1990-10-09

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
\Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.}



ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS


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



AIRPORT TRANSFER (MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT

['I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his comments. As hon. members are no doubt aware, similar points of order were raised last Friday and, as I said, it is probably not appropriate to have an emergency debate. However, I think that this week we would do well to consider with some measure of concern the events that occured in the other place. Today, however, I regret to say, is not the appropriate time. I thank the hon. member.']
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-85, an act to provide for certain
matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Mississauga, Ontario, who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
The Minister of Transport may find it surprising that the people in Mississauga, who have no member to stand up and present such a petition for them in this House, are having to present it through me. They are delighted to use their ancient right to come to Parliament and object to the goods and services tax and particularly the tax on books and printed material.
These petitioners take the view, as do millions of other Canadians, that the taxation of books is inherently bad and the goods and services tax, which proposes to do exactly that, is a bad tax and ought not to be passed by Parliament. They call upon Parliament to reject that tax.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to rise and present a petition under Standing Order 36.
The petitioners are 41 in number. They are from the three villages of Redcliffe, Tickle Cove and Openhall. These small communities in Newfoundland have no industiy and have nothing really except fishing and the grocery stores that keep them going.
They are very much against Bill C-21. While Bill C-21 is being considered as it is now, their interest is in having the variable entrance requirement reintroduced so that they will qualify for unemployment insurance after 10 weeks as opposed to 14 weeks, which would make it impossible for them.

October 9, 1990
Routine Proceedings
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to revoke these measures.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition bearing the signatures of nearly 4,000 Winnipegers, many of whom live in my riding of Winnipeg St. James.
The petitioners are deeply concerned about the plight of David Milgaard, who has been in prison for 21 years. Ele is serving life for murder for a crime he maintains he did not commit. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand that the Minister of Justice release David Milgaard forthwith or direct the courts to review his case.
This is an urgent matter. People familiar with the Milgaard case have for many months been urging the Minister of Justice to take action. Nothing has happened, causing intense frustration. Some people are at the breaking point. The petitioners implore the minister to take action now.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present petitions on behalf of 224 Canadians from coast to coast who are concerned about the impact of the GST on the printed word, which we know is the cornerstone of democracy and literacy.
These petitioners pray that the House ask the government to reconsider its position and withdraw the GST.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the pleasure of presenting two petitions.
In these petitions citizens are saying: Whereas the uninhibited dissemination of the printed word as the cornerstone of democracy, culture, education and a literate and productive society will be negatively affected by the GST application, we ask that the historic principles embodied in pre-tax status for the printed word be maintained by retaining the zero rate in the GST legislation and regulations.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I have hundreds of signatures from Canadians, right across Ontario, objecting to the government's cancellation of the self-exile class of refugees. As an example, they point out that Ukrainians do not have any office in the Ukraine where they can apply to come to Canada. They have to go all the way to Moscow. The government agreed to open a consular office in Kiev, but to date there is no such office. They are appealing to the government to restore the self-exile class to many east Europeans who do not have full service offices in eastern Europe through which to apply.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from Canadians right across Ontario and from other provinces, objecting strongly to this government putting a tax on the printed word. They claim that the Government of Canada since Confederation and without hiatus applied a zero rate of tax to magazines, books, and newspapers, and now proposes to include them in the GST. They just abhor this.
At a time when we are trying to fight illiteracy in Canada, which is a very severe problem, it is just not comprehensible why a government would put tax on the printed word. They object strongly and ask the government to remove any GST on the printed word.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition this morning pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of residents of several communities in the province of Ontario who point out that the government has decided for the first time in our history to tax literature. They say that uninhibited dissemination of the printed word is a cornerstone of democracy and for that reason ought not to be taxed and made more difficult for people to access. I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. They are asking the Parliament of Canada to do whatever it can to have the government back off from that decision. Mr. Speaker, again pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have another petition from the communities of Agassiz, Mission, Chase, Tumbler Ridge, 100 Mile House and Kamloops, British Columbia, Calgary, Alberta, Louis Creek, Knuts-ford, Savona, Cloverdale, and Princeton, British Columbia.

The petitioners are all against the government's decision to proceed with the goods and services tax. While they outline a variety of reasons why they oppose the tax, fundamentally they say do not go ahead with it at all and introduce real tax reform as opposed to this tax deform.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 314 and 318.


Mr. Laporte: For each year from 1984 to 1990, has the government incurred costs for the operation of Prince Albert National Park and, if so, what costs?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Costs incurred by the Department of the Environment, Canadian Parks Service, to operate Prince Albert National Park from 1984 to 1990 have been:
	Operating	Capital	Total
	(thousands of dollars)		
1984-85	3235.7	1005.7	4241.41985-86	3005.1	937.8	3942.91986-87	3688.0	3800.1	7488.11987-88	3515.2	4419.7	7934.91988-89	3730.0	1369.8	5099.81989-90	4295.5	2474.6	6770.1


Ms. Langan (Mission-Coquitlam): Is there an Environment Canada/Environment British Columbia program known as the Lower Fraser Valley Flood Control Implementation and, if so, (a) does it have an expiry date and, if so, what is it (b) has all the money available to this program been committed (c) in (i) 1988 (ii) 1989 (iii) 1990 (iv) 1991, have flood control projects been funded under the program and, if so, which ones?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Yes, there is a Canada-British Co-
Routine Proceedings
lumbia program known as the Fraser River Flood Control Program.
a)	Yes, the expiry date for the program is March 31, 1995.
b)	Yes, all the available money to this program has been allocated to approved projects.
c)	(i) 1987/88: Total expenditure $5,142,370. Projects include: dyke construction in Pitt Meadows and South Dewdney; emergency bank protection in Kent.
(ii)	1988/89: Total expenditure $4,951,147. Projects include: dyke construction in Pitt Meadows, South Dewdney (complete), and Glen Valley; emergency bank protection in Kent.
(iii)	1989/90: Total expenditure $4,970,000. Projects include: dyke construction in Pitt Meadows (complete), Glen Valley (complete), Coquitlam River, and Chilliwack.
(iv)	1990/91: Total expenditure $5,000,000. Projected construction in Mission (complete), Chilliwack (complete), Coquitlam River, and Harrison Hot Springs.
(v)	1991/92: Projected expenditure $5,000,000. Projected construction in Coquitlam River (complete), Harrison Hot Springs (complete), Delta, and Kamloops.
NOTE: The federal government and the province of British Columbia each contribute $2,500,000 annually to the program.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice, pursuant to Standing Order 52, and ask the House to discuss a very important matter, namely the Parliament of Canada, which is in a crisis situation at this time, and I believe that since the House of Commons is at this time best suited, if I may

October 9, 1990
Supply
say so, to take the initiative, it is therefore urgently necessary for this House to consider the entire question of parliamentary rights in the Senate and the order to be established and maintained by the Chair in the Senate. Furthermore, and I say this without prejudice, I think it is in the interests of Canadians that we should have a debate on this issue here in the House of Commons, in order to launch a wide-ranging discussion and restore the confidence of Canadians in Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his comments. As hon. members are no doubt aware, similar points of order were raised last Friday and, as I said, it is probably not appropriate to have an emergency debate. However, I think that this week we would do well to consider with some measure of concern the events that occured in the other place. Today, however, I regret to say, is not the appropriate time. I thank the hon. member.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-EMPLOYMENT Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North) moved:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to provide Canadians with policies designed to assure full employment through international competitiveness and consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
['Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party wants to take a broad axe to Canadian social programs by cutting spending 10 to 15 per cent right across the board. Reformers want to thank veterans by chopping their pensions by 15 per cent.\nReformers want to pay tribute to our pioneers by chopping old age security by 15 per cent. Preston Manning will charge each pensioner a $200 user fee for health care, that is after chopping it by 15 per cent.\nHow many hospital beds will be closed by these policies? How many fewer hip replacements will be performed? Our seniors deserve more, not less. To reduce spending we need a deft Conservative scalpel, not a bloody Reform broad axe.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. deputy House leader on a point of order.


Marcel Danis: Pursuant to Standing Order 57,1 give notice that at the next sitting of the House, before the Order is called for resuming debate on motion No. 16, in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerning the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and on any amendment thereto, I shall move that the debate shall not be further adjourned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate, the hon. member for Etobicoke North.


Mr. MacLaren:: Mr. Speaker, the motion that we have placed before the House today reads:
That this House condemns the government for it failure to provide
Canadians with policies designed to assure full employment through
international competitiveness and consistent with the principles of
sustainable development.
We have presented this motion before the House at a time when Canada has entered a period of recession. Canada has seen six consecutive months of negative growth in our economy, the standard definition of recession. But, to put our current situation in more tangible terms, if one could take a snapshot of the Canadian economy today, what would one see?
One would see first of all high interest rates throughout our economy, throughout our country, decidely higher than those in our principal trading partner, the United States. We would see an inflated value for the Canadian dollar, an inflated value that drives down Canadian exports, making Canadian products more expensive for other countries to purchase. Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, given those two factors, high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar, we would see higher unemployment.
We have in fact seen high unemployment. We have seen it go up again this past month as it did the previous month. The Canadian economy is now characterized by increasing unemployment.
We would see underfunding of government programs to make us more globally effective, more globally competitive. We would see an economy that is unable to generate the necessary support programs necessary to ensure our further global competitiveness.
All that is to say that Canada has entered a recession.
We hear frequently the Minister of Finance speaking about how Canada is on a debt treadmill. He is wont to offer the House and to the Canadian people a whole litany of problems that arise, in his view, from the very large debt that Canada has accumulated and the service charges that Canadians must pay on that accumulated debt. And yet it is this same government, this same Minister of Finance, who has not succeeded in bringing down the debt. He speaks of the need to do so. He tells

us on every occasion that the debt must be reduced, but the debt has been growing faster than our economy.
Since the Conservative government took office the national debt has more than doubled. It has risen from $170 billion in 1984 to almost $400 billion by the end of this year. That has been allowed to happen despite an unbroken period of economic growth beginning in the early 1980s. And yet the deficit is expected this year to exceed that of last year and is expected by some to approach the record level in the post-recession year of 1984.
We Canadians all know that the Minister of Finance's forecasts about his deficit have frequently been wrong, almost consistently wrong; so too have his forecasts about interest rates. Indeed, his interest rate forecasts for 1988 and 1989 were wrong. Certainly those for 1990 will be as well. The 1985 budget tabled soon after this government came into office forecast the annual deficit to be only $17 billion by the end of this decade. And yet here we are at the end of the decade, and the government has not reduced the deficit to $17 billion. It is much more likely to be more than twice that amount, $34 billion or more.
Earlier this year the Minister of Finance forecast a budget deficit of only $28 billion. He based that forecast, which is bound to be erroneous, upon an average rate of interest of 11 per cent this year. But now that it is October and we are well through 1990, it must be evident to every Canadian that average interest rates this year are not going to be 11 per cent; they will average closer to 13 per cent or 13.5 per cent.
This is where the failure of the government to provide Canadians with a budget, offering hope and stability in our economy becomes most evident. The Minister of Finance makes much of the undeniable fact that the government has reduced its official spending. All Canadians are aware of that. All provincial governments, all pensioners, all patients in hospitals, all students and a myriad of other Canadians are fully aware that the government has been reducing its spending. But what should be profoundly unsettling to this government, and indeed to all Canadians, and what gives rise to our motion today is that despite such reductions as it has made in its official spending both the debt and the deficit of Canada continue to increase.
Supply
Why is that so, Mr. Speaker? There are two reasons, basically. One is that the government has not related its reductions in spending and, principally, its reductions in social spending, to any broadly based reforms. It has offered Canadians no other vision of the future than curtailing spending on present social programs. It offers no coherent policy of social development in our country. It offers no program of education support or of retraining. It offers no programs of support in the medical field or in terms of unemployment assistance, other than to tinker with and reduce the programs that past governments have put into place.
A major problem with this government's economic policy-and one major reason why it has placed itself in a position where both the deficit and the debt continue to increase despite its protestations to the contrary-is interest rates, a subject of which all Canadians are painfully aware.
We know that interest rates are already playing havoc with the forecast of the Minister of Finance for 1990. For example, the minister recently forecasted a likely deficit of $30 billion this year instead of the $28 billion that he had earlier forecasted, but all economists, observers and commentators know very well that even the minister's revised estimate of $30 billion is substantially lower than the deficit that this government will incur this year.
And yet, despite its protestations during a time of real economic prosperity, the government has failed to do what it set out to do. Further, with recession now upon us, social costs will go up as unemployment increases. Tax revenues will go down.
Interest charges on the debt now equal our annual deficit. The reason why interest on the deficit is so high is simply because interest rates are so high. The reason why interest rates are so high is because this government has relied solely on the Bank of Canada to combat inflation through high interest rates.
Fighting inflation by high interest rates only works when the high interest rates bring on a recession. And that is precisely what we see in Canada today. By the end of July, Canada had experienced six consecutive months of negative growth. Translated into more tangible and immediate terms, that means that unemployment has again increased in our country in September, reaching 8.4 per cent nationally. Regionally, of course, that unemployment rate is much higher, reaching 17 per cent in Newfoundland. Housing starts have fallen yet again this month, as well as last month and the previous

October 9, 1990
Supply
month, a sure indicator that our economic growth is faltering.
High interest rates have also done precisely what one expected them to do in inflating the value of the Canadian dollar. As short term money flows into Canada seeking higher returns, it contributes to an exaggerated value for the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar has in fact increased by almost 20 per cent against the U.S. dollar, with devastating effects on our export trade. Ask anyone in the business community whether they feel they can effectively export from Canada with that sort of penalty.
In effect, the costs of many Canadian goods and services has increased by 20 per cent, while the cost of many imports has declined by a like amount, leaving the Canadian exporter at a real disadvantage. The result of course is the loss of markets abroad and indeed the loss of jobs at home.
The irony is that this government, which promised the people of Canada increased prosperity in the years ahead largely on the basis of the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement, has itself created the very circumstances in which the agreement cannot work for Canada's benefit, if it can at all.
Mr. Speaker, if you were so foolhardy as to enter a free trade agreement, a bilateral agreement, with only one other partner much bigger than you are, the last thing that you would do is saddle yourself with interest rates that are many points higher than that of your principal competitor. In the case of Canada's free trade agreement with the United States, our interest rates are five to six percentage points higher than those of our trading partner. Our dollar is today inflated well beyond its real value in terms of Canadian productivity.
Mr. Speaker, all those who supported the free trade agreement must now be wondering why they did so in the face of plant closures and transfers to the United States. They must wonder how a government which was so committed to a bilateral free trade agreement could be the same government that has created the very circumstances in which the free trade agreement will bring no
net benefits to Canadians, whatever the intrinsic merits or demerits of the agreement itself may be.
In keeping with other so-called monetarist governments around the world, the present government has viewed the control of money supply, largely through the manipulation of interest rates, as the key to Canada's greater economic growth. It is a central feature of monetarist theory that inflation is caused by too much money chasing too few goods. Inflation, in turn, destabilizes the economy, undermines investors' confidence and handicaps a nation's exports.
The theory is, of course, that the manipulation of interest rates controls the money supply in two ways; it can dampen borrowing which in turn dampens investment and consumer demand, and it can slow over-all growth and employment which can, in turn, dampen wage demands. Increasingly, this idea, this simple preoccupation of the government, this sole policy it pursues with such single-minded intensity, is being called into question. Specifically, it is now everywhere evident that inflation cannot be combated through monetarist policy alone without inflicting severe damage on Canada's over-all economic performance.
Let me say a word about why this government's policy has failed. Its economic prescriptions can be traced, at least in part, to the fact that its fiscal and monetary policies are out of step. The government has consistently failed to reduce its deficit at a time when there was an upswing in our business cycle, which should have led government to pursue counter-cyclical fiscal measures.
Governments' mounting deficits themselves have emerged as a significant brake on our economic growth. At a time when domestic savings should have been employed to finance investment in our private sector, the domestic savings have instead been used to finance excessive consumption in the public sector. The private sector, therefore, has been forced to go offshore for capital, leading to higher foreign indebtedness. That is on top of the high levels of offshore borrowings recently undertaken by the government itself to finance its continuing deficits.
At present, $41 billion flows out of Canada each year simply to pay interest rates on our growing foreign debt. The problem has become acute. Ideally, at this downward turn in the business cycle, as we cross the threshold into recession, the government should have been pro-
October 9, 1990

during surpluses in order to make up for the short-falls in private investment. Instead it is employing the savings of foreigners on top of our limited domestic savings to finance excessive public sector expenses. Not surprisingly, dividends paid to non-residents more than doubled in the second quarter to $10.5 billion, from $4.3 billion in the first quarter, aggravating the problems of foreign indebtedness.
More important still, high levels of government spending over the past six years have served to over-stimulate an economy which at least in central Canada was already heated. This is the fiscal policy from a government which pursues the goal of dampening inflation through a single-minded preoccupation with high interest rates.
Concurrently, the inflationary impact of the government's tax increases has further damaged our economy. Partly because tax increases and real wages in Canada have failed to match the cost-of-living increases, leading to recent demands in both the private and public sectors for higher wages. The implementation of the GST will only aggravate this situation. Wage settlements are outstripping productivity gains, leading to a rise in Canadian production costs and an erosion of our national competitiveness.
Thus the government finds itself in the ironic situation of fighting inflationary pressures, which to an extent it has itself created. As I have already noted, it has used one tool and one tool only, the sledgehammer of higher interest rates, to attempt to achieve its goals.
Under the circumstances, monetary policy alone cannot exclude inflationary pressures from our economy. Indeed, in many respects monetary policy actually serves to fuel the problems that Canadians are facing today.
What fundamentally undermines the government's efforts to curb inflation is, as I have noted, the national debt. Every time interest rates increase, the government has to spend more to service its debt, and it has to raise taxes to finance its other spending. In short, monetary and fiscal policy have become inseparable, and we have a vicious circle from which the government seems wholly unable to extricate itself.
Supply
It is worth asking whether this government's monetary policy, that is to say high interest rates, is serving the ends for which it was intended: presumably economic growth, economic well-being and jobs for Canadians. The purpose of tackling inflation is to ensure price stability, which in turn enhances the long-term health of the Canadian economy.
Yet, the Canadian economy today is visibly suffering. We are in a recession. Monetary policy is inequitable across regions of Canada. What is euphemistically described as slowing the economy or taking the heat out of the economy really translates into pursuing slow growth and, more important, unemployment.
High interest rate policy is undermining Canadian exports. High interest rates also increase artificially the Canadian dollar by increasing demand for Canadian dollars to purchase of short-term paper.
We must keep in mind what inflationary policy really means. Our level of government spending has accelerated through high interest rates. Our productivity and competitiveness have been undermined, and our economy is passing into a recession.
Indeed, if the problem is that consumption is outpacing growth, it is time that the government realized that the solution does not lie simply in curbing or limiting demand-the goal of monetarists everywhere-but in increasing our national productivity. High interest rates cannot further that goal. On the contrary, we must reduce interest rates. We must reduce the costs to Canada if we are to compete internationally.
We must look at ways of improving labour mobility. We must look at many more ways of increasing labour productivity such as through education, through social security or through human resources development. In that way, we shall create the circumstances in which a motion, such as I have had the honour to table today, would not be needed in this House.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to start by congratulating the hon. member on an excellent presentation. Also I want to commend him on his motion and, in particular, the fact that he is relating the issue of

