in Canada and those in the United States, which is so grossly unfair that those small businesses on our side of the border simply cannot compete effectively.
We must give those small businesses in Canada a fighting chance to compete effectively, not against countries in Europe which have value-added taxes, but against companies in the United States where they do not. When we visited Washington a few months ago we were told they have no chance of putting a value-added tax into effect. To establish fairness of competition for our small businesses here in this country facing small businesses right across the border in the U.S., we must see to it no stamp of approval whatsoever is given to the GST. That is why I urge people in this House to vote for these amendments. They will have the effect of stopping this government's continuing efforts to legitimize a bad tax which has increased the recession, put more people out of work in Canada, and made life much, much more difficult for small business people right across this country.
Government Orders
I urge those people in the Conservative back benches, who should be listening to their constituents and standing up against the GST, to support these amendments. I urge the Liberals, who go back and forth on this issue of the GST, to make it clear in this case they are going to take a position which stops the government from putting the GST under yet another stamp of approval from this House of Commons.
I hope these sets of amendments, which I have moved with respect to this legislation, will be accepted for that reason.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the amendments to the proposed bill under discussion.
One part of the proposed amendments would diminish the revenues guaranteed from two years to one year. The other would delete clauses intended to improve tax administration between the federal government and those of the provinces.
I will deal first with the proposed amendments to the revenue guarantee.
Hon. members will be aware that the proposed amendment to the revenue guarantee does not directly affect the main purpose-


Steven W. Langdon: I should point out to the Conservative member who is speaking that the amendments do not include the revenue guarantee. That debate will take place with respect to the next amendment moved, as I understand it.


Lee Richardson: I appreciate the intervention of the hon. member but I think I will carry on.
Honourable members will be aware that the proposed amendments to the revenue guarantee do not directly affect the main purpose of the proposed legislation before us, the renewal enhancement of the equalization program. However, just because this House is aware of this distinction, it does not mean the provinces or the public in general will seize this subtlety. Therefore, it is important all of this legislation apply for a period of two years.
There are good reasons for having chosen to renew the equalization program for two years. Renewal at the traditional five-year period would have given every appearance of a lessened federal commitment to the current review of all three major transfer programs.

Government Orders
Such a message would not reflect our intentions, so we did not want to send it.
We considered the other extreme of reviewing the equalization program for a single year, but this would have turned up the heat for the transfer review process and left the seven equalization-receiving provinces without the transfer revenue certainty they need for reasonable planning horizons.
After more than 20 months of consultations with the provinces, we settled on a two-year renewal period. We believe it offers the best balance between the need for impetus and flexibility in the review process, and revenue certainty for the provinces.
This is the way the provinces understand the proposal as of today, and all of the recipient provinces have agreed to this proposal. It would be regrettable if this House sent a signal that the agreed upon time frame was less than secure.
I would now like to refer to tax administration and turn to the proposed deletion of clauses related to tax administration amendments.
The clause in question set out a legal framework for amendment agreements between the provinces and the federal government, providing for the administration and enforcement of a federal tax by a province, or the administration of a provincial tax by the federal government.
Such agreements improve the over-all efficiency of the Canadian tax system and thereby contribute to a better tax system. The provisions of the bill also simplify the payment of taxes for individuals in cases where an agreement has been entered into.
The clauses in question provide for simplification of payments in taxes and refunds in cases where a province is administering a federal tax. In such cases, the bill allows the taxpayer to validly pay the province the federal tax that the province is administering.
The province will also be able to pay tax refunds to an individual on behalf of the federal government. In this way, it will be simpler for a taxpayer to pay and to receive refunds of a federal tax that is administered by a province. Under these clauses, the same is true of
provincial taxes that are administered by the federal government.
The clauses in question also provide for simplified remittance to the federal government of taxes collected by a province on behalf of the federal government. In such cases, the clauses state that the province may deduct from the taxes so collected the amount that it has paid to persons on behalf of the federal government.
The remittance of provincial taxes collected by the federal government will also be simplified under these clauses. I could go on, but I think the House gets the point. We are talking about making tax administration and enforcement more efficient and hence less expensive.
Canadians have made it abundantly clear that they expect their governments to do everything they can to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness. I say to the House that we should retain the clauses that are proposed for deletion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to that. I heard the member say it is to improve efficiency. Those words sound sort of cold, bureaucratic and as an economist would speak. To improve efficiency.


Mr. McDermid:: What have you got against economists?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have nothing against economists, but there is a real world out there. They are not listening and similarly the government.
I received some phone calls last night. One phone call was from a senior who told me that the seniors got 37 cents on their pensions as a cost of living increase. They got 37 cents. That is the three month cost of living increase.


John Horton McDermid: So we got inflation down.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Just look at that. The government has a GST now that it wants to harmonize with the provinces.
You buy a hamburger and I am not talking about buying it at McDonald's where most seniors buy hamburgers, but let us say you buy a hamburger with a salad and maybe some French fries. You can get that at a restaurant for $4.98 or $4.99, if you shop around.

Id*'

April 6, 1992

Let us say a senior goes out and gets a hamburger at $4.99. They pay 7 cents on the dollar in GST. Seven times five is 35 cents. So to buy one hamburger you have to pay 35 cents tax to this disastrous government that almost equals the amount of the increase received.
Prices have moved up. I know the government says: "The inflation rate is going down". Look at the real world. It is off-loading its deficit onto the provinces and they are off-loading it onto the municipalities.
It means to people in the greater Vancouver area where I come from that somebody has to pay more money for transit, seniors. Somebody there has to pay more money for house taxes, seniors. Somebody there has to pay more money for water taxes, this or that, the seniors.
What do the seniors get from this government? They get 37 cents. Go out and buy a hot hamburger, and you pay that in taxes to this government on the GST.
What does the government want to do? It wants to harmonize the GST. Do you know what it should do? It should take the damn tax right off. It should take the GST off, and it should tax the people who can afford to pay the taxes. It should not tax the seniors who get a bloody 37 cents from this government. It is shameful.
I know we got into a little trouble with the Mace. I got into trouble. It was my fault and I apologized to the House and I was disciplined for it. It was over a vote, a quick vote that was held because the government made seniors pay their taxes unlike other people. Unlike other people, the government was making them pay their taxes quarterly. Many seniors were suddenly getting hit with these tax bills and interest. We found out it was $300 million it was taking from the seniors, collectively. Individually, of course, it was giving seniors an increase of 37 cents.
Now I know the economists. I respect the economists and I respect the people who say: "Well, Waddell, you are crazy. You are getting up here and equating $300 million with 37 cents".
There is a real world out there that the government has to face in an election, if it had the guts to call an election. This gutless bunch will not call an election
Government Orders
because they are scared. Mulroney gets up and he says: "I am going to call an election". But he is scared.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to do your job, but we refer to one another in this House as hon. members, not by last names. I am sure that the hon. member, who is in full flight right now, would apologize to the House for that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will apologize to this House when Mulroney gives the seniors some money and gets rid of this GST.


An hon. member:: Your time is not up.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My time is not up. I will continue. I am not apologizing to this House.
The Mulroney government, which you can call a government, this sham of a government has no guts to call an election. Come on, call an election. Let the seniors get at you. Come on, let all those people that pay the GST. Come on call it, we are waiting. Call it. You are gutless. You know what you are doing. You give 37 cents to the seniors of this country. Thirty-seven cents. That is where they are at. The gutless-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, I remind the hon. member that the debate is on Bill C-60.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am speaking to the bill, if the members would listen. I am speaking to the bill. The bill is about the GST and about harmonizing. I am saying that the government is requiring seniors and other people in this country to pay the GST. At the same time it gave them 37 measly cents.
An hon. member Why?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why? What do you mean why? Why did you not give them some decent money, if you are going to tax them? You are going to take $18 billion.
Do you know what the government does? Do you know why it wants to harmonize and get more money? It wants to take this GST money but not to pay down the deficit. It wants to put it in a big slush fund for the election it is going to call, not now but in 18 months at the last minute.
From this big slush fund, it is going to take that money from seniors and other people in Canada and it is going to give it to political consultants, to ad makers, to the people who are going to try to warp public opinion. Well,

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
the government is not going to get away with it. It is not going to get away with it. People are fed up.


Mr. Bouchard (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are used to the rhetoric of the NDP, but I just want the member to be reasonable.
It is difficult, but he knows very well that some citizens in this country are well protected, even with 37 cents. No other group of people around the world can say that its spending power is protected so well for the 37 cents they receive.
They talk about children, people losing their jobs and so on. The rhetoric of the NDP is to spend money, spend money, spend money. That is the wonderful world where they are because they do not have to find the money.
Once again, be reasonable and tell the truth to Canadians. It is what we are about here, my friend.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will reply to the minister. Get out of your limousine, Mr. Minister. Get into the real world. Get out to McDonald's or the food banks. Get out of the big fat city that the Mulroney Tories are in. You may be gutless enough to not speak out in Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I asked the hon. member to be relevant about the subject of the debate. Debate is on Bill C-60.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am relevant. I am saying to the House, to this fat bunch of Tories who are not listening, I am relevant. People have phoned me and said: "By God, we got 37 cents from this bunch and now they put an $18 billion tax on us, collectively". This is why they are mad at you. My friend you live in a world-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. I repeat once again that the debate is strictly on the motions to amend Bill C-60; consequently the scope of this debate is very narrow. I request the co-operation of the hon. member.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I am dealing with this motion. The motion calls for harmonization. The motion talks about the GST. I am saying that to buy a hamburger with a
salad for $4.99, seniors and other people in this country have to pay 35 cents in GST. The government wants to harmonize it with the provincial tax so they will pay more. And they are saying: "Thanks, you gave us-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member's time has expired.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the tirade of my hon. friend. He told us to get out of the fat cities. I saw him in fat city Toronto yesterday.


John Horton McDermid: It is very easy to get the NDP going.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to know what the minister has against Toronto. There are seniors in Toronto who got their 37 cents and are paying the sales tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: That is not a point of order. It is a matter of opinion.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will talk to that. Let me just say that the government is going to oppose the motions that were presented by my hon. friend from Windsor.


John Horton McDermid: Because they are inappropriate for this bill, that is why.
One of the things my hon. friend fails to mention when he talks about increases in old age pensions is that by law and for many, many years senior citizens pensions have been indexed to the cost of living in our country. Because the inflation rate is so low, that is why they are getting that amount of increase in their cheques.
I agree with my hon. friend that it is a small amount but it is the law of the land. It is a law that was passed by this House of Commons and by the way, supported at the time by the New Democratic Party. I want that made very clear. They supported the indexing of senior citizens pensions. As a matter of fact, at that time I believe it was a unanimous decision of this House. So my hon. friend is railing away at the government and how terrible it is about this type of thing.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. member:: Why?

April 6, 1992

I want to say that one of the things he failed to mention when he talks about the GST and moneys to seniors is that because of the GST they also get a cheque from the federal government that protects people with low income. That is part of the program. He failed to mention that today.
We had not had sales tax rebates for people with low incomes until this government brought that in, I believe in 1986. The Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre brought that in in 1986 and it has been greatly increased over that period of time. Until the goods and service tax came in, in fact, that was increased.
I understand the hon. member's concerns. I have had the same calls from seniors who were concerned about the low increase in their senior citizens pensions. Again, that is because we have been able to get inflation down. In getting inflation down that helps those on a fixed income. These wild increases in costs that we had, which forced the inflation rate up was damaging to our senior citizens. Keeping the inflation rate down is very important.
This bill is about transferring funds to provinces. There are great debates on that. I listen to my hon. friend when he stands up and rants and raves about off-loading onto provinces who are off-loading onto municipalities. Every expenditure in a municipality now is the federal government's fault. Every increase in an expenditure is because we have so-called off-loaded.
I want to point out very clearly that we have increased moneys to all provinces of Canada since 1984 by an average of 5 per cent. Ontario's increase was 6.2 per cent, including the year 1992-93.
I want to make it very clear that increases are going to the provinces, but not the huge increases we used to see. The Ontario government in its generosity was increasing its welfare spending at the rate of about 24 per cent a year. We had no control over any system in Ontario to make handing out welfare easier or simpler.
It was costing 24 per cent more per year and we had to put some kind of a limit on it, so we said we would not increase it any more than 5 per cent a year. I think people want that.
I hear this off-loading story all the time, yet there is just one taxpayer paying the bill. Whether he is paying it
Government Orders
municipally, provincially, or federally, he has to pay it at some level if he is going to get a service.
I do not understand blaming the federal government for all the woes of the provincial and municipal governments. We are going to hear it from the Ontario provincial government when it comes out with its budget, and probably in its Speech from the Throne today.
I spoke to the premier of Ontario for some time yesterday, and his government is coming forth with its Speech from the Throne today. I am sure the federal government is going to be blamed for a lot of things. It is setting us up for its budget as well.
The point is that moneys are increasing to the provinces, not at the rate they would like, but that is natural. It is not going to municipalities at the rate they would like to see it increase from the provinces.
The taxpayer of this country is saying: "Whoa, no more taxes", whether they are federal, provincial, or municipal. The bills keep going up, the spending keeps going up, and governments are not putting any discipline on their spending. The Peel Board of Education in my constituency, which I believe is the largest board in North America, has done some trimming and made some announcements. A lot of people are opposing their cut-backs. That is fine.
But at the same time they are saying we cannot have these large increases and expenditures because we cannot afford them. We have to economize.
So that is happening, and I believe we in the federal government are certainly going to take the rap for this type of thing. It is easy to point fingers and we all do it in political life. We say it is the Ontario government's fault, or the municipal government's fault, or the federal government's fault. It is all our fault.
We are trying to get a common sense approach to government expenditures. That is what this is all about. I must say this bill does help provinces out. It does help seven out of ten provinces with increases in transfer payments. Agreements have been reached between the federal government and the provinces for the next two years on the transfer payment program. Naturally they would like more money. I understand that.
This bill will provide some extra money for some of the provinces and I believe it is most necessary. We will be voting against these amendments as proposed by my hon. friend in the New Democratic Party.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased you recognized me. Mind you, with the shouting match going on between the members to my left and the members across from me, I wondered if I would ever get a word in edgewise, especially from the members on my left.
I do not like this bill. I have a lot of reservations about the way the government has handled the transfer payments. I recognize there are a great number of problems, and I know there are no easy answers, but we are not going to support this bill.
On the other hand, I am also realistic enough to realize the moneys contained in this particular bill are very much needed by the provincial governments. It is fine to impose the bill, but not to unduly hold it back. For every day these provinces do not receive their moneys they must borrow, and then perhaps they have a more difficult time looking after the needs of their people. Let us never forget these moneys are going to help people.
I sat through the interventions by the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam on this particular amendment. The people to my left seemed to be very much concerned with the GST and the possibilities of its harmonization. They are accusing the government, of course, of having something in this particular bill that would facilitate harmonization. Well there is no surprise in that. The Conservative government has said from the beginning it would like to have harmonization with the provincial sales taxes across the countiy.
I am wondering if perhaps the New Democratic Party has had some inside information from some of its provincial leaders as to their inclination towards harmonization. Perhaps it has lost control of its provincial arms and Ontario and British Columbia, very much NDP-run provinces, might be ready to harmonize with the federal government.
I cannot understand otherwise why there is this great fear and harangue by the NDP members to my left about harmonization. It would seem to me they could just grab the phone, call up Mr. Bob Rae, and he, being a good NDP, would say: "Absolutely not. Never will we ever harmonize". It would be the same thing with the premier of British Columbia, so I am at a loss to understand this great debate about harmonization. I would expect they would be in a very good position to keep their ideology
within their party, and make sure it certainly does not happen, at least with Ontario and British Columbia.
Something tells me there is more to this than meets the eye when you sit and really listen to the long, drawn-out debate about it. I would love to have some of that inside information they may all have, because it would certainly allow us to prepare for what is coming. Many of us have no idea, and we certainly are not confidants of the NDP governments in those provinces. We certainly do not know what their intentions are in terms of harmonization, but if their protests are any indication, I have a feeling that is the way these governments are going to go in the not too distant future. They are afraid this particular legislation might have some clause that will facilitate it.
I am not going to carry on much longer because I do not want to hold up the debate on this bill. I would like to see that the people, who are really the beneficiaries of the moneys being transferred, are able to collect those moneys as quickly as possible. There is a lot of poverty and hardship out there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: The hon. member for Timiskaming.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Well he was not in his place when I stood up. A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I do not want to criticize the Chair, but I think when you recognize people they ought to be in their place, okay?