Supply
the labour force to the international competitiveness of our country.
Fairly recently I was in the process of consulting with some of my constituents on the issue of education. I received a little note from a Dr. Pugsley, a professor of management at McGill University. No one could have summed it up better than he did. He said that "there is an important connection between a well trained labour force and international trade for a country the size of Canada, but mentioning this just makes people yawn". No one could have put it better and I am very happy to see one of my colleagues bringing forward this correlation between the two.
I would like to ask him a question about his views on the issue of education and the connection between education as it relates to the labour force and to the reshaping of the status of Canada on the international market. I would like to ask him if he could put some emphasis on the need for a national strategy to deal with the issue of education, as it relates to that.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, has raised the question again, which I touched on in my speech, of the central importance of education, in the broadest sense, to increased productivity in Canada, that is to say, our ability to compete with other countries in an increasingly globalized economy.
Any education strategy which he and I would both urge would, I am sure, embrace a spectrum of activity for a federal government. It would range from short-term adjustment programs necessary to cushion the impact of the changing nature of international trade and Canada's role in it, through to the longer-term contribution that a federal government can make to the education of Canadians so that they can compete effectively in a global economy.
Of course, all of us in this House recognize fully that the provincial governments bear the prime responsibility in our federation for education. But equally, I am sure that we have all recognized that over the years the federal government of Canada has played an important role in transferring funds and making support available to education in Canada which is an area, unfortunately, that has fallen to a degree, victim to this government's cost-cutting measures. This has, therefore, not placed
young Canadians in the position of being able to compete effectively in the world economy.
I would hope that when the next government comes to office, which will be a Liberal government, we shall see a plan put into place. Such thinking has already been discussed and examined with Canadians across the country. We must define the role that the federal government can play not only in the short-term adjustment assistance that is often necessary to afford a transition for an industry or a company, in terms of global competition, but also in the longer term which my hon. friend, I am sure, had in mind when he raised the question.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend. I listened very carefully to his opening speech on this important motion and, frankly, a great deal of what he suggests comes very close to the orthodoxy of our party, not the orthodoxy of the Liberal Party.
For example, first he is concerned about inflation. I want to ask him then three questions. The first question is about inflation. We have inflation now running between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. Could the hon. member tell us where inflation was in 1982 under a Liberal government?
Second, the hon. member for Etobicoke North speaks about spending and the deficit. He knows of course that on operations of the government we are running now a surplus that I think is over $14 billion. Could he tell us what the operating surplus or deficit was in 1982 or 1983 when the Liberals lead government?
The third and final question has to do with the whole question of a vicious cycle which he thinks that we are moving into. He used a conservative analysis, saying that high interest rates lead to inflation. Is he aware of how high interest rates were in 1982 and how high inflation was in 1982 in Canada? Is he aware that, today, after a great deal of spending and monetary relaxation in Great Britain, what interest rates and the inflation rate are in Great Britain compared to what we have in Canada?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not the hon. member was was in the House of Commons in 1982. In any event, he should know very well that the period of 1980 to 1982 was a period when Canada, and
October 9, 1990

indeed the world, was making a transition from the severe recession triggered largely by the oil price increases of the late 1970s. The member will know very well that global interest rates then shot up, as they did in Canada. The member will know very well that governments of the day in Canada, and indeed in other countries around the world, sought to offset the recessionary impact of higher energy costs by instituting public measures to promote employment and to help stimulate the economy.
The member, who prides himself on being a small businessmen, will recognize that in terms of recessionary periods governments must step in to assist the economy. During a period of prosperity, such as we have just experienced, governments, in terms of good Keynesian economics, will reduce to a degree their activities in the economy so as to permit the expansion of the private sector. The minister knows that there is no point in him taking time telling us about some spurious or imaginary circumstances in 1982 which did not exist.
What I am saying to the minister and what he should recognize is that inflation rates in the United States, our principal trading partner to which 70 per cent of our exports or more go-are today no higher than in Canada. In fact, they are lower. But what are interest rates in the United States today? Substantially lower than they are in Canada. In such circumsdtances, how does the government think that we can compete with the United States? How does it think that it is going to get any benefits from its much vaunted free trade agreement if it runs interest rates that are typically 4 to 5 percentage points higher than those in the United States and if it drives up the value of the Canadian dollar to the point where tourism, among other vital Canadian industries, drops off because of the cost of Canadian goods and services are beyond their real value in terms of any productivity measurement?
Does the government think that pursuing a monetary policy of this sort places Canada in a competitive position in the world today? The minister knows better than that. He knows better than 4 or 5 percentage points in interest rates over those in the United States is bound to have a deleterious effect on our international trade and to
Supply
render us less competitive than Canadians should be and less productive than Canadians should be.
That is the real answer to this member's questions, not some sort of imaginary world in 1982 when presumably the government from its own ideas thought that it would like to have high interest rates, divorced from the rest of the world and divorced from the inflation that had been triggered by the oil crisis of the late 1970s. He knows better than that.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have some remarks I want to go through rather systematically, but before I do so I would like to answer the questions I just posed to the member for Etobicoke North who refused to answer the questions I put to him.
First, in 1982 we all know that interest rates were about 22 per cent to 23 per cent. They are now considerably below that. We know, too, that in 1984 when the present government took over the deficit was running at $38 billion, 8.6 per cent of the total wealth of the Canadian economy, compared with today where the deficit is now less than 4 per cent of the total wealth of the Canadian economy. He knows the answer to that.
As well, when he talks about plant closures, he very carefully omits the news that there have been a tremendous number of expansions, enhancements, and improvements of plants in Canada at the manufacturing level, the service production level of the economy, as well as some very good news in terms of employment creation since the trade agreement.
All of what the hon. member said on his motion, quite frankly, ends up being in many ways a kind of reverse hymn of praise to what our government has been doing. We have lowered inflation. We have lowered interest rates from when he was here. We have lowered the burden of the deficit as a percentage of the economy, expanded trade, and seen a tremendous number of jobs created in the last six years.
He also talked about the last two or three quarters where we have had flat or negative growth in the Government of Canada. He omits to tell us of course that we have had seven and a half years of economic expansion largely as a result of the policies of this

October 9, 1990
Supply
government. As a result of that, we have a stronger economy and a better balanced economy as we move into a global recessionary context.
I am veiy pleased to be able to raise a number of issues in this debate that go beyond what the hon. member has raised. He has talked essentially about macroeconomic policy, interest rates, deficits, and so on, and I have dealt with that.
Let us go beyond that to the actual mechanics of how we increase international trade in this great country of ours. We have trouble with the NDP and the Liberals on this, but we have to realize that markets around the world are becoming increasingly integrated. In other words, we cannot operate in isolation in Canada. We have to integrate ourselves with world markets and be competitive in that integrated context.
Therefore, I want to speak for a few minutes today about what we are trying to do as a government to support Canadian exporters around the world. Canada as we know is a leading trading country in the world, but in many ways our trading performance outside of agriculture, automobiles, and automobile parts has not been that vigorous. We as a country have to strengthen our economy throughout in order to make us an exporting power. To do that there has been a number of very exciting programs that I want to make reference to.
This month is Canada International Trade Month. It was announced last week by the Minister for International Trade. This announcement was a way to try to sensitize Canadians to the importance of exports and the importance of international trade for Canada. It flows from something else and that is our national trade strategy which was established, not just by our government, but by first ministers in the country in 1985.
The hon. member will be interested to hear that that strategy had three objectives. The first is to secure and enhance access to foreign markets-the first ministers all agreed to this. Let us secure access to foreign markets, of course the FTA is crucial to that, as is GATT. The second objective is to improve our trade competitiveness. All first ministers, together with the Government of Canada, wanted to make us more competitive and our programs flow from that. The third objective is to strengthen our international marketing efforts. As
Minister of State for Tourism, I recognize the tremendous importance of marketing to sell the image of our country, but marketing is very important for almost all segments of our economy, and that too was recognized as part of this strategy.
To do this I think hon. members will remember the government proposed a two track policy to accomplish that strategy. One track was multinational through the Uruguay Round of trade liberalization. I had the honour of representing the Government of Canada at those negotiations with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I remember the week in Punta del Este very well. It was was rainy, just like today, all week long. The meetings were held in a gambling casino. Maybe that is where trade meetings should be held. It was very difficult to tell whether we would ever end up with an agreement.
Our government worked very hard, together with the Cairns group and others, to help break the log jam on services and agriculture and to promote trade liberalization on goods and textiles. We now are into the fourth year as a result of that Uruguay Agreement. It still, however, difficult to tell whether we are going to end up this January 1 with the kind of agreement we hoped for in the Uruguay Round. The government is giving all the leadership it possibly can to help bring that about.
The other track we looked at, of course, was the more controversial one of the free trade agreement. As a result of the free trade agreement, we secured and enhanced our access to the American market. I shudder to think what we would have done in the last year and a half without that agreement when we had unilateral American actions. A good example is pork. There was a ruling just last week that said that the Department of Commerce research and positioning on pork was not accurate or tenable. Therefore, based on that research, they could not proceed.
That sort of good news for Canada would never have been possible without the dispute settlement mechanism of the bilateral trade agreement. Not only was the dispute settlement mechanism which allows the country one-tenth the size of another country to have equality accomplished, but it has also produced a much more vigorous and competitive economy and, of course, we have had 250,000 jobs created since the agreement was signed.
October 9, 1990

This two track trade policy is the heart and soul of our over-all strategy. Beyond that, we have to do a number of pragmatic things to enhance our trade. We now deploy investment counsellors from the private sector to key locations around the world. Our trade officers more aggressively promote investment to Canada. We now have some 2,000 investment related events conducted annually, together with extensive advertising and extensive communications program, likewise, our science and technology activities abroad. These activities are not just in Canada, but abroad, and are designed to maximize access to R and D outside the country. They have been strengthened. We now have 32 officers in 24 posts servicing about 3,000 technology inquiries per year.
The mainstay of our trade promotion thrust to increase the efficiency of our international marketing program is the well-known program for export market development, the so-called PEMD program. With an annual budget, PEMD has $35 million. It provides for company participation in fairs and trade missions and supports individual corporate marketing efforts. We have adapted PEMD to the changing world scene to better assist the efforts of small business.
As the minister of small businesses, I am extremely pleased to see that this particular approach, which under the previous government was not a bad program for big business, has now been made much more adaptable for small business. I could show to members of the House the Canadian business guide, just produced last week, entitled: "Exporting to the United States". If an hon. member has a small business in his or her constituency that does not know how to export to the United States and needs some primer and some help, this document is very helpful.
We have adapted PEMD, then, to the small business community as well as to the medium and large business communities, and it is working. In 1989, 59 per cent of PEMD approvals went to Canadian companies with total sales of less than $2 million. I am very pleased that that program is not only up and running, but that it is better balanced.
Another pillar in carrying out our marketing effort is the trade commissioner service. Some 240 trade commissioners located in 129 countries are responsible for analyzing markets, assisting in markets, promoting foreign investment, and identifying foreign technology.
Supply
Also, in order to ensure that this high level of service reaches more Canadian companies, we established 12 international trade centres across Canada. They are the local points of contact for every actual or potential exporter for all the department's services. There is a deeper problem that Canada faces that this government is coming to terms with, and that is awareness. People are just not aware of the importance of exporting or how to export. We have a program in place to improve that awareness by making small and large businesses more export ready and to support exporting capacity.
A variety of programs are in place to do this. They include the high technology seminars, the Marketplace program and the export awards program. As well, there is the InvestTech Cross-Canada Tour and a variety of ad hoc seminars and briefings on subjects, ranging from the FTA and Europe '92 to export controls and transportation, which have been organized. They have been a tremendously useful set of seminars to help make our business community more aware of the opportunities of export.
In 1988, the Minister for International Trade was pleased to announce a $57 million, five-year trade development program with a focus on the United States. That focus has been working very well. It includes the Nexus program, the NEBS program, but also there is a wider program, which members will recall. Last fall the Prime Minister announced a $93.6 million series of programs to aid businesses in expanding their market efforts into the global marketplace, with a focus on Europe and the Pacific. The government has dedicated over $150 million to trade development over the past two years, and this comes at a time when budgets are being tightened everywhere. It is a very clear example of the kind of commitment that this government has shown to enhancing awareness of exports and assisting in exports in terms of trade mission fairs, knowledge, technology, transfer and so on.
I would like to make a comment to summarize what has happened. We have some very interesting numbers that I do not think have ever been read into the record here in the House. As a direct result of our efforts, our clients have reported in 1989-90 1,736 export sales worth $4.8 billion; 129 new joint venture and licensing agreements worth $198 million; 68 foreign investments in Canada worth $746 million; 62 Canadian investments

Supply
abroad worth $116 million and 86 technology transfers worth $82 million. These results speak for themselves. These programs are working. There is more dynamism and export orientation in this country than ever before.
The Department of Industry, Science and Technology, of which I am a part, also has been very much a part of this strategy. We do not have time to go through all the programs that ISTC is responsible for, but many of them are co-ordinated with External Affairs. Therefore, the programs I have spoken to involve the Department of Industry, Science and Technology.
There are two crucial things I would like to mention before I sit down. First of all, we in Canada feel that there has not been an appropriate entrepreneurial culture in Canada. What we have been trying to do is develop an entrepreneurship awareness or stimulation in Canada through an awareness program, and also through the new National Entrepreneurship Development Institute. That awareness program is working. We have all 10 ministers of education across Canada working with us to put entrepreneurship programs into the high schools. We are creating a culture of entrepreneurship in Canada which will help us greatly in terms of world competitiveness.
Second, with regard to the Department of Industry, Science and Technology generally, we have put in place a Strategic Technologies Program. This is a very interesting program that affects the whole Canadian economy. What it does is promote technological capabilities and competitiveness across all sectors. This includes the resource sector, the high tech sector and the service and medical sectors. It responds to world-wide trends demonstrating the value of strategic alliances. It enhances networking and linkages across Canada. When it does that, it also promotes Canadian unity.
An example is a Vancouver company getting together with a Trois-Rivieres company. I know of a company in London that has just done a joint venture with a company in Newfoundland. These things are uniting for the country and they flow from the Strategic Technologies Programs. These strategic technologies include biotechnology advance materials and informatics, for example. This program has been very well received by companies. It is enhancing our ability to be competitive.
This adds up to not only a set of good intentions for Canada, but programs that are out there working, in place, enhancing our competitiveness.
That, together with responsible fiscal policy leadership which we have had from the Minister of Finance for the last six and a half years-the only topic to which my hon. friend really referred earlier-and together with an ability to moderate inflation, to make us more competitive in terms of inflation in other countries in Europe, Asia or elsewhere to decrease our deficit in a continuous way, will also allow us to be more competitive.
All of this fits together. Today, we have a government committed to competitiveness globally and programs to make it work.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism was saying.
I was curious about whether there was a single person in the House of Commons who would agree with the points he was making in terms of the general thesis that the government is on the right track with support for small business. I have just completed a three week survey of the small businesses in my constituency during which I asked them what they thought about how the present federal government was handling the economy in terms of their interest.
I am pleased to say that two out of ten businesses thought that the government was not doing too badly. Fair enough. One of the ten did not really know because it was too busy surviving and was not able to make an intelligent decision. But seven out of ten businesses thought that the government was on a disastrous course, one on which, if it continues that way, will not allow them to be in business for any length of time.
I want to ask the minister responsible for small businesses what he thinks of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its survey regarding the impact of the goods and services tax on the small business sector. This, of course, represents in excess of 70,000 small businesses across the country which were surveyed in an objective and scientific fashion. I say relatively.
The point is that an overwhelming majority, virtually everyone, says that the government is taking them on a
October 9, 1990

suicidal course, that its monetary policy and its fiscal policy are exactly wrong for what is required today.
I want to ask my hon. friend and colleague what he thinks of John Bulloch's suggestion when he, as the spokesperson for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, asked the government to withdraw the goods and services tax in an effort to save the small business community of Canada.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to finally hear the hon. member quoting John Bulloch after ten years of disparaging him, criticizing him and defending himself against John Bulloch's complaints about socialist tendencies to spend too much and to intervene too much in the economy. Suddenly, he is standing up and quoting him.
That is fine. I am glad he is starting to read some different materials. What John Bulloch has argued for is very important for the government to hear as well as the opposition. What he is arguing for is an integrated sales tax with the provinces. He is disappointed that we have not accomplished this, but we are starting to accomplish it.
Newfoundland emphasized the other day that it is going to participate. Quebec and other provinces are looking at it. As soon as we have a national sales tax, John Bulloch will be much happier, as will his client group.
The second thing that John Bulloch wanted is a broader based tax. He did not want to exempt food. The hon. member wants to exempt food. John Bulloch does not want to exempt medical care in hospitals. The hon. member does not want that included in the tax base either, so the hon. member would be with us on that. He would want them exempted just as, indeed, we want them exempted. That is our problem with Mr. Bulloch.
I want to tell my hon. friend that I was fascinated this month to see the latest material from Mr. Bulloch in which he says: "Look, the government has made some interesting changes on the GST. It is doing some things that are helpful, and instead of constantly criticizing the GST I would like to explain how the GST works for my membership."
I think he had eight pages of how the GST works and how it can be made useful. In that material, he empha-
Supply
sized that the GST is very good through input tax credits, through the input credit arrangement, improving cash flow for small businesses. This is something we have been arguing for six months. I am very glad that Mr. Bullock now recognizes that.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I will quote someone whom I have been quoting for a long time, I say to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, a person who from time to time he has quoted. Indeed, at one point, lest he forget, his fearless leader from Baie Comeau actually appointed this person to her present position. The person is Judith Maxwell. She is the chairman of the Economic Council of Canada, thanks to the Prime Minister, the minister's boss. She said quite recently, indeed in the last few days, that "relying solely on the Bank of Canada to combat inflation through high interest rates is harming rather than helping the economy". That was said by Judith Maxwell, the same Judith Maxwell appointed by the boss of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
That same Judith Maxwell goes on to say that "there is a better way to fight inflation than through high interest rates".


Mr. TVemblay (Lotbiniere):: The Liberal way.


Roger Simmons: Yes, it is the Liberal way, and I thank my friend for indicating that he is not completely oblivious to what we stand for on this side of the House. I thank him for that. It is the Liberal way. There is a better way, I say to him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Unwittingly.


Roger Simmons: I say to him and his friend, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, there is a better way than high interest rates. Of course there is a better way, and I am glad that at least one Tory-is he really a Tory-at least one Tory agrees with me, and I compliment him. But, now I digress.
I want to ask the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism if he agrees with Judith Maxwell's prescription. I want to read it to him. She says there is a better way. She said that better way could include a commitment to full employment. That would be welcome news in Newfoundland where we have an unem-

October 9, 1990
Supply
ployment rate of 17 per cent plus, thanks to the policies of this government. Does he agree that there is a better way than high interest rates? Will he stand now and disown the high interest rate policy of his government, and, more to the point, will he tell us that he will recommend to cabinet a policy of full employment? Two fairly simple questions, and I am sure he will resist the temptation to get smart alecky at this point. I see a smirk on his face, but I hope that in his heart there is some concern for the 17 per cent of Newfoundlanders who are unemployed, thanks to the policies that he is unwittingly supporting.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, that was not a smirk, that was a smile. I was enjoying the intervention of my hon. friend. Two points on interest rates. The hon. member quotes Judith Maxwell, who has also made the Government of Canada very aware that in the last year credit formation in Canada was up 15 per cent. It was up even higher the year before. Credit formation in this country, people using credit cards, wanting to buy things, is outstripping the money supply. This adds inflationary pressures and the only way you can moderate or come to terms with this is to have somewhat higher interest rates in order to dampen demand, and this has worked. My hon. friend fails to tell us that the federal discount rates in Japan, Germany, Britain and the United States are up by 2 per cent, 3 per cent or 4 per cent more than they were a year ago. So, we are part of an over-all global trend. The hon. member always forgets to mention that. We are affected by that.
What has happened is, in fact, interest rates have been coming down. They have been coming down for about 14 straight weeks. They are coming down slowly, but they are coming down. Therefore, the policy is working and the furnace is cooling off. The hon. member would just fiddle with the thermometer. The government believes in dealing with the furnace. The furnace and the fires of inflation are what really matter, not what the thermometer reads. What the government has done is put in place a situation whereby interest rates have come down for 13 or 14 straight weeks.
On employment, my hon. friend says we should aim for full employment. There was a comment made beside me saying that of course the Soviet Union has full employment and East Germany has full employment. You can have full employment in a formalistic way by
paying people nothing and putting them through make-work schemes. The best way to have full employment in this country is in fact to pass that unemployment insurance bill now in the Senate, which would train people, which would decrease the deficit, and this we are determined to do.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I just returned from five days travelling through my riding, five days in which I visited with farm families at their kitchen tables, on the steps of their combines, and at the gates of the bams. Every one of those farm families that I talked to talked about being on the brink of bankruptcy. Government policies have pushed them to the point where they can no longer maintain their existence on the farm producing food for Canada and the world. Those farm families are concerned about the low price of grain, high interest rates, high fuel costs, and the removal of the interest-free cash advance for grain.
The government is talking about maintaining high interest rates to keep the use of credit cards down. We are losing an entire industry in western Canada. We are losing an industry that is maintained by people and individuals who have been on that land for years. The government over there has the audacity to say that it has to keep interest rates high and that it has to keep fuel costs high because of this international marketplace.
Surely this minister who talks about support for small businesses that are going down because the agricultural economy in western Canada cannot support them any more can answer a simple question about how it is that they can continue to talk this way when we are losing the industry.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his intervention because it is quite true that one of the unhappy results of this overheated economy in urban Canada has been to put pressure on interest rates, which hurts the small business person especially in the outlying regions and especially the farmer. I think his intervention is understandable for that reason.
That is why the government, though, has brought forward income stabilization programs in the agricultural sector to come to terms with that. Those programs are very well received and very respected. They should be furthered. They should be enhanced, and that is what this government is committed to.
October 9, 1990

In terms of small business, though, the NDP wants to have a minimum tax on all corporations regardless of their size. I quite agree that we should have a minimum tax on financial institutions: those big companies, big trust companies, banks and insurance companies. We brought one in.
However, small businesses now, when they have years of losses, are able to put the losses against when they finally make a profit. This allows a small business to survive. The NDP policy toward small businesses is to tax them every year, even if they have loss carry-forwards. We do not believe in that. We believe in a healthy small business sector of our economy.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I think the minister is distorting our policy a bit, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about profitable corporations, and he knows that.