Mr. MacDougall:: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem at all recognizing the member for Nickel Belt. In fact, it will give me more ammunition in my speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: In that case, I will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, he will need all the ammunition in the next election to win Timiskaming, I believe that.
I want to speak in support of the amendments brought in by the member for Essex-Windsor. I think he has recognized the problem of harmonization, which is what the federal government has been after the provinces to do with respect to the GST.
I understood when this government took office it was going to be a new era in the relationships between the federal and provincial governments. There was no longer going to be a confrontational approach, which was the
April 6, 1992

Trudeau approach. Trudeau had a running battle with the provincial governments all of the time he was Prime Minister. When this government took office there was going to be a new era of co-operative federalism. That was the key to the relationships between the federal and provincial governments. Things would be smoother. They would work more in harmony and co-operation. Then the government decided to bring in the GST.
The minister who spoke before me said people were absolutely opposed to any new taxes. We in this party opposed a previous bill, Bill C-22, which was to bring in a payroll tax on employers to pay for a wage protection fund in the bankruptcy act. This government brought it in and we have been fighting over it ever since.
We agree there is only one taxpayer and he is at his limit. Why is the government pushing harmonization, which is going to cost taxpayers more money? Why has this government denied the Government of Ontario anywhere from $300 million to $400 million a year in provincial revenues by not collecting the provincial sales tax from all those who shop across the border in Ontario? Why has it been using that as a blackmail tactic to get the Ontario government to harmonize?
I have spoken to a lot of constituents who shop in Ontario and do not think it is fair the federal government refuses to collect the provincial sales tax at the border when it has all the mechanisms at the border to do it.
Residents of Ontario come back across the border at Niagara Falls or Fort Erie and declare goods at the border. The federal government collects the federal sales tax and any duty on the goods, but not the provincial sales tax. Is this the sense of co-operation?
The NDP Ontario government opposed the GST in its campaign. We on this side opposed the GST federally. Provincial New Democrats opposed it in the election and became the government. Since then this government has been blackmailing them to integrate the GST into the sales tax program.
The government talks about fairness, so let us talk about fairness. The retailers are collecting the GST right now and they are not paid anything to be federal tax collectors. They received an amount of money to help
Government Orders
them initiate the GST and pay for a new cash register or whatever other paraphernalia they needed. But the government does not pay the retailer to do all that book work to collect the GST for it. That is not fair.
The government is now attempting to muscle the Ontario government and all the other provincial governments into harmonizing the GST with their provincial sales taxes. Can you imagine, right now in the province of Ontario, we do not pay a provincial sales tax on haircuts.
I want the government to know, this is what happens when you have the Tories on the run. This is their attempt to shut up the opposition on this very important issue. I want the people watching to know that the Tories have turned up the heat and now we have the fire brigade outside. Tories, I know you would sink to a lot of things, but I never thought you would get this low.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: The hon. member on a point of order.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate if the House were to suspend to the call of the Chair.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: In view of the alarm it is a good idea. To the hon. member for Nickel Belt, I have noted your time on the clock and we will reconvene when the alarm stops.
This House stands suspended until the alarm stops.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.25 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 1.37 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Nickel Belt has one minute left.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very rare that we have this kind of disruption in the middle of a speech. I would ask you to be generous in your interpretation of the one-minute period that my colleague has left. He was making some very important points when the fire alarm interrupted him.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Of course I am aware that the Standing Orders do not provide for suspensions in situations like the one we were just in. I am told that it is the first time that the business of the House has been suspended because of the alarm bell ringing. That said, I give the floor to the hon. member for Nickel Belt for at least one minute.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Tories putting the place on fire, the fact of the matter is that the minister who spoke before me was perfectly correct in his sense that Canadians do not want any more taxes. They want no further increase in taxes. In fact they want a lowering of taxes. I want to suggest to him that the attempts to force the governments of this country to harmonize with the GST would increase taxes to them.
For example, by harmonizing the GST with the provincial sales tax in the province of Saskatchewan, it is estimated that it would cost the people of Saskatchewan $300 million a year more. Imagine what it would cost the people of Ontario if the GST were harmonized with the provincial sales tax. I would hazard a guess that it would be in the vicinity of $1 billion. It will not lower the rate. It extends the tax to things that are not now taxed. It seems to me that is not fair to the people of Ontario.
We do not pay a provincial sales tax on haircuts. I know the minister does not have that problem, but we do not pay provincial sales tax on haircuts. If we were to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST, it would be extended to all those things that this horrendous, terrible GST is now applied to.
If the minister really wants to show a spirit of co-operation and keep the taxes down for the people of Ontario, why not collect the provincial sales tax at the border on those Ontarians who shop in the United States?


John Horton McDermid: On all items?


John R. Rodriguez: On the items they would pay that tax on in Ontario, absolutely. It seems to me that is fairness. It would bring the tax down for the rest of the people in
Ontario if those people were to pay their fair share of the taxes.


John Horton McDermid: Ontario merchants do not want that.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, earlier I allowed the hon. member for Nickel Belt to give us his wisdom and his thoughts. I was hoping for something different from the member for Nickel Belt and the NDP, but it was the same old broken record and when you listen to a broken record long enough you want to throw it out.
I just want to make a comment before getting into debate. I know the audience out there had the opportunity to listen to the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam. It is no wonder the Canadian public is at the point where it does not want to listen, watch or see public officials on an ongoing basis and the type of charade that took place in this House earlier.
I want to apologize on behalf of this government. We certainly do not believe in those types of tactics. We are trying to do our utmost in this House to ensure that we bring some sanity back to the House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member should withdraw his accusation of unparliamentary tactics. All I did was speak. That is what Parliament is about. All I did was represent people who are worried about what this government is doing. The member has no right to accuse me of unparliamentary tactics.


John Horton McDermid: That is no point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I think that hon. members on both sides of the House have expressed their opinions on the point at issue. It is not necessary to go further.
We resume debate with the hon. member for Timis-kaming.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the concerns of those in the NDP with regard to Bill C-60 today.
I listened over the last number of months to their
April 6, 1992

concerns about rural Canada, their concerns about small business, and their concerns about the industries in this country. I really find it hard to believe, after listening to their concerns in Question Period or in speeches in the House, that they want to make sure that Canadians are working and they want to make sure we have a stable country. They will not even deal with the basic, fundamental problems in this country in duplication.
It is one thing to look at job creation, but it is another thing to sit down and look at what the NDP want to try to continue to do, which makes no sense whatsoever to anybody in small business. If they have to make two reports to file with two separate governments, it makes no sense whatsoever. That is the message we are receiving from the Canadian public, the fact that they want simpler guidelines, simpler rules, simpler opportunities so they can do business in a very competitive world.
I get quite frustrated when I sit here and listen on a day to day basis that they want to do something to get people working. Yet when the government moves forward with proposed legislation that will give the opportunity for all Canadians, all types of business, for a blended type of taxation that will take away some of the difficulties with which they face, they say the government is not listening to the provinces.
Over the last 20 months our officials have been travelling the country meeting with provincial counterparts, trying to work out an agreement that is going to be successful for everyone. I think that is what we are supposed to be doing in this country today. We are not supposed to be sitting back and fighting one another. We have a big world out there and we have to address the competitiveness and the opportunities that are afforded us. What we are trying to do with this piece of legislation is ensure that happens, that for a small Ma and Pa type of operation in Timiskaming or any other part of Canada, where they have a hard enough time to keep eating, we take away duplication for them.
I do not think we are asking too much. We are asking that the provinces put their political thought off to one side for a period of time and look at what is going to be the best for our country. That is what we have been trying to do over the past 20 months.
Government Orders
Similarly we hear on an ongoing basis that we should not be capping, or we should not be limiting the transfer of payments. The people I talk to are tired of seeing blank cheques handed out. They do not want to see blank cheques. They want to see government accountable for every dollar because there is only one taxpayer out there.
Someone living in my community says to me: "John, I have to pay provincial, federal, school board, and municipal tax". By the way, my constituents applauded the Minister of Finance on his last budget because he finally came out with a budget that is fair.
They are sitting back and saying right now: "What is going to happen in the province of Ontario in a matter of weeks?" We know there is a throne speech later on today. There will be pie in the sky. They will be turning around and blaming us, the federal government. But look back over the last seven years at the transfer payments we have sent to the province of Ontario. You start writing out cheques. My constituents believe there is sufficient money in the educational system, in the health care system, but what they do not want to see is the misuse of funds. We want to see accountability, that we are not just continuing to write out cheques.
It is the same thing when we are talking about taxation in regard to the GST. You would think from what we heard earlier there are no rebates at all for Canadians, that the government was only taxing more. On the weekend I was talking to an individual involved in trailer sales. He said: "John, it is the best thing that ever happened to my business. You know the parks that I have in place are worth $1.5 million. I do not have 13 per cent tax on that any longer and you would not believe what that has done to my cash flow".
At the same time we are taking the tax from 13 per cent down to 7 per cent. You would almost think that we are not giving rebates, if you listen to what has taken place in this House. That is the problem we are facing in this country. Canadians want to know the truth. Canadians want to know. They are not looking for pie in the sky. They are interested in a government that recognizes and tries to deal with the problem. That is what we have been doing in the last seven years.

Government Orders
You get all these ideas flying over top with all their airy-fairy types of opportunities. It is no wonder that people want to turn off their TV set and not listen to what is happening in this House.
What this government has been doing, and what this bill would do, is ensure that it is a blended opportunity for taxation, an opportunity for the next two years for stability. I think that is what Canadians are looking at. Canadians are not prepared to listen to any more of the hare-brained type of proposals and scare tactics that are being used on the other side. I am sure that at the end of the day Canadians are going to recognize, and are starting to recognize, that. In fact, in The Toronto Star yesterday there was an article stating that Canadians are prepared for a big increase in opportunities in this country. It is because of the basic policies that this government has put forward over the last seven years.
In closing, I hope that we have the opportunity to pass this piece of legislation later today. It is another step in ensuring that Canada will be strong for the future.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to engage in this debate for a brief period.
The bill before us is Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. One thing that this bill does is to pave the way for possible harmonization of the goods and services tax and provincial sales taxes between the federal government and the various provincial administrations across Canada.
The way that the federal government has been behaving over the past few years, and the past few months in particular, makes me think that we are almost engaged in running a protection racket. If the provinces refuse to buckle under, despite their own priorities and the wishes of their citizens, even the needs of their own people and the needs of their own treasuries, they are being forced, under threat of continuing cuts by the federal government to cost-sharing of different types between Ottawa and the provinces, to knuckle under and harmonize their tax regimes with the federal tax called the goods and services tax.
There is a pretty powerful incentive included in these threats, in this blackmail and in this protection racket. If they are to harmonize their provincial sales taxes and the goods and services tax for collection at the border, for instance, there are in some cases advantages to the tune of extra hundreds of millions of dollars which could flow into those provincial treasuries at a time when they are very hard-pressed.
We do not think it is very good politics or even very good economics to have federal-provincial financial relations determined by the kind of attitude that the federal government has displayed during this past period. Surely when we are facing real difficult economic situations across the country and, in some regions, particularly in the manufacturing areas of Canada, there is no doubt that we are facing some extremely hard times. What we should be asking is that the federal and provincial governments sit down in a rational sort of way, decide what the essential priorities are in a time of reduced revenues and work out, as well as we can on a co-operative basis, just what funds we have to raise and what the priority expenditures ought to be. To have it done by bluff and by bluster in a scenario of name-calling and increasing confrontation between Ottawa and the provinces is not what our taxpayers expect us to be doing. At a time when we have enough problems across the country, constitutionally or otherwise, we do not need any more division than we have got already.
What has happened to the finances of some of our so-called have provinces over the past period? I am a representative of a constituency in British Columbia. The British Columbia government faced some pretty severe choices in its recent budget. It did not help its situation by having Ottawa, over the last few months, renew its cut-backs of a few years ago to what all Canadians thought were long-standing agreements as to appropriate shares of revenue and financing between our different levels of government.
Why has the federal government felt the need to off-load its responsibilities to the provinces? One reason is the long-standing failure on the federal government's part to exercise prudent fiscal management. That has caused a serious debt problem.
We do not suggest the government sitting across the way bears all the responsibility for that. Its management record over the last few years has not been great. The problems it faces because of the lack of self-discipline of

the previous federal government certainly has not helped the situation.
The federal government now appears to want to avoid the visible and direct association with the severe measures it has implemented to restore its financial health. Off-loading delivers tax increases and service cuts to the public indirectly via the provinces. For obvious political reasons, the federal government is trying to direct this so the provincial governments will take the blame.
I referred initially to what seems to be the continuing threat within this legislation to push the provinces into harmonizing their provincial sales taxes with the federal goods and services tax.


An hon. member:: A good idea.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: A good idea, the member opposite says. Does he really want to see a situation where, in order to get necessary revenues, provinces are forced to levy their provincial sales tax on all items, such as children's clothing and a number of other areas? The provinces in their wisdom have for years and years decided not to be subject to general revenue-creating mechanisms, in order to exclude people from paying taxes on goods and services which are essential for the basic maintenance of the family?
The goods and services tax has been a very blunt instrument. It has not reflected the kind of fine tuning of provincial sales taxes different provinces have developed over the years with regard for the needs and attitudes of their own populations.
We think it is fundamentally wrong for the federal government, by one means or another, and this means in particular, to attempt to force those provinces to alter their taxation base. That is not co-operative federalism. It is not co-operative financing. It is not co-operative fund raising. It is not co-operative government. It does not make sense and it is not fair.
Earlier, one of my colleagues made a point about the 37 cent cost of living increase to old age pensioners' cheques. While that may not be strictly relevant to the debate before us, I think it does demonstrate the kind of problem as seen by many of our electors and voters. In this country, pensioners who have paid their way for years and years get 37 cents a month as their pension increase. As my colleague mentioned, that does not even
pay the tax on a cheap hamburger. This country has suffered from economic mismanagement for years and years.
I do not want to go on any longer. Soon we will move to Question Period. I hope the government rethinks its attitude to this legislation, stops blackmailing, stops managing a protection racket and gets down to serious co-operative discussions with the provinces as to what moneys are required and how it should be spent.


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


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the National Hockey League players are wrong. According to Gilles Bourcier in today's La Presse, 62 per cent of the people in the Montreal area condemn the strike by the NHL players and 40 per cent of Montrealers are behind the team owners. They would rather believe the Cana-diens' general manager, Serge Savard, who is from Abitibi. People do not appreciate being deprived of their favorite springtime entertainment, especially when the obstacle is a group of athletes who are considered to be very well paid.
I greatly appreciate the action taken by the management of the Montreal Canadiens hockey club in opening their books to the public, as I do with my expenses as a member of Parliament.


JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, what has been going on over at the justice minister's office this last year? They certainly do not seem to have been doing their jobs. Since the March 1991 retirement of Judge MacPherson, Nova Scotia County Court District 6 has been without a judge.
[Stage Direction]
April 6, 1992
The federal justice minister, who was responsible for appointing a replacement, has failed to do so. She has even refused to provide an explanation for her delay, just that it should not be too much longer. Her inaction has frustrated the local detachments of the RCMP and has created hardship for countless people who are served by this important court.
Last summer a sexual assault case was thrown out because the case had taken too long to come to trial. There was no judge to hear it. Victims of family breakup and violence suffer as decisions on custody and support payments are put off. Backlogs are growing each day.
Six weeks ago, the justice minister promised me that a replacement would be named shortly. We waited, yet heard nothing. Two weeks ago, she promised there would be a judge by the end of March. Still nothing. Why does she not do her job and name a replacement now?

Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago this week, Canadian forces won one of the most significant victories of World War I when they took Vimy Ridge.
At first light, on April 9, 1917, four Canadian divisions attacked. British Columbians were side by side with Calgarians. The Van Doos of Quebec stood shoulder to shoulder with the Highlanders of Nova Scotia. The British had not been able to take Vimy Ridge, neither had the French, but the Canadians did.
The victory was not without cost, 3,000 men died. The casualty list exceeded 10,000. Three of the four Victoria Crosses won at Vimy were awarded posthumously.
The Canadian war record, crowned by the achievement at Vimy, won for Canada a separate signature on the peace treaty ending World War I. It has been said that Canada became a nation at Vimy Ridge and at a time when we are thinking about what being Canadian means, Vimy stands as a grim and glorious reminder of
those who brought us together by giving everything for our country. We will remember them.


ROTARY CLUB OF ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rotary Club of St. John's, Newfoundland for having raised $183,000 for a new shelter for battered women.
This fund raising effort clearly shows that men and communities want to be part of the solution to eliminate violence against women. For more than 20 years, small groups of women have been working alone, setting up shelters, providing the counselling and services, raising funds, lobbying governments, educating the public on violence against women. Many women are burned out from having spent a lifetime of putting the needs of others before their own.
I am pleased that these women no longer need to continue the struggle alone. Unless we all join together the way St. John's has, violence will always be a part of our lives.


NATIONAL WILDLIFE WEEK
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of National Wildlife Week, I would like to invite members of this House to join the Minister of State for the Environment and others for a nature tour around Parliament Hill tomorrow. Two biologists from Environment Canada will be our hosts for this 20-minute walk to discover the wildlife and habitat surrounding our home away from home.
After the walk, hon. members are invited to add a personal wildlife touch to a nature painting that will be set up in the rotunda. Members will also be able to view displays and publications from several wildlife organizations and government agencies in the Hall of Honour. The walk will begin at 10.30 a.m. leaving from the west doors of the Centre Block.
As the minister said in this House last week, National Wildlife Week was created to increase Canadians awareness of wildlife issues. We too can better appreciate
April 6, 1992

these concerns by discovering the environment at our doorstep. Come and take part.


SOCIAL HOUSING
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, the government's decision to reduce its financial contribution to social housing is incomprehensible in the present context. There is a long waiting list for such housing not only in Quebec but in all the provinces of Canada.
The success of the Co-operative Housing Program in particular is an obvious reason to maintain funding for housing in Canada. An Ottawa Valley organization called "Logemen'occupe" clearly showed the confusion that exists in the department responsible for social housing. All organizations concerned with housing for the less fortunate in our society express their strong disagreement and disappointment and ask the government to reinstate the Federal Co-operative Housing Program immediately and to reallocate the $6.1 million that had been provided for it in 1992-93.


KURT BROWNING
Mr. Garth  Ibrner@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, Olympian skater Kurt Browning made a lot of Canadian chests swell with pride last night during a performance he gave at the exhibition gala of the World Figure Skating Championships in Oakland, California.
Not content just to win a silver medal at that championship, Kurt last night performed a spectacular interpretive dance on what it means to be a Canadian. To the strains of the new symphonic version of O Canada, Browning's performance had every Canadian in the arena on their feet and cheering.
Starting this Thursday in Vancouver, Kurt Browning will skate his way across Canada in the Stars On Ice show, arriving in Halifax at the end of the month. At the conclusion of each show he will again skate and dance to this version of the national anthem.
Thanks, Kurt, for reminding us again of all the things that are right about this country. We are proud of you, we are proud of Canada.


BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness and concern that we read about the worst fighting in central Bosnia since the Second World War. At least 100 people have been reported killed in battles of inter-ethnic warfare. Authorities are unable to halt these violent events which are leading to an all-out war between pro-independent Croats and Muslims on the one side, and Serbs and the army on the other.
This violence has erupted on the eve of a meeting by European Community foreign ministers who may recognize Bosnia-Hercegovina as an independent state. Serbians have claimed that such recognition would lead to further violence.
Eight hundred and fifty Canadian troops stationed in Germany are scheduled to begin leaving for Yugoslavia to join the peacekeeping force and a contingent of 270 Canadian engineers are already on site. I am concerned that the renewed fighting is putting at risk the lives of peacekeepers and Canadians would like reassurances that the 850 troops will be in a relatively secure position.
I recognize the important role of peacekeepers and I hope that peacekeeping forces are able to stabilize the situation. With the deteriorating situation, UN peacekeeping operations are being tested in the extreme but must be maintained with their safety protected.


TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I want to place on the record some figures in point form on federal transfer payments to the province of New Brunswick.
1.	They are expected to total almost $2 billion this year.
2.	They will account for about 39 per cent of New Brunswick's revenues.
3.	They have grown at an annual average rate of 5.7 per cent since 1984-85.
4.	They will total over $2,100 per capita this year, 70 per cent higher than the national average.

April 6, 1992
The bottom line is this. This dollar amount has increased, it has not decreased.


CORPORATE TAXATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, last week Gordon Gray, the chairman of Royal LePage, stated that Canada should end the universality of its social programs or risk national bankruptcy. Royal LePage is connected to Brascan, which is connected to Trizec, which is connected to Royal Trust, et cetera, et cetera, et. cetera.
He did not call for an end to the perks that entitle Royal Trust's senior managers to borrow money at favourable interest rates and to buy company stocks at a discount. He did not call for an end to tax shell games that allowed Brascan to declare 1989 pre-tax profits of $442 million and only paid .07 per cent taxes, or Trizec that had $202 million taxed at .8 per cent. Both are former winners of the corporate welfare bum of the week.
He did not call for an end to capital gains exemption, tax deductible cocktails and other super deluxe multibillion dollar corporate goodies that have privileged a few at the expense of the many. I agree with Mr. Gray when he said: "Once you know the facts even a fool can understand".


CANADIAN FORCES BASE CHILLIWACK
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack celebrates its 50th anniversary this week.
Established at Vedder Crossing in 1942 as a military engineering training centre, Sardis Camp grew to become what is now CFB Chilliwack.
CFB Chilliwack provides virtually all basic officer training in Canada.
CFB Chilliwack is also home to the First Canadian Engineer Regiment or 1 CER. UN peacekeeping efforts in the Persian Gulf were greatly assisted by the engineers of 1 CER. Their operations have now been consolidated
with construction of a $10.5 million facility to be officially opened on Friday by the Associate Minister of National Defence.
I welcome the attendance of His Excellency, The Governor General who will join us in celebration this coming Saturday.
CFB Chilliwack has been part of our community for 50 years. It is part of the family and we are proud to recognize the important role it plays.
I trust this celebration puts to rest last year's rumours of closure. Congratulations, CFB Chilliwack. You do us proud.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, our understandable preoccupation with the foreign overfishing issue is overshadowing some of the other disasters of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
For example, his catch failure program has to be seen and is a major disappointment for all who were looking to it. Last fall, the minister asked fishermen and plant workers on the southwest coast to wait until the winter fishery was over. I have some news for him. They waited. The winter fishery was as dismal as we told him it was going to be. Ask the people in Isle aux Morts, Rose Blanche and Burnt Islands.
They are the reason why the minister has to take a fresh look at his catch failure program. I ask him to do it without further delay to ensure that those fishermen and those plant workers and others who need that assistance will get the assistance that they need.

4-H CLUBS OF CANADA


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as you know the wealth of a nation lies in its people. By the same token, the future of a nation lies in its young people.
For that reason, I am very happy to be able to be here today to pay tribute to one particular youth group which I think has made a tremendous contribution to Canada in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
April 6, 1992

I am thinking of 4-H clubs and 4-H delegates are here from all across Canada participating in a citizenship program. The theme of their week in Ottawa is unity.
On behalf of all members of Parliament, I would like to pledge that we will do our best to ensure that they, when they have an opportunity to participate as leaders in the future, will have the same united Canada to live in that we have today.


SENIOR EXECUTIVE SALARIES AT PETRO-CANADA
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the government announced a 37 cent monthly increase in old age security benefits. The minister said in the House that in Canada, and that includes Montreal, as long as people have to fight to keep their jobs, as long as workers accept wage cuts to save their jobs and as long as children need assistance, he would maintain the same policy with respect to senior citizens.
Today, in La Presse, Michel Girard mentioned salaries totalling $2,038 million for five directors of Petro-Cana-da. In 1991, this company registered a loss of $598 million, and shareholders saw the value of their shares drop by 37 per cent. What do we see today? We see these senior executives, these so-called big bosses, being paid all kinds of money in the way of salaries, and on top of that, they get $85,000 to pay for membership in private or social clubs and pay the fees of their financial advisers, while they get other perks as well at rock-bottom rates.
The government should treat the heads of all institutions the same. If we parliamentarians are asked to make a sacrifice, let the corporate bosses do the same and set an example to the rest of the country!


PRINTING INDUSTRY
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement went into effect, U.S. Customs has routinely been harassing Canadian printers when their products cross the border
Oral Questions
insisting that "made-in-Canada" be prominently displayed.
Yet, U.S. printed materials meet no such requirement when crossing into Canada. On March 30, the Minister for International Trade, in response to a question on this matter, said: "One thing we have to be conscious of here is that Customs requirements work both ways".
He went on to say: "There are a number of our printing companies that are endeavouring to get into the United States". The minister clearly has no understanding of this, Canada's fifth largest industry, that is being decimated by the free trade deal and that it is being harassed at the border.
At the very least, the minister must insist on equal application of labelling laws for all printed material crossing our border in both directions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Seven and a half years of Tory policy have created the largest number of poor people in Canada's history. In metro Toronto, the welfare rolls have increased by 40 per cent in one year. In Edmonton, there is a 28 per cent increase; in Winnipeg, a 53 per cent increase. In Montreal, the welfare rolls have increased by 14 per cent and in Halifax by 15 per cent.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister: How can provinces and municipalities meet their obligations to the poor when the federal government continues to cut back on transfer payments?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong when she suggests that we are cutting back on transfer payments. Transfer payments are, in fact, increasing. As a matter of fact, transfer payments have grown from a figure of $25.6 billion in 1984-85 to $37 billion in the year just past and to $39 billion in the current fiscal year.

Oral Questions
That is substantial growth and all transfer payments, particularly those in the area of equalization and the CAP payments, are increasing at a substantial amount, certainly much more than our over-all annual increase in program expenditures.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that 700,000 young Canadian children have to go to food banks to get something to eat. In one of the richest countries of the world, this is outrageous. In Montreal alone, 95,000 people are on welfare.
My question is directed to the minister. How can the provinces and municipalities be expected to meet their commitments to the poor, when the federal government keeps cutting the total amount of transfer payments to the provinces?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies.
I would urge the hon. member to look at the facts. She will find that over all, the average annual rate of growth of transfer payments from 1984-85 to 1992-93 is growing at an average rate of 5.4 per cent. The growth rate from 1991-92 to 1992-93 is 5.1 per cent.
We recognize that this is not the kind of growth rate that you experience during the high inflation days. When you have inflation at 1.6 per cent or 1.7 per cent, an increase in transfer payments at the rate of 5 per cent or
5.5	per cent is very substantial.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, at Toronto City Hall today, they are opening a photo exhibit. It is called "Canada's Food Bank Kids". There are 700,000 of them, including many thousands in that very city who have to exist through food banks.
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister: Given that his government's policies have forced provincial and local governments to cut back directly and indirectly on services to the poor, how is he meeting his obligation to the United Nations in that great declaration on children when his own federal government continues to take food out of the mouths of Canada's children?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, that is, indeed, an
unfortunate conclusion because the growth in transfer payments to the province of Ontario has been 6.2 per cent over the period 1984-85 to 1992-93.
As a matter of fact, this year there will be something in the order of $10 billion transferred to the province of Ontario through transfer payments and tax points. When we have an annual increase rate of 6.2 per cent, when our over all program expenditures are being contained to
3.5	to 3.6 per cent, that is a very generous disposition of taxpayers' dollars. I wish the hon. member would look at that and, in difficult times when we are trying to deal with a deficit, treat it for what it is, a very generous contribution by the federal government.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The city of Edmonton is now home for four government members of Parliament and 60 food hamper programs.
On March 25 ANAWIM, an inner city agency, served 121 food hampers to help 199 people eat while waiting for their social assistance cheque to come in at the end of the month. This a typical day for this organization in the last week of each month.
Will the minister now admit to the House that the government's economic and social policies are wreaking havoc on his own province?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course every jurisdiction, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, is going through some very severe cost pressures and cost drivers. We are trying to deal with that in a generous fashion while at the same time attempting to bring down the deficit and curtail the growth of the burden of debt which takes money out of the hands of the poorer people and the children of Canada.
I remind the hon. member that if we do not get at the fundamental problems of the deficit and the debt, there will be a lesser amount of money to be provided for children, the working poor and the poverty stricken in this country. What we are trying to do is manage in such a way that we can deal with the fundamentals in a balanced way while at the same time providing the framework and the environment for investment and job opportunities, not only the preservation of existing jobs but the creation of new jobs.
April 6, 1992

Oral Questions


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary for to the same minister.
The government's policies are causing harm across the prairies. Winnipeg at one time prided itself as being the gateway to the west. It is now, under this government's policies, turning into the gateway to hell. Just think, there were 27,000 people unemployed in Winnipeg as of the end of last month. There are three times that number receiving provincial and municipal assistance.
When is the government finally going to present Winnipegers with a plan to get these people back to work?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree that the budget strikes a balance in trying to deal with the deficit while at the same time trying to help those sectors, particularly the manufacturing and processing sectors. The hon. member should know that in terms of agriculture, there is no government that has been more generous to the farmers of Canada, particularly those farmers in western Canada, to deal with the very serious difficulties caused by the trade war.
There are a number of positive measures in the budget which will improve the lot of many Canadians and, most important, will provide some hope and optimism for jobs. We have to get to the fundamentals. We are addressing those. We have low interest rates, low inflation, a positive investment climate. We have provided some assistance to the manufacturing and processing sectors which is a very intensive job-creating sector.
I think the hon. member will recognize that there is a mood of change out there, a mood that is becoming more optimistic and confident about the future.


DIPLOMATIC CORPS SECURITY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns the attack on the Iranian embassy in Ottawa yesterday.
Did the government receive advance warning of this attack? If not, why not?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express on behalf of the government and, I believe, all Canadians how annoyed we are at the attack. We regret the injuries to Ambassador Lavassani and other occupants of the embassy.
I can respond to my hon. friend that at the present time I am informed that our response was as prompt as possible under the circumstances and that arrests have taken place.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker.
Several hours in advance of the attack on the embassy here in Canada, there were attacks on embassies in the U.K., Norway, Sweden and Germany. Clearly we do have CSIS agents in the U.K. Why was CSIS not advised here in Canada that these attacks had taken place and therefore possibly have been able to act and to avert the situation as it did happen?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's comments. As my hon. friend and the House can understand, there will be a full investigation as to the timing of these events, as to when they took place in the various locations around the world. Obviously that exact information will be known once the investigation is completed.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary for the minister, Mr. Speaker.
CSIS has a budget of $217 million and 2,000 employees. CSIS has been very active in filming PSAC demonstrations, harassing the Inuit over low-level flights and, in fact, during the gulf war in following innocent Iraqi and Iranian Canadians.
The minister says that there will be an investigation. Will he make the results of that investigation public and will he tell the Canadian people why this organization did not know this information, particularly when it was well known in Europe?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, I am sure, made an allegation that she would want to think about before she repeated it, the allegation that CSIS is filming PSAC demonstrations and harassing native people. I have no knowledge of the fact that that is in any way true. If my hon. friend has any information, I would hope that she would make it available to me immediately and I will follow-up on it.

April 6, 1992
Oral Questions


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my question for the same minister on the same subject.
The diplomatic community in Canada is seriously shaken following the vicious attack on the Iranian embassy here in Ottawa on Sunday. The Iranian ambassador and two of his staff were injured, files were removed from the building and 26 people were arrested in connection with this shocking incident.
The minister and his government know that Canada has an obligation to the international community to protect the personnel and property of foreign diplomats. Can the minister explain to this House how at least 30 people forcefully entered the Iranian embassy without being stopped by the police or security?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have been following the media accounts of this as I am sure my hon. friend has. I think if he were to make himself aware of those accounts, there was considerable damage to several embassies around the world and similar situations.
I think if he were to compare the police response and the police action, in this case the RCMP and the city of Ottawa police, action was taken promptly, arrests were made and everything, as far as I am informed, was done as quickly as possible.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the same minister.
The minister tells us what happened in other countries. What happens in other countries does not have to happen in Canada. We are a peaceful country and we can set an example. What happens in other countries does not have to happen here.
My supplementary concerns the next round of the Middle East peace talks on refugees to be held in Ottawa May 13 to 15. Can the minister stand up in this House and issue a guarantee to the international community that Canada, as a host country, is capable of providing adequate safety and security to the principal players in these critical talks?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will give the international community the
same guarantee we gave them when they were here for the G-7, the Commonwealth and the Olympics.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
Yesterday's attack on the Iranian embassy recalls the 1985 hostage-taking incident at the Turkish embassy in my riding which resulted in the death of a security guard and serious injuries to the Turkish ambassador. The government promised at that time an intensive review of security at all embassies.
I have 38 embassies in my riding. What measures has the government taken since the 1985 incident to reassure those working in these embassies and those living around these embassies that their security is indeed protected?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's question. In or about that time the Government of Canada organized the special emergency response team under the jurisdiction of the RCMP and put that in place.
Fortunately since that time it has not been required to be called into action. I can advise my friend that the RCMP makes regular threat assessments and discussions are held with embassies from time to time.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the same minister.
The Government of Canada is responsible for the security and safety of foreign diplomats and dignitaries in Ottawa. Why then will the government not provide the necessary financial resources to the Ottawa police, the organization that is providing this service free of charge to the government?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP has a security responsibility vis-avis foreign embassies. My hon. friend makes his point on behalf of the Ottawa city police. There may very well be correspondence to that effect, but in my meetings with Tom Flanagan and members of council from Ottawa from time to time that particular matter has never been raised with me.
If in fact someone wishes to raise it, I would be pleased to entertain the question.
April 6, 1992


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General who very conveniently did not answer a question from my leader a few moments ago.
CSIS has agents in London. The attack in London took place at approximately 8 a.m. Ottawa time. The attack in Ottawa did not take place until around noon. That is four hours. It does not take four hours to make a trans-Atlantic phone call.
I want to know where our CSIS agent or agents were in London that morning and why they were asleep at the switch and did not get in touch with Ottawa in time.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I never answer a question without having the facts at my fingertips. That is an obvious question and it is a question that I have asked. I have asked it of my officials and I have asked to be provided with a full report as to what the chronology is.
I reject absolutely and categorically any suggestion that our people in London or anywhere else were asleep at the switch.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, if the minister does not have his report ready, how can he reject anything at this time? How can he say they were not asleep at the switch when he admits he does not know the facts?
My supplementary question is simply this: Why is it that the government has not entered into a new regime of protocols, particularly with those sensitive embassies located in Ottawa where a normal person or a reasonable person might from time to time anticipate or expect acts of violence or vandalism or even worse, considering the hot spots in the world, namely Iraq and Iran, particularly the IRA, the Red Army brigades in Europe and so on?
Surely it is time that the government through the RCM Police entered into new protocols with our foreign visitors here in Ottawa and the diplomatic corps.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I always reject allegations that are not based on fact and I never discuss sensitive security arrangements on the floor of the House.
Oral Questions


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister about the discussions now under way in Montreal on the proposed North American free trade agreement.
Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott of the Institute of International Economics in Washington have just completed and released a study. In it they find that such an agreement between now and 1995 would create a net gain of 600,000 jobs in Mexico, 130,000 jobs in the United States, but a net loss of 4,000 jobs in Canada.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Why is his government pursuing discussions for such a one-sided and harmful deal when it comes to the interests of our Canadian workers?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the study to which the hon. member refers, but his question shows an unbelievable short-sightedness in its premise.
First of all, the hon. member should know that Mexican tariffs against Canada are quite substantial, much more substantial across a wider range of goods than are tariffs right now against Mexico which are virtually, pretty well all gone. Therefore there is a great incentive for us to negotiate a new agreement with Mexico and the United States in the NAFTA context.
Our objectives in this negotiation are clear. Let me repeat them. We want to improve our access to the Mexican market. We want to give greater access to North American inputs to permit Canadians to compete better in the world markets. We also, by the way, want to be a preferred site for investment in North America. If there is going to be investment in North America, we want it to include Canada. There are other objectives, all of which make a NAFTA negotiation pose an important challenge for Canada and we think a very good opportunity as well.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister who forgets that the current free trade deal with the United States has certainly not made Canada a preferred site for

April 6, 1992
Oral Questions
investment for people who want to do business in the North American market.
He attacks a report prepared by a former senior trade official of the United States government, Gary Hufbau-er. His report finds that if this North American free trade agreement is entered into our trade surplus with the United States would be reduced by $250 million a year each year between now and 1995.
Why is the government pursuing a deal which would have a negative effect on our trade with the United States, up till now our best customer?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I think I could ask the hon. member why, when he is constantly attacking the Americans, he suddenly turns around and quotes American researchers as if they are gospel. This particular report is based on Americans doing American research.
The hon. member makes the point that the free trade agreement has not set a good context for NAFTA. Does he know that we have gone from a deficit position in net investment with the U.S. to a very substantial surplus since the free trade agreement, plus our exports with the United States have also increased from a $13 billion surplus to a $17 billion surplus, plus we have a dispute settlement mechanism?
It has been a good deal for Canada, and I will always be proud to stand in this House and defend it.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
A few weeks ago the Minister for International Trade indicated in the House that indeed the Employment Support Act could be of some help to the ailing softwood lumber industry.
Given that the free trade process could well take over a year to resolve the dispute and given that the industry needs help now, when will the minister announce on behalf of the government if indeed the Employment Support Act will be used or some other assistance plan for the softwood lumber industry?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, the act to which my hon. friend refers dates back to
an era before we had a free trade deal and other labour adjustment policies and programs.
As well I should point out to my hon. friend that the industry has been quite successful in passing through to the American consumer the additional costs that are inherent with the countervail duty action and the preliminary findings in the United States. In fact lumber prices have doubled since a year ago, and they have increased between 35 and 40 per cent since the first of the year.
For the moment the sting is out of the system. Nevertheless we are concerned about it and we are hoping that the procedures we are engaged in in the United States fighting this action will be successful.


Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Forestry.
It has been revealed that the U.S. commerce department is using a member of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports to investigate the claims of our softwood industry. This is the same body that wants to impose duties of over 30 per cent on our exports. It seems that the tinpots and the low-level functionaries can sure make a lot of noise.
What is the minister going to do to ensure that our industry gets a fair and impartial hearing in Washington and is not victimized with biased feelings?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, we have invited the investigations of anybody because we have nothing to hide. We will have no difficulty at all proving to any objective observer from anywhere that our lumber industry and our wood products sector are not subsidized.
We intend to assert ourselves in that fashion not just with the commerce department in the current investigation, which has a couple of unfortunate preliminary findings, but also under GATT. Eventually the case will be appealed under chapter nineteen of the free trade agreement.


CAMP IPPERWASH
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on April 16, 1942 the Department of National Defence expropriated land belonging to the Chippewas of Stoney Point, Ontario, under the War Measures Act. The government promised to give the land back when it was no longer needed for the efficient prosecution of the war.
April 6, 1992

Half a century has passed and the government has yet to keep its promise. The Minister of Indian Affairs has supported the claims of the Stoney Point people to have the land at Camp Ipperwash returned.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. When can the people of Stoney Point expect an announcement that the government will return the land taken from them 50 years ago?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary committee considered the matter for several weeks. It has tabled its report. The government will respond within the usual timetable.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in September 1991 as part of its cost saving plans the government struck a committee on base closures. The report of that committee is expected shortly.
In a letter to the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Indian Affairs said:
Given your department's current proposal to reduce the number of military bases, I believe this is an appropriate time to finally settle the Camp Ipperwash matter.
Will the Minister of National Defence settle the Camp Ipperwash matter, or will the Stoney Point people have to proceed with the eviction notice they plan to give DND officials on April 16 of this year?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question will be included in the government's response.


MINING DEVELOPMENT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The mining community in Abitibi-Temisca-mingue and I realized several months ago that the Government of Quebec would not sign the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement on mining development
Oral Questions
until the agreements on industrial development, forestry and tourism had been signed.
Is the Quebec government discussing the possibility with your department of signing a Canada-Quebec agreement on mining development as soon as possible, for the benefit of Chapais, Chibougamau, Abitibi-Temis-camingue, and Quebec in general?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, prior to the question being asked by the hon. member there were other priorities that the province of Quebec had put forward as part of the Canada-Quebec regional development agreement. It has now put forward a position that it wants a new mineral development agreement for Quebec.
My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, is responsible for the amounts, that is the global amounts. As Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, once those global amounts are agreed to between Canada and Quebec we would be very pleased to develop the details within that MDA and get it signed as soon as possible.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for External Relations. The government will shortly be announcing a large multi-million dollar project supplying grain storage facilities to Egypt.
Has the minister personally reviewed that contract to ensure that all the facilities, production and supplies will be manufactured by Canadian companies?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that so far I have not looked at the details of the particular project mentioned by the hon. member. He is probably aware that generally speaking, tied aid is subject to certain restrictions or commitments. I am not familiar with the details of this particular project, but I intend to make

April 6, 1992
Oral Questions
enquiries and get back to the hon. member as soon as possible.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the minister that when she reviews that project it would be important to take a look at the requirement for Canadian content.
It is my understanding that a substantial part of the project will be contracted to a Nebraska steel company to supply the storage and grain facilities.
I want to ask the minister: At a time when our own steel industry is being harassed by American manufacturers, when there is a severe recession going on, when jobs are lost, why are we spending Canadian taxpayers' money on American products instead of providing jobs for Canadians?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the hon. member, and he may be aware of the fact, that generally speaking, aid is tied to the use of Canadian goods in a ratio of 50 per cent in the case of goods provided to countries in sub-Saharan countries, while the ratio is 66 per cent for other countries.
The purpose of this policy is to ensure that our expertise and skills are transferred to Third World countries and that eventually, these countries will be able to take charge of their own development.
As for the specific case referred to by the hon. member, I will make enquiries and get back to him.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Following the Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of the Oldman River, the minister was asked to stop the dam from being filled until the environmental review panel had completed its report.
The minister stated at that time that he did not know what to do. In fact, he said that he needed more time to render his decision. The minister has now had two months. The world was created in six days. Will the minister now issue his stop order?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: am happy to have been informed of Liberal Party policy on how to create the world in only six days. It is something we look forward to.
The Oldman decision is a landmark decision in the areas of the environment and the Constitution that relates to the federal government's guideline orders and the application of its environmental assessment process.
Our officials have examined and in fact still continue to examine the impact of the decision. We stay in close relation with the other jurisdictions involved. As soon as we make a determination on a specific course of action, I will be happy to inform my colleague.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, an awful lot of Canadians spent an enormous amount of time, heartache and money fighting this case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada where they won.
To not issue a stop order now before irreparable damage is done, before the spring run-off starts, will be construed as a wilful disregard by this government of the laws of the land.
What does the minister's continued dithering say to the credibility of the environmental review process in this country? Indeed, what does it say to this government's commitment to the law of the land?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, my friend is making some assumptions about what the law does or does not say that we are not making on this side of the House of Commons. That is what we have to be clear on before we act.
This is not the first time that we have been faced with a difficult situation in this area. There have been other major projects that have been the object of scrutiny by the courts. I have had the opportunity to say before to my colleague that from time to time we must take whatever energy and time is required to examine these situations carefully before we act.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, just a very easy question for the Minister of the Environment.
April 6, 1992

Does he not agree that the dam should not be allowed to fill while the panel is sitting?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Skeena typically asked in his preface an easy question, when he knows very well that in the area of the environment when dealing with very difficult issues there are no easy answers.
As far as this issue is concerned he will also know that we must first determine what our legal basis is to act before we go forth, especially may I add, when we are dealing with other jurisdictions. We must be careful in the way we undertake our duties in these areas to delimit areas of responsibilities. That is the spirit in which we are examining this issue.


TAXATION
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.
For a long time now we have been advised that the federal government has been negotiating with the provinces for harmonization of the goods and services tax with provincial sales taxes.
Last week the New Brunswick Minister of Finance announced in the budget that there would not be harmonization of the New Brunswick provincial tax with the goods and services tax. In fact, he announced that agreements would be struck with the federal government for federal customs officers to collect the provincial sales tax on alcohol and tobacco at the border.
What is the special nature of the agreement to be reached with New Brunswick? Does this indicate the end of federal efforts to seek harmonization of the GST program with provincial sales taxes?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, no it does not mean an end to our desire to work with all provinces in seeking harmonization of the GST.
It is ultimately in the best interests of all provinces, both from the standpoint of improving the competitive position of their manufacturing and processing sector and in terms of administration and the removal of duplication and overlap.
Oral Questions
I am disappointed that after a series of lengthy discussions with the province of New Brunswick that it saw fit not to make a decision to move toward harmonization. I would not interpret that as an outright rejection. Discussions will be going on.
We are continuing to work with the provinces to collect provincial sales taxes, offering to do that at the border and also with respect to the collection of the alcohol and tobacco tax.
We will continue to work with all provinces to endeavour to provide a harmonized system that will be easier to administer and more efficient not only for individual Canadians but also for the economy as a whole.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, the national trade ministers are meeting in Montreal today in negotiation of the North American free trade agreement, about which Ambassador Ney of the United States says a deal must be done by the end of this month because of the U.S. elections.
Meanwhile, The Financial Times among others says that a deal done in 1992 would be a bad deal for Canada, that Canada would take a major beating.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Does the government agree with Ambassador Ney? Is Canada going to have a rushed, half-baked deal with no elections because the Americans are going to have elections?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that we are not going to rush any deal. We are going to negotiate the best possible arrangement for Canada.
We are going to improve our access to the U.S. markets still further and to Mexican markets still further, to be a preferred site for investment and to add in our trade with Mexico, a dispute settlement mechanism.
All of those objectives are what we will achieve in these negotiations and we will not rush doing it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Last week the finance minister said that concern about the North American free trade agreement was overblown because Mexican trade consisted of about only 1 per cent of Canadian trade.

April 6, 1992
Oral Questions
I want to ask the minister this: Do not the proposed provisions on automobiles, transportation, telecommunications, textiles, agriculture, services, investment, intellectual property rights, energy, of the proposed supersedence of the North American free trade agreement over the current free trade agreement suggest a good deal more than 1 per cent of Canadian trade over all?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend's question is full of surmises, none of which has any basis in fact.
He should know that we are there to negotiate the best possible arrangement for all of those industries in a context that will allow us to compete more effectively, both in the United States and Mexico.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, there are press reports citing a spokesperson for external affairs stating their opinion that Canadian peacekeeping troops in Cyprus should be removed since "there doesn't seem to be much progress nor effort at times being spent by the parties concerned to come to a resolution".
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister: What facts does he base this assertion of lack of effort on? In light of previous assurances that the government was not planning to remove the troops from Cyprus, I would like to know what has changed.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague that there has been no decision to withdraw our troops from Cyprus.
Obviously though we are concerned that after some 27 years we are continuing to provide a substantial number of troops. We feel, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has expressed, that we would hope peacekeeping would be the kind of mission where we could go in and maintain peace, as opposed to peacemaking.
Obviously we are making every effort to try to find ways to ensure that in the situation in Cyprus there can
be active dialogue to work toward peacemaking and that it will not be necessary to maintain peacekeepers indefinitely in that situation.


Jim Karygiannis: It
looks like this government is taking the scissors to everything, even peacekeeping.
I would like to ask the minister what assurances, if any, has the government received from the Turkish government that if all the peacekeeping forces are removed from Cyprus that hostilities will not resurface?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, that is obviously the problem. We do not want to withdraw peacekeepers and then have hostilities resume. That is not the purpose.


Jim Karygiannis: Have you been there?


Mary Collins: I have been there, indeed I have.
We are trying to work with both sides and ensure that through the United Nations every effort is made to try to bring about a peaceful solution to the situation in Cyprus so that we and other nations eventually can withdraw our peacekeepers.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance cannot deny the anguish and the hardship that unemployment insurance exhaustees and those Canadians who have to resort to municipal and provincial welfare have to confront on a daily basis.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance what specific programs does he have in mind to put in place now to assist the unemployed, to assist those who have to go on welfare, as well as to assist those thousands of Canadians who have to go to our food banks?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member already knows that the Government of Canada, in partnership with the private sector, that is, business and labour, and also in co-operation with every provincial government is trying to establish the labour force development strategy which is geared towards the unemployed.
April 6, 1992

When the hon. member refers to exhaustees, the government has programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy where some of these people can be helped. But it is important for everyone, every stakeholder in the economy, to realize that there is no easy, magic solution out there and that we have to work together. This is what we are striving to do.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are aware of the strategy of the Government of Canada.
But the minister must be aware that in Nova Scotia
78,000	people are on welfare; in Quebec over 500,000; and in Ontario 675,000 Canadians are on welfare. They don't want to hear from the minister about a strategy. They want to hear about the concrete action that the Government of Canada will take to assist those individuals.
So I ask the minister: What specific programs will he and his government put in place to assist those thousands of Canadians who want meaningful work?


Bernard Valcourt: What we have to do is pursue the work that the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the premiers started the last time they met.
The issue is activating those funds under welfare and under UI, trying to render these sums more relevant to the needs of people in terms of training and learning in Canada.
Following the last first ministers' meeting, there was agreement among the provinces and the federal government to keep working in that direction, which we will do.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization.
The State Law and Order Restoration Council, which is the illegal military junta currently ruling Burma, has now moved beyond the jailing of parliamentarians to the murder of entire villages of innocent citizens.
Last week, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the entire energy standing committee
Routine Proceedings
agreed that Petro-Canada should immediately suspend all activities in Burma.
Will the minister contact the board and executive of Petro-Canada, insisting that the company send a strong signal of protest and revulsion by suspending all activity in Burma and informing them that unless such action is taken quickly, the government will take the unusual but completely legal step of voting its remaining 80 per cent of the company's shares to compel such a suspension?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, Petro-Canada is a publicly owned company. It is managed by a board of directors. I would suggest that the hon. member make his representation to them.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, is the minister then saying that the government will do nothing, even to attempt to convince Petro-Canada to withdraw and stop supporting this bloody regime?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I have no indication that Petro-Canada is supporting that regime.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in relation to Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof.

April 6, 1992
Routine Proceedings



HOUSE MANAGEMENT-30TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Albert Glen Cooper: I have the honour to present the 30th report of the Standing Committee on House Management as per Standing Order 104.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



COMPETITION ACT


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-68, an act to amend the Competition Act (multi-level marketing plans and pyramid selling).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Blais moves that the bill be read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-69, an act to amend the Criminal Code (air and maritime safety).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) moves that the bill be read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.




A. Kim Campbell: for leave to introduce Bill C-70, an act to amend the Criminal Code (jury).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre) moves that the bill be read the first time and ordered to be printed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Bill read first time and ordered to be printed.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 30th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion No. 9 which stands in my name on the Order Paper to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs presented to the House on Friday, March 13, 1992.
April 6, 1992


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


David Charles Dingwall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the proceedings here nor the interventions of the hori. member, but perhaps the Chair could be somewhat helpful.
We were operating under a unanimous consent order of the House that we would be proceeding with the report stage of Bill C-31 as well as the report stage of Bill C-60. I believe later this day, at approximately 5.45 p.m., a vote is to be held if necessary. I am wondering if the Chair could inform the House as to this intervention here today, which is quite rightly within the rules, the hon. member has the opportunity to do that, whether or not in fact all questions will be put with regard to Bill C-31 as well as Bill C-60 at 5.45 p.m. and, if necessary, division would be held later this day on those two bills.
Could the Chair inform the House.


Robert Evans Skelly: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it should be understood that as part of the understanding between the Whips and House leaders to decide today's order of business, it was understood that rather than presenting this concurrence motion today, I would have presented a question to the minister and received a decent response rather than the arrogant shuffling off of a response that we received from the minister today.
The understanding of our party is the promise that was made to us by the government in this case was not kept and therefore the promise is off.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I just listened to that intervention with just a little bit of surprise and shock.
First of all, there was an understanding between the parties. That is very clear. It has gone beyond that of being simply an understanding. It is unanimous agreement of this House of Commons which created a House order under which we are operating today.
To have the hon. member now suddenly say that because he was not happy with the answer given to a particular question offered in this House of Commons he is now proceeding with this, I think he is perhaps being slightly inconsistent.
Routine Proceedings
The point I want to make is this. We were operating under an understanding, an understanding that was so strong in fact that we agreed to a House order that said we would proceed with Bill C-31 and Bill C-60 today. Not only would we proceed with them, but at 5.45 p.m. this afternoon all the necessary questions to dispose of those bills would be put to this House and decided at that time. I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that you should perhaps look at that.
I can assure you that I have several motions for concurrence on this Order Paper that take precedence to the hon. member's motions which I would like to have moved as well, but because of the understanding of the House order did not proceed with them today. I would ask that that be reconsidered certainly in light of the remarks just made by the hon. member which are totally out to lunch.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with my colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. He has recounted with some clarity the understandings that the parties had with regard to proceeding today.
Neither the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader nor I can stand in this Chamber and rectify any differences which may result as a question from the hon. member which was put quite rightly. He does not like the answer which has been given. It is within his right as a member of this House to move the motion which he has clarified as Motion No. 9 and debate will proceed on the basis of that motion.
The question I have for the Chair is a clarification. Notwithstanding this particular motion, at the end of the day at 5.45 p.m. will report stage of Bill C-31 and report stage of Bill C-60 be concluded? Will the Chair indicate to the House, please.


Joy Langan: On the same point of order. Mr. Speaker, I know that you are anxious to make a decision on this but I think it is important and the House leader for the government side did not point out that notice of the question that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni put forward was in fact given to the minister on Friday. To have a response that says he will look at the committee's report and answer some day down the road is certainly not much of a response after having received the courtesy of being put on notice on Friday that this question was coming.

April 6, 1992
Routine Proceedings
In addition, if we come to the end of the business the government surely would have brought something else forward and it is quite appropriate for the hon. member for Comox-Albemi to bring this forward at this time. To suggest that this member is out to lunch after being ignored by the minister I think is highly inappropriate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The House has before it an order that specifies, whether there is a debate or not, that the vote must be held not later than 5.45 p.m, to dispose of the two bills at report stage, namely C-31 and C-60. Debate or not, members of this House will have to decide.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if it would be in order for me to call concurrence on Motion No. 6 which has precedence over Motion No. 9.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I must remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that since the House has been presented with the motion of the hon. member for Comox-Albemi, it would have been better for the hon. parliamentary secretary to intervene before the hon. member for Comox-Alberni moved his motion. The House now has this motion before it and I must consider this fact.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty facing us is quite simple. We have a unanimously adopted order of the House which says that Bill C-60, the bill being considered under Government Orders, is to be debated in this House, but at 5.45 p.m., the debate must end and the vote must be held.
The debate began this morning, as I recall-I was here-and was to continue. Now a member, who is probably not interested in Bill C-60, one must believe, presents a motion in the House which is acceptable under Routine Proceedings but will prevent us from considering Bill C-60. Unless the government decides to move a motion that we proceed to the Orders of the Day, this motion will probably take up the afternoon's debate, even if it is justified and the report is probably veiy much in order.
My difficulty is that some of us would have liked to debate Bill C-60. If I understood your decision correctly, the debate on C-60 will not take place unless the hon. member changes his mind or the government has the courage to propose that the House proceed to the consideration of Government Orders. If that is indeed what you said, Mr. Speaker, in that case, it will be hard for us to explain to our constituents, to Canadians, why Bill C-60, a very important bill, was not debated in this House this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I simply remind the House that the motion is to consider an amendment moved by a member of the New Democratic Party and that a member of the same party moved the motion under discussion. But that said, the Speaker is only the servant of the House and I have no choice but to apply the Standing Orders and to hear the hon. member for Comox-Albemi.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief but I want the House to know that this is an extremely important issue and that the honour of the Crown is at stake.
While I understand the need to debate the legislation that has been put on the Order Paper for later today, I was under the impression, our caucus was under the impression, our Whip was under the impression, that if I were to withdraw this motion, we would at least get a decent response from the minister instead of the kind of arrogant response that we got from that minister, the arrogant non-response.
That is why this motion appears today. It is important to members of this House because of what it means in terms of our relationship with aboriginal people.
Fifty years ago this month the Government of Canada seized land under the War Measures Act, land that was given to the Stoney Point Chippewa people as part of their reservation under a treaty dating back to the 1820s. That land was Chippewa land and was to remain Chippewa land forever.
The Department of National Defence wanted lands to set up a military camp in order to prosecute World War n. They had an opportunity to buy land in other areas of southern Ontario but they would have had to buy the land from non-aboriginal people, from white people and they rejected that. They wanted the land that was owned
April 6, 1992

by the aboriginal people, the Chippewas at Stoney Point. In fact, they were encouraged to acquire that land by George Down who was the Indian agent of the day. To quote Mr. Down: "Personally, I think this is a wonderful opportunity to gather a few straggling Indians and locate them permanently with the main body of the band."
It was characteristic of the way that Canadians and the Canadian government looked at aboriginal people at that time. They considered them "a few straggling Indians", to use the words of George Down.
The Department of National Defence went to the Indian people at Stoney Point and asked them if they wanted to sell their land. They replied no, they did not want to sell it, it was theirs based on a treaty signed back in the 1820s, a treaty that they felt bound them as well as the Government of Canada.
It was only after they refused to sell that the Canadian government seized that land under the War Measures Act and turned it into Canadian Forces Base Camp Ipperwash.
Part of the conditions in the Order in Council by which this land was seized was that after it was no longer needed for the efficient prosecution of the war, it would be returned to the Chippewa people from whom it was taken in the first place.
After the war, in spite of their promises, the Government of Canada and the Department of National Defence refused to return that land to the Chippewa people. They refused to keep their promises, refused to respect the honour of the Crown in the Crown's dealings with those Chippewa people.
As a result, 50 years later, that land is still in the hands of the Department of National Defence and it still refuses to keep its promises. The Minister of National Defence sits in this House in his arrogant way and says: "I am not even going to answer these questions until after 150 days when I have to deal with the report of the aboriginal affairs committee."