Mr. Thacker:: Can you carry forward losses?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Yes.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has the floor on debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today deals with the need for full employment in this country. It talks about being more competitive internationally and having a policy of employment that is consistent with the principle of sustainable development in Canada.
I think those are very laudible goals and very laudible objectives. We should seek to have in this country, first of all, full employment and, second, we have to be more competitive internationally in terms of exports to begin with and in terms of developing more of our own resources and products in this country instead of importing many things from abroad. All that must be done according to the motion keeping aware of the importance of sustainable development in Canada in terms of the environment.
I want to begin by saying that I think Judith Maxwell, in terms of the Economic Council of Canada, has hit the nail on the head when she said in her annual report a little while ago that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Canadian economy, fundamentally wrong
Supply
with the way we have organized our country for the last 10 or 20 years. All members of Parliament should take a very close look at the table on page 40 of that particular report. That table compares 16 countries in the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, in terms of their long-term unemployment rate between 1970 and 1989, a 20-year period. Of those 16 countries we rank number 15 in terms of the highest long-term unemployment. Switzerland, Japan, Norway, Austria, Sweden, West Germany, and Finland over those 20 years all had unemployment rates of well under 5 per cent, but Canada ranks number 15. We are behind Belgium. We are behind Italy. We are behind the United Kingdom, with all the problems it has had in the last few years in terms of restructuring its economy. The only country of the 16 that we are ahead of is Spain.
I think that tells us a lot about the situation with which we are now faced in this country in terms of a major failure of government and other key players in the Canadian economy. She also says in the Economic Council Report at page 45: "Canada has never made more than a timid commitment to full employment". Here she is talking about not just the last six years under the Conservative government but about previous Liberal governments in this place and about the short nine-month Conservative government back in 1979-80 as well. I think we have to take a look at what is wrong with our economy structurally.
The other thing we should look at is the cost of high unemployment. When I am talking about the Economic Council of Canada and its report, I am talking about a group, as a member from Newfoundland said a few minutes ago, that was appointed by the government itself. These are appointees of the federal government. They have issued one of the more critical, one of the more thoughtful annual reports about current government policy that I have seen in this institution for a long time.
Another thing we should look at are the costs of high unemployment and how much it is costing this country of ours. We have an unemployment rate now that is more than twice as high as many other highly industrialized countries around the world. There was a recent study by the Toronto-Dominion Bank which said that the average

October 9, 1990
Supply
Canadian worker produces around $54,000 worth of output per year. That same Toronto-Dominion Bank study says that if we were to cut our unemployment rate by half, in other words by 575,000 people, and multiply that by $54,000 per year, we would have an extra output of $31 billion per year or 5 per cent more in terms of output in this economy. This is a study by a fairly conservative organization, the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
I think Canadian people should realize what this means. The average worker produces around $54,000 per year in output. This is not somebody who is working at a very high salaried job and producing all kinds of goods and services or somebody who is at the low end of the scale. This is the average per worker, $54,000 per year. If we had an unemployment rate that was down around the level of western Europeans or Scandinavians, that is an extra $31 billion per year. Just think what we could do with $31 billion per year. That is a lot of money in terms of the government's deficit, in terms of educational and health services, in terms of research and development, and in terms of making our economy more productive, more humane and more equal for Canadians across this land.
It is not only the benefits of $31 billion per year, but let us imagine the costs of having over one million Canadians unemployed, the money that we spend for unemployment insurance benefits every year. The money that is spent by the federal and provincial governments on social welfare and social services is astronomical. We do not even have a proper mechanism of calculating the other costs to health care. How much does it cost our country in terms of additional health care every year because we have an army of over a million unemployed? What does it cost in terms of higher crime rates in this country or the unhappiness that people suffer through because they do not have a job, and a proper mechanism to feed their families?
I think this government would be serving this country well if we would devise a way of calculating the cost of high unemployment so we could see what the costs of this country are and see what the cost to the individual is of an unemployment rate of over a million per year in Canada.
With these kinds of statistics, I think it is about time that this government devised a policy that has as its
number one objective full employment in Canada. I do not see that happening when I look across the way.
This country, in terms of job creation and in terms of money it spends on unemployment, tends to spend most of its money on things like unemployment insurance and welfare benefits and social benefits rather than spending money creating jobs. In Sweden, for example, around 2.38 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product of that country is spent in labour market programs. In this country it is around 2.1 per cent, a little less but not much less.
However in terms of how they spend it, it becomes very interesting. In Sweden about 71 per cent of the money goes into training, counselling, and other programs to get Swedes working. Around 29 per cent goes into stay at home unemployment insurance benefits. In this country it is the opposite way around. We spend 76 per cent on things like UI and benefits to the unemployed, and about 24 per cent on structural changes to create jobs.
The minister says that is a very valid criticism, and I agree. We should be changing that. I fully agree with the minister that we should be changing that and spending a lot more of our resources and a lot more of our creativity trying to create long-term jobs for workers. That historically has not been the case, and that is a valid criticism that has been made by a number of people, including I believe the Economic Council of Canada.
It is not just the government of this country that seems to be spending too little money in trying to find decent jobs and training people, but the business community is doing the same. My understanding is that the business community spends about 0.5 per cent of its payroll on training people, one-half of one per cent on training people. The United States to the south of us spends about 1 per cent, which is around double, in terms of training people.
The American economy is not going that hot either. The Americans have unemployment rates much higher than the Scandinavians or the western Europeans or the Japanese. However, in the United States they spend twice as much in the private sector in terms of training people for the jobs in a modem industrialized society.
Of course the federal government is, in relative terms, cutting back on spending in terms of retraining and counselling for people who are out there in the labour market. These are some of the facts we should be
October 9, 1990

looking at as a Parliament in terms of trying to improve the situation here at home.
Also in terms of training, I look at the record in this country in terms of employment equity. We are looking at the review of that very shortly. I do not think the government program in terms of providing more job opportunities for women, the minorities, the visible minorities, aboriginal people, and disabled people has been a good one.
We passed an employment equity bill in 1985 or 1986. It was a voluntary bill that coaxes and cajoles the federally regulated companies to employ more minorities and more women. That has not worked. There are many countries around the world that make their employment equity programs more mandatory and that have targets that are enforceable. In those countries the programs tend to work but in this country it is not working.
We are also failing when we look at jobs for older workers. The older workers in this country are often the people who are discriminated against. They are not getting the proper breaks that they should be getting.
For a modem industrialized country, I believe the illiteracy rate is one of the national disgraces of Canada. The further east one goes towards Atlantic Canada, the higher the illiteracy rate. I think a lot of the reasons for that ties in with the lack of economic opportunities and economic possibilities which exist in other parts of Canada.
In Newfoundland we find the unemployment rate is officially at 17 or 18 per cent. One sees in many parts of Newfoundland a real illiteracy rate of around 40 per cent or more. I think that is a very sad commentary on something that is lacking in Canada.
If you look again the Economic Council report, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that one thing they are commenting on in terms of failure of the government policy over the last 20 years is the area of regional disparities.
I remember very well, back in 1968, when Pierre Trudeau campaigned across this country. He campaigned on the idea of a just society, where there would be more opportunities for people in outlying areas of this country.
Supply
I remember him introducing in the House a structural change in creating a Department of Regional Economic Expansion, or DREE, later changed to DRIE.
But if you look at the Economic Council report on page 34, they point out that over those 20 years, despite the money we spent on regional expansion and regional disparities and the targeting of certain areas by governments over the years, there has been no real decline in this country in regional disparities. The difference in the unemployment rate between the parts of Canada doing the best and the parts doing the worst has not changed in any significant way in the last 20 years.
There is something fundamentally wrong, as Judith Maxwell says, with the way we organize our economy in Canada, when despite the lip service and the money we are providing to parts of this country, such as Newfoundland, many parts of Atlantic Canada, many parts of Quebec, northern Ontario and parts of the west, these mandate programs have made no real change in the narrowing of the gap between the haves and the have nots. Again, I think that says a lot about the need to have some significant change in this country.
Another thing that strikes me

the Economic Council has not been timid to mention this as well-is that we have problems with the economic structure per se in this country. When the government tries to remedy some of the problems it will make the worst situation in many other parts of the country. I refer to a recent example of the monetary policy of the Government of Canada.
The government saw a highly overheated economy in southern Ontario. The housing market was going through the sky, the economy was going very well, the unemployment rate was down. So they brought in a monetary policy to allow the bank rate to escalate to where it was more than 5 per cent higher than the bank rate in the United States.
Where does it have the most negative effect, Mr. Speaker? It has the most negative effect on the parts of this country that are the least advantaged economically, such as Saskatchewan where its farm population is barely making a living. It is one of the first parts of the country to suffer from a high interest rate policy. The small business community for which the minister is responsible, particularly in the prairies, the Gaspe of Quebec, or

Supply
Atlantic Canada, is another area that suffers because of high interest rates.
As long as we have these tremendous disparities and discrepancies, the application of macro or global economic policy is going to discriminate and hurt very badly many Canadians that live in my part of the world, more so than Canadians who are fortunate to live in areas with high employment.
Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of problems that are structural. The government is not responding to those problems. If we had a meaningful parliamentary system where we could hold the majority government accountable, then government backbenchers and opposition MPs could force this government to address those problems. This is the reason why we need some serious parliamentary reform so this institution has more clout in trying to get the government to address the problems of the day.
We have serious problems that have been brought about because of globalization, because of massive technological change. We have to be competitive internationally. We have to specialize in certain things and do them very well.
As someone who comes from the prairies, I have said that for a long time. We have to specialize in things like upgrading the raw materials that come out of western Canada, or our other resources or our food. We have to develop a mining equipment industry and a farm machinery industry, things we do not do very well. But there are a lot of things that we could be doing well and should be doing well and we are not. That is the real world that is out there. But we have not been doing that. As a result we now have tremendously high unemployment.
What has been the government response? The response has been high interest rates which have driven a lot of people out of work; a free trade deal that has given up a lot of Canadian sovereignty and independence in terms of addressing our problems; Americanizing this country in terms of giving away some of the flexibility and freedom we had in the past to deal with problems of this sort. We are starting to see that exhibited now more and more.
The government is now trying to negotiate a free trade deal with the Mexicans. If this is accomplished I suggest it is going to hurt Canadian workers. We have a high Canadian dollar, partly because of the free trade deal
which is making it even more difficult to create jobs. It makes our goods more expensive to sell abroad. It makes Canadian grain, potash, oil and our manufactured goods more expensive to sell, which is creating more unemployment.
We have across the way a government that perhaps lacks in imagination more than any government in the history of this country. Our country that has so many resources and so much skill and so much possibility is really going down the drain.
As I said, of the 16 countries that were studied by the OECD we rank number 15 in terms of the highest unemployment rate and that tells you, Mr. Speaker, a lot about the lack of imagination. Of the countries that were studied, as I said, by the OECD we ranked fifteenth out of 16. Only Spain is beyond us, Mr. Speaker, and that tells you a lot about the failure of this government over the last number of years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments, the hon. member for Quebec-Est.


Maurice Tremblay: Lotbiniere, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Lotbiniere, of course.


Maurice Tremblay: There is a difference, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to- [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Excuse me, there is a difference but you are both Tremblays.


Maurice Tremblay: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. We will not ask the Chair to explain the difference.
That being said, and to get back to my speech, there are limits to tolerance and indulgence. Perhaps I may comment on some allegations made by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville with respect to an OECD report that ranked Canada fifteenth out of sixteen. First of all, if I understand correctly and if my version is might, as far as I know the OECD has 24 member-countries, and in fact, I believe the hon. member mentioned the past twenty years.
October 9, 1990

Mr. Speaker, we must not forget here in Canada, that if we go back 20 years, this includes fourteen years of Liberal government. According to OECD reports since 1984, Canada, in terms of its Gross National Product, now ranks second-not sixteenth-among OECD members, behind Japan. In terms of job creation, Canada ranks first. This means that as far as job creation is concerned, Canada has created more jobs in the past five years than Italy, France and Great Britain combined.
Facts are facts. It is all very well to quote figures, but they must reflect the facts.
The hon. member also referred to training and mentioned that in Canada, 0.5 per cent was budgeted for training, compared with 1 per cent in the United States. I may remind the hon. member of the New Demoratic Party that for months, and now nearly a year, Bill C-21, one of our major mechanisms for upgrading the qualifications of the unemployed, has been delayed and in fact blocked by the Senate. When it suits the New Democratic Party, it supports the Senate's outbursts, its strategy, but then it turns around and says the Senate should be abolished. Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the debate on Meech Lake, when the New Democratic Party said: We are not against Quebec, we are against Meech Lake.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Not me! I never said that!


Maurice Tremblay: Possibly because your familiarity with French culture has made you perhaps more sensitive, more aware of what is involved. I was referring to your party.
As for regional disparity, here again, the hon. member quoted the same report for the last twenty years. Once again, we must not forget that during those twenty years, fourteen years of Liberal government did not improve regional disparity. They made it worse, despite all the talk in 1968 by the former Liberal leader, Mr. Trudeau, about justice and a just society. However, despite Mr. Trudeau's electoral platform, we were left with a terrible legacy. On the other hand, since 1984, when this government came to power, we have had two major and extremely effective agreements: the Western Diversification agreement and the agreement with the Atlantic
Supply
provinces, both of which are vitally important economic instruments. And only last week, the House voted on a very important bill, Bill C-44, thanks to this regional agreement.
I think we should be allowed a certain amount of time to make up for the legacy we received from the Liberal party. This cannot be done. I would appreciate hearing what the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville has to say.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I compared the unemployment rate in our country with that in other countries. I realize that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has 24 members. However, according to the Economic Council of Canada and Judith Maxwell, they did a study of 16 countries, including France, Switzerland, the United States and so forth, and of the 16 countries they analyzed-this is on page 40 of Judith Maxwell's report-Canada ranks fifteenth in terms of the highest unemployment rate. The study was done during the 70s and 80s. I don't have the figures for the last six years. However, the study discusses structural problems in this country. Maxwell also refers to the problems of the present government under Mr. Wilson and Mr. Mulro-ney, who have spent too much time fighting inflation. She said just that: we have spent too much time fighting inflation. As a result, we now have an unemployment rate that is still climbing. If we look at the latest figures, the unemployment rate in Canada is now over 8 per cent. In this country there are still over one million people out of work.
They drew a comparison with many other countries such as Switzerland, Japan and Norway, whose inflation rate is similar to Canada's, but these countries also have a job creation policy, and their unemployment rate is about 2, 3 or 4 per cent, not even half the unemployment rate here in Canada. Those countries have a system under which there is co-operation between the government and its economic partners.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my Conservative friends read very carefully the report by Judith Maxwell and the Economic Council of Canada, and her recommendations and proposals for dealing with the economy. She is against the present policies of the federal government.

Supply


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I have just three very quick questions. The hon. member quotes the Economic Council of Canada and Judith Maxwell who also supports the GST and the free trade agreement, two things which the hon. member does not support. He is very selective in quoting one sentence from a recent report.
The hon. member spoke quite well on the question of training. Does the hon. member support the emphasis in our unemployment insurance legislation now stuck in the Senate, which tries to shift some resources from simply payments to training? Does he support that thrust? That is my first question.
The second question is about small business. The hon. member's party has said it wants every company in Canada taxed. I am asking the hon. member if a small business has losses, would he allow it to carry the losses forward in order to protect it against tax in the year when it does make profits? If he does not support that, it is tremendously bad news for the small business community, especially in Ontario under an NDP government.
Third, our Department of Industry, Science and Technology has made a shift somewhat similar in response to some of the criticisms the hon. member quoted in one of his references. He said that the departments of regional economic expansion in Canada in the last 20 years have not really done a very good job in dealing with unemployment. When we took over, the federal government was spending $17 billion or $18 billion on one kind of regional expansion program after another. We took a look at these programs and found that most of the programs were paying businesses to do what they probably would have done anyway. It was a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money. We have changed ISTC from a grant-giving type of department to one that gives strategic intelligence and advice and helps companies adapt to new technology. What does the hon. member think of that new change of strategy?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, first, the minister asked about Judith Maxwell's views on the GST and the free trade agreement. I did mention those two things, but I concentrated on unemployment because the motion before the House today deals with employment. It deals
with the unemployment problems we have in the country and the report by Judith Maxwell and the Economic Council is one that zeros in on unemployment and the structural problems we have. She has said that we need fundamental change. That is why I was talking about this today. I assume that is why the motion was proposed by my friend from the Liberal Party in Ontario. That is the response to that particular question as to why I concentrated on unemployment.
In terms of the specifics of the questions, the hon. member asked if I support the shift away from payments to the individuals to training. This is unemployment insurance money in the bill before the Senate. I do not support robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is a shift away from giving people adequate benefits or training.
What I am saying, and what the report and many other studies have stated, is that we should not penalize the unemployed, but, at the same time, we should be putting a lot more money into training. In other words, do not take it away from the unemployed and put it into training. Take it out of the general coffers of the Government of Canada. The private sector must put more money into training, which it does in the United States and Europe. That is what we are saying, and that is what Judith Maxwell is saying as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time is expired.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in this debate to explain what we as a countiy should do to get ourselves out of the economic mess where this government has left us.
We are all aware of the serious economic problems dragging our country down the drain: 34 tax increases since 1984; an accumulated debt which has tripled since 1984; one third of our expenditures goes to pay the interests on that debt; and one of the lowest growth rate in the western world. The Minister of Finance does not want to admit it, Mr. Speaker, but we are in a recession.
The government will tell us it cannot be held responsible for that, but it is wrong. As my colleague from Etobicoke North told us, the fundamental error is that after the free trade agreement there were no adjustment measures to help employees and companies that stood to

lose something as a result of the agreement. At five per cent higher than those of the Americans, our interest rates made it impossible to modernize our industries, not to mention the fact that keeping our dollar above 80 cents is a serious handicap for our export companies. As a result we lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs and Canada's agriculture has taken a turn for the worst.
Of course the government will claim that its policies were designed to win the fight against inflation, but again the government is wrong.
Allow me to recall what the Economic Council said last week about the fight against inflation: "At our own expenses we have learned that fighting inflation through restrictive monetary policies will produce results only if it paves the way for a recession, but that in turn reduces employment, investments and export sales. Therefore we should seek other solutions."
Mr. Speaker, the economic policy of this government is utterly dated, our economy is stagnant, we have lost our competitive edge, and our economic posture is decadent. What can be done? It is very simple. We must quickly reset our sights and regain our competitiveness, and it is in that context that I would like to tell you about sustainable development.

Our economy is in tatters. A dramatic reversal in government policy is required if we are to turn the situation around and it is within that context that I would like to discuss with the House for the remainder of my time the concept of sustainable development.
Before going on, let me say a couple of things about environmental protection. Environmental protection in my opinion, and in the opinion of all of those on this side of the House, needs no economic buttressing. Environmental protection is a moral value. We are part of the ecosystem. We are not dominant over it. It may have been in the earliest of prehistory, when humankind had to struggle for its very survival, that the concept of being dominant over nature was important, but surely ever since the Industrial Revolution when we had it within our power to totally destroy the planet on which we live, the concept that humankind must be dominant and must be engaged in a war with nature is one that is no longer applicable.
Supply
Environmental protection is a moral value and for that reason I do not raise sustainable development here because it needs economic buttressing. Quite the opposite. I raise sustainable development because I believe that it is virtually impossible to have a strong economy unless one takes into account the needs of the ecosystem of the earth on which we live.
Furthermore, properly costed, I do not believe that it is possible for any kind of a project-industrial, private sector, municipal, provincial, or federal-to take place that in any way degrades the environment. It is simply faulty economics to say that one can build a project and degrade the environment because the costs to successive generations will be so great as to negate whatever returns one has. If anybody in this room has any doubt about that, then I would simply ask them to take a look at the terrible scenes of pillage that have occurred in eastern Europe as whole societies tried to build an economy without taking into account the environment. Whole societies are now on the ground economically because they did not understand that you cannot destroy the air we breath, the water we drink, and expect to maintain any kind of competitiveness within the industrial agricultural process.
What is sustainable development? It has been defined by some as more of a compass than, indeed, a finite target toward which one must go. I tend to share that view. I also have always liked the definition of sustainable development that was first given to us by the Haida Indians on British Columbia's coast. They said that the environment, the earth, is not a heritage which we have inherited from our ancestors, but rather it is something very precious which we have borrowed from our grandchildren.
In more recent times, the Prime Minister of Norway, Mrs. Brundtland, defined it as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Unfortunately, sustainable development does not appear to be a part of the government's vocabulary. In the preamble and in the purposes of Bill C-78, the Environmental Assessment Review Act, the government did not see fit to put in the words "sustainable development". We are about to embark upon a new generation in the way in which we are going to govern the economy in the environment and the government does not have the decency or the understanding of the way in which the

world is going, to even bring up the word sustainable development, such is their fear of coming in to the 1990s.
Over the last five years, since 1984 when this government took over in power, what have we seen but dramatic cuts in research and development for alternative energy sources. Today, less than 10 per cent of all the research and development done on energy, is done in terms of renewable energy resources. Is there no understanding on the other side of the House with regard to the needs of economy and the needs of people?
What I am expressing is not simply a personal opinion. In a report card published this summer on those nations which make up the G-7, it was stated and I quote: "How does Canada, in relationship to sustainable development, score relative to other countries?" The result is, poorly. Over all, Canada was tied with Japan for fifth place out of seven. We were behind West Germany, France, the United States, and we were behind Margaret Thatcher's United Kingdom. The reason for this is as follows: "The reason for Canada's poor performance is that when it comes to translating high-sounding principles into domestic policies, regulation enforcement and funding, the federal government"-the government that the members opposite represent-"really falls down." In other words, we are good at espousing principles such as sustainable development, but we do not yet possess the national political will to translate such principles into effective domestic action.
That is the problem that we have faced in the country since 1984. This government has not had the political will or the leadership to bring this nation into the last decade of this century. How can the government be so shortsighted? Sustainable development applies to every single field of economic activity. It applies to agriculture. The Canadian farmer is struggling. Farm debt is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member will have nine minutes remaining in his debate, plus 10 minutes of questions and comments.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, for over a year and a half the people living in the Atlantis Housing Complex at 143 Ryland Avenue in Bible Hill, Nova Scotia, have been fighting to get door-to-door mail delivery to their homes. All the units have separate sidewalks and similar service comes all the way up to their units and then past them to the next houses.
Because of a very small technicality, these people, many of whom are seniors, have been denied door-to-door service. In the last several months I have been in touch with officials at Canada Post many times regarding this issue. Although they have been accessible and co-operative, my constituents still do not have a satisfactory resolution to their problem.
This case is now under its final appeal and I urge the post office officials to apply common sense and extend this service to 143 Ryland Avenue.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks we have heard a lot of talk about democracy and the supremacy of the will of the people. The GST debate is a case in point. It is no secret that the people of Canada overwhelmingly reject the GST. Over 80 per cent of all Canadians oppose this regressive tax, and the number continues to grow. In fact, from my riding of Nipissing alone, I have received well over 6,000 protest cards on the GST and how it will escalate the cost of such basic services as hydroelectricity.
Despite this opposition, the government is continuing to push ahead, regardless of what the people believe. Who is being undemocratic here when the will of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance can prevail over the will of millions of Canadians? How democratic is it when people with incomes of $100,000 or more pay
October 9, 1990

$1,600 less in income tax today? How democratic is it when corporations get their taxes cut, only to have them shifted to a segment of the population that is being hit with 32 separate tax increases?