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He has chronic jet lag.


Robert Evans Skelly: At least he is here. He was advised of the question and he should have answered it in a decent, frank, forward way because this is an issue
Routine Proceedings
that has been outstanding since 1942. It is coming up to its 50th anniversary.
The Order in Council under the War Measures Act was passed on April 14, 1942. It was executed on April 16, with those people at Stoney Point being dragged out of their homes, all of their furniture, all of their possessions taken from that land within two days after the Order in Council had passed and forced into another aboriginal community at Kettle Point.
They were related to the people in the community of Kettle Point, but there was not that much space available for housing. As a result, many of the people who lived at Stoney Point during those years around 1940 ended up leaving the reserve altogether and being forced to live in communities throughout southern Ontario. That community was completely broken up.
What was even more insulting was that many of the Chippewa people of Stoney Point actually joined the Canadian army and went to fight in World War II. They went to heroically fight in World War II under the Canadian flag.
They came back to their homes at Stoney Point after the war, in some cases decorated for bravery, after fighting for Canadians during the war. They came back and found that it was not the enemy that stole the land from them, it was not the enemy who threatened their homes. The people who threatened their homes was their own Canadian government.
In fact, the story is well known of one veteran of World War II who came back to his home at Stoney Point, found that he could not get in because it was a military base and was forced to sleep in a ditch outside his own land because he could not get inside the fence. It was now owned by the Canadian government, that same Canadian government that promised when the land was no longer needed for the efficient prosecution of the war, it would go back to the Stoney Point people.
Fifty years have passed. What is the term, what is the validity of a promise made by the Government of Canada to aboriginal people? When is the Government of Canada expected to keep its promise? The Minister of National Defence cannot even keep a promise over a weekend to give a decent answer to a question that is

April 6, 1992
Routine Proceedings
being asked in this House on behalf of those aboriginal people.
If that reflects the kind of promises that are made by this government and by previous governments, who in this House will defend the honour of the Crown and the government's agreements with aboriginal people? Are we saying that this government has no honour?
We now have an opportunity, 50 years after the fact to go to the Stoney Point people on April 16, the 50th anniversary of when that land was seized, make amends and return the land or at least indicate that the land will be returned to them.
That camp has been open since 1945. It was used to train people who went to Korea and then when it was no longer needed for war purposes, it was used to train militia corps and cadet corps. Now it is very seldom used at all. In fact, the camp is closed for a good part of the year. In spite of that, the government still refuses to return that land to the Stoney Point people.
I do not know what it is about this government, but a promise seems to mean nothing to them. The honour of the Crown seems to mean nothing to them in terms of its relationship with the aboriginal people. All we have been asking for, all the Stoney Point people have been asking for over these many years, is that the government keep its promise and return the land that was seized from them under the War Measures Act.
It is not much to ask. All the minister had to say in the House today was that the Department of National Defence understands that a wrong has been done to the people of Stoney Point and that the wrong needs to be corrected, that the government is phasing down the number of bases it operates through the Department of National Defence gives them an opportunity to correct that ancient injustice that was done to the Stoney Point people. It is not much to ask, Mr. Speaker.
On April 16, the Stoney Point people plan to make a peaceful demonstration in front of the gates of Camp Ipperwash which is now the CFB camp located at Stoney
Point. At that time, they are hoping to present to the people from the Department of National Defence an eviction notice, the same kind of notice they received so unceremoniously 50 years ago. They hope on that day the government will be prepared to right this wrong, to make amends for what they did and to make sure, through an announcement, that the land is going to be returned to its rightful aboriginal owners.
That is all they ask and that is why I am rising in the House today on this important issue, a week or two weeks before this event is to take place at the gates of Camp Ipperwash.
I call on this Parliament to support the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs calling on the government to return the land taken from the Stoney Point people back in 1942 to its aboriginal owners and their descendants who have been waiting for so long for justice to be done.
I hope that Parliament has heard these words. I indicated that I intended to be brief on this issue. This grievance has been outstanding for 50 years. I hope members will support this concurrence motion and get the Minister of National Defence off his duff so that he understands what the principles of justice are all about and that he makes an announcement today or at least within the next week or so to indicate to the people at Stoney Point that justice is going to be done; that the land seized from them 50 years ago is going to be returned and that the honour of the Crown will be restored.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
April 6, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance; and Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 (p. 9352).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion is differed.
The vote on Motion No. 1 will also apply to Motions Nos. 2 and 4 in the name of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. We shall now proceed to the consideration of Motion No. 3.


Steven W. Langdon: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-60 be amended in clause 5 by striking out line 36 at
page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"1993, and"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly the most important sets of amendments I would like to see this House adopt.
We heard from officials, as we reviewed this particular piece of legislation with respect to equalization payments, that this particular bill came out of a wide discussion of all transfer payments across the board, not just transfer payments with respect to equalization, but transfer payments with respect to the Established Program Financing system. It provides money for health and post-secondary education, and also transfer payments with respect to the Canada Assistance Program. Those transfers from the federal government cover the cost of various programs such as day care assistance and support for welfare recipients. They cover a range of different programs that help people with disabilities, who are in poverty and facing some of the problems created by the recession in this country.
This bill deals with one part of the transfer payment program: the equalization part. It does not deal with the other key parts: the transfers for health, the transfers for post-secondary education, and the transfers under the Canada Assistance Program.
What we are saying with this amendment is: Yes, let us let the equalization payments go through for the temporary two-year period which this bill establishes for them, but let us take the transfers that are equally crucial to provinces across the country and put the pressure on this government to see to it that it comes up with answers to improve these transfers. Let us see to it that these transfers actually get treated in a fair way for all provinces in this country.
We have suggested that this particular clause which deals with income tax revenue guarantees not be extended for the two years but simply be extended for one year so as to say very plainly to the government, on the part of Parliament, that there must be an answer to the transfer payment inequities in this country within the next year.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
Let me tell the House why it is so important to do this. It is important for the sense of equity and fair play. The present piece of legislation dealing with equalization payments transfers an extra $422 million to seven provinces this year. We are not against that transfer. We think that it is an important transfer to take place, but let us be very clear about who receives this money.
Out of $422 million which this government is seeing it gets to provinces in addition to what they received before, 47 per cent or $198 million goes to a single province. Other provinces receive some support too. Quebec, as I say, receives $198 million; $60 million goes to Saskatchewan; $55 million to Manitoba; $39 million to New Brunswick; $35 million to Nova Scotia; $31 million to Newfoundland; and $5 million to Prince Edward Island.
We do not object to these new improved transfer payments. What we do object to is other provinces that are facing serious problems as a consequence of the economic difficulties associated with the recession in this country, those other provinces that need the money badly, are not being treated fairly by the federal government.
Let me speak for a few minutes about my own province of Ontario. I do not speak about Ontario because it is the only province that is being hurt. If we look at the whole transfer payment question, we see that all provinces have lost since the 1982-83 year $41 billion in money which they expected to receive from the federal government and which they have not received. If we take 1992-93, all provinces will lose a total of $9.3 billion as a result of the caps and freezes and controls which the federal government has unilaterally put on transfer payments.
Transfer payments have always been something which were agreed to in the past through federal-provincial conferences. Since 1982-83, under both the Liberals and the Conservatives, these agreements have been undercut. This year the result for all provinces is a total loss of
$9.3 billion. In this coming year Ontario will lose $4.5 billion of that $9.3 billion. That is almost half of the total.
This has hit the Canada Assistance Program especially hard. The province of Ontario, because of changes in unemployment insurance and the recession, has seen massive increases in the number of the people on welfare. For instance, the city of metropolitan Toronto has seen an increase in the last year of 29 per cent in the number of people on welfare. We have gone from 98,000 cases to over 105,000 cases.
That means that the province of Ontario gets only 31 per cent of its costs under the Canada Assistance Program covered while every other province except British Columbia gets 50 per cent covered. British Columbia gets 37 or 38 per cent of its costs covered.
This is not right. It is not something that can continue. We move this amendment to impress on this government the urgency of doing something about the Canada Assistance Program and other transfer programs to make them fair to all provinces in Canada.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but concur with what my colleague for Essex-Windsor has just said. The devastation wreaked by successive Liberal and Conservative governments over the years on the concept of equality, justice and dignity in this country is something that has to be brought to the attention of the Canadian public again and again.
We have gone from 50/50 cost-sharing on the Canada Assistance Plan to where, for the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, the government has put a freeze on the transfer payments on the basis that they are have provinces and therefore do not require as much assistance from the federal government as the other provinces do. The Canada Assistance Plan was instituted to help people and for the federal government to make an assessment on the provincial governments on that basis is extreme and cannot be tolerated.
The fact of the matter is that the poor people, the less well off people of British Columbia have suffered a loss in 1991-1992 alone of $166 million and that by the year 1994-1995 the total will be $1 billion.
In 1992-1993 the estimated cost to the province of Alberta is $223 million. In Ontario in 1990-1991 the
April 6, 1992

estimated cost to that province was $415 million, and there is a staggering $1.2 billion decrease in federal transfer payments to the province of Ontario this year.
What is happening without a doubt is that the federal government is reneging on its responsibility to the people of Canada and particularly to the people in those three provinces.
We could ask ourselves why. We have answered one of the whys I think in that the government views these provinces as being wealthy and able to take care of those costs themselves.
The fact of the matter is if you are someone needing assistance it does not matter what province you live in and half the people needing assistance in this country, come from the province of Ontario.
With the financial situation having burgeoned as it has in Canada within the last year to year and a half, the province of Ontario has suffered great devastation as a result of the free trade deal, as has the rest of Canada. Along with the rest of Canada it has also suffered the devastation that comes with the changes to UI. Ontario has been particularly hard hit with the multiplying numbers of unemployed and it is my suspicion that where Ontario used to be a net contributor to the federal government it may turn out to be a have not province itself as a result of the changes to UI and the free trade agreement.
That 450,000 people have been lost, most of them in the province of Ontario, is something that weighs heavily on the kinds of programs which the Canada Assistance Plan was designed to help.
To reiterate and remind people what happens under Bill C-21, among other things it requires people to work for a longer period of time in order to qualify for UI benefits. Also they receive less benefits from UI in the event that they are laid off.
Those two things, multiplied together, have formed a devastating draw oh the treasury of the province of Ontario.
I cannot help but point out that we have to bear in mind that the Canada Assistance Plan was set up to help people and for the Government of Canada to make an assessment on the Government of Ontario is demeaning in the most extreme sense of the word.
Something very similar happened with the extended programs financing which was set up originally to compensate the provinces for revenue lost to them as a result of tax reform.
Government Orders
Since the time when the changes were brought in we have had further changes by successive Liberal and Conservative governments to wear away and erode the amount of transfer payments to all the provinces which the federal government ought to be continuing. There were at least two broadside attacks by the Liberals after they brought in what originally appeared to be a generous program. Had it remained in effect it would have been. The problem I would suspect, considering the philosophy of the Liberals when they are in government which corresponds precisely with the philosophy of the Conservatives when they are in government, I might add, is that the-


An hon. member:: How do you know that?


Ron Fisher: How do I know that? I am very glad you asked that question. There are tonnes of statistics and evidence to prove that that is the case.
It was originally set up with a revenue guarantee to the provinces on these transfer payments under the extended program financing. In 1982-1 do not remember who the finance minister was. Most likely it was MacEa-chen. Maybe it was even Tbrner-he changed the formula so that the revenue guarantees were no longer there.
Then we had those wonderful years of six and five. We all remember six and five and how it affected our pay cheques. I would certainly remind the Canadian public, those who have forgotten, and I suspect not too many ordinary Canadians have forgotten six and five, that it was the beginning of the end of any ability to keep up with inflation in this country. Our pay cheques have reflected this ever since, since exacerbated by successive Conservative programs and a tax on working people.
The education portion of the Established Programs Financing was cut under the six and five program. It is to its credit, although one wonders why, it did not cut the medicare portion of it as well, but in any event it did not. But the education portion of that was and as a result of that the research and development and the post-secondary education in the country have suffered enormously.
The Conservatives not being satisfied with the cuts the Liberals made to the Established Programs Financing, have taken three successive swipes at it. They changed the formula which tied the transfers to the growth in the GNP to GNP minus two and that was done in 1986. Not satisfied with that in 1990 the former Minister of Finance came along and changed that from GNP minus two to GNP minus three. Of course, just recently the govern-

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
ment has put a freeze on it so that there can be no increases at all to the Established Programs Financing.
What this amounts to is that we really do have as far as medicare is concerned an attack on standards. As this progresses in actual dollars and the cost of medicare being what it is will result in for all intents and purposes no meaningful amount of money being transferred to the provinces at which time the federal government will no longer be able to insist upon the maintenance of standards.
We are saying that the 50/50 funding ought to be restored and that the changes which have taken place ever since the program was put into effect have been devastating to the country. That applies as well, as I said, to the Canada Assistance Plan.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the time you have allotted me. I see my time has run out.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to take part in a debate that has to do with transfers to the provinces. I want to put a couple of things on the record.
One of them is transfers to my home province of New Brunswick. I hear this in my riding quite often when I am back home. Just about every weekend, someone will comment on transfers to the provinces. I think it is important that I put it on the record that the province of New Brunswick is getting more, not less.
I think most of us in this House understand that, including some of the members opposite. They are getting more, not less. In fact, the province of New Brunswick will get in the order of $1.6 billion. Some calculations put it closer to $2 billion in direct transfers from the Government of Canada to the province of New Brunswick.
That is a significant figure when you are talking about a province as small as the province of New Brunswick. Two billion dollars is a lot of money. If you want to get technical and you want to measure it on that lower number of $1.6 billion, let us talk about that figure. Whether it is $1.6 billion or $2 billion, it is a fair amount of money in a province of only 720,000 people. What it comes down to at the end of the day is it amounts to 39
per cent of all the revenues coming into the province of New Brunswick.
What I am trying to paint is a picture that shows the people of Canada where the money is coming from. It is a transfer from other taxpayers in this country to a have not province, in my case the province of New Brunswick. Thirty-nine per cent of all the revenues come from other taxpayers.
To sort this out, this is the fascinating part of the whole equation. The whole equation is trying to sort this out in our own minds so that the people back home can appreciate it. When we are talking about moneys coming from Ottawa to New Brunswick, it is not money from heaven.
Somehow we fall into this idea that moneys are here in Ottawa and it is just a case of moving them out of here, putting them into those have not provinces, if you wish. It is not quite that simple. The money has to come from a taxpayer some place else. The difficulty that this government is finding itself in, and this country, is that there is no place else at the moment.
The economy of Ontario is in trouble. The economy of Alberta is a little better and the economy of B.C. is a little better as well. Those are the three major sources of tax dollars that were being transferred to those other provinces.
What we would like to do in Ottawa is increase, increase, increase, which we have done, especially to those have not provinces but our ability to increase at the rate that people would like to see it increase is limited. The money is not free. It comes from other taxpayers, and that is the point that I want to emphasize today. It comes from other taxpayers and other parts of the country.
When the member from Essex-Windsor speaks and uses some of the language that he uses, and statistics, he is quite careful in his choice of words. When he talks about the anticipated dollar amount being less than what was anticipated, he is using percentages that might have been. Might have been does not count. You have to deal with certain realities out there, especially when you are using taxpayers' money. The fact is if we are going to send more money to the provinces beyond what we tell them we are going to send them and what we have sent

April 6, 1992

them at this point, it has to be borrowed money. It has to be borrowed money that has to be paid back.
If it was money from heaven, we would not have to pay it back, would we? Unfortunately, that only exists in the minds of the NDP. It does not have to take responsibility for balancing the books or being accountable to the taxpayers of Canada. Its members just have to stand up on their hind legs and howl at the moon.
Howl they might, thank goodness the NDP is not the party in power. If it was, we would not be saddled with a $400 billion deficit in this country, we would be in a country that would have to be taken over by the IMF. Look at Ontario today, what it is doing there. Ontario is haemorrhaging because a socialist government cannot ring in expenses.


An hon. member:: They are in better shape than you are.