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


STANDARDS COUNCIL OF CANADA
Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to ask other members of this House to join me in congratulating the Standards Council of Canada on 20 years of outstanding service.
The Standards Council is actively involved in international standards work through the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission.
Members of the House may be interested to know that these two organizations recently conducted a global survey to forecast needs for the future. The study attracted 2,700 respondents in 40 countries, including 100 from Canada, representing a broad cross-section of industry, academia, government and standardization experts. The results, Mr. Speaker, are interesting. Respondents identified cancer diagnosis, nuclear waste disposal and environmental protection as the areas of highest urgency.
It is fitting, therefore, that these two international organizations have selected the environment as the theme for world standards day, which is being marked on Sunday, October 14. I am pleased to join with other members of the House in congratulating the Standards Council and its record of service these past two decades-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan.


BILL C-21
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, as November 1 approaches, Canadians who make their living from the sea, fishers, shore workers and their families across the country are facing a devastating winter. The cause of this crisis is our own government with its blind determination to gut the
unemployment insurance system while sacrificing the needs of Canadian workers.
Last November, the New Democratic House leader asked the Minister of Employment to introduce legislation for the variable entrance requirements. In a callous disregard for the plight of seasonal workers and workers in areas of high unemployment, she refused.
Had the minister followed my colleague's advice, representatives of fishers and shore workers from the west and east coast would not be here today scrambling to avert a disaster.
The New Democratic Party has opposed Bill C-21 because of the harm it will cause. The minister is well aware that had she brought forward legislation last fall for the variable entrance requirement, we would not be in the mess we find ourselves in today.
I call on the Minister of Employment to give up her childish policy of her way or no way, because we know in this instance her way is wrong. Avert a disaster. Withdraw Bill C-21. Bring in the variable entrance requirements now.


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, the government has consistently given support to grain farmers under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Advance Payments for Crops Act.
A further step to aid farmers with their cash flow problems would be to reintroduce interest free cash advances. I am encouraged to hear that a working meeting of farmers, industry and government representatives was held in Winnipeg on October 5 to consider this matter. That this meeting did take place is reassuring news to all Canadian farmers.
I urge the group to present their recommendations as soon as possible.
 * *


PALESTINE
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the bloody events in Old Jerusalem this past weekend have prompted a stronger call by the international community for a just solution of the Palestinian situation.

October 9, 1990
This type of violent activity can no longer be tolerated and should be dealt with immediately by the Security Council, with the full support of the Government of Canada.
As we approach the annual United Nations debate on Palestinians, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to urge all members of the Security Council to accept, if offered, a resolution calling for an international presence, either in the form of UN observers or officials from the office of the Secretary General.
It is only in this way that attempts to tie the invasion of Kuwait to a settlement of the Palestinian question can be pre-empted. The international community can then work further in solidarity against force and aggression toward a peaceful and permanent solution of the Palesti-nian-Israeli situation.
Listening to both Palestinians and Israelis this summer, I know, Mr. Speaker, that both sides want peace. The international community should help set up the process to achieve a lasting peace.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Public Works is planning the construction of a parking lot and a shopping mall under the Parliament of Canada, at the cost of $68 millions. Many people are opposed to that because of the environment, on the grounds that the historical character of the buildings must be preserved, and so on.
Mr. Speaker, with that money, we could build 136 shelters for incapacitated senior citizens, 250 youth centers as well as housing for the poor across Canada.
I am against that project. I already have an outdoor parking spot on the Hill, like all factory workers in Canada.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister announced to the Commonwealth ministers responsible for women's
affairs how much the Canadian government is doing for women. What a surprise this is for the women of Canada! Particularly offensive is his assertion that his government is dealing with violence against women, which is a serious problem in every country of the world, and Canada is no exception.
Today, women gathered on Parliament Hill to display 150 banners dealing with the reality of women's lives. Nearly a majority of them were about violence against women. In Canada, one out of every two women seeking refuge at a shelter for battered women is turned away because of lack of space. Thirty-seven per cent of the murders in Canada are related to family violence. Almost 100 women a year die at the hands of men they live with or have lived with. This government's policies- cuts to women's programming and capping of funds for battered women's shelters-are costing women their lives. This, Mr. Speaker, is the reality for Canadian women.


CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr Speaker, few would argue that skills training will play a vital role in Canada's future economic growth and competitiveness. Yet, too often, we overlook the fundamentals. Basic fundamentals-basic literacy and numeracy skills-are the foundation for skills development. We must then begin with the basics, basic skills and their formation.
Canadians recognize that the seeds for skills development occur during childhood. Such an observation adds to the appreciation of our children as our most vital resource. Our children must receive greater attention.
The successful completion of the world summit for children is a good starting point, helping to focus attention on the urgent needs and problems of our children.
With the creation of the children's bureau and the pledge that the welfare of our children will be a high priority, I, like the families and children across Canada, look forward to the initiatives which will arise from this agenda.
If we are going to progress and have the basic skills to compete, our children must be a higher priority. In this light, I readily applaud our government's commitment to do so.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the lessening of tension in Europe has led to a decision to bring 1,400 NATO troops back to Canada. More recently, there has been a Soviet-American agreement to reduce troops and military hardware in Europe. This will facilitate a further Canadian withdrawal of its NATO forces, which number 6,200 army and air force personnel.
It is time for the Department of National Defence to do some serious re-examination of its policy on base closures. For example, where will the 2,000 air force personnel be stationed when they come back?
The Department of National Defence now has an opportunity to correct or at least partially correct the error made in closing CFB Summerside and leaving Prince Edward Island as the only province without a military base. Leaving 413 Squadron, Search and Rescue, in Summerside will complement the helicopter repair business being recruited to locate on the base, will encourage the location of similar types of industries in Summerside, maintain Search and Rescue in its proven best location and show that DND has the ability to adapt to changing world realities and implement policies which make military and economic sense.


NATIONAL RENOVATION MONTH
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress again the enormous importance of housing in this country, both as a material and social asset.
Canadians in general are well housed, but our houses are getting old. More than 20 percent of all houses in Canada are now over 40 years old, and this will increase to 50 percent by the end of the century. Many of these houses, which are an important source of affordable housing, will need major repairs. In fact, some 10 percent of our apartments are already in need of serious attention.
The month of October was designated National Renovation Month in Canada. The federal government, through Central Mortgage and Housing Canada, will
work together with the renovation industry to protect and promote this important national investment.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the Bank of Montreal for their role in raising awareness on this important issue.


Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, in June in this House I raised the question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare's $4 million cut to the budget of the National Health Research and Development Program.
Over the summer I was in touch with leading researchers and learned firsthand of the damage caused by these cuts. It is important to understand that this is the government's only program for funding applied health research, which includes preventive health care, health promotion, disease prevention, work place hazards, cancer prevention and native health care.
As incredible as it may seem, all innovative health care research has been put on hold or permanently cancelled by this short-sighted government. One University of Quebec researcher affected by the cuts proposed to study the risks of cancer due to asbestos exposure in the general environment. The Minister of National Health and Welfare knows as well as anyone that it is far less expensive to prevent cancer than to treat it.
I urge the minister to restore the funding for health care research now.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Chalk one up for Mother Nature, Mr. Speaker. This fall the Adams River in British Columbia has witnessed the largest migratory run of sockeye salmon in 77 years. Twenty-one million sockeye returned from the Pacific Ocean to begin their 560 kilometre odyssey to the spawning beds along the Adams-proof positive that

October 9, 1990
Oral Questions
environmental conservation and restoration programs do work.
The run, still only one-tenth of the size that it was at the turn of the century, will continue to rebuild as long as man continues to remain vigilant to the necessity to clean up his act. What better way to build environmental awareness than to celebrate this annual occurrence?
The federal ministers of environment and fisheries should seriously consider the construction of a permanent historical exhibit, highlighting a salute to the sockeye along the banks of the Adams. As well, the government should redouble its efforts to enhance salmon fisheries throughout the entire Fraser River watershed through the development of community hatcheries and a thorough clean-up of the river.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, another business has fallen prey to the Conservative's free trade deal.
The American-owned Olan Mills photo finishing plant in Kingston, Ontario, announced this summer that it will be closing its doors by year end, throwing a total of 94 people out of work. The photo finishing done by this plant will be taken over by the firm's U.S. operations.
With this closure, we are one again witnessing the export of Canadian jobs south of the border. When the Prime Minister promised that the free trade deal would bring employment and prosperity, he neglected to mention that the employment and prosperity would be going to places like Michigan, New York and Wisconsin, not to Ontario.
The government should hope that the people of these states are eligible to vote in the next Canadian federal election because without their votes, this government has as much chance of forming itself into a new government after the election as a branch plant has of remaining in Canada.


REFORM PARTY
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party wants to take a broad axe to Canadian social programs by cutting spending 10 to 15 per cent right across the board. Reformers want to thank veterans by chopping their pensions by 15 per cent.
Reformers want to pay tribute to our pioneers by chopping old age security by 15 per cent. Preston Manning will charge each pensioner a $200 user fee for health care, that is after chopping it by 15 per cent.
How many hospital beds will be closed by these policies? How many fewer hip replacements will be performed? Our seniors deserve more, not less. To reduce spending we need a deft Conservative scalpel, not a bloody Reform broad axe.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
On October 2, speaking of his unwillingness to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada the government's use of section 26 of the Constitution Act to appoint the eight additional senators to force through the GST, the Prime Minister said:
- the government has received the full assurances of the senior legal advisers of the Crown, that all the actions that we have taken have been pursuant to the statutes, convention and appropriate custom.
On the next day, the Prime Minister said:
-the Government of Canada has already acted pursuant to advice it has received from the most senior law officers of the Crown.
This morning, the government's lawyers told a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada that they were not ready to proceed to argue the point today and that they needed another two weeks.
If the matter had been so fully researched and thought through, if the matter was so clear on the legalities some two weeks ago, why was the government not ready to argue the point in court today? Why was it seeking a delay?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will come as a surprise to the judges on the Supreme Court of Canada to hear that we were in front of them this morning, because we were not.
We were in court in Ontario pursuant to a number of applications, one of which I might add was dismissed. The lawyers for the Government of Canada took the position that the case should not be argued today but

should be given some delay partly because other parties were in fact served at a very late date. I understand that members of the other House received notice yesterday. It was the view of the Government of Canada that all parties who were to be involved in the applications should have full and fair notice.
The hon. member will be aware of what kind of notice that should be. In fact the Government of Canada is prepared to make its arguments at any time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice says that the government is prepared to make its arguments at any time.
If that is the case then I ask the Minister of Justice: Why won't she refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada today? Why does she want to allow the doubt and uncertainty to continue? If she is serious about being ready, refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada today. I give her that challenge.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, we are not uncertain about the matter, and that is why we are not referring it to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the govemement is as certain as indicated by the Minister of Justice, why did it ask the Superior Court of Ontario for two week's delay? Why is the government not ready to proceed with this case today?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, because some of the parties were advised about these proceedings only yesterday and we want to be fair to all of them.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Oral Questions
Canadians have been deeply disturbed by the violence and bloodshed that have taken place in the holy areas of East Jerusalem yesterday.
Could the minister tell us if Canada as a member of the Security Council is taking any initiatives to help move toward a just and lasting settlement, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs outlined yesterday, based upon resolutions 242 and 338? In particular, are we still supporting the motion of a UN presence or team to go to Israel to investigate those circumstances?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will share the concern I expressed on behalf of the government yesterday at the events in East Jerusalem, which are dangerous at any time but particularly dangerous given the circumstances in the Middle East now. I think that the energies of all of us must be deployed to try to ensure that a cycle of violence which erupted there again is contained and that elemental problems are solved.
There is a meeting of the Security Council in progress now. There is a resolution before the Security Council that would call for a presence of the United Nations to conduct a specific inquiry in the region. It would be the intention of Canada to support that resolution.
I may have to absent myself during Question Period for telephone consultations with other foreign ministers as part of an attempt to try to ensure that we might have a resolution that could command the support, if not of all members of the Security Council, at least the Permanent Five and the majority including Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, taking into account the worsening situation that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has just described, Canadians are also concerned about reports this weekend that Canadian ground forces are being prepared for possible deployment in the gulf.
Can we have the assurance of the government that there will no deployment of any further ground forces or any Canadian forces into the Middle East or the gulf area, without the sanctioning of a United Nations resolu-

October 9, 1990
Oral Questions
tion and without the approval and consent of this Parliament?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is debate in progress in this House now initiated by this government the first day Parliament was back. While there is no absolute legal requirement for the House to come to a vote on the matter, it would certainly be helpful to the government and to the flexibility of Canada if that vote were taken. I understand that opposition parties are reluctant to have the matter come to a vote, and I regret that because I think it would be helpful to our-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. This is an important question-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Where did you get that idea?


An hon. member:: You're not in the Senate now, Nelson.


Charles Joseph Clark: It may not be both opposition parties. It may simply be the New Democratic Party that is reluctant to have the matter come to a vote.
I have indicated before that the Government of Canada intends to continue to use all of the resources of Canada in a way that will lead to a peaceful solution to the situation in the gulf, including the withdrawal by Iraq from Kuwait.
We naturally expect to consult as fully and completely as is possible with Parliament. The hon. member knows that sometimes events develop very quickly. I have given him my assurance on an earlier occasion that if something develops that requires immediate consultation when the House is not physically sitting, I will be in touch with him and with his counterpart in the Official Opposition to ensure that there is advance notice of what Canada is contemplating.


THE SENATE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Never before in the history of Canadian Parliaments has so many well-heeled corporate business types owed so much to one man.
The latest transfusion of bluebloods to the other place has Mr. Trevor Eyton, holding 26 directorships; Claude Castonguay, holding 16 directorships; and recently, when things got hot in the other place over the GST, the Bank of Montreal called in its chips and sent Mr. Allan MacEachen off consulting in Brussels.
In light of the fact that Senate directorships run the gamut from banks to pork bellies, I want to ask the Prime Minister as we look at this newest infusion of bluebloods in the other place: will he keep his promise, which he made in 1985 following the fiasco of Sinclair Stevens, that he will introduce and have passed effective conflict of interest laws that will govern both the Senate and the House of Commons?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I noted that my hon. friend pointed out with some enthusiasm the presence of successful business people from the Liberal and the Conservatives Parties as the newest members of the Senate, but he neglected to mention the member of the NDP, the hon. member for Kamloops, who distinguished himself in the Senate on Friday of last week.


An hon. member:: Thursday.


Martin Brian Mulroney: On Thursday or Friday of last week. Right there, Mr. Speaker, right there on the floor of the Senate was the member for Kamloops, encouraging very strongly what the Liberals were doing. Yet on Friday he was in the House of Commons on his feet on a question of privilege saying what the Liberals had just done was absolutely outrageous.
I want to welcome him back from the Senate. We missed you, Nelson. Don't leave us alone any more.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Save yourself from the senators. Some of the people who were appointed to the Senate recently are men and women of accomplishment across Canada. There is an aboriginal leader from Alberta, a woman from New Brunswick, and so on. They are all very successful people. I know that the NDP is offended by the notion of success and accomplishment, but I will continue to appoint successful people to the Senate unless my hon. friend indicates a preference himself.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I want the Prime Minister to know that Canadians far and wide

Oral Questions
are not so jocular about the jigging and jogging that is taking place in the other place.
The Prime Minister knows well that there is legislation that is before this House. There is the privatization of Petro-Canada. There is the deregulation of financial institutions. There is a communications bill. Yet we have Mr. T\vinn on the board of directors of Petro-Canada. We have Mr. Castonguay, Mr. de Nino, and Mr. Eyton on the boards of directors of financial institutions. We have Senator Pat Carney on the board of directors of Rogers Cable.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this, and he does not have to go down to the Senate. He can do the same thing he did the other-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member could put the question.


John R. Rodriguez: Did the Prime Minister ask the new senators to give up their directorships so that there would be no apparent potential conflict of interest as perceived by Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, at the Meech Lake meeting of the first ministers I proposed the abolition of the Canadian Senate. It was not fully endorsed at the time.
We then brought about fundamental reforms in the Canadian Senate as a result of the Meech Lake discussions. Indeed, had Meech Lake passed in June we would now be on our way to British Columbia for the first of a series of meetings which would result in a thoroughly reformed and elected Canadian Senate, to which this government is committed.
I can give my hon. friend the assurance that the appalling display of misconduct by the Liberal senators has set off a wave of revulsion across this country and will result, I am absolutely certain, in a completely reformed Senate of Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, surely the Prime Minister is not suggesting to Canadians that the way to reform the other place is to put a whole pile of business men with obvious and potential conflicts of interest into the other place without the proper legislation that controls such potential conflict of interest.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to call them in and ask them to resign as directors.


Guy St-Julien: In the unions!


John R. Rodriguez: And in the unions.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr
Speaker, this House and the Senate will eventually adopt a piece of legislation under which people who sit on boards of directors of unions or financial institutions which may be in a conflict of interest with the legislative provisions will have to make a choice about their career.
The government has brought before Parliament this very important measure on conflicts of interest, and I am confident that my friend will want to make sure that all members and all senators respect the provisions of this bill once it has been signed by the Governor General.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The third meeting of the Commonwealth Ministers Responsible for Women is being held in Ottawa this week. Violence against women is on the agenda. Tvo Canadian women are killed weekly by their partners. Domestic disputes and wife battering are on the increase. Statistics show that sentences for men convicted for spousal assaults are minimal, if at all.
What concrete action will the Minister of Justice take to ensure that abused women are protected by our judicial system?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question because it is an issue of grave concern to all Canadians, not just to Canadian women.
The government's program with respect to family violence spans a number of different departments. It is a $40 million initiative. I am pleased to respond with respect to what the Department of Justice is doing.

October 9, 1990
Oral Questions
The Department of Justice has made the protection of women from violence a major focus of its work. This includes reform of the Criminal Code. The law governing sexual violence was amended in 1983, and the department is assessing the impact of those changes.
In addition, we are analysing measures to deal specifically with violent pornography. We have funded research to other projects; for example, a television program to inform the general public about the existing law of sexual assault and an evaluation of programs for men who batter their spouses or lovers.
Also, in the area of policy development, the department has set up a departmental committee to develop policies relating to women, especially violence against women, and it participates in an interdepartmental committee developing policy on family violence.
With respect to the administration of justice, the department has provided support for conferences and seminars designed to sensitize justice professionals on sex equality issues, especially as they relate to violence against women.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for her very comprehensive report on what her department is doing.
I think that action has to speak louder than words. I believe it is time that the Minister of Justice brought the attorneys general of the provinces together to amend the Criminal Code to protect women.
Will the minister take this action immediately?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, at the federal-provincial meeting of attorneys general in June at Niagara-on-the-Lake, a decision was made to form a federal-provincial task force on women and the law.
One of the first things I did was invite the provincial attorneys general to participate with me. I indicated that I would host a federal-provincial conference on women in the law which, I hope, will be held in the late spring of 1991, with an agenda formed by this federal-provincial task force. The thrust of that conference, I hope, will be threefold: women in the legal profession, women in the courts, and the substantive law as it relates to women. I think this will provide a very timely opportunity for us to
work on the federal-provincial level to address the very questions that she raises. I might add that they are excellent questions and I share her commitment to them.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice.
P.O.W.E.R., a Winnipeg based community group has been praised by the Commons justice committee as being a model project for helping women. Yet it was forced to close its doors several weeks ago because of a lack of public funds.
Will the minister commit herself today to helping this organization get started again?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of the issue which the hon. member raises. I would be very pleased to review it to see if it is appropriate for our department to be involved in it. I cannot give you an answer beyond that.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her answer. I have a supplementary question for the same minister.
P.O.W.E.R. is helping women who are prostitutes who wish to get off the streets to do so. This was an issue raised and reviewed in the justice committee and one that concerns women in several cities.
I would like to ask the minister today if she will take the initiative to see that projects like this are sponsored across the country.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General which raises a similar issue is a very good one. It makes some very significant recommendations with respect to dealing with the root causes of the problem of violence against women on the streets.
I can only say that I have not had the opportunity to review it with enough depth to come forward with policy proposals. I respect those recommendations and I respect organizations that are involved in dealing with the
October 9, 1990

problem that way. I hope to be able to bring forward positive initiatives to this House before too long.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It deals with the shock Canadians received this weekend while reading the newspapers. In a time of restraint and serious government cutbacks of critical programs, particularly social programs, Canadians were informed that the Government of Canada is soon going to send out a 16-page, three-coloured propaganda brochure to every household in the country.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, surely this is an error. Will the Minister of Finance tell the House and the people of Canada that the government is not going to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars to send out a three-colour, 16-page propaganda brochure to every single household in the country.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it may interest my hon. friend that there have been some 384,000 phone calls made to the GST information number seeking out the very information that is in this brochure, as well as in the one that we sent out in May of this year.
The hon. member talks about the cost of this. It works out to 13 cents a copy. That is a quarter of what it costs to go out and buy The Globe and Mail here. I think this is a very cost-effective way of responding to the concerns that people have. It responds to their questions in an open, frank and direct way, providing information to give direct answers to questions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance obviously knows, only one-half of 16 pages are devoted to the goods and services proposal.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The rest is filled with absolute garbage. It is government propaganda. At a time when we are cutting back on women's programs, when we have tens of thousands of children lining up at food banks, when we are having serious cuts to native programs and social
Oral Questions
housing programs, is this the way the government feels it should be spending taxpayers' money?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what we have tried to address in this particular document is the broad range of economic policies that must be followed if we are going to be able to finance the social programs that my colleague wants to have.
That is why on page 1 we talk about the importance of this country maintaining and building its competitive position so that it can trade effectively and create the jobs here at home. We talk about the importance of having a skilled workforce as part of the major part of our economic plan, about how people who are unemployed can get training.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to get the bill on unemployment insurance reform through the Senate so that we can continue to provide these programs. Many people have asked about how taxpayers' dollars are spent. That is precisely what this document tries to do.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He says that the people of Canada are going to get accurate information from this particular pamphlet it is distributing.
I wonder if it is the same kind of information that has been rejected by the CBC as being ill-conceived and inappropriate. It has been rejected by the Advertising Council of Canada because it is false advertising.
Has the Minister of Finance made sure that the information in this brochure is more accurate than what he has already provided Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague to read the document himself. He may find that it is absolutely accurate and he might also leam something by doing so.


M. Douglas Young: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.
Now that the minister has had more than six months since he tabled his budget in the House, can he tell us whether he is still sticking to his forecast concerning interest rates? Does he still think that the deficit will be less than $30 billion, of has he come to grips with

Oral Questions
Canada's economic reality and will he table a new budget to reflect that reality?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I know very well what economic reality is in Canada. I have been presenting a very clear, open and honest picture of what to expect from the economy, as set out in my budget of February this year. My colleague is probably not aware that I made a speech on September 17 in Edmonton where I set out clearly what we expect for the balance of this fiscal year. The questions that he has just posed were answered fully in that speech.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Persistent reports indicate that Air Canada is planning massive lay-offs of upwards of 2,000 to 3,000 people.
Given that deregulation has moved our air industry closer to monopolization, and given that the government is preparing to negotiate an open skies agreement with the United States, is the minister not concerned with this dramatic down-sizing of our largest Canadian air carrier, which may be a premonition of things to come for the entire Canadian air industry?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend will be aware that deregulation has vastly improved the number of routes, the number of flights that are available to Canadians, has increased the number-


Mr. Allmand:: Where? Name one.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Why don't you try Sudbury? There were two flights before deregulation and now there are 17.
My hon. friend knows that from time to time all companies go through rationalization. What my hon. friend is doing is reacting to headlines and pure speculation. I invite him to wait for the actual facts.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the fact of deregulation is that two Canadian air carriers have basically gobbled up most of the regional air carriers. Most communities in the regions no longer have jet
service, thanks to the deregulation policies of this government.
Given that the predicted number of lay-offs at Air Canada are very disturbing, what kind of adjustment programs is the minister prepared to introduce to help these and future displaced workers in the Canadian air industry. Can he assure this House that communities in the regions will not be isolated as a result of such massive and disturbing cutbacks?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of TVansport):: I suggest to my hon. friend, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of deregulation the communities do not have less jet service, they have better air service. That is what all the communities wanted and what they got from deregulation.
As far as pure speculation is concerned about what lay-offs what company might have, I suggest to my hon. friend he has got the plane in front of the pilot.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for ACOA.
On three separate occasions my New Democratic colleagues have raised serious questions about this government's involvement with Technitread and now there is an RCMP investigation under way. This is but one of a litany of horror stories connected to this minister's department.
The minister said he would accept full responsibility if mistakes were made. Well, mistakes were made. When will he do the honourable thing and resign?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised at the tenor of my friend's questioning. It is really out of left field.
I told his colleagues from Nickel Belt and Essex- Windsor that I respected their acumen as regional development critics. As a result of what they indicated at committee I stated that I would have a second look at this particular project. I did that. There was no further public funding for this project.
I explained to my colleague from Nickel Belt that I would tell him what the purchase price was. He was of

the erroneous impression that it was $1 for the property which was part of No. 26 colliery. It was $250,000. Also, there is a lien on the equipment of this company for $1 million held by ECB. While this project is in trouble, I want my colleagues to know that I did take responsibility.
I did cut off the funding. I ordered my officials to do this.
I am a little surprised that the member opposite seems to take such obvious delight in attributing a lot of horror stories to an economic development agency that has done so much for an area in Canada that needed it so badly.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of taking delight in horror stories. It is a question of making sure that public funds are well spent. In this case they have not been well spent. There are any number of occasions in which they have not been well spent in Cape Breton and elsewhere.
My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister and it is about ministerial responsibility. The minister said, and I quote from the committee proceedings: "If there has been a mistake made, I will take full responsibility." There clearly have been mistakes made, the minister has admitted that there have been mistakes made. Does ministerial responsibility not mean anything any more? Is it not time the Prime Minister removed this minister?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, if my colleague equates taking responsibility with doing the right thing and doing what his colleagues advocated as being cause to resign, that indeed is a new concept of ministerial responsibility.
Again, I repeat that ACOA has, with the understanding of colleagues from his party and from the Liberal Party, made modifications to some of the rules that govern economic development. It should be noted by the House that well over $1 billion has gone into Cape Breton, through various programs of assistance, all well deserved.
What we are trying to do is find out how we can get a better return for our investment and do a better job of regional development planning. This is why we have recently obtained the services of Mr. Tony Brait, a respected Newfoundland businessman, to do a comprehensive assessment of what we have been doing right and
Oral Questions
what we have been doing wrong in Cape Breton. I hope we will have the support of all colleagues opposite in this regard.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works.
Last week, Le Droit reported that your department planned to build a parking and shopping centre under Parliament Hill, and that this project would cost $68 million.
Would the minister agree this project is useless, since all members have outside parking space like any factory worker in Canada and we have more important priorities on our minds?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House that this is a discussion paper that was circulated widely by some people who apparently are seized with an edifice complex.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: While there may be need for increased parking and other facilities, I am not particularly impressed with this concept. I want to assure my colleague that no moneys have been appropriated, no decisions have been taken and I, for one, am not too impressed with this concept.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. The government recently announced that Canada will participate with Mexico and the United States in discussions intended to lead to the negotiation of a North American free trade agreement.
Will the minister confirm the statement of the United States trade representative that the three countries have agreed to the end of January, three months from now, as the deadline for determining whether Canada will be at the table?
<

October 9, 1990
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that in this negotiation we have the support of the Liberal opposition in the House, as was shown by the statements made by the members for Broadview-Greenwood and LaSalle- Emard.
I can say this: There is no deadline but we would like to settle these preliminaries by January or February, if we can. But there has been no deadline set and of course these are only preliminary discussions to ensure that we can agree on an agenda and the modalities for such negotiation, if it occurs.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, given the current levels of wages, working conditions, and environmental abuse in Mexico, will the minister identify which labour-intensive industries in Canada will be hit the hardest by Mexican competitors? Has the government yet undertaken any sector-by-sector studies of what adjustment assistance will become necessary to help Canadian workers and Canadian industries?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am appearing before the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade this afternoon and I invite all members and spectators who might want to come to attend.
We are not concerned about wage levels alone because, of course, wage levels alone are simply one item in the factors that affect competitiveness.
The greatest competition for this country lies with the United States, the European Community, and Japan- the highly industrialized, high wage countries which have the research, development, and technology to compete with us-not low wage countries.
We are not going to follow the advice of the NDP and cut off all trade with the developing world so that the developing world will never become developed.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence, I will ask the associate minister to respond.
The minister knows that world wheat prices are the lowest in 60 years, so low that in fact the Canadian Wheat Board can hardly make sales on the international market.
How can farmers pay their bills this year when the Wheat Board is not able to make many sales on the international market and the prices are the lowest since 1930? What is the government going to do to help these producers?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I would say, first, that the $500 million we put on the table this last spring was the response of the federal government to the needs of the farmers in Canada.
We asked the provinces to share the burden with us, because we think agriculture is a shared responsibility in Canada.
The other reason is that at the international level we worked, since the Prime Minister's speech in Tokyo, to put agriculture on the agenda of the world's trading nations. Since that time, we have brought agriculture as the first priority so that all countries reduce their subsidies in this field.
In these last few weeks before December, what we have done and what we are going to do to help farmers in the west is to make all countries around the world realize that those subsidies are just destroying agriculture.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, grain farmers are facing the worst cash flow crisis in their history this fall with practically no markets and very low prices.
How can a farmer even meet his direct out-of-pocket production costs of some $65 per acre, when he can only deliver $11 per acre? That results in a loss of some $54 per acre. What is the government going to do?

Oral Questions
The government did away with interest free cash advances last fall. There is no cash flow from the sale of wheat. When is the government going to act? What is it going to do?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the government has done everything it could to help farmers, not only this year- We have spent billions of dollars to meet the most pressing needs of Canadian farm producers. To a certain extent, we did so to protect them against the negative impact of this subsidy war between the United States and the European Economic Community, which has forced our farmers to sell their grain at a ridiculously low price. That is why we have made representations on the international scene to make people more aware of the situation and, once this price war has been stopped, restore fair prices that will be far more helpful for Canadian farm producers, both in western and eastern Canada.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The Minister of Science and Technology has just today opened National Science and Technology Week by hawking posters which tell Canadian youth: "We need your imagination."


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Meanwhile, using the deficit as an excuse, the Minister of Health and Welfare has made a nearly $4 million mortal blow to the National Health Research and Development Program, which is a program intended to save health dollars through science. I understand further outrages are on their way.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Is it that we are going to need youth's imagination to see this government's imaginary science policy?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and
Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, if I may answer on behalf of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I would just like to tell the hon. member that since we came into office in 1984 health and welfare research combined as a whole has increased dramatically. That is what we have done since 1984.
In the Centres for Excellence, we have also put in $240 million and, through Bill C-22, we made a $100 million transfer from the federal government to the provinces for medical research. That is what we have done for research in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the record will show that the government's share in research in the country has fallen and that the ratio in regard to the GDP has fallen.
My question to the Minister of Science and Technology is, what is his intention with respect to the government's matching program for the granting councils? That is an issue that is of serious concern. I want the Minister of Science and Technology to deny that those moneys that are in the granting councils now will not be used for some other purpose beside supporting basic research in the universities.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend, both with respect to his previous question and this one, that the granting councils last year received the largest increase in the whole of the Government of Canada.
With respect to the matching funds, we have always made it very clear that the matching funds would not disappear. They are an integral part of what the government is trying to do to bring science, the universities, and industry, close together for the benefit of the economy of the country.


WAR MEASURES ACT
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
October marks the twentieth anniversary of the War Measures Act in Quebec. The Canadian government apologized to Japanese Canadians for using the War

Privilege
Measures Act against them and paid compensation totalling several million dollars. My question is this: Is the Canadian government, on this twentieth anniversary, prepared to apologize to the people of Quebec for imposing the War Measures Act and jailing 500 people without a warrant, and is the government prepared to offer a certain amount, as compensation for this unfair treatment, as they did to Japanese Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has already done better than that. About two years ago, the government completely revised the War Measures Act to ensure that the events of 1970 would not happen again. I think that
is-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And furthermore, I can inform my hon. friend that on the weekend, I called Mrs. Frangoise Laporte to transmit, on behalf of the government and the Canadian people, our profound admiration and deep affection for her and the members of her family.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. It is about the cut to the National Health Research and Development Program.
The top priority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the government ought to be to provide the best possible health care to Canadians while controlling or reducing costs. Yet, the minister has cut the only program which funds innovative health care research in Canada and since 1984, contrary to what the minister answering for the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said, this program has been frozen and will now be reduced by $2.5 million as a result of the cut to this research program.
Will the minister restore funding for health care research which, for example, would study the methods of encouraging the elderly to get vaccinated against the flu?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that the budget for the Medical Research Council of Canada has increased by 9 per cent in this last fiscal year, bringing it up to $216 million.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Danis: Second, as I said a minute ago, when this House passed Bill C-22 thereby making available $100 million to the provinces for medicine research, his political party blocked it in the other place. So we are doing something about research. The Official Opposition is not.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning all the hon. members in this House. Those of us who truly care for our heritage are concerned, and rightly so, by the prospect, as reported in the press, of an underground parking and mall being built in front of the Parliament.
First, Mr. Speaker, the officials in Public Works may have had serious plans that the minister knew about, but the opposition members certainly knew nothing and were never consulted.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the issue concerning all the hon. members is that we have been portrayed in the press as-

-butchers of historical sites. I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this caricature of the members of Parliament, indicating that we were in favour of such a plan, is totally ridiculous. Mr. Speaker,
October 9, 1990

as it is the responsibility of the Board of Internal Economy, it would be in the interests of this House and all members that you make a statement on this matter as soon as possible.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member been paying attention during Question Period, he would have heard the minister responsible say that in fact he does not like the idea, does not support the idea, it is an idea somebody else raised.
The point of privilege was undoubtedly heard by the hon. member's constituents and I am sure they will applaud him for raising it, but it was totally unnecessary.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre. I am not persuaded that the matter is a point of privilege, but the hon. member has, I think, made a point and I am sure that there are other ways to deal with it.
The hon. member for Ottawa West.


QUESTION PERIOD
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege arising out of Question Period on October 4 last, and the notice I gave you at that time that I intended to rise on this point of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, on that day three different comments by government members unfairly imputed motives to me and accused me of suggesting impropriety on the part of senior public servants and starting a rumour regarding a public servant who had no right and no forum in which to defend himself.
I deny categorically the motives imputed to me. I have nothing but the highest respect for the integrity of those who serve the Canadian public. Tb say otherwise is to undermine my credibility and my ability as opposition critic for Public Service employment to represent in this House the interests of Public Service employees, many of whom are also constituents whom it is my duty to represent.
Privilege
Mr. Speaker, if anything, the question was prevented from being put, and I think your own comments in Hansard make it clear, whereas the comments from the Prime Minister, the House leader and from the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley may have suggested that I was suggesting something other.
I think your own words, Mr. Speaker, make it clear that there was some question as to whether I was leading in an improper direction. However, the question I was prevented from putting would have made it absolutely clear that my intention was to ensure the ongoing integrity of the Public Service by questioning why the Public Service Commission has been allowed to become non-functional and effectively defunct. That is effective today.
It is clear that government members-and I will be happy to amplify on this in detail-are attempting to construct an atmosphere, perhaps to filter perception by inferring motives, as was done three times on that day.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Marlene Catterall: Rather than the words being spoken, it is the interpretation being put on them that is guiding what members are hearing in this House. Such attempts to colour the perception of the public and other members are not infrequent, and I question whether they are accidental.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my right to speak freely in this House, to represent the constituents that I am here to represent and to have my credibility with those constituents based on what I say, not what other people have imputed to what I have said, was undermined by what happened in the House on October 4.
I am quite prepared to amplify. I want to make simply one more point. A comment was made in this House following Question Period by the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley that very clearly said that I had started a rumour regarding a public servant who had no right to defend himself. That member was allowed to make and to complete that comment not on a point of order, not on a point of privilege, but simply as a comment.


An hon. member:: It is on the record.

Privilege


An hon. member:: It is in Hansard.


Marlene Catterall: Subsequent to that I was not able to complete my point of privilege so that I could challenge that statement and so that in fact I could challenge the statement of the Prime Minister that I had suggested impropriety on the part of a senior public servant.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you have had the opportunity to review Hansard. I ask you to consider whether both the Prime Minister and the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley might be asked, as you have done on other occasions when imputations of motive were made against members and when their credibility was under attack, to consider whether they might want to clarify the statements they made at that time; whether those were appropriate comments to have been made under the circumstances; and whether my having been denied the opportunity to ask a second perfectly proper question may not have been influenced by the comments made by the members in the House-


Mr. Speaker:: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The hon. member has been given a lot of leeway. She rises on a point of privilege. The point is whether or not motives have been imputed. It puts the Chair in a very great deal of difficulty if she is now suggesting that the Chair's conduct was in any way affected by anything that was said. I think the hon. member would want to leave that alone. I have listened very carefully to what she had to say. The hon. House leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure we need to deal with this at great length because the question which gave rise to the concerns of the hon. member for Ottawa West was her question on October 4, where, quoting from Hansard at page 13803, she said:
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The very day Mr. Peter Lush resigned his patronage appointment as chairman of the Hamilton Harbour Commission because of information revealed in this Chamber, and before the law firm to conduct the investigation in the whole affairs was even named, Mr. Glen Shortliffe was moved out of his position as deputy minister of transport and into the Privy Council Office.
That leaves in my mind the implication that somehow this move by Mr. Shortliffe was related to a desire that the facts about the Hamilton Harbour Commission not
be brought to line. That is the clear implication from this, to which the-


Mr. Speaker:: The House has listened very patiently to the hon. member for Ottawa West in putting her point of privilege. I think that the House also ought to listen to the reply.


Harvie Andre: -to which the Prime Minister replied that in fact the move of Mr. Shortliffe to associate secretary of the Privy Council Office was on the advice of the secretary of the Privy Council, Mr. Tellier, and that it was a part of the normal movement, that Mr. Shortliffe in fact was in essence being promoted, brought back to the centre because of the talents and abilities he showed.
As the hon. member knows, this is not a Public Service Commission appointment. It is an order in council appointment. Deputy ministers are employed at pleasure, if you will, and are appointed by the Governor in Council. That is what the Prime Minister said: Please do not implicate Mr. Shortliffe in terms of some sort of alleged cover-up or hinted at cover-up, that in fact he is an outstanding public servant who has been moved into this new position of authority and that it is simply wrong and a discredit to him to suggest that somehow this movement is related to the issue of what happened at the Hamilton Harbour Commission. It was in that regard, to protect Mr. Shortliffe's reputation, to see that in no way, shape or form was his change of position within the government in any way related to an alleged or hinted or suggested cover-up, so that the facts would not be known and so on. It was in reaction to that.
If the hon. member is now saying that in no way was she suggesting that Mr. Shortliffe's move had anything to do with the Harbour Commission and it was unfortunate that those two paragraphs of her question happened to come one after another and they were two different subjects, well then she should merely stand up and say that. I am sure that everybody on this side will say: "Fine, we agree with that. We agree that there is no effort to disguise the facts, cover up any facts in terms of the Hamilton Harbour Commission". There is also no effort to move any public servant because of that. Mr. Shortliffe is still a member of the Public Service of Canada serving in a very high position and the Prime Minister was doing nothing more than to make sure that there
October 9, 1990

was no alleged suggestion or hint allowed to remain out there that somehow this is related to a cover-up.
That is what this is all about. The hon. member should not take offence at that defence of the Public Service by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West in brief reply.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. House leader has simply repeated the error made. At the time I asked the question in the House, I had no knowledge that anybody had recommended the appointment. If he reads Hansard on page 13804, he will discover that it was not the propriety of Mr. Shortliffe's actions that the Prime Minister suggested I was impugning but the propriety of the Clerk of the Privy Council. I had no knowledge as to who might have recommended an appointment or if somebody had, only that the Prime Minister made an appointment and, therefore, I was certainly not imputing any motives to anyone. I was simply commenting on an appointment by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa West has raised for the second time a matter which has given her a great deal of difficulty. I should make it very clear that the other day I did interrupt her on a question, and there is always difficulty when the Chair interrupts because sometimes the Chair can interrupt too soon. However, I suggested to the hon. member that perhaps she would want to discuss the matter with me, that she certainly would want to look at the "blues" and that her right to carry on her question of privilege would remain.
I confirmed that with the hon. member this morning. She has raised the question. I have the point and, having listened to argument on both sides, I will return to the House when it is appropriate to do so. I thank both hon. members.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Earlier today when you asked me if I had the question of privilege, I was not aware it was going to be raised today. I thought it might be tomorrow.
It is a most important matter of privilege. It is a practice-
Privilege


Mr. Speaker:: I want to assure the hon. member that I would not want to delay a question of privilege unless the hon. member wished it delayed. I was put in a state of confusion. However, the hon. member is now rising on a question of privilege.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a practice that has come to light from a Crown corporation. It is a practice which, if continued or expanded either to other Crown agencies or to other areas of government, would lead to the erosion of both the independence and the rights of individual members and of the House.
In particular, I refer to a letter that I received dated September 14 from Government Affairs of Canadian National Railways. It is a letter I believe most, if not all, other members of the House received. It opens by saying:
Dear Mr. Fulton:
It has come to CN's attention that some of our pensioners have
begun a letter writing campaign to members of parliament regarding
the indexing of pensions.
Then it says:
For your easy reference, I have enclosed a draft-
It also ends the draft by saying that the letter is available on a five and a half inch floppy disk for users of Word Perfect.
The letter needs to be put, just in terms of a few sentences, on the record. I think you will see quite quickly, Mr. Speaker, that the practice which has been undertaken by CN-I think perhaps meaning well in hoping to cut down in the work of members of the House-in fact does something quite different in that it could lead the offices of some members to send back an answer that is both erroneous and contains false information to CN pensioners across this country.
It starts by saying: "Dear xxx so that you can type in the name of the person who has written to you from your constituency. Then it says:
-your pension is guaranteed for life. The CN pension plan also has
a very fair spousal benefit, which is also guaranteed.
It carries on at some length and concludes by saying:
It appears that CN pensioners are being treated fairly by all
concerned. I hope this letter helps clarify matters for you.