Gregory Francis Thompson: They can holler all they want on the other side of the House, Mr. Speaker, that particular party, because at the end of the day, nothing is going to change. They do not have to take responsibility for their words or their actions. They just have to talk about it and, as I say, get up on their hind legs and howl at the moon.
In the province of New Brunswick, particularly, I am supportive and encouraged with what this government has done for my home province; very encouraged. As I mentioned, that figure this year is going to be close to $2 billion transferred to the people of New Brunswick to help them with their programs. It accounts for about 39 per cent of their revenues. That little have not province of New Brunswick is receiving about 70 per cent above the national average when you measure how those transfers take place. That is very significant.
If you measure it on an individual basis, the figure is up in the $2,100 range per individual in the province of New Brunswick transferred government to government. That is not including other federal government programs that are transferred to the individual. If those were calculated into the equation, the number would be even greater, much greater, but we can save that argument for another day. Those types of programs we are talking about, of course, are UIC programs, again federal dollars, even
Government Orders
support to our seniors. Those are not factored into those numbers at all. Those are simply numbers transferring dollars from government to government.
The argument that they use is a fallacious argument. It bears no regard to reality at all. It has no semblance of reality at all because they have never had to be in a position of governing this country. Let us face it, Canada is not an easy country to govern because we do have these regional disparities within the country. We have always had a system of government in this country, a federal government, that has always responded to the needs of the poorer provinces. This government has responded to the needs of the poorer provinces.
Again, let us look at the real numbers. Let us not project a number that means absolutely nothing. Let us not project what might have been. Let us take a look at what has actually happened. In these provinces, there has been an annual increase in the have not provinces. Again, I zero in on New Brunswick, a 5.7 per cent increase since 1984-85. Incidentally, that is the year we took office, 1984-85. There has been an increase of that much every single year.
The difficulty the province of New Brunswick is finding today is simply this. It has allowed health care costs to escalate over 80 per cent in the province of New Brunswick and its transfers have only increased to the tune of 52 per cent over that time frame.
What it has done is allowed expenses to gallop ahead of the transfers. Now it has got to find someone to point the finger at, but the truth is it should have dealt with that four or five years ago and did not. Now, when the hard numbers are coming home, it has to find another group of people to blame it on. That group of people are the people who make up the Government of Canada.
The fact is there have been increases on average of 5.7 per cent to my home province of New Brunswick and that is significant. Compare with what they have done on the expenditure side and that is where they have lost the battle in the province of New Brunswick.
I am pleased with what this government has done in regard to transfers. As our economy continues to move ahead and, as we work through the recession, you can be assured we are going to take a closer look at what we can do for these provinces in the coming years.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Saint-Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on these amendments this afternoon.
It is surprising and somewhat intriguing that my colleagues on my left had so much to say about my party a moment ago and so little to say about the bill and its amendments. I get the feeling that the Liberal Party of Canada is much more of a threat than this bill, in spite of the fact that the latter is flawed. I found that interesting, especially since it is becoming a common occurrence. I will try to avoid putting down other parties and instead address the bill before us.

I found it interesting to talk about the record of this government. I think when you are in government that happens all the time the record of the previous government. I suspect that many people would say, and I do not do it tongue in cheek or unkindly, in terms of transfers to provinces that the Liberal record looks pretty good compared to the current record. It goes not without saying, but show me any political party, any political person, that is unblemished. I wonder if you would find them in the House of Commons. In fact, it might be very difficult to find them anywhere.
If you compare the Liberal record for transfer payments to provinces with the current government's, I think it looks pretty good. I think as well that you can compare the Liberal record with what has been happening in some of the provinces recently. Let us look at the NDP provinces; what is happening to health and education, hospitals being closed, people being laid off, fewer dollars being transferred for education.
I guess the lesson to be learned is that we have to be very careful about casting stones because, frankly, other people may get up and do the same to us. We would probably merit that when that happens.
My colleague has just indicated that provinces are getting more than they were. Yes, sometimes that is true, but we have to talk about what they are getting more of in this particular bill. Are they getting more tax points or more cash? If they are getting more cash, what are the circumstances under which they are getting it? Has it taken into account inflation? Has it taken into account, for example, the program needs? Has it taken into account student growth within those programs? Or, if we
talk about health, has it taken into account the additional clients that they have for health services?
It is very easy to say that I now have more money; but if I have more people requiring more services of me that cost money, then an increase is not necessarily an increase.
When we talk about this we must not forget that we are talking about, if my memory serves me correctly and I do not mind being corrected, $39 billion; roughly $24 billion for Established Programs Financing, transfer funds for health and education. That is about a ratio of 211 for health to education. Again, if my memory serves me adequately today, it is about one-half tax points, the other cash. The other $8 billion is for equalization, to make sure that those provinces which are not as wealthy as others, relatively speaking, are in fact rewarded appropriately.
Finally, of course, there is the CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, to assist the social programs. Some people will know that that CAP has been capped. In other words, the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta are limited to 5 per cent growth. That has caused a lot of stress. You will recall that there has been a court challenge, and of course the animosity, the disagreement, and the discomfort continues.
One of the questions that we have to ask is this: There are a number of amendments here. There has been some reluctance on the part of the opposition parties to support this bill, which would appear to be fairly innocuous, which would appear to be primarily a technical bill, and I have been assured that that is so during committee. But we must ask the question: Why is the government running into these kinds of problems? I think, with all due respect, it is because of its record on virtually every major issue. It has often said the right things and it has often, I suspect, intended to do what was correct, but it has fallen short. Whether we look at the Constitution, the economic development of our country, or even the social programs in our society, we realize that the government probably meant well. But if we look at the result, it is obvious there is an enormous gap between what they wanted to do and what they have done. And that explains this attitude, this concern, this mistrust which is found just about everywhere. Therefore, when they come up with a bill such as this one, mainly described as a housekeeping bill with no political impact, people are wary, they are concerned, they are reluctant, they try to block it, they try to find out why it would be as straightforward as it seems to be.
April 6, 1992



When I say that the bill is fairly simple and deals primarily with technical things, I do not want to give the impression that it is not an important bill and that it will not lead to particularly important developments. We are not without knowing that one of the reasons, supposedly for the extension of two years, is because there will be a major review undertaken. There is a major review that is being undertaken. It is in the process of happening.
I suggested that review needs to be made public. The stakeholders need to be identified. We should also have a policy impact statement. The government should be telling all of us involved with the particular program, whether we talk about equalization, EPF or CAP, just what would happen from a tax point and a cash perspective, if the current trend of a reduction of transfers continues.
What are the options out there? What are the positives and negatives of the various options government could come forward with?

I have the distinct impression that very shortly it will be election time. I suppose we could call this pre-election time or season. Eventually, it will be the real thing.
We might also see some little games being played that might benefit the government and would not necessarily make things easier for the people who are concerned about this bill and the proposed amendments. This is an extremely important issue, and, as I said earlier, should be seen separate from the problems this government has had in many areas, including the Constitution, the economy and development of social programs. Clearly, there is a climate of suspicion. People seem to be watching and waiting for the other shoe to drop.
In concluding I would like to say that: I am willing to accept the testimony that was given in committee. I believe the people there were honourable. There are no
Government Orders
hidden agendas. This is an extension of that. At the same time, I am disappointed with the process for the review of these programs. The key actors who will be involved in attempting to help government come up with a more sensitive and effective way of responding to the needs of equalization, health and education and the social assistance programs, will be reflected more accurately.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks by commenting on the comments made by the Tory member for Carleton- Charlotte.
It is important when he talks about how well New Brunswick has done under this government's programs, what he thinks about the reduction in the ceiling that has been put on the equalization, on the projected revenues of those lower-income provinces including New Brunswick.
From 1988-89 to 1991-92, equalization ceilings reduced revenues of the lower income provinces by $3.1 billion. Does that sound like have not provinces doing better under this government's programs? Even somebody who is able to do basic mathematics can figure out there has been a slight of hand. I find it awfully difficult to understand how the reduction of $3.1 billion in the have not provinces can mean that those provinces are doing better. During that period, the disparity between the lower and higher income provinces widened. It actually led to a reduction from $8.1 billion to $7.9 billion in 1991 for those provinces.
I hope when the hon. member speaks again on matters such as this, he at least does his homework on behalf of his own province.
I would also like to respond to the comments just made by my liberal colleague from St. Boniface who pointed a finger at NDP governments. He said none of us should cast stones because somehow the NDP governments in Canada have not lived up to their commitments.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
It would not be appropriate to allow this debate to pass without at least talking about my province of British Columbia. Much of what I have to say would also apply to the province of Ontario and what the NDP government is facing there.
It is important that we think about the kinds of things that were put forward by the B.C. government's Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, Glen Clark, prior to introducing his budget in British Columbia. He had comments about the Established Programs Financing for health, post-secondary education, the Canada Assistance Plan and other programs.
Glen Clark's paper detailed the actions of the past Liberal and Conservative federal governments and the impact they have had on the British Columbia budget, which just came down a week and a half ago. It is shocking. The combined effect on British Columbia of the off-loading measures implemented since 1982 will be $1.1 billion in 1991-92. This is in a province that is now facing tremendous unemployment, particularly worsened by the recent softwood lumber tariff.
The $1.1 billion in 1991-92 is equivalent to 67 per cent of the estimated 1991-92 budget deficit of $1.7 billion in British Columbia. Yet when the B.C. Minister of Finance, Glen Clark, brought down his budget, he kept the faith of those less fortunate in the province and maintained payments for welfare, health and education in the province. They were still the priorities of the provincial government.
You can imagine it was very, very tough with those kinds of cuts. Others had to pay the price because this government off-loaded its responsibility onto the British Columbia government.
If the current off-loading continues to the first year of the new century, the negative fiscal impact on British Columbia from the fiscal years, 1991-92 to 2000-01, will be $32.7 billion. To be more specific, the impact of the Liberal and Tory changes to the Established Programs Financing funding formula will result in B.C. losing $6.8 billion by 1994-95.
The B.C. report of Mr. Clark notes that Canada Assistance Plan benefits are used to assist people, not governments. In 1991-92, $166 million will be lost to British Columbians due to the five per cent growth ceiling, and more than $1 billion by 1994-95.
The question has to be asked. Why does this government feel the need to off-load on the provinces? It seems to be a failure on the federal government's part to exercise prudent fiscal management, and it has caused a serious debt problem for this country.
The federal government wishes to avoid visible and direct association with the severe measures it has implemented to restore its financial health. It off-loads those problems on to the provinces. By off-loading, it delivers tax increases and service cuts to the public indirectly through the provinces. They throw up their hands and say: "But we're keeping faith with the people". I say this government is not keeping faith with the people. This government is dumping its problems into the backyards of every Canadian in this country.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan, the federal government is required to provide funds to the provinces and territories on a 50/50 cost shared basis for social assistance and social services. I might add, that includes child care. However, in 1990 and again in 1991, this Tory government unilaterally amended the Canada Assistance Plan Act by restricting increases in federal contributions to 5 per cent for the three have provinces of Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. What would happen if you or I made an agreement with somebody to do something and then reneged half-way through the deal? Well, if we were dealing with our friendly bank, you can be assured we would not be happy. You and I would be in big trouble.
However, this federal government blithely and continuously reneges on a deal it has made with the provinces. It defies its own legislation, much less its own commitment. It withdraws its support and commitment by capping the Canada Assistance Plan and the EPF payments.
Then we have hon. members like the hon. member who just spoke for the government side, who get up and try to tell us Canadians are doing better, even though they have in fact cut back $3.3 billion on that original commitment.
It is similar to the situation of one person having a commitment and owing another $3,200. That person reneges on the $3,200 and the projected commitment, and comes back and says: "Well, I have decided I cannot afford it and I am going to let you carry the loss". That is not too difficult to understand. Most Canadians will see
April 6, 1992

this government is reneging and is dishonest in the face of the legislation. It is holding Canadians up for ransom by dumping its responsibilities on the provinces.
In closing, when this government goes to the polls, each of those members will want to be able to look Canadians in the face and say: "I kept faith with you and I lived up to my commitments to you". I would suggest the hon. members on the other side of the House talk to this government about what is necessary for one to be able to look a Canadian in the eye and say: "I kept faith with you".


Gregory Francis Thompson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make it perfectly clear that during this debate today we have heard extrapolations or projections of what might have been. I suggest the hon. member's entire speech was based on what might have been if we lived in a perfect world.
That is the point I wish to make. Those are extrapolations only on figures that might have been-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is not a point of order. It is a matter of opinion.
On the same point of order, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Steven W. Langdon: As my colleague pointed out, equalization payments to provinces like New Brunswick actually fell from $8.1 billion to $7.9 billion. That is not talking about extrapolations. That is talking about actual reductions.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into this debate and in particular to offer a perspective as an Ontario member. I would not want to hear catcalls from the other side of the room, just because I am a New Democrat and the province of Ontario happens to have a New Democratic government.
I will try to offer a perspective based on the reality that this federal government is in fact off-loading its responsibilities through the curtailment of its transfer payments. I do not care what government is in Ontario. It is just a coincidence that we are both New Democrats.
Government Orders
We talk about have provinces and have not provinces and what is going on with the federal government.
A lot of things have been said today about there being only one place to get tax money and that is from the taxpayer. It really does not make any difference if we get it on the federal level, the provincial level or from the municipal level or through the board of education taxes. The reality is-it was pointed out by a Conservative member-there is only one taxpayer. That person is absolutely right. There is only one taxpayer.
The problem is that the federal government continues to raise personal income taxes-


Thomas Hockin: We lowered it.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Tfell the taxpayer that you lowered it.


An hon. member:: Look at the budget. We lowered it.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Now they are getting excited. It does not take much to get them excited.
The fact is that the way the tax dollar is being spent is the issue. When the federal government transfers responsibilities to the provinces without transferring the funds for them to function, it would be about the same as if I said to my wife: "I have the income but you have to go out and pay the bills". This is what is happening today.
When we see the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, when we see what this federal government is doing-I support the fact that we need immigrants in Canada- but when it allows immigrants to come to Canada and it transfers the responsibility of educating, housing and feeding these immigrants on to the provinces without transferring the proper amount of money, then what are we doing?
What is this federal government doing? I think what it has to come up with are some answers as to what it is doing with Canadian dollars. How is it spending the money?
This government has made millions and millions of dollars on the GST. It knows that and it admits it. It has saved. It brags about the reduction in interest rates and it is saving millions of dollars there.

Government Orders
It cut Canadian Jobs Strategy by $100 million. It sells gold to the tune of about a million ounces per year. What is it doing with the money? The deficit does not go down. The national debt is not going down. Where is the money going?
It is fine for the government to say it is doing what it can, is getting things under control and expects the provinces to do the same thing. However, it is not prepared to help them. It holds back spending and puts up a nice front. Come next election time, it is going to be able to say: "We did our share. We got things under control."
Now the provinces cannot do it. Why not? Because they have cuts in the transfer payments from the federal government. The government is passing on its responsibilities to the provinces unfairly saying: "Those are the breaks. We are not giving you any extra funds. We are not going to give you any more money to do what you have to do. You are just going to have to do it."
I would like to see any one of those married members say that to their spouse: "I am going to keep the money, but you have to take care of the household. You have to buy the food. You have to pay the mortgage. You have to dress the kids." Give me a break.
As one of the have provinces, Ontario has made a commitment. In 1988-89, the federal government collected more than $5,000 per capita in Ontario. It spent $3,360 per capita in Ontario. The result was the net outflow from Ontario of some $16 billion in federal revenue.
The Ontario government continues to commit and keep its commitment to the values of sharing in Canada. In particular, Ontario has always strongly supported the $8.2 billion equalization program.
Let us face it. Everybody is in trouble. All the provinces are in trouble, and the federal government has to recognize that. It has to come up with programs that will put people back to work. People do not want social assistance. People do not want welfare. They do not want to live on a street corner in a cardboard box. They want to work. They want to contribute. They want to be part of the economy. They want to be part of the growth of this country.
What we need are job creation programs and a show of confidence from this government. We need some assistance to get things moving in this country. It means that this government has to participate and has to start loosening up a little bit.
It has to start realizing that even the have provinces are hurting. It has to recognize that the have provinces need assistance before it is too late, before they become have not provinces. All the provinces want to participate and I think this federal government has an obligation to recognize that and to offer assistance.
I would just like to conclude by asking this federal government to rethink what it is doing in this bill. We have to look at the growth of CAP. One member mentioned a little earlier that the Canada Assistance Plan has grown by 5 per cent a year. Obviously that is not enough. Until this government gets its act together and starts putting people back to work, we are going to need more assistance. But that is not what Canadians want. They do not want more assistance. They want to work in Canada, for Canada, for the benefit of Canada so that we can remain Canadians.
I look to the federal government to come to its senses and get this bill under control and get its act under control.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I do want to participate in this debate because there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding, particularly where I come from in Ontario, about deficits, government spending, tight fiscal policies, unemployment and so on.
Of course the recession drives this thinking. People in Ontario have been hit very hard in the past two years. Not only are we going through a recession, but we are suffering in many sectors of the economy in many parts of the province from the ravages of the free trade agreement. We are still suffering the ravages of the high Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar. We are still suffering the ravages of the high interest rate policies of this government opposite.
Those are policies that have built up over the 1980s and collided head-on with the economic downturn which we call a recession, but in many communities in Ontario it is in fact a depression.
April 6, 1992

Then, to cap it all off, the federal government has the gall to turn around and tell the Ontario government that it is spending too much. At the same time as it is telling the Ontario government that it is spending too much, it is off-loading its portion of financial responsibility to the province of Ontario to the Government of Ontario.
This government cannot have it every way it wants. On the one hand it lectures the Ontario treasurer and says: "You have got to cut back on your spending", while at the same time this government cuts back on the transfer payments to the province of Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the way our country is constituted, the provinces are responsible for delivering certain basic programs: programs for higher education, programs for medicare, programs for social services. If the province of Ontario listened to this Conservative federal government we would have a lot more people not only on welfare, but we would have people wandering around the streets with no assistance at all. We would have universities laying off professors and lecturers. We would have not just wings in hospitals shutting down, we would have whole hospitals closing down.
The Conservatives cannot have it every way they want it. They cannot tell the province of Ontario that it is spending too much money and then cut back on transfer payments in those three vital areas and think that the people of Ontario are going to believe them.
For example, in 1991-92 federal cuts have increased Ontario's debt by $11 billion or 28 per cent. That is virtually the same amount that the Ontario deficit is at the present time. The reason the Ontario deficit has gone so high is because the Ontario government has felt a commitment toward those hurt the worst as a result of the recession.
It is one thing for the federal government to say: "We are cutting back on fiscal transfers for higher education, for post-secondary education but it is another thing for the Ontario government to tell the universities of Ontario that they have to shut down faculties or parts of faculties or parts of medical schools, parts of educational schools and so on. That is where the action and the heat is. That is where the immediate criticism is, on the street, on the campus, in the hospitals or in the social welfare offices.
It is very nice for the federal Minister of Finance to cut back on transfer payments for social welfare matters. When was the last time he stood behind a counter in a
Government Orders
welfare office and said: "I am sorry, you do not get anything next week or for the next two weeks because we do not have any more money".
It is the provincial people who are left with that very unhappy position. They have to meet the people one on one in the social welfare offices and they need funds. If the federal government is going to cut back on transfer payments, then to fulfil their responsibilities the provincial governments need to borrow money in order to make up the difference.
Then we have the situation where the Minister of Finance lectures the province of Ontario and says: "You are overspending".
Debt is a major problem in this country, nobody denies that. But do you cut back on social transfer payments for welfare, payments to single parent families at a time when unemployment in this country is at 1.5 million, when over 10 per cent of Canadians are unemployed, when industries are not able to pay the taxes which legally they are supposed to be paying, when we have an economy that is in transition? I am being kind when I say that. The industrial heartland of Ontario is in terrible shape. I am not deliberately painting a negative picture.
I am convinced it is going to turn around. I am convinced they are going to be winners and I am convinced that within a year or two we are going to get the unemployment rate in Ontario down to a manageable figure. But to get from here to there, we are going to have to spend a lot of money in this province. Let us be honest about it. Other provinces in this country, the less fortunate provinces, the poorer provinces have for years depended on Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia to mention only three, as sources of transfer payments.
In Ontario, which accounts for 43 per cent of all federal financial input through taxes and receives only 30 per cent back, there is a loss of some 16 per cent in tax revenues raised by the federal system for transfer payments. That amount last year was about $16 billion and that was during the depth of a recession.
Flow does the Ontario government keep the money flowing to the hospitals, to the universities and colleges and to social welfare assistance? Where does it get that money? It has to borrow the money. Then the federal Minister of Finance slaps them in the face, verbally at least and says: "Hey, you guys at Queen's Park are spending too much money".