Privilege
The concern that I have is: first, without me soliciting any information whatsoever from CN, it has on its own decided that because there may be some CN pensioners somewhere in Canada writing letters to MPs, it will draft a letter on its own from a corporate perspective, put it on a five and a half inch floppy disk and make it available to 295 members of Parliament to respond to their constituents with information that is neither correct nor in any way appropriate to responding to the individual concerns of the constituents who are writing.
It is important for the record. I have been involved, perhaps because of the nature of my constituency, in hundreds of CN pension cases over the years. In almost every case, cases that resulted from deliberate actions taken by CN to withhold or to deal inappropriately with-


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member has made his point. He has received a letter which apparently all hon. members have received from the Canadian National suggesting a reply that might be sent to CN pensioners.
The hon. member says that this could or might create a situation in which I take it the hon. member's or other hon. members' privileges might be affected.
First of all, I point out that wherever this came from it does not seem, nor is it alleged by the hon. member, to have come from any government department or from a minister of the Crown. While it may very well be a complaint, I think all of us at times have received recommendations from one group or another to write letters to the government or to other members of Parliament with respect to certain matters of concern to whomever brought the matter to our attention.
It may well be that in some circumstances offence may be taken to it. There may be very well a question of debate as to whether a Crown corporation ought or ought not to be doing this, or whether or not it is a matter for a minister of the Crown to intervene in, but I think that that is a matter primarily for Question Period and a matter for debate.
I think I have to say that under the circumstances I cannot find that it is a question of privilege.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege and also on a point of order, in the sense that as of today this House, which usually relies on the Public Service Commission of Canada for its duties in protecting the merit principle, has to put up with a situation where the commission in itself does not exist any more. In other words, the commission has one commissioner only, not the three required by law, and therefore cannot function. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to think of the importance of this situation.
The Public Service Commission tables a report annually in this House, answers to Parliament and, as such, protects the merit principle and protects Public Service employees that we all have in our riding. As of today, there is only one commissioner. The law requires a quorum of two, at least, to hear appeals, to hear grievances, and to make appointments to senior levels.
This House has to take notice that we are at this time without a commission and therefore paralysed in so far as protecting the rights of individuals across this land who work for us as government employees and who deserve better than negligence. Untold disorder will occur when there is no order in the Public Service Commission at this time.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised a matter which is obviously of great interest to this House. However, I would ask the hon. member or other hon. members, if it is to be raised further, to bring it up at another time.
Depending on the answer that is or is not received, it may be appropriate to bring it back to the Chair, but I just say to hon. members the matter has been raised; there it is. I am sure it is a matter which is not unknown to other hon. members or necessarily being taken lightly, but it is not appropriate to proceed as a question of privilege or a point of order. However, there certainly may be other ways to pursue it.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, can I ask for some clarification on that. If the commission reports to Parliament and if it is directly accountable to Parliament-and I have been told several times in the House that the minister who tables the report on behalf of the commission is not answerable to Parliament for
October 9, 1990

the commission and that only the commission is answerable to Parliament-may I ask what your role as Speaker then is in ensuring that accountability to Parliament is maintained. At the moment that accountability does not exist. Not only is the chair vacant, a second position has been vacant for over a year. The chair is also the chief executive officer. This means that the commission now has no chief executive officer either.


Mr. Speaker:: I will check carefully the request of the hon. member. I think there may be some misunderstanding as to how the body of which she speaks reports. If there is any way in which it is the responsibility of the Chair, I shall report back to the hon. member and to the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLaren (p. 13900).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House recessed fqr the luncheon break, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard. He has nine minutes remaining in debate, plus ten minutes for questions and comments.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, when one o'clock was called, I had just finished reading from an international report which basically said that the reason Canada is not pursuing sustainable development is simply that this government lacks the requisite national will.
The question is: How can this government be so short-sighted? Does this government not realize that sustainable development applies to every field of economic activity?
In the case of agriculture, the Canadian farmer is struggling. Five major droughts in the prairies in the 1980s have certainly brought home the effects of climate change. The contamination of groundwater, the result of fertilizers and pesticides, is but the tip of the iceberg as are indeed the concerns about food safety. It is clear that
Supply
this nation needs new arrangements to secure a food system that is both economically and environmentally viable.
Thrning to forestry, properly managed forests will bring together two seemingly irreconcilable objectives, economic and environmental. On the one hand is the preservation of the basic resource for our largest export industry. On the other are the benefits of biological diversity and wildlife habitat. An improperly managed forest simply means that we in this nation will face a race to see who will suffer most: the next generation's jobs or the next generation's ecosystem.
The point is that you simply cannot have a strong economy if you do not make protection of the environment your number one priority. If there is any doubt about this, then I would simply ask the members present to look around and take a look at what we and our international partners and competitors have done with the fishing industry.
The issue is: wherein lies the problem? The problem lies with this government. This government believes that sustainable development is simply a cost as opposed to the prevention of a cost before it occurs. This government indeed looks upon sustainable development only as a cost and fails to understand the tremendous opportunities that are involved.
I would suggest to members on the other side of the House that they take a look at West Germany and ask themselves why it is that West Germany is both the environmental leader of Europe as well as the economic leader of Europe. It is no coincidence. One follows the other.
When will this government begin to understand the demands, the needs, and the opportunities of the 1990s? There are many solutions to the degradation of the environment, all of which have positive implications for the economy.
Is it a coincidence that Japan has cut its consumption per unit produced of fuel by 30 per cent? Is it a coincidence that Japan has cut its material usage by over 43 per cent? Japan does not necessarily have the best reputation, as I discussed earlier this morning, in the world in terms of environmental matters; but in terms of the development of its own economy the Japanese have understood the application of sustainable development to industrial development. It is in the process of winning

Supply
the battle, while we under this sterile government are losing the battle.
Turning to new technologies, 20 per cent of the world is in the process of polluting it for the other 80 per cent. Over the course of the next 30 years as the Third World or the developing world begins to improve its standard of living, it too, if it follows our lead, will begin to pollute. As the population of the world doubles from five billion to ten billion, the problems without the development of new technologies will simply become unbearable.
This is an enormous opportunity for a country like Canada to take the lead, to build a whole new industrial base, not on the provision of arms as others have done but on the creation of new technologies to win the ultimate battle, that is the battle for the preservation of this earth.

The environment does not bear only a social cost. It also provides a magnificent opportunity to lay a new industrial base, as the United States did in 1910 with the automotive industry and both the States and Japan did between 1945 and 1950 with computer technology. We could take the lead in industrial development. The time is right. Now we need to be imaginative. We need initiative.

In conclusion, I began by talking about the economy. I began talking about some of our problems. I now end having talked about sustainable development and the tremendous opportunities that it provides. Let us never forget that the protection of the environment is a moral value. It needs no economic support. Preservation of this planet is the essence of what humanity must fight for over the next 25 years. Let us also realize that sustainable development provides us with the opportunity in regard to our economic dilemma. It gives this country the chance to lay a whole new industrial base and pick up where we have often lost. It gives this country the opportunity to show the moral leadership that the world so requires. It gives this country the opportunity to show the kind of moral leadership that national unity requires if, indeed, Canadians are going to believe in something beyond themselves.
The issue is, are we as a nation up to the challenge? I believe we are. We believe in this planet. The time has now come to take the lead in preserving it.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully, as did all members of this House, to what the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard had to say about the opposition motion, and I intend to deal right away with the focus of the hon. member's comments: the importance of sustainable development policies for the future of our environment and our ecology.
The hon. member for LaSalle-Emard is right when he refers to the importance of protecting our forests and our environment and of having development policies that will protect our environment in the future. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the hon. member when he criticizes the government's so-called failure to act. There are limits to what can be- I thought the hon. member made an excellent speech and a very eloquent one. However, I do not agree when he says the government has a miserable reputation in this area.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member described this government's lack of leadership with respect to sustainable development and, at the same time, expressed himself in critical terms regarding Bill C-78, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. And why, Mr. Speaker? Because the preamble does not contain the words "sustainable development". What does the preamble contain? It says this:
"WHEREAS the Government of Canada seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between economic development and the preservation and enhancement of environmental quality-"
Mr. Speaker, what is this supposed to be, if not a definition of a procedure for achieving sustainable development! It is even better than the words "sustainable development". It goes even further. A procedure is defined for achieving sustainable development. A little further on in the preamble, it says this:
October 9, 1990

"-the degradation of environmental quality at the same time ensuring that economic development is compatible with the high value Canadians place on environmental quality."
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to wax eloquent and say that-


Maurice Tremblay: It's an old speech.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-78 has been tabled in the House to replace an old order in council issued at the end of 1984 by the former Liberal government because at the time anything to do with the environment was dealt with not through serious legislation, but by way of last-minute orders in council when the government knew it was going to be turfed out. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard should make these fine speeches before his leader Jean Chretien who, during over 20 years, let Consolidated Bathurst management pollute one of the Mauricie's most beautiful river, the St. Maurice river, without ever denouncing them. He was rewarded with a seat on the Consolidated Bathurst board of directors shortly after leaving politics.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard is quite simple. He claims that Bill C-78 shows how very little the government cares about sustainable development. The Liberals have yet to come up with an alternative to the GST bill, so what kind of proposition does the hon. member have in mind to improve Bill C-78?


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for his comment. If he agrees so much with me, I wonder what he is doing on that side. You are welcome to join us because we are the only party really willing to defend "green" concepts in this world.
What changes, did you ask? For one thing, I would not be afraid to mention sustainable development in Bill C-78. You are right, the preamble does touch on many things. But the question is: why is it not mentioned? Why be so afraid to use the word and its definition which is now internationally recognized?
You also asked for a few examples of improvements. First, I would mention sustainable developmentt in the preamble. Second, when we look at section 4, which states the purposes of the bill, we clearly see that the government has no intention to implement sustainable
Supply
development. It reads: "The purposes of this Act are to ensure that the environmental effects of projects receive careful consideration before responsible authorities take actions-, to encourage responsible authorities-, and to ensure that-" That is all jargon. No concrete purpose is stated and sustainable development is not mentioned, even among the purposes of the bill.
Come to think of it, what justification could there be for Bill C-78 besides implementing sustainable development? I believe that the fact that sustainable development is not mentioned in this document shows again how backward this government is with regard to the evolution of the Canadian policy.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to take part in this debate today because I think that when we look at it, 1990 will go down in history as a major turning point in world history.
The scope and range of the developments of the past 12 months really rival anything we have seen since the Second World War. We are on the verge of a new era that may seem threatening to some people, but I like to look on it as offering magnificent opportunities for countries and firms prepared to master the challenges we now face.
We in this government intend to meet those challenges not by being negative, but by building a strong co-operative partnership between government, the private sector, and provincial governments to exploit the competitive opportunities of globalization.
Let me review how quickly things have changed in the past year. I guess the most significant one is the total collapse of the U.S.S.R. They have a bankrupt ideology, ethnic tensions. The ideology of state ownership was obviously not working so something had to be done. Now we see the logic of the market principles.
This magnitude of change has been underlined with the destruction of the Berlin wall and the very real rush for eastern European countries to move in and try to set up democratic governments similar to ones we see in the western world. The unification of Germany took place just a few days ago. In the other end of the world we see

Supply
the reversal of 40 years of apartheid in South Africa. We admire the courage of the people in Latin America who are now throwing off the wasted governments of dictatorship and corruption and are pushing for democracy and freer markets. Of course, we see Mexico moving in this direction to a freer market economy.
Across the Pacific we see Japan and the four tigers, and now the emerging cubs of Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia continue to outpace growth everywhere in the world. Inter-regional investments are leaping the national frontiers and moving into these other countries.
Finally, the economies of Europe have discovered with renewed fervour the promise of co-operation and open borders. The second half of the 1980s marked a renaissance in the European ideal leading to the stirring prospect of a strong and united European market for close to half a billion people in the next few years-half a billion people, a strong market. A free market-a free movement in those areas.
It is exciting both politically and economically. It is an exciting time for everyone interested in building on Canadian strengths through new or expanded trade investment and technology ties.
Mr. Speaker, this is not a time for wringing hands and deploring the lost opportunities of the 1960s, 1970s and the 1980s, but a time to build on the promise and success of what we initiated in the 1980s.
We are a government that is acutely aware that we must look outward and forward, rather than inward and backward. Our policies must respond to these challenges and seize the opportunities because failure to grasp these emerging opportunities for Canada in the global economy in this decade of the 1990s would doom Canada to second class citizenship status. This government will not make that mistake.
We know these global forces and developments mean that Canada will face increased competitiveness as well as tremendous opportunities in years to come. This government will elaborate an ever more sophisticated and complex approach to our trade and industrial policies and to our trade relations. We will build on the achievement of the past six years. We will adapt our
policies to meet the constant challenges posed by rapid global developments.
We know the challenges we have to be aware of-continued globalization of industries through the investment decisions of multinational enterprises. These multinational enterprises now produce and sell their products wherever they can reap the greatest advantage.
We accept the increasing importance of the investment and service sectors complementing the more traditional resources and manufacturing sectors. We are aware of the increasing risk, largely due to the United States Congressional protectionism and heavy handedness, of a shift to unilateralism, with key decisions of trading issues being reached by a bilateral basis along the Washington-Tokyo and the Washington-Brussels axis, with the interests of smaller players like Canada, sometimes ignored and forgotten.
We recognize that the Gulf crisis has hastened development of a potential third global energy crunch which, if not well managed, will undercut new opportunities. We realize that the greater integration of eastern Europe into the global economy will place great strains on available capital-capital, of course, is the engine of growth-and increase political pressure for more debt relief.
We know that debt relief also represents an awesome challenge for both developing and developed countries. The total debt load of developing countries now surpasses $1.3 trillion, with little immediate prospect that the trend can be reversed.
Many LDCs remain mired in slow growth, poor trade prospects and continued corruption. We know that. We recognize the challenge that this presents for this government.
On a brighter note, however, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased by the new market orientation of many Latin American economies. It is an encouraging sign that there remains potential for growth in the development world.
Finally, we are alert to the emergencies of the environment as an economic and trade related issue because our fragile environment calls for responsible trade and industrial policies. At the same time, we will need to be wary of green protectionism, the abuse of environmental principles with restrictions that meet narrow protectionist ends rather than environmental protection which we
October 9, 1990

see starting to emerge and restrictions aimed at responsible forestry practices where Canada can be particularly vulnerable. We have to be careful of those things.
The rapid pace of change that we have seen makes everyone a little uneasy. It makes Canadian citizens a little uneasy. They are fraught with risk, we know that. I prefer to see it as filled with promise. The challenge is to respond constructively and thus exploit the opportunities for growth.
It is too easy for the critic opposite to throw up assertions that we need his constructive analysis of these changes and a co-operative approach to mastering them. That is what we need, we need co-operation.
The conclusions we draw and the policies we erect are critical to Canada's ability to grow in this new interdependent, highly competitive world. The world is shrinking. The last time that the world faced such momentous change was more than four decades ago. The result was a bold new global system to create order out of the chaos of 15 years of depression and the Second World War.
Based upon an unselfish United States commitment to liberalism and multilateralism, institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the General Agreement on Thriffs and Trade, known as the GATT, and the United Nations brought about the greatest increase in economic and political well-being in the history of the world. If we can keep the risk in check, 1990 offers potential to unleash another round of similarly creative forces, forces that achieved so much in the 25 years after 1945.
Canadians will have to accept the globalization of the economy and the pressures of market realities cannot be ignored. At best their impact can be delayed for only a short period.
No government can long develop its trade policy or its domestic economic agenda in isolation from the realities of the global marketplace. This is what previous Liberal governments did in the sixties and the seventies. They followed a policy that sought to isolate Canadians from the international economy. The result of course was the decline in our competitiveness.
This government is determined not to repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. For a middle power like Canada, our commitment to the principles of reciprocity, non-discrimination, and transparency cannot be over
Supply
emphasized. It means that a stable, open, non-discriminatory, global economic system must remain our number one goal as we adapt to a rapidly globalizing economy. It means that we must recognize that liberalized trade is a two-way street. Canadians not only benefit from open, secure access to foreign markets, but Canadians also benefit from foreign competition in their own market.
The challenge of competitiveness is the best medicine for any business. One only has to ask Northern Telecom, Alcan, Spar Aerospace, Lavalin, or any of the hundreds of successful Canadian companies which have found that meeting the competition at home means beating the competition abroad.
The government is acutely aware of the importance of creating a spirit of entrepreneurship. We understand the critical role of international trade to Canadians. Indeed, October is export month and our ad campaign is aimed at making Canadians more aware of the importance of our international trade effort to their jobs, to their incomes, and to their economic well-being. The ads are in a language even the opposition should understand. We are responding to the competitive challenge at home and abroad with the following priorities. I will outline them briefly.
We will pursue and enhance access to our major market, the United States, which we gained through the free trade agreement and through the General Agreement on Thrifts and Trade.
We will continue to push strongly and constructively for a substantive and large conclusion to the multilateral trade negotiations in Geneva.
We will continue to explore with our European trading partners how we will jointly build the right kind of instruments to ensure that Canadian entrepreneurs will be able to reap the benefits of the European Renaissance symbolized by 1992.
We are prepared to build on our initiatives towards Latin America, going beyond our OAS membership and a free trade agreement with Mexico, and build new partnerships throughout Latin America.
Finally, we will continue to pursue policies and partnerships that will ensure that Canada will be a major player in the Asia/Pacific region.

October 9, 1990
Supply
We are working on these priorities with much intensity through the Departments of External Affairs and International Trade.
There are challenges that exist when these things happen and we know what the challenges are. The challenge of the 1990s is to get our house in order. Today's debate places the spotlight on this critical issue. I thank the opposition for creating this opportunity. I deplore, however, their negativism. We, in Canada, must speak with one voice, a voice that tells the world that Canadians are confident about their future. We cannot continually allow the negative comments that come forward strictly for the political agenda to mar the opportunities that face us in the future.
More than ever, we must attain the national agenda that we have before us. It is critical to the achievement of our international goals.
Since 1984, the government has sought sustained, non-inflationary economic growth. We have pursued a productive employment strategy, creating more than one million jobs. In the past year alone, our policies have resulted in a net increase of over 150,000 jobs.
I know you are signalling me about my time, Mr. Speaker. I would like to cariy on because there is much more to say. I would like to address for a moment the Economic Council of Canada.
In the Economic Council of Canada report, one always hears very isolated facts. I have heard it from the opposition. The Economic Council of Canada states clearly that controlling inflation "is a policy objective that benefits Canadians in all walks of life-In a sense, inflation control is a public good, and this means that all Canadians should contribute to the avoidance of unnecessary pressures on prices and costs."
That observation succinctly summarizes a critical element of the policy thrust of the government. The fact is, through 1989 and into this year, underlying inflationary pressures were significant. These pressures were taking their deadly aim on costs, on workers whose jobs would be lost when their products were priced out of markets, and on all Canadians who depend on fixed incomes.
For example, during the second quarter, total unit labour costs-a critical measure of a country's competitiveness-were growing at an annual rate of 6.6 per cent
per annum. That is not only a rate higher than in 1989, but half again higher than in the U.S.
As well, through the first quarter, borrowing both by consumers and business-another measure of inflationary pressure-continued to advance at a rate reflecting an overheated economy. In April, consumer credit was up 12.4 per cent over the same period in 1989, more than double the American rate. Mortgage credit was up 17.1 per cent, a growth about two and a half times faster than nominal income growth in Canada.
The government has acted on its obligation to use the levers available to ensure that these dangerous and destructive forces were not allowed to proceed unchecked. In such an environment, as Minister Wilson has said: "Interest rates had to rise. With the strong inflationary pressures and demand for credit already present in the economy, it would have been irresponsible to reduce the cost of credit." This would only have encouraged further inflationary demands that would have been financed by a greater accumulation of corporate and personal debt. The inevitable result would have been explosive rounds of wage and price increases leading to an even more pronounced and longer-lasting slowdown that we currently face. We saw that in the early 1980s when inflation rose to double-digit rates. Then we had double-digit unemployment and interest rates rose to 22 per cent or 23 per cent.
This is not a might-happen scenario I have outlined, it is what did happen in the late 1970s, as inflation and interest rates soared. The consequence, as we all should remember, was the 1981-82 period with double-digit unemployment.
This is not the prospect Canadians face today, fortunately. Yes, we are going through a period that does involve pain and hardship. The government's policies, which we have been pursuing since the start of our mandate six years ago, have positioned us so that Canadians will not suffer the truly drastic and destructive economic conditions of the start of this decade. We are now in a position to weather the current storm and emerge stronger and more prosperous. This is surely what all Canadians, including my hon. friends in opposition, desire.
There are a number of other areas in which the council report and the direction of government policy are consistent. The council, for example, supports the direction of the government's unemployment insurance reforms,

away from income support and toward job retraining. Similarly, the council supports the kind of decentralized approach to regional development that the government has adopted through bodies such as ACOA.
I want to thank you very much for allowing me to participate. I would be happy to answer any questions which might come from the opposition.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's intervention and what he said about sustainable development.
I wonder whether the hon. member would like to comment about sustainable development as practised by his government in the field of energy and natural resources? Would he comment about the fact that Canada has so far failed to ratify the Law of the Sea at the United Nations? That is a very important piece of legislation that would protect resources in the oceans.
Would he comment about the fact that over the last four years the Government of Canada has virtually eliminated energy research in the field of renewable sources of energy? Would he comment about the fact that over the last four years the Government of Canada has increased its dependence on fossil fuels, thus exacerbating for a long time to come the problem of climate warming because, as we all know, the consumption of fossil fuels leads to the production of greenhouse gases?
Would the hon. member comment about whether he is aware of the fact that the government is not spending one penny in the promotion of energy efficiency, which also makes good economic sense? Nevertheless, it is not being promoted in the budget of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Therefore, on that front, we have nothing positive to say, as he urged in his speech, to show a united front to the world? How can we if we have nothing to report that is positive in relation to the reduction of our dependence on fossil fuels, in promoting energy efficiency, and finally, in promoting alternative sources of energy? Canada has a tremendous endowment for a renewable source of energy, particularly in biomass. For that also we have no message to give to the rest of the world because the budgetary restrictions and cuts have eliminated these types of initiatives on the
Supply
part of his government. Would the hon. member care to comment?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we faced when we took office in 1984 was program spending that was increasing at approximately 14 per cent year after year after year.
I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. friend that the hon. Minister for International Trade, who was at that time Minister of Finance in the short lived government, brought in a budget, a budget in which he identified very clearly the problems that we would be going to be facing if we did not come to grips with the debt and a deficit that presently existed. He then put forward in his budget that he was going to increase the price of gasoline by 18 cents a gallon across the country.
We all know the result of that budget. We all know that it was defeated in this House of Commons irresponsibly by the Liberals and the NDP. In 1980 they went across the country and decried the budget of the hon. Minister for International Trade that was going to attack the deficit and the debt directly.
What I am suggesting to my hon. friend is that because of the economic situation that this country faced in 1984 when we as a government got a look at the books and saw the drastic position we were in, it was impossible for us to continue on with the programs. We had to cut program spending, which we were able to do, and we brought program spending down to 3.5 per cent. It was an unprecedented turnaround in the economy of this country, one that we had to do. You cannot do the kinds of things that that member over there is crying out to do when you have not got the money to pay the debts and pay for the programs of this country.
In 1984, we were actually borrowing $16 billion to live. We were not borrowing it just to pay the interest on the accumulated debt. We were borrowing $16 billion to pay old age security, to pay our health care programs. We were borrowing from foreign nations to live in this country because of the wild, irresponsible spending of the Liberal government between 1980 and 1984, and even previous to that.
Mr. Speaker, that member stands up and says we are not spending enough money on all of these programs. We are not deserting those areas. We are still doing the

Supply
research, but we are doing it in a more reasonable way and one that we can afford. We cannot afford the unreasonable, irresponsible kind of spending that went on with the Liberal government that brought us into this mess that we are in today.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, this morning I had indicated to you that I had spent much of the last five days travelling throughout my constituency, talking to farmers about the plight on the western prairies.
Firsthand I saw the piles of grain being dumped in yards throughout the entire western prairie countryside that I was visiting. In my constituency alone, I am sure there is not a single farmyard that does not have a pile of grain sitting in it because the system is not moving. The grain system is not moving the grain from the elevators to the ports for whatever export markets there might be.
That aside, Mr. Speaker, a lot of the farm people that I have been talking to have been telling me that in addition to higher grain prices, they need the interest-free cash advance. If their grain is not moving because the system cannot move it, the only way they can gain assistance is through loans from the banks. In fact, all of the national farm groups have called for the reinstatement of the interest-free cash advance.
My colleague from Athabasca drives through a lot of farm country to get to his home every weekend when he goes to visit his constituents. He must realize the difficulty that the farm population has throughout western Canada.
He talked at some length in his speech about government policy and the net increase in jobs that government policy has created. I tend to look at the net decrease in farm jobs that government policy has created.
I am convinced that government policy, removing the interest-free cash advance, is going to further increase the number of job losses on the farm and off the farm in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.
Earlier today during Statements by Members, the colleague of the hon. member for Athabasca, the hon. member for Wild Rose, called for the reinstatement of the interest-free cash advance. I am wondering what the position of the member for Athabasca is on the interestfree cash advance. Does he support reinstatement of the same?


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, what a short memory we
have.
This government, with the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister, for the first time in the history of this country was able to bring the number one agenda item to the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Hade. It is being discussed now.
For the first time we are seeing the disruption in the farm community being addressed by working on and reducing the subsidies that the European Common Market and the United States have for the agriculture industry.
Having said that, my hon. friend mentioned that we could not move grain across the country. Certainly, we can move grain across the country, but there are no markets. The markets are dwindling because of the grain trade war that exists between the United States and the European Common Market. We all know that.
The hon. member asked me about support for the farmers in the agricultural community. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that no government in the history of this country since Confederation has been more generous and more supportive to the farming industry in Canada than this one.
Billions of dollars have gone into the agriculture industry, literally billions. The member also stands in this House and condemns the goods and services tax. Does he not recognize that the goods and services tax will put over $.25 billion into the farmers' pockets by the removal of the manufacturers' sales tax.
That member goes around, talks out of one side of his mouth and then the other. The prairie advances and those kinds of things, just watch us. Just watch and see what happens. This government has never deserted the farmer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it seems to me that you should look closely at the watch. There is still one minute left for questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I look veiy close at the watch. I have given him exactly 30 seconds over the time allotted.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should say at the outset that I want to divide my time today in this most important debate between myself and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell because we both have a specific area that we want to touch on.
I rise to speak briefly on the motion presented by my colleague:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to provide
Canadians with policies designed to assure full employment through
international competitiveness and consistent with the principles of
sustainable development.
Indeed, it is a most opportune time to take stock of just where this government is and where it is leading us through the current round of GATT negotiations.
The government seems bent and bound to avoid a debate in this House on these issues, and in fact has been quietly dismantling the support mechanisms of our marketing organizations while negotiating away the legislative base of our dairy organization and poultry marketing agencies that have brought stability to both the dairy and poultry sectors.
This government has been negotiating away the powers that were given by legislation passed in this House by elected members of Parliament. It has conducted secret negotiations behind closed doors in the GATT and in the free trade agreement. The government is undermining the programs that have served this nation well, and which are indeed the envy of the world.
In fact, when the Canadian documents were tabled in Geneva just over a week ago, we knew that they would provide both the measures of support and tariff equivalent calculations. These are suggestions put forward by the U.S.-the aggregate measures of support or the differences between the domestic price and what the world price is-and are identifying the difference as subsidies. The tariff equivalents are a series of tariff reductions that will be phased out over a period of 10 years, whether from 30 per cent down, 3 per cent per year, or from 40 per cent down, 4 per cent per year.
The dairy industry and poultry sectors of Canada should be exempt from these calculations or measures because they clearly do not make any sense for industries
Supply
that operate a planned production system in compliance with Article 11 of the GATT. But the exemption from the GATT was not addressed in the Canadian document. Rather, the Canadian position was that Canada should receive a credit to reduce the aggregate measure of support, but this is not acceptable.
The dairy industry has rejected the calculations of the market price support. The basis for 86 per cent of the aggregate measure of support calculation is simply the difference between Canadian milk prices and world prices. In this situation, world prices are simply U.S. prices, in close proximity to the Canada-U.S. borders. These prices for the aggregate measures of support of $2.2 billion are clearly misleading, and the government should admit this error and apologize to the dairy farmers of Canada.
The only direct subsidy for the dairy industry is $266 million for industrial milk and is designed to keep the consumer price of cheese, yogurt and butter at a low level. This subsidy only represents 12 per cent of the price received by producers for industrial milk and, of course, we have no subsidy on fluid milk. The aggregate measures of support are based on the false premise that production costs are equal in both Canada and the United States.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the dairy farmers of Canada have shown, beyond a doubt, that Canadian input costs are much higher and it is beyond the power of the Canadian dairy farmer to correct these differences. In fact, just this weekend, I gathered prices from a friend and a constituent of six major input costs on a dairy farm. They are shocking. These are differences between the cost of an operation in Middlesex county in Ontario and an operation in St. Clair county in the state of Michigan. Let me just cite those six examples.
First, let me give an example of the interest rates. The difference between the amount of interest, paid over a 10-year period on a $100,000 mortgage, between Ontario and the United States is $14,690, in favour of the American farmer. That is a difference of 22.4 per cent more interest that the Canadian farmer has to pay compared to his American counterpart.
Gasoline costs $1.35 per U.S. gallon and there is a tax rebate sent to the farmer on an annual basis, provided he buys gasoline with a 10 per cent ethanol content to make

October 9, 1990
Supply
sure that he shows concern for the environment because ethanol-based fuels are less polluting. Gasoline, delivered to a farm, in bulk, as of Thursday, was 54.9 cents a litre. The difference between that price and the U.S. price, converted to U.S. gallons, is 61.6 per cent higher in Ontario. When it comes to fertilizers, there is a difference of 20 per cent per tonne in favour of the American farmer, again.
When it comes to daiiy feed, there is a shocking example of a dairy supplement with 40 per cent protein. Again, these are two comparisons, made not more than 70 miles apart, one in Michigan and one in Ontario, and the Canadian price is 73 per cent higher in Ontario than it is in the United States. Machinery parts is another example. A package of six Case International French bottom plough points costs $115 Canadian in Emmett, Michigan. Those six points, made by the same company in Exeter Ontario, are $143.70, a difference of 24 per cent.
When we speak of veterinary supplies, the cost is 200 per cent higher in Canada. I am speaking here specifically of penicillin and streptomycin. In the United States, a 250 cc bottle sells for $19.55 Canadian, while a 100 cc bottle in Ontario costs $24, a cost difference of over 200 per cent.
While our government is working toward increasing the import levels allowed into Canada under the GATT, it is interesting to note that on November 1, 1990, 11 of the major milk producing states in the U.S. will be starting a system of production management or, as they call it, inventory control. Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Minnesota, Iowa, California, Texas, Washington, and Indiana are the states involved. This amounts to about 80 per cent of the milk produced in the United States with 1989 as the base year.
Just as the Canadian government is committing a sin by even talking about dismantling supply management systems, other countries like the United States and Europe are starting to see the necessity for the survival of their food growers. It will soon be impossible for Canadians even to have a TV commercial urging us to buy Canadian to keep our workers working, our producers producing.
Surely those who remember food conditions during the Second World War shudder at the Middle East situation that exists today and realize the absolute necessity for food grown at home.
I ask government members to realize that if they are going to open up up import quotas to give away yet more of our Canadian markets, they have a responsibility to ensure that our farmers are not being ripped off through higher input costs which place them in a non-competitive cost position. I also wish to ask them why they have failed not only to protect our producers but to ensure these GATT negotiations guarantee that any agricultural products entering this nation are produced in countries practising sustainable development.
We have the best marketing system in the world. This misguided government is responding to a few multinational traders in a way that is not acceptable to our own people.
The dairy farmers of Canada cannot accept the government's current position simply to claim a credit in the calculation of aggregate measure of support for supply management programs. Such a position is contradictory to the stated objective of the federal government to maintain a viable supply management program in Canada. Any commitment to place a ceiling on or to reduce the price of milk in Canada would automatically undermine one fundamental principle of supply management or planned production, which is to ensure fair and equitable returns to the producers.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure this afternoon to take part in the debate in support of my colleague's motion of non-confidence which states:
That this House condemn the Government for its failure to provide Canadians with policies designed to assure full employment through international competitiveness and consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the government's economic policy is concerned, the Economic Council released on October 3, as you know, a report in which it condemns this government's policy. Allow me to quote from the report:
"-there is something inherently wrong in the way we tried to solve our economic problems in the past.

Further in the release is the following statement:
The annual review also indicates that new economic problems could arise if the decision-makers count only on high interest rates to fight inflation or if the various governments adopt divergent economic policies.
And further still, it reads:
"Canada's options are few and unappealing", according to the Council.
This government's economic policy is clearly wrong, Mr. Speaker. On the one hand, we have industries closing their doors because the free-trade agreement this government signed had devastating effects in the riding I have the honour to represent.
At the present time, the government is negotiating a new GAIT agreement. Of course, everyone agrees we should be part of GATT and have agreements with this international organization. However, there are some grave concerns with respect to the government's policies in this respect.
Mr. Speaker, the government opposite seems to prefer giving away the store first and negotiating afterwards. I would like to read to you part of a letter I received on September 4, 1990, from the Dairy Farmers of Canada, about the GATT negotiations. It reads as follows:
Deeply concerned, the Dairy Farmers of Canada would like to bring to your attention the enclosed policy statement about the use of aggregate measures of support in GATT negotiations.
Further on:
Applying a ceiling or reducing domestic support by way of an aggregate measure of support might eliminate altogether any resulting benefits. The Dairy Farmers of Canada are vigorously opposed to applying, in GATT negotiations any AMS commitment to programs subject to the provisions of Article XI.
Mr. Speaker, Article XI is the GATT article that allows supply management in Canada.
Despite these concerns and objections, we just heard our colleague, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, himself a former minister of Agriculture, inform the House that the government has in fact submitted a position that includes the aggregate measure of support, and has done so against the will of the Dairy Farmers of Canada.
Supply
The Dairy Farmers of Canada are not the only organization to be concerned about the government's policy on external trade. I have another letter, this one dated September 18, 1990, signed by Mr. Jacques Proulx, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, the UPA.
Mr. Proulx says in his letter, and I will read you parts of it:
The policies developed by Cabinet and the upcoming negotiations in Geneva must not be allowed to undermine the performance of our supply management system by taking away the ability of producers to make a decent living with prices based on the production costs of our most efficient producers.
And further on:
Canada must maintain the structure and scope of farm credit programs, crop insurance and farm income stabilization insurance.


Maurice Tremblay: When is it?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, all this was dated September 18-if the hon. member would bother to listen, he would know-and this was the letter we received, as I said earlier, on that date.
What happened since then? Well, I just told you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the worst scenario expected by farm producers has just come true. In other words, the position of the government opposite is completely at odds with what farm producers wanted.
It does not seem to worry our ministers opposite. However, I can tell you it does worry farmers in my riding, the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, Canadian Dairy Farmers and, I am sure, all Canadians who want a prosperous agricultural industry in this country.

This morning a number of my colleagues and I had the pleasure of meeting with the egg producers of eastern Ontario. Egg producers of some 15 or 20 constituencies in eastern Ontario met first with Liberal members of Parliament this morning. After our meeting they also met with Conservative members of Parliament. I am sure that members in this House who were at the meeting this morning will no doubt be aware of their tremendous concerns as well in regard to the GATT negotiations. They are concerned with the issue that I raised just moments ago, the aggregate measure of support issue. They are also concerned with this whole business of tariffication.

Supply
The tariffication issue basically involved a proposal, heaven forbid, whereby some of our supply management devices would be replaced by a so-called tariff equivalent eventually to be phased out in the future.
The government got us into the Canada-U.S. free trade deal nearly two years ago now- it feels like 25 years, but it has only been less than two years- whereby tariffs are gradually eliminated over 10 years. Let us assume for a moment that this government is so wrongheaded as to proceed with that policy of tariffication and then those tariffs are gradually decreased and eliminated pursuant to the trade deal.
It has an alleged 10-year phaseout even under the trade deal now, but obviously there comes a point at which the tariff fails to protect. Say, for instance, that the tariff established is deemed to be a value of 20 per cent for the purposes of the argument and it is phased out over 10 years, and that the advantage we have over the United States producer is only 5 per cent. Needless to say, after two and a half years the tariff ceases to give any protection at all. At that point when the U.S. product becomes cheaper than the Canadian one, no matter what tariff we have it will not do any good because the U.S. product will already be cheaper.
That is the point which I think needs to be raised and that is what is wrong with this whole business of getting into tariffication as a method of eventually replacing some of the supply management devices we have right now.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's poultry producers, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the Canadian Ihrkey Marketing Agency, the Chicken Marketing Agency and the Chicken Broiler Marketing Agency got together and spelled out six objectives for the GATT negotiations. Here is a brief summary.
The maintenance of GATT Article XI: 2(c), the strengthening and
clarification of its code of interpretation-
With respect to improving the code of interpretation of Article
XI: 2(c):
-a flexible process of notice to GATT)
-a clear definition of goods including those that are controlled in a refrigerated or frozen form-
-a regulation governing a minimum contents of 50 per cent in the case of imports [-] concerning an end to unregulated imports of processed goods-
Thriff support only in the case of non-tariff barriers now illegal or contrary to GATT provisions-
The rejection of a proposition aimed at including programs under Article XI: 2(c)-
The maintenance of a well-established GATT principle that imports must given access proportionally to the market share held during a representative period-
The elimination of government export subsidies on a fair basis, taking into account the significant variations in current levels of support in the countries involved.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the positions set forth by the poultry producers. I told you earlier about the positions of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec and of the Canadian Federation of Dairy Producers. But as usual it seems that the government opposite is not listening to anyone. If you never listen to anyone, Mr. Speaker, sooner or later you find yourself in a tight spot. I have the impression that by the time the next elections roll around-if it is not too late for the Canadian agricultural industry and if we still have farmers left after the devastating policies we get from the other side-the farming community will decide once and for all to get rid of the Conservative government.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments very much. I just wondered if he would comment on the fact that the figures for the aggregate measure of support that were used in the calculations that were tabled by the Government of Canada last week really reflect world prices, including their cost of production, or are they fire sale prices?
I noticed that eggs had used a price from the New York market. I do not know if this was for the last 25 cases at the end of the day that nobody wanted, or if they were really market prices. The milk prices came from selected border points along the Canada-U.S. border. Do you think that really reflects the world prices?
I would also like to ask him if he feels it is proper to go with such a measure of support based on these calculations when there is such a difference in input costs? Does he feel that if our costs and climatic conditions were equal to theirs, where we could pasture cattle for eight to 12 months of the year as they do in some of the American states, would we not be in a better position to compete under the current conditions and proposals as
English]


tabled? What do you think is the long-term future for dairy and poultry in Canada?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague raised that issue. I had actually forgotten to mention that part of it when identifying what those prices have been over the last few years and their actual reflection of world prices, or at least what we normally understand as being world prices.
We are looking at the area of eggs particularly. I will use that example because it was raised this morning at a meeting that we had on prices that were abnormally low for the last three years. We are starting off with that base which is artificially low in the case of egg prices.
We are also using prices that were in effect in a period of the post-U.S. farm bill, if I can call it that. I think the actual date of implementation of the U.S. farm bill of 1985 was January 1, 1986. The U.S. farm bill contributed some $70 billion U.S. in farm subsidies so that the U.S. could recapture what it thought was its so-called rightful share of the world market.
What happened, of course, is that grain prices and the prices of a number of commodities were artificially lowered by the subsidies brought in by the United States. It follows quite reasonably from that that if prices are lowered on feed grain and beef-which has happened as a result of the U.S. farm bill and the so-called whole herd buy-out program-then prices are deflated on many agricultural commodities, not just those two. In the case of feed, obviously that is a product that is fed to the other animals, and in the case of beef it is a competitor to other meat products. When you lower the price of one, you lower the price of the others at the same time.
What we have, in fact, is an artificially low price period. That period of time is then utilized to make this base. Obviously the base is going to be incorrect. It is going to be artificially low.
To make matters worse, we do not have a similar low cost period to compare with in Canada because we did not have many of these exaggerated subsidies that they had south of the border. So we are comparing apples with oranges. To make matters even worse, as my colleague has pointed out, the input costs, property taxes, fuel costs, minimum wages and social benefits are different in Canada than in some of the U.S. states. A
Supply
further dimension to that is we have the climatic differences to deal with.
We may be good producers. We may be smart people in Canada, but we cannot recreate the weather of Louisiana and Georgia no matter how smart we are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The hon. parliamentary secretary for employment and immigration.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the sentiments expressed in the motion we are considering today. I understand the desire to achieve full employment in this country, and I too believe that Canada's future is dependent on our international competitiveness.
Furthermore, I respect the wish to sustain our nation's development. That is why I endorse the principle of investing training dollars in Canadian men and women. I believe it is vital to develop their skills and to provide them with training and retraining opportunities that will allow them to participate fully in our economy. I believe this, because like everyone else in this government, I am determined to build a strong and competitive future for our great country.
I would like to point out that although this motion before the House contains many commendable features, the wording displays a disturbing inability to grasp the complexities of our labour market. The motion boldly claims that our labour market programs are a failure. That is simply a distortion of the facts. This government has always understood the importance of investing in our citizens. Indeed, we are at this very moment making the very types of social investments this motion claims that we are failing to fashion.
These investments come in the form of training and retraining Canadian workers in programs offered through the Canadian Jobs Strategy and our Labour Force Development Strategy. Ib suggest, as this motion does, that we have failed to provide Canadians with appropriate employment opportunities distorts the reality of our training record.
Indeed, we have always maintained that the failure to preserve a competitive work force would have a direct consequence, not only for the individuals who have lost their jobs, but for Canada's international economic prospects as well. That is why we have dedicated more dollars to job training and skill enhancement than any