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
Surely the time to cut back, if the federal government feels it has to cut back in order to tackle its deficit problems, is not when we are at the bottom of the economic heap, not when we are going through the trough and the depths of a recession. As I said at the outset it is close to a depression and would be a depression if we did not have these social welfare payments.
The time to cut back is when the economy is going full steam ahead, when money is coming into the public treasuries of the provinces, from industry and from personal income taxes. That is when governments can afford to make cutbacks, but surely not in the very depths of a recession.
That is why the province of Ontario has been caught with this terrible annual deficit, this current account deficit. I have not heard the throne speech today in Ontario. It started, I believe, at around three o'clock. But I have no doubt that the Ontario deficit may go well beyond $11 billion this year.
A lot of that deficit is a direct result of the cutback of the federal transfer payments in those three areas I mentioned. Probably close to half is the result of the cutback in federal transfer payments to Queen's Park this year.
Now, if you are going to hammer Queen's Park, if you are going to tell Queen's Park that it has to put its finances in order, then it is little wonder that the Premier of Ontario says: "Look, as part of that unity package, as part of that constitutional debate in Ottawa, we are going to have to ask for a change in fiscal policy in this country vis-d-vis the federal government and the provinces. In other words, if we are going to suffer the cutbacks in fiscal transfers from the federal government, then we are going to have to acquire the legal right to tax more on our own."
We know what that kind of thing could lead to. It could lead to a lot of trouble in this country. If provinces do get greater control over direct financing, there will be less inclination, less of a tendency, to transfer funds out of those provinces through the federal government to the have not provinces.
I would rather have it the way it is, quite frankly, if the federal government would pay its bills. And that is exactly what we are talking about today. The federal government should pay its bills to the provinces, and it is not doing that. Yet it is expecting the provinces to keep pumping funds into colleges and universities, hospitals, and so on.
I have made my point. The federal government cannot keep on cutting back on transfers at this time, particularly during an extreme recession. Certainly, new fiscal arrangements are being called for.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. In keeping with the previous speaker who began his remarks by saying that he was going to be brief, I will be even more brief. I would like to put a couple of points on the record that deal with this very important matter we are discussing today.
First of all, one of the items I do not think Canadians should lose sight of and one that perhaps they are not aware of is the fact that this government has instituted a program called the Revenue Guarantee Program. It protects provinces that are participating in this program in tax collection agreements from major revenue reductions due to sudden changes in federal personal tax policy.
As members have previously said, there are provinces that are currently suffering from economic shortfalls. This is a program that was put in by the government to assist when it finds that there are times in its revenue projections that for reasons not within its control which caused its expectations not to be met that this program kicks in.
Saskatchewan suffers from its dependency primarily on the grain trade, a trade that has been subject to the international grain price wars. Saskatchewan has seen its economy spiral in a negative fashion to the point where we have and continue to feel and have felt for quite some time the recessionary influences of the international grain trade wars. Again, this is in a province that to a major degree depends on a singular aspect of its economy for its survival. There have been some attempts made to diversify, but those are somewhat limited.
April 6, 1992

Saskatchewan has benefitted from this program and I suggest to members in this House and to Canadians that that opportunity is there not only for Saskatchewan but also for every other province.
There has been some comment made, yes an admission, that grants to provinces have increased over the past, but perhaps these increases have not been enough.
I am not too sure that anyone has the power, the strength, or the wherewithal to determine when enough is enough, particularly when you are reliant on a pool of funds that is restrictive in its own, and the federal government is no stranger to that dilemma.
The federal government has, and I would like to recite for you for the record, committed itself to an ever-increasing expenditure of transfer payments going to the provinces.
The EPF fund, which in 1984-85 was $14.5 billion, rose to $20.5 billion in the year 1991-92, and will go to $20,766 billion in 1992-93. In the area of equalization the same holds true going from 1984-85 from $5.5 billion up to the next year of $8.5 billion. The Canada Assistance Plan is going from $4 billion in 1984-85 to $7 billion in 1992-93 and other transfers are going from 1984-85 from $2.1 billion up to $3.6 billion in fiscal year 1992-93.
Perhaps expressed in terms of percentages, percentage figures seem to live with people more so than terms of actual dollars. EPF has increased by 4.5 per cent from 1984-85 to the year 1992-93, the equalization funds by 5.9 per cent and the Canada Assistance Plan by 7.3 per cent.
It is very clear that there have been ongoing increases in the transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces. What makes this point even much more important to make is that all of this has occurred at a time when the federal government has dug in and said: "We will reduce our expenditures at a time when others are asking us to increase our expenditures". Canadians generally are asking the Government of Canada to reduce its expenditures and in so doing we have had to limit the rate of growth that has been transferred to other provinces.
I made issue of this just last week in a Standing Order 31 statement where we have been criticized for what is more popularly referred to as off-loading. To curtail the rate of growth, to still include a rate of growth in the
Government Orders
amount of funds going to the provinces, I would suggest respectfully that it is not off-loading.
What is in fact off-loading is very clearly illustrated by what has happened in the province of Saskatchewan, my own home province. The province of Saskatchewan has indicated that grants to municipalities will be cut by 15 per cent, not the rate of growth showing a cut, but starting from an even base from last year there will be a 15 per cent cut in the amount of moneys being transferred to the city of Regina, the city that I had the pleasure of representing for nine years. That is off-loading. That is a fact in spades, in capital letters. That is off-loading.
We, the federal government, have been expected to tighten our belts to show our rate of growth increasing by no more than about 3.6 per cent. The Government of Saskatchewan has come upon us, the residents of Saskatchewan, and said: "Your rate of growth will not only not show any increase but we will cut from the previous year". That is off-loading.
Those are essentially the points that I wanted to get on the record. There has been much said about "if I were there, this is what I would do" without the associated responsibility of providing the answer to the question of where in fact would these funds come from.
Economic realization of difficult times requires some pretty stringent approaches to how one deals with the country's economics. A wish list is not the way to do it. If anyone for a moment suggests that additional funds be spent, a supporting source from where these funds should logically come should accompany those kinds of comments.
Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity to put these on the record.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to what the member for Regina-Wascana said. He said he would be brief. Well, he was almost brief.
He said right at the end that if I were there, this is what I would do, without a realization of where these funds would come from. I say to him, on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP, just let us go over there. Let us go to the government benches for a little while. We will show you where the funds come from. We will have a fairer system of taxation in this country. We will get rid

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
of the GST and we will get economic prosperity going again in this country.
I am from the province of British Columbia. I want to say a little bit about the off-loading by the federal government and how it is affecting my province.
The member for Brant spoke a few minutes ago about how it is affecting his province. He said, as I recall, that a part of the provincial deficit in Ontario, the budget deficit, perhaps up to half of it came because of the cutbacks in the federal transfer payments.
I know that in my own province, as the finance minister of British Columbia, Glen Clark, has said, that the cutbacks, the off-loading measures implemented since 1982 in B.C. have been $1.1 billion. This is equivalent to 67 per cent of our estimated budget deficit of $1.7 billion in British Columbia.
We have a deficit in British Columbia because we had to clean up from the Socred government which mismanaged the provincial finances. Social Credit was a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives for those people from outside of B.C. who may not realize what it was. It was a Liberal/Conservative coalition. Not only did it mismanage, it would not even tell the people the truth of what was happening to the provincial finances. Now that we have got to the bottom of that we realize what is happening.
I cannot speak for Ontario, but I was listening to my friend from Brant and my other friend from northern Ontario, of the NDP, speak a few minutes ago.
I began to wonder, in Ontario there are tremendously difficult times right now because of the free trade deal and because of the changes that are going on in that economy. So our friends in the Conservative Party are saying: "Just abandon the workers and abandon the people who need some help in these difficult times". You cannot do that. You would have riots in the streets if you did that. You would not have a peaceful province.
I might tell the member for Brant, I was thinking about this in a broader context. What was happening when Ontario was doing well in the 1980s? After that short recession you will recall in the early 1980s, then
Ontario did very well. That is the time the Peterson Liberals were in power, as I recall.
It seems to me that government does have some obligations. It should not have been spending so much. That was Liberal mismanagement in Ontario that time. If it had saved some money, then in the difficult times, it would be more credible for a government to say: "We can spend money now".
That is straight Keynesian economics. You prime the pump when the times are bad, when private investment is not there, making sure the recession is not that bad. Then when times are good and the taxes are flowing in, you put it away. That was the basis of the kind of economics that got us out of the Great Depression and World War II.


An hon. member:: It got us into the present mess.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My friend says it got us into the present mess. No, that is not true. You save in the good times and spend in the bad times. The Liberals forgot to save.
Now I wanted to talk about how this affects my own province of British Columbia. I have just said that how the off-loading measures have meant about 67 per cent of our estimated budget deficit. It has really caused that and that is one of the reasons we have that deficit.
Yet, I think that the B.C. Minister of Finance, Mr. Clark, maintained the faith with those who were unemployed and those who were in difficult situations and brought forward a good budget. He has been criticized by the Liberals in the province of British Columbia, but he kept the faith unlike previous Liberal governments or the Liberal/Conservative coalition known as Social Credit.
The established programs financing, the impact of Liberal and Conservative changes to that program will result in my province of British Columbia losing $6.8 billion by the end of 1994-95. These are great sums. I want to give a little bit of the background here.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan, called CAP, the federal government is required to provide funds to the provinces and territories on a 50/50 cost shared basis for social assistance and social services including child care, social assistance and welfare.
April 6, 1992

However in 1990, and again in 1991, the Conservative government unilaterally amended the Canada Assistance Plan Act by restricting increases in federal contributions to five per cent to the have provinces of B.C., Alberta and Ontario. This did not help, in many ways, national unity or co-operative federalism by doing this unilaterally.
At a recent federal-provincial finance minister's conference, B.C. noted that the Canada Assistance Plan benefits are used to assist people not governments. This goes to people, not to governments.
In 1991-92, $166 million will be lost to British Columbia due to the 5 per cent gross ceiling. More than $1 billion will be lost by 1994-95. That means that money is lost to people. The federal government is taxing Canadians and not redistributing that money sufficiently.
The Conservatives brought in the cap of 5 per cent gross ceiling even though the Canada Assistance Plan agreement required the federal government to give one year's notice of the change. B.C., Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba and two native organizations challenged that in the Federal Court. They lost. The result is that Ontario, as my friend for Brant said, has been hardest hit by the ceiling due to the dramatic increases in welfare because of the recession. In January 1992, over 1.1 million Ontarians were receiving benefits, up 33 per cent. High unemployment there was because of the collapse of the manufacturing sector due to the free trade agreement and the recession.
I want to say something about our position on this matter. I owe that to the House. We in the NDP have opposed all legislation restricting Canada Assistance Plan funds because it allows the federal government to renege on paying its fair share of social assistance costs. Much of the growth and demand for aid is due to federal actions, ironically, such as the reduction in UI benefits, the made in Canada recession and the job losses due to the free trade deal.
The federal government is even giving notice that it is withdrawing from providing social programs which the Prime Minister once called a sacred trust. You cannot trust the federal government to honour its commitments. Someone once said: "If you shake hands with the federal government you better count your fingers after".
Government Orders
What is happening is that both Liberal and Conservative governments, especially Liberal governments in the past, and this is important to remember, are not going to change the situation at all. Off-loading these expenses to the provinces is not the way to get out of it. The hon. member said: "The revenue guaranteed program is out there". Let me tell him for Ontario and for my own province of British Columbia, we have not seen the cheques. If the cheques are out there, they seem to be bouncing.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues on this side of the House who have spoken, I want to take a few minutes to put my thoughts on the record with respect to what is being proposed here by the government. I hope in the process of my remarks we do not have a repeat of what happened this morning when the government tried to shut me off by bringing the House down.
We live in a confederation. This is the way we have developed our form of government in this part of North American where provinces came of their own volition into a federation. We have a central government. There was one time when taxation was a provincial responsibility. That was one of the rights of the provinces. During the Second World War, they turned it over to the federal government. It was to be for a temporary period of time.
The federal government has ended up with that. There are those of my colleagues who have seen Canada as a confederation with a strong central government. I see smiles on faces of my colleagues who have always argued for a strong central government. We have a strong central government in this country.


An hon. member:: Dictatorship.


John R. Rodriguez: It is a government that determines what happens to the Canadian dollar. It is a government that has total control over the Bank of Canada. Therefore, it is a government that can control the interests rates in the country. These are facts. Bob Rae and Allan Blakeney and anybody else who ever governed a province never had a say in that. We are now hoping to broaden the board of directors of the Bank of Canada, but in fact it is the federal government that determines these things. Monetary policy is determined by the federal government. There are no ifs, buts or elses about this. Let us put it in the proper context.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
Two years ago, when inflation was at at 5.5 per cent or 6 per cent, Dr. Crow decided that we could not have that and that he, as the central banker, had to enhance his image with all of those international casino players. Therefore, he was going to make sure that inflation was wrestled to the ground. What we saw was interest rates going up and up and up. As they went up, unemployment went up in the country. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada at that time said that it was a made-in-Canada recession.


An hon. member:: That is right.


John R. Rodriguez: You all remember that. Have we forgotten, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. member:: A Tory concession.


John R. Rodriguez: Here we have a government at the national level that had its hands on the levers of fiscal and monetary policy, yet the people from whom it got the revenues reside in the provinces and who get their services directly from those provinces, services for health care, for education and social assistance. These are operated by the provinces. Here we had the federal government taking action. Of course, the end result was that in fact we had all of those people falling on to unemployment insurance.
Then this government, to put salt into the wounds, brought in changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, Bill C-21.1 do not have to remind too many members in this House of that bill. My colleague fought this so hard, the member for Timmins-Chapleau sitting here to my right. The act turned over the funding of unemployment insurance to the employers and employees totally. To put further salt into the wounds, this government decided to take the training funds out of the unemployment insurance program.
The government then pats itself on the back, puffs up its chest and says: "Look, on our operating accounts we run a surplus". Last year it ran a surplus of $11 billion. The federal government, a little known fact, took in $12 billion more than it spent on the operating year over year accounts. But because of the deliberate high interest rate policy that was followed by this government, the Sumo wrestlers of the world, that had to wrestle inflation to the ground, which is down now to 1.7 per cent, the patient is in a coma.


An hon. member:: 1.5 million unemployed.


John R. Rodriguez: What is the price? We said this to Mr. Crow. He thought he was J.C. He came before the committee and we said to J.C.: "Is your conscience not bothering you? How can you sleep at nights knowing that you have so successfully defeated inflation, but you have got 1.5 million people unemployed in this country?"
With the cutbacks in unemployment insurance where do you think those people are now ending up? They are ending up on the welfare rolls-


Some hon. members:: Of the provinces.


John R. Rodriguez: Of the provinces. Thanks for reminding me, brother. On the provinces. What does the government do? It turns around, this gang over here, heartless and cruel-


An hon. member:: Soulless.