October 9, 1990
Supply
government in the history of Canada. In fact, we have always acknowledged that the federal government has a significant role to play in achieving our employment objectives.
To help us achieve our employment goals, we have enlisted the resources and the energies of the provinces, the private sector, employers and workers in comprehensive training plans. This creation of partnerships in employment training has been an important part of the over-all job development strategy.
In doing so, we have not simply cobbled together short-term make-work projects, the traditional approach to job-creation. Instead, we have adopted a different long-term strategy, a strategy that addresses unemployment and labour market dislocations with an eye to establishing prolonged stability. This strategy has proven its effectiveness by adapting to local conditions. Indeed, our training efforts are specifically designed to produce permanent jobs that are in demand now and will be in the future.
As I have already stated, I am proud that the federal government has provided consistent leadership in helping Canadians prepare for the labour market of the 1990s, and I am prepared to outline the actions we have taken.
In September 1985 we launched the Canadian Jobs Strategy after intensive consultation with the provinces, business and labour. Since then the strategy has helped over 400,000 people each year receive training they need for tomorrow's jobs. Unlike previous programs, the Canadian Jobs Strategy is decentralized, relying on people who understand local conditions to come up with solutions that best suit their needs. It places an emphasis on co-operation with the private sector at the local level. It offers a mix of tools and programs and has provided a unique and integrated approach to the labour market.
These programs include such programs as skills investment, job entry, job development, skills shortages, community futures and innovations. All of these programs can be creatively mixed and matched to produce the most appropriate training package to meet the specific
local conditions. Best of all, the Canadian Jobs Strategy has an excellent record in helping those who are on the margins of the labour force and are most in need. Because of this, I can assure my colleagues that our work through the Canadian Jobs Strategy will continue.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, we are now moving further and further away from the passive support programs into the skilled development and relevant career training. Bill C-21, the bill now languishing in the Senate, is an important part of this dynamic job development process. This is all a part of our labour force development strategy which updates the Canadian Jobs Strategy for the 1990s.
This strategy builds on the successes of the Canadian Jobs Strategy and places a major emphasis on skill development and employment training. I would like to remind hon. members that the development of the Labour Force Development Strategy did not come about by chance. It did not emerge spontaneously to fill a vacuum. It was all part of a deliberate plan.
In the 1988 election, we promised to provide Canadians with the best possible training programs for our labour market. We made the commitment during that campaign to build a strong, adaptable and effective labour force. The Labour Force Development Strategy is the fulfilment of that pledge. The Labour Force Development Strategy is a comprehensive, wide-ranging formula for improving the functioning of Canada's labour force. It contains measures geared specifically to help communities experiencing economic difficulties.
These measures include strengthening of the Community Futures Program and the Industrial Adjustment Service. Both programs would receive additional financial support under the Labour Force Development Strategy. Community Futures, for example, will see its 1990-91 budget increase by $50 million to some $198 million, while the Industrial Adjustment Service allocation would be doubled from $15 to $30 million.
Because employment difficulties remain in certain regions, we have undertaken a new regional development initiative to meet these problems. The creation of
October 9, 1990

the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Western Diversification Initiative are cases in point.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy and the Labour Force Development Strategy programs have already had a major impact on the labour market. When the Senate finally, passes Bill C-21, I am confident we will see positive results from the initiative as well.
I notice that the motion before us today did not define full employment. This is understandable. Organizations such as the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, who are also keen to see full employment have stated:
It would be impossible to come up with a definition of full
employment with which everyone agrees.
In effect, the advisory council acknowledged that defining full employment could be as complicated as Rubik's cube.
In its recent report on unemployment, the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council suggested that the figure of 4 per cent unemployment might be considered full employment. It is our view that the selection of a single unemployed target, such as 4 per cent, is not feasible, nor is it realistic because Canada remains a country of great regional diversity.
Governments cannot push a button to replenish cod stocks in the Atlantic or force automobile plants to be relocated on the Gaspe coast where unemployment is particularly severe. On top of that, Canada, like the rest of the industrial world, is facing rapid economic changes as international trading and manufacturing patterns evolve in a new and unprecedented global economy.
The choice of a target such as 4 per cent to view as full employment can also be very misleading. In fact, an unemployment rate of 4 per cent or less can even mask great disparities. To illustrate my point I need only mention the state of economies in eastern Europe where so-called full employment was the norm.
But we do not have to go to eastern Europe to point this out. We can compare the unemployment rate in Canada in 1967 with that of 1988 to clarify the situation. The unemployment rate in 1967 was 3.8 per cent, and 1988 was 7.8 per cent. A single comparison of two numbers would suggest that Canadians were better off in
Supply
1967 than in 1988. After all, if we stick to the advisory council's definition of full employment in 1967, we were actually there with an unemployment rate of 3.8 per cent.
However, a closer look at the numbers suggests that not everything was quite so rosy, particularly when we compare for the two years the numbers of people who held full time jobs year round. In 1967, with apparent full employment, 39 per cent of the population worked full time all year. In 1988, a full 5 per cent more-44 per cent of the population-held full time jobs year round.
Let us compare what this has meant in dollars for Canadians, and let us adjust the comparison to 1988 dollars so there will be no confusion. In 1967, the year that meets the Advisory Council's definition of full employment, 14 per cent of the Canadian population had adjusted annual earnings of $25,000 or more. In 1988, we had an unemployment rate of 7.8 per cent and 25 per cent of the youth and adult population who earned that much. Were we closer to full employment in 1967 or 1988?
What I am pointing out is that full employment is much more complicated than this motion suggests. The government believes that increased employment is desirable. We also believe that the federal government has a significant role to play in achieving this goal. We also believe that, to meet this objective, we must enlist the resources and the energies of the provinces, the private sector, employers, and workers.
I believe the government's record on job creation speaks for itself. Since September 1984, almost 1.6 million jobs have been created, which is one of the best job creation records in the industrial world. Almost 85 per cent of these new jobs are full-time jobs employing people year round.
Over the same six year period, the unemployment rate has fallen a solid 3.2 percentage points. It was 11.6 per cent in September, 1984. This year, it is 8.4 per cent. We intend to do even more.
We have recently authorized a new ceiling of $130 million for work-sharing agreements in 1990. That is double the amount of money that we set aside for work-sharing programs under the current unemployment insurance plan. Because of these allocations,

Supply
people who would otherwise have been laid off will continue to work. It will keep them in the labour force and allow them to retain their skills through work sharing. When the economic fortunes in the area return to normal, these workers will be ready to assume full-time positions once again.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, countries around the world are now emphasizing training and re-employment over passive support programs. In Sweden, for example, the government has adopted an activist approach towards labour force adjustment to produce a low rate of unemployment. A full 70 per cent of Sweden's labour market programs are directed to training the unemployed and re-employment assistance. Only 30 per cent is directed towards income support.
In Canada, without Bill C-21, our labour market programs would continue to direct only 25 per cent of their resources toward training and re-employment policies. The giant share of the labour market expenditure pie will continue to be eaten up by passive income support measures. Canada's labour force development strategy mission is therefore a challenging one, but I am confident its measures will set up a ripple effect that will benefit many layers of the economy. Already we can see that our programs are realizing dividends.
The World Economic Forum recently released its world competitiveness scoreboard for 1990. In its report, Canada ranks among the best. We now sit fifth in place, comfortably ahead of Sweden, Finland, Norway, Australia, Britain, and France. The report states that "U.S.A., Japan and Canada have the human resources best suited to competitiveness". The World Economic Forum used such factors as skills, motivation, flexibility, employment, vocational training, educational levels, age, and health to arrive at its conclusion. It ranked Canada third in the world in human resource competitiveness.
These facts show that the government has displayed a willingness to work closely and co-operatively with the provinces and the private sector to achieve better human resource development than ever before. We have exerted less government control over the economy and have encouraged private initiative and promoted confidence in business. Nevertheless, we recognize that employment difficulties remain in certain regions. That is a major motivation behind our doubling of work-sharing funds.
Our Canadian Jobs Strategy has had a lasting and continuing impact on the job market, enabling more Canadians to obtain full employment at a higher level than in 1967 when unemployment was 3.8 per cent. The passage of Bill C-21 will enable even more of our citizens to participate in full employment.
We are tackling unemployment on many fronts. That is why, for instance, we have introduced Bill C-21. It places a new emphasis on training Canadian workers for the jobs of tomorrow. Bill C-21 has been carefully designed to improve the unemployment insurance program. It changes UI from a passive program to an active one. In other words, it places new emphasis on training Canadian workers for the jobs of tomorrow.
As Judith Maxwell, head of the Economic Council of Canada put it, this measure is part of a much-needed "transformation of the UI fund into an 'employment insurance' fund".
The report of the Economic Council of Canada had many things to say. The Council's research indicates that governments must promote adjustment in the labour market by moving from passive income support to active labour market policies with special attention to the employability of the disadvantaged groups like older workers. The Labour Force Development Strategy and Bill C-21 emphasize the active programs the council calls for.
With the Labour Force Development Strategy, $100 million has been set aside to provide training assistance to displaced workers and older workers. The council states on page 51 of its report that "there has to be the provision of improved opportunities for the unemployed to undertake training while still receiving unemployment insurance benefits". It calls for our commitment to increase funding under section 26 as "a step in the right direction". We want section 26 to rise to $350 million.
The council also believes that communities can play an important role in rebuilding regional economies. We want to provide assistance to communities and, with the Labour Force Development Strategy, we propose to increase the Community Futures budget by $50 million.
The council recommends efforts be made to develop a greater consensus among the main social partners on major economic policy decisions. They support the effort to involve business and labour in the Labour Force Development Strategy consultative process, managed for

the government by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre.
I am confident that any objective analysis of the realities of the job market leads to one clear conclusion: To fund passive income maintenance programs at the expense of training and skill enhancement measures is extremely short-sighted. Such a single-minded approach would be disastrous to our competitive and economic health as a nation.
Rather than assume our traditional income maintenance practices are carved in stone, we have chosen to incorporate a more dynamic capability into our programs, capabilities that help prepare our workforce for the realities of the labour market of the 1990s.
Bill C-21, the bill that is now bogged down in the Senate game-playing, is part of our long range Labour Force Development Strategy. This Labour Force Development Strategy dedicates more dollars to job training and skill enhancement than ever before. We are designating $350 million a year for an additional 60,000 UI recipients who previously were not eligible for job training.
We have earmarked $200 million for new training programs for older workers now out of work or in danger of losing their jobs. We plan to quadruple funds for co-operative education. We will set aside another $100 million to direct young people into training programs and apprenticeships that will help them land their all-important first jobs.
I would like to emphasize that Canada's social security system, including our program of assistance to the unemployed, is one of the most generous in the world. With the introduction of this legislation, the Canadian UI program continues to be one of the most generous in the world and we continue to offer benefits far superior to those available in the U.S.
In most U.S. states, people may receive benefits for as few as eight weeks and not more than 30 weeks. Yet, under Bill C-21, unemployed Canadians can receive benefits for up to 50 weeks. In no case, even where the unemployment rate is below 3.5 per cent, as in Toronto, will the length of benefit entitlement be less than 17 weeks. That is more than four months of entitlement and the differences do not end there. In Canada, a person can receive as much as $363 a week in UI benefits,
Supply
whereas, the majority of Americans can receive no more than $150 to $250 a week in benefits. I could continue documenting the contrast between the two systems but I think my point is obvious. Our commitment to unemployment assistance remains unchanged.
Millions of Canadians will continue to rely on the UI safety net to tide them over between jobs, but they need more. It is time to augment that safety net with another strategy that will lead to the development of an adaptable workforce and this means skills training and lots of it. The Labour Force Development Strategy and Bill C-21 will help Canadians rely less on income support and more on developing and maintaining skills that lead to productive, well-paying jobs. These policies will build a foundation for a strong and competitive future for a Canada that works full-time and year-round.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member speaking about the UI legislation, Bill C-21, as it relates to jobs and jobs training. I could not find the direct correlation between his speech and the motion and speech of the hon. member for Etobicoke North.
Having said that, I would like to point out to the hon. member some information contained in a brochure which was put out by the Minister of Finance. The heading states: "A skilled workforce is a major part of the economic plan" and I totally agree with that. The article goes on:
Canada's edge in world markets used to be our rich supply of natural resources. As more and more trade barriers open and competition intensifies, the focus has shifted; services and finished products, not raw materials, now offer the greatest trading opportunities.
This is very true, Mr. Speaker. The article continues:
Between now and the year 2000, nearly 50 percent of all new jobs will require five years of education and/or training beyond the high school level.
Now, let us look at a document from the Department of the Secretary of State which deals with the profile of higher education in Canada to find out what the government has been doing about it. This is a very shocking piece of information and I am sure the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will be listening very carefully. The document compares Canada with the rest of the industrialized countries and shows expenditures on research and development as a percentage of the gross

October 9, 1990
Supply
domestic product of Canada and eight other developed countries. It compares Canada to the United States, Japan, Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands and Italy and, believe it or not, Canada spent relatively less on research and development than any of those other industrialized countries, with the exception of Italy. Italy is shown with 1.2 per cent while Canada is shown with 1.34 per cent.
Another table addresses the highly trained and highly skilled workforce. I cannot help but address the issues of science and technology, research and development, and education, because we cannot talk about a skilled labour force without talking about those three issues together.
When you look at the scientists and engineers engaged in research and development per 1,000 inhabitants in Canada, United States and eight other developed countries, you find out that Japan is No. 1, followed directly by the United States, Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands, Australia, United Kingdom, Canada, France and Italy.
Here, once again, if we are to compare it with the rest of the world, we have seen that Canada is nowhere to be seen in the international market when it comes to research and development and the number of scientists per thousand. My question to the hon. parliamentary secretary is this: If we are really moving into the 21st century as a competitive country looking for a balance between the raw material industries and the high tech industries in the world, what is the plan for dealing with this tremendous issue?


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, that was such a long question that one hardly knows where to begin, but let me say this: The previous government had-
I would like to say to the member for Kingston and the Islands that he is dipping away when other people are speaking, yet when he speaks he likes everyone to listen intently to what he says.
Mr. Speaker, the previous government had a scientific research tax credit in place. When it was announced everyone thought, oh boy, here we go, here is another program to develop research and development, science and technology in Canada. There has not been a full accounting of that yet because there is some lawsuits still
in the courts, but we know to date that it has cost the Canadian taxpayer more than $11 billion for the throwaway of money on that research tax. It is an absolute disgrace. I hope one of these days some of these journalists around here will pick that out and write the true story of how more than $11 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money was thrown away on this.
We know that the world is changing. We know that the manufacturers have to move into a global market. That is part of the development of trade throughout the world. We know that specialties have to be made. We have put in place some research and development programs. I think we have increased many of the budgets this year and we are still working on it.
We need trained workers and more skills in our labour force. That is the purpose behind the thrust of Bill C-21. We cannot do everything all at once. We need trained workers in place, capable of operating some of the machinery that is around.
I looked at a machine the other day that cost more than $100 million. It is pretty well run by computer, but the gentleman who is going to run it has to have a university degree in order to run it. That is the type of thing that we are moving into. We have to equip our industry to respond to the marketplace of the world. We are no longer looking at what is around us. We are looking at what is next door to us. The American Gross National Product is almost $6 trillion. It is beyond the comprehension of most people We are sitting right next door to a $6 trillion market. We want to have a piece of that and we have to train our people. The only way we are going to sustain our labour force down the road is if they are trained to enter into high tech operations and so forth.
Our scientists have done veiy well in the world, looking at the number of them that we have and what they are doing in the world market. We intend to do more. I go back to our ability to train workers. It has to be a combined effort between government, labour, the provinces and business.
I have run a business for many years. I have run training programs in my own business. Like other people, I found that I was alone on an island, training workers for my competitors. I found that I would train people, just get them right up to the point where they become really valuable to me, and one my competitors

would steal him away. That caused me a lot of difficulty over the years, but still we trained a lot of people.
This is what business has to do. It has to take a larger view of the marketplace and say: "The success of my business is not that labour contract that I signed or the fringe benefits that I give to the workers, but it is going to be skills that I can impart to my workers, that I can continue to upgrade them so I can go out and actively bid for more work for my type of business". That is what we are endeavouring to do. We cannot do it all at once. This is a giant step forward in our labour training with Bill C-21, and that is what I was trying to express in the comments that I made.
We still have a long way to go but if the Senate will get off their-as I said to one of my colleagues, what we should do is cut off their Geritol and double the Metamucil. Maybe they would move a little faster, get that Bill C-21 passed and get it into operation.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Etobicoke North for presenting this resolution which deals with his non-confidence in the government because it has failed to bring about full employment, to improve our international competitiveness and also in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.
I listened to most of the debate that went on in the House on this resolution. I think that Canada could learn a great deal from some of the countries in northern and western Europe. The member who previously spoke talked about eastern Europe, but I do not think there is much of a comparison there between Canada and eastern Europe. I think that we can learn a great deal from what has gone in terms of labour force development in countries of northern and western Europe where they have in many cases far stronger economies than ours, far more diversified economies than ours and also far lower unemployment rates, so they seem to have an advantage in all three of those areas.
Another way they have an advantage is that many of these countries have a long tradition of social democratic institutions that have been left in place by successive social democratic governments, whether you are talking
Supply
about Germany, The Netherlands or the Scandinavian countries. The economies of those countries seem to be based on the fact that the economy exists to serve the people rather than the people being there to serve the economy. I think that Canada can learn a great deal from that principle.
When I heard the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism discussing the programs he has in his department, he did not seem that much concerned about the actual people who work in those industries. He talked about programs to generate exports. He talked about programs directed toward businesses that they could use in order to develop exports overseas, but he did not really talk about the people and I think it is the people that this motion is concerned about. When we talk about unemployment, we are talking about people who experience unemployment, people who want to get back to work, and that is a serious problem in the Canadian economy.
The same thing was true in the speech of the member for Burlington that again talk about programs and talk about statistics and talk about numbers, but I think we have to deal with the actual problem of unemployment as people in Canada face it because it is a serious problem. I think there are mechanisms and models that we can look at in northern and western Europe that we can learn from and that are adaptable to our situation here in North America and that may help us reduce our unemployment with something along the same lines as what happens in northern Europe.
I was looking at a comparison in The Economist magazine between unemployment in Canada in July, which was at about 8.1 per cent, with unemployment in Sweden, which was at about 1.6 per cent, so there is a substantial difference. When the member for Burlington talks about perhaps 4 per cent being full employment in Canada, there are some countries that have bested that figure. I think that we could take a close look at the models that they have presented to see how adaptable they are to Canada. I think we might find that 4 per cent as a full employment figure, as the hon. member for Burlington suggested, may be far too high and we could employ even more Canadians.

Supply
I am not sure that we can do that in the traditional means talked about in the House, making more steel mills, attracting more industry to the country, and encouraging investment. I think there are ways of improving the quality of life and the quality of employment of workers that can actually reduce the level of unemployment and has succeeded in reducing the levels of unemployment in those countries I mentioned.
I would like to suggest just a few. One of them has been suggested many times over in this House by former colleagues of mine, the Hon. Stanley Knowles and his colleagues in previous Parliaments, who have discussed the possibility of lowering retirement ages in Canada so that they are more comparable to retirement ages in Europe. I am not talking about compulsory retirement here, but I am talking about the age of voluntary retirement where people can retire at a relatively young age, perhaps 55 would be the cut-off line in Europe, and at the same time enjoy a relatively decent pension.
There has been discussions on pensions of members of Parliaments around the country recently, how generous those pensions are to members of Parliament. I think people do have a tendency to make comparisons between having to work to the age of 65, going on Canada Pension or old age pension and finding themselves introduced for the first time in their lives, after a long history of employment, to poverty on the very low levels of pensions provided here in Canada.
I think if the Government of Canada took a look at some of the models available in northern and western Europe, it could develop a system where people could have voluntary retirement around the age of 55 and retire at relatively decent pension levels. I am told by people from Holland that pension levels in Holland are around 70 per cent to 75 per cent of income earned while working so that they do not have that sudden collapse into poverty that people in Canada feel when they leave work. They are reluctant to leave work for that reason, because they do not want to end up in the poor house.
At the same time, if we were able to reduce voluntary retirement to the age of 55 at a relatively decent pension, it would create openings in the existing work force for younger people to move into the work force, to move up in the work force, and to bring people into the work force. A major problem in this country is that youth
unemployment is always far higher than the unemployment among older citizens from the age of 25 up. It becomes a serious problem because many of those young people end up either unemployed for long periods of time or going in and out of the job market, working as hamburger flippers or working at the very minimum wage. As a result, they really do not build up the kinds of skills needed for a long-term attachment to the work force.
I think it is extremely important that we take measures in this country that will bring younger people into the employment system so that they can develop the kinds of skills and discipline necessary in order to carry on a long career in the work force and not remain dependent on social programs such as UIC or welfare systems in the various provinces.
It is interesting that in the 1986 election in British Columbia, the New Democratic Party proposed a system of early retirement for teachers in the provincial education force. The same thing had been implemented in Manitoba under the NDP government, where the NDP government of Manitoba offered teachers who were at the high end of the salary scale and also reaching their retirement years, early retirement with no loss of pension. Many teachers who had grown over stressed, tired, or just wanted to leave the job after 20,25 and 30 years of service, in fact, took that opportunity, rejoiced at that opportunity, left the work force and retired at a relatively decent rate of pension. It did not mean poverty to those people.
On the other hand younger teachers, who had received the latest training in universities, who had the latest skills, who had the enthusiasm that comes from coming right out of an institution of higher education and going into the workforce, were happy that they were able to get into the workforce and apply those latest techniques on the students in the school system. I think that everyone benefited.
At the same time, teachers who wanted to leave the workforce were able to leave without penalty on their pension. Younger people were able to come in and get the kind of work they had been waiting for and were desperate for. The students were pleased to see these young, enthusiastic teachers with the latest techniques come into the school system. I think it improved the quality of education, the morale on the teaching force,

and the morale among the students. It was better for all concerned.
At the same time, it reduced the unemployment levels in the province of Manitoba. When it was finally adopted by the Vander Zalm government precisely the same thing happened in British Columbia. The older teachers were able to retire. Younger teachers who had been waiting for years in some cases for jobs in the workforce were able to move into the schools and become teachers. As a result everyone was pleased.
This is something that could be done with public sector employees all across the country. Even in the federal Public Service it would allow people to retire at an earlier age. Younger people could move into the Public Service. We would see a tremendous reduction in the level of unemployment, simply by taking the step of lowering the voluntary retirement age to 55, with no penalty on the pension. It would be good economically and it would be good by lowering the unemployment rates. It is a model that has been used for years in those thriving countries of northern and western Europe which have that democratic socialist tradition I have been talking about.
It does not simply work in the public sector workforce. It also works in the private sector workforce as well. Mr. Speaker, you will probably recall that there was an International Woodworkers of America strike back in 1986 in British Columbia and that it carried on until 1987. One of the main demands of the union strikers in that dispute was the right to retire at age 60 with no loss of pension benefits, whereas before the retirement age was 65. Another was the right to retire at a age younger than 55 with only minor losses in pension income.
That long strike which dragged through the late summer, the fall, and the winter of 1986 and early 1987 resulted in a settlement. Many of the older workers in the forest industry workforce are people who work hard in sawmills and planer mills, in shake and shingle operations, and in logging operations. When you get up in years it becomes more and more difficult to sustain that kind of work every day. Even though these people are strong and committed, it becomes very difficult when you reach the age of between 60 and 65 to continue doing
Supply
that kind of labour on a day to day basis without having health problems.
As a result of the settlement of that strike in the private sector, many of those workers did not come back to work after the strike. They simply took advantage of the early retirement