John R. Rodriguez: -soulless. This heartless, soulless and cruel government turns around and blames the victims for this pickle that it is in when it is all made over there. It is a made in Toryland recipe. That is where it has been made and now the Tories are saying to Bob Rae: "You are spending too much".
In this country, there are two million people living on social assistance. There are 2 million people living on social assistance, and they are saying that the governments at the provincial level are spending too much. They are spending too much.
I want to put things in proper perspective. I know my good friend from northern Ontario to my right is there, but I have to say it. They actually blame the Ontario government. Who is it who got us into things in Ontario like the Dome? I thought that was something that the private sector ought to build, but Billy Davis on the board of directors and Howard Starkman and all these guys, they wanted the Dome.
Who was going to build and pay for the Dome? The taxpayers of Ontario. Ontario now is left with this white elephant called a Dome, and it is now backing out of the deal it had just signed to buy the thing.
Who got us into buying Suncor shares that are not worth a pinch of coon snuff today? Billy Davis, the Tory premier got us into Suncor. We cannot even sell those shares today and help pay down the debt. They are not worth a pinch of coon snuff.
April 6, 1992

That is where we are. As a matter of fact, the last budget that the Peterson government brought down before they were defeated projected a surplus of $400 million. By the time poor Floyd got the key to the treasury, that had worked its way to a $700 million deficit.
What happened? This gang-I hate to say this to my left, but that is only figuratively-this cruel, heartless, soul-less gang took actions which created the problems that are now being experienced particularly in Ontario.
In fact, Ontario was the goose that laid the golden eggs for years for this government. It lived off the avails of Ontario. I say it should be charged with pimping. It has lived off the avails of Ontario, and now Ontario has a rough time, they are all deserting the house. They are all leaving the House, and turning around and saying: "It is your fault. You are spending too much".
I want to tell you that the NDP government in Ontario is not prepared to back away from its responsibility to make sure that the victims of this cruel, heartless government do not end up on the street. That is what we say.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
Government Orders
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at the report stage of the bill now before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the acting government Whip to defer the division until a later time.
[Stage Direction]
Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the recorded division on the questions now before the House is deferred until 5.45 p.m. today, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Monique Landry: that Bill C-46, an act respecting contraventions of federal enactments, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today and lend support to the Minister of Justice who has set forward her proposals for a federal ticketing scheme.
The Contraventions Act is but one means whereby the federal government can assist provincial jurisdictions in coping with the heavy burden on the courts. The Contraventions Act provides for a ticketing scheme that will be simple and will assist in making the justice system more efficient.
To begin with, the 12 participating departments and agencies have identified almost 4,000 existing minor regulatory offences which will be included in a schedule of offences. The schedule which accompanies the act can be regularly updated and amended so as to meet the future needs of government departments and agencies.
What kind of offences are contemplated by this Contraventions Act? We are talking about minor offences. For example, recklessly driving a motor boat close to shore, hunting without a valid licence, camping in a park without a permit, illegal parking on federal lands.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
The person who is ticketed has the following options: Plead guilty and p*ay the set fine as indicated on the ticket without having to appear in court. Plead guilty with representations asking the court for a lesser fine or an extended time to pay the fine, or the individual may wish to dispute the charge and so indicates the desire to proceed to trial by forwarding the ticket to the appropriate court office.
In this latter case, where a trial is requested, the trial proceeds in accordance with the summary conviction provisions of the Criminal Code. An individual who ignores a ticket will be found guilty by default.
It should be noted that the Contraventions Act will apply to young offenders as well as adults. It is fair that young persons who engage in activities under the sphere of the ticketing scheme, such as boating, camping, hunting and fishing should be held responsible for their actions if they violate the law.
In recognition that the maximum fine limit of $1,000 which is set for adults may be onerous, the maximum fine level for a young person who is ticketed will be $100.
Permit me now to speak in an even more tangible and concrete fashion about what the Contraventions Act will do for many Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka there are literally hundreds and hundreds of cottages surrounding one of the most beautiful lake districts in all of Canada. While most residents wish to enjoy the tranquil beauty of nature in the surrounding area, there are a few who would abuse the privilege.
I am deluged with complaints from friends and neighbours in my riding who are angered by the wanton and reckless disregard that some people display when using their boats on the waterways. People will sometimes drive recklessly close to the shore, rev up their engines at noise levels that far exceed the permissible limits. Up to now, enforcement of the small vessel regulations and the boating restriction regulations have been a most difficult chore for enforcement officers. The overly lengthy procedure inherent in the current system mitigates against the uniform and consistent enforcement to the detriment of cottagers.
The Contraventions Act will permit the issuing of tickets to people who drive their boats in excess of prescribed speeds near the shores, or it will allow
enforcement officers to ticket people who engage in unauthorized boat racing, or who fail to maintain their equipment as required by regulations.
The activities I have spoken of, as one can readily see, are not activities that should be subject to the procedures and sanctions of the Criminal Code. It is entirely appropriate that people who commit these somewhat less serious, but nevertheless bothersome, infractions should be dealt with under the law. But it is equally clear that people who commit such infractions should not necessarily be always subject to the procedures of the criminal law.
Therefore, the Contraventions Act is an ideal solution, permitting the monitoring and enforcement of these activities while doing so outside the traditional bounds of the Criminal Code.
Those who do not wish to contest proceedings should be able to pay the ticket without having to go through the criminal law process as they have to now. The enforcement of these minor regulatory offences is made much more efficient for the government and simpler for those found in contravention.
We need action on this front now, and I am urging all members of the House to lend their support to this legislative initiative so as to ensure a peaceful and tranquil summertime.
I have been pressing for this legislation for well over five or six years. I believe I have brought it to the attention of three ministers of justice, starting with the Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn, our present Governor General, and with the Solicitor General and finally with our present Minister of Justice. I finally got my message through to her and I guess to her officials so that the bill was finally organized and brought in last fall.
I am hoping that some way part of the bill-and I am emphasizing that part of the bill to do with the boating regulations-can be brought in and passed more quickly than the rest. I have been told by the legal authorities in the Ministry of Justice that while the bill will go through without too much opposition, even when it gets through in a hurry it is going to take some months and probably would not actually become law until this fall.
That would mean that we would miss the entire boating season and the present unwieldy way in which these infractions are dealt with would continue for another year. That means, again, that a great many
April 6, 1992

people who could be given a ticket and would pay a fine, because they have to be charged under the Criminal Code now, which is a much more serious offence, will get off for another year.
Furthermore, when this legislation does finally come into effect, there will be literally tens of thousands of cases which now have to appear before the courts which can be settled out of court. I am hoping that the Ministry of Justice some way or another can get the part dealing with boating infractions through and ready by the May 24 weekend.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on the work he has done in bringing this bill to realization. He and I have something in common. We both have had trouble getting through to the last two Ministers of Justice. I can appreciate that, as he knows, and as all members know.
As the member has said, this has been in the works since 1985. A lot of work has been done on this. I think basically the idea is a good one. There is need for something like this. I feel a lot more needs to be done by the Department of Justice and the government to relieve the workload of the courts so that we can allow the courts to do the job which most necessarily needs to be done and that is to keep up with the caseload with which they are faced.
What we have here is a situation where there are a lot of laws through regulation that now are brought forward through the Criminal Code and require court hearings. What is being said is that a lot of these cases do not need to go before the courts. If there are going to be guilty pleas, if there are offences under regulations of various acts, then it should be enough to give a ticket or something to the alleged offender and that ticket would require the offender to pay a fine up to a maximum of $1,000.
It may be that under the regulations the fine is set, but the fine could be set at less than $1,000 for adults but not more because the maximum under this bill, the Contraventions Act, is $1,000. As the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has said, this act also applies to young offenders, but the maximum for young offenders is $100.
Government Orders
There is a need for this bill. I think if properly handled and properly dealt with that this can be a very positive aspect of our judicial system.
The aim of this bill is twofold. One is to decriminalize approximately 3,500 offences by creating the option for the enforcement officer to issue a ticket to an offender rather than pursuing a summary conviction or an indictable action.
This will free up the court's time, eliminating the need to hear these minor offences. It still allows the officer to go by way of summary or indictable conviction if he or she wishes. It is up to the officer. The option is there.
In most cases I think that the officer will choose to go by ticketing. It helps the court's time. This of course does not mean that because someone is ticketed they have to plead guilty. If they feel there are extenuating circumstances and they are not guilty of the offence for which they have been ticketed, they can arrange to be heard in court. In some cases they may be even able to submit written evidence and not have to appear in court if the distance is too far.
The courts and the system and the act are going out of their way to simplify matters which the government feels, and I think too with a great deal of justification, can be dealt with more simply than they are at the present without dealing with the high priced talent in courts and through lawyers, judges and so on in order to take time which is needed for more complicated and lengthy processes.
Not only that, but this legislation is supported by all the attorneys general of the provinces. There is heavy demand from most government departments to have their regulatory and other minor offences included among those covered by Bill C-46. At present, this bill covers 12 departments, commissions or boards, whose regulations or sanctions will be covered. These offences can be ticketable.
As the bill is in place for a while it is presumed that more departments, commissions and agencies will come in. More than the estimated 3,500 offences will be brought under this bill. Also, with the support of the provinces it will just continue to grow.
There is one major concern-and this is a major concern-as to what is going to be ticketable, what is going to be given this option to be ticketable as an offence, is left to Orders in Council. If done conscientiously this will not be a problem. If the government

Government Orders
decides to politicize or to try to lean in a certain direction to accommodate vested interests, I can assure the House that this bill is going to be a problem.
I want to flag this right now because it is vital. I think our party is in agreement with what the government is trying to do, the spirit of trying to relieve the workload of the courts to simplify the justice system, as the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has said, in boating violations on lakes and things that are obvious.
What are we trying to do here? We are trying to divide it into two different categories. For those who are committing a crime against society, against morality, a crime against the person, these matters will still have to go through the Criminal Code to summary or indictable offence. That is the way it should be.
However, in themselves some acts are not really unlawful. Driving a boat at high speed on a lake ordinarily would not be an offence, but because people are on the lake, because there are other boaters on the lake, this is an offence because of public will. It is a situation of inter-communication of people and in their best interests people have to respect the rights of others. Because of the interweaving of society and the rights of people, these offences have to be dealt with.
Illegal parking on Department of Transport property is an offence. We do not want them to be criminal offences. We do not want the stigma there, but they are still against the best interests of society and the best interests of other people and have to be dealt with.
There are also a lot of acts, a lot of regulations which are vital and which are going to become more important. They are not just minor annoyances. When I talk about that, I talk mainly about the concern with respect to environmental dumping offences for which many minor ones appear on the list now. The fear is that the department lawyer may be under heavy pressure from his or her minister to add serious offences to the ticketable list when it should remain as summary or indictable offence only.
In talking to the Department of Justice on this it says that it does not think this is going to be a problem, that my concern is just theoretical, and that the system will not allow this to happen. However the system can allow
this to happen because what becomes a ticketable offence is, as I have stated, to be determined by Order in Council.
If the government decides that it wants to do it for some reason even though it is against the best interests of society, it can add it to the list so that an offence can be a ticketable offence when in fact it is a very serious dumping offence.
There has to be a perspective and we have to watch this very closely. I would suggest to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the Minister of Justice and the parliamentary secretary who is here today that there be a review process given to the House of Commons on these Orders In Council, the way it is being done with the regulations of gun control under Bill C-17, that these new ticketable offences to be dealt with outside of the Criminal Code and with the option to be ticketable rather than preceding with summary or indictable offence, be given to the House of Commons for a period of time to review so that we can look at it and judge whether this is in the best interest.
I say that because I think all members of this House have an interest in making sure that this is done properly. The government has come forward with this idea, albeit not quickly. It was first started in 1985. First reading of this bill was on December 9, which was four or five months ago, but still, the spirit is there. I think it is important to maintain that spirit. I think we have to continue with that.
The government also says that this is going to be revenue neutral, but there will be money saved by making better use of the court's time and resources. I think that is a fair statement. I do not think we want to go too far. I think we want to keep it in perspective. I think the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, the minister and the parliamentary secretary, all members of government, all members of this House, would want the same thing.
The only thing I am afraid of is that without the parliamentary review, with the ability to do this so easily through Order In Council, it may get out of hand. There is not that check and balance I would like to see.
April 6, 1992

I do not want to go on too long on this bill. I will be the only speaker for our party because we want to get it into committee and we want to be able to talk about it. We want to have this idea pursued and developed and in place as quickly as possible to take advantage of the summer season. I want that idea to be able to be discussed as well in committee.
With respect to the young offenders, the government has said that it wants to have it heard in youth court wherever possible. I think that is important. I think we have got to use the youth courts. One government, the Government of Saskatchewan, has a problem, however. It would only agree to the legislation if the province could hear the young offenders in ordinary court because it had no mechanism for these offences to be heard in youth court.
I feel that is unfortunate. I would hope that all provinces would stop this transfer, this idea of having young offenders going to adult ordinary courts.
I also want to make a point. I make this not to detract from this legislation which I think is basically a good idea. This idea of what we are talking about today, of ticketing these regulatory offences to relieve the work of our court system, was first put forward in 1976 by the Law Reform Commission, which now has been terminated by the government. I know the Law Reform Commission is not a part of this bill, but I want to say to the government that here is a prime example of what the Law Reform Commission was able to do by bringing forward this idea.
People have said the Law Reform Commission was great, but how many bills are a result of the work of the Law Reform Commission? We are seeing one today as a result of the Law Reform Commission that was brought forward 16 years ago, four years after the Law Reform Commission came into being. That took a long time, but yet the idea was germinated in 1976 and now it has come to reality in 1992. It is here thanks largely to the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka and to the Law Reform Commission. It is tragic that we are losing this very important agency which is germinating these ideas.
By losing the Law Reform Commission, we will be with Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, the only three countries in the Commonwealth that do not have a Law Reform Commission. Now that puts Canada in a pretty bad light as far as I am concerned.
Government Orders
What we have done is to say that we do not want this type of original thinking. If the government is going to get rid of it then we are not going to have this thinking. We have had it to this point and the $4.8 million of the Law Reform Commission's budget has been well served as far as this country is concerned.
With respect to this bill, I want to say that we have the Criminal Code which will deal with wrongful acts that violate societal standards and decency in humanity. We also now have these items that are ticketable or can be proceeded with as summary or indictable offences.
I do hope that we will have a good discussion of this in committee. It is my intention to have witnesses called and we could hear this in committee as quickly as possible. It is important to have more discussion on it.
Basically, as I have said, it is a step in the right direction. It is going to create a positive presence. I would say that we have to be able to review the Orders in Council so that the latitude which this bill gives is not abused.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from the NDP who is allowing me to rise briefly before he speaks. I wanted to speak as the minister responsible for tourism enthusiastically in support of the bill introduced by my hon. friend from Parry Sound- Muskoka.
I have received dozens of representations asking that something like this be done. This not only affects all of the purposes that were described earlier in the debate, but it will help tourism in important ways because there are a number of public places where people do not feel safe. This will change the nature of our waterscape and landscape making them safer and quieter.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill which my party will support. But like my friend, the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, the critic for the Liberal Party, we want to call some witnesses and ask some questions at committee stage.
I noticed that the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys has mentioned that this bill came from ideas first put forward by the Law Reform Commission in 1976, a Canadian institution. He also mentioned that the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka had advocated the bill, if I might say another Canadian institution almost.

April 6, 1992
Government Orders
I noticed the government has chosen to get rid of one of those institutions and that is the Law Reform Commission. I am personally hoping, as some relatives in my family are also hoping, that it does not get rid of the other institution and that is the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka.
Perhaps the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka might use his influence, which I am told is considerable with the Prime Minister and the government, to get that other institution, the Law Reform Commission, back in. He might consider that.
There are a couple of points that I would like to raise. As the government has said, this bill in fact takes what were almost full criminal offences where an appearance had to be made in court, even though they may be minor transgressions, to make it more like what happens in the provinces with a traffic ticket basically. That is a good idea and long overdue. We in the committee want to have a close look at the regulations. We do not have the regulations here so we do not have a list of what we are expected to see.
In the paper the government put out today called The Ticketing Scheme for Minor Regulatory Offences, a Backgrounder, it mentioned that it has identified minor offences under federal law or regulation for which it is responsible and which will be subject to the Contravention Act. It mentions Agriculture Canada, Atomic Energy Control Board-we might want to look at that carefully-Canada Ports Corporation, Communications Canada, National Defence, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Specifically we want to look at Environment Canada offences because the trend in criminal law and in public opinion is to make tougher penalties for environmental offenders, not easier penalties. We want to have a look at this and make sure this does not go against that particular trend.
It would be similar, as I understand it, as to how some of the ticketing schemes work in the provinces. I might say parenthetically it may mean that we will now have to pay our tickets at the airports. They will actually come
after us. That is what happens in the provinces. We will want to hear evidence from the provinces as to how these schemes are working and how they collect the money. We can learn, it seems to me, from how the schemes are working in the provinces. We want to see some evidence of that at the hearings in committee on this particular bill.
I do not know whether the minister will be speaking on this bill in the House. Obviously she has not spoken so far. The minister had a press conference about an hour or an hour and a half ago. I was there. She released a statement and discussed this bill in the context of what she called the protection of society week. She talked about bringing this bill in because she wanted to modernize the law and protect society though a number of bills.
I replied at the press conference, without trying to be too cheeky. I said: "There is a difference between law and order and lawn ornaments". A lot of this is lawn ornaments. A lot of it is hype and publicity by press release. In fact there is not a great deal of substance.
We are thankful that there is contraventions legislation but it is a long overdue bill. It is not the deepest of bills. We are thankful that there is a bill dealing with jury selection, but it was the Supreme Court of Canada that told the government to get on with that bill. We are thankful that there will be in this law and order week the Extradition Act, but we have had that for a while.
The latest development in extradition is the concept of an international criminal court. That is how to deal with Libyan terrorists and so on, but the government has not talked about that anywhere. I will later on in the week, I hope.
I want to come back to the notion that the minister put forward, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys. The minister talked about this bill at the press conference, this bill we are debating here today. She said it would modernize the law. If she really wants to modernize the law, I will tell her a couple of things to do. Do not get rid of the Law Reform Commission because the Law Reform Commission was one of the vehicles for getting the new ideas to modernize the law.
April 6, 1992

Government Orders
I want to quote an article on that by Stephen Bindman, a reporter for Southam News, that appeared in The Ottawa Citizen on March 11. He talked about the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys saying that Canada joined Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as one of the few democratic countries getting rid of the law-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, April 2, 1992, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at the report stage of Bill C-31 and Bill C-60.


EXTRADITION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-31, an act to amend the Extradition Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The vote is on Motion No. 1.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Beatty
Cardiff	Clancy
Gaffney	Halliday
Hicks	Kaplan
Karygiannis	Kempling
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McGuire
Merrithew	Pickard
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.


A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Keyes
Kristiansen
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
MacAulay
Manley
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)
Milliken
Nault
Ouellet
Prud'homme
Rompkey
Simmons
Stewart
Taylor
Volpe
Walker
Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-65


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Kindy
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) Lee
MacLellan
Marleau
McLaughlin
Murphy
Nystrom
Peterson
Rodriguez
Samson
Skelly (Comox-Alberni)
Stupich
Vanclief
Waddell
Wood
++NAYS
Members
* *
*

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Con-tibutions Act, as reported (without amendment) from by the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: We now move to the vote on Bill C-60. The first vote is on Motion No. 1. The result of the vote on this motion will also apply to the Motions Nos. 2 and 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. I therefore declare Motions Nos. 2 and 4 lost.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find agreement to apply the result of the vote just taken to the remaining motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The next vote is on motion No. 3.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Anderson	Beatty
Cardiff	Clancy
Gaffney	Halliday
Hicks	Kaplan
Karygiannis	Kempling
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McGuire
Merrithew	Pickard
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare Motion No. 3 lost.


Hon. Harvie Andre (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6.24 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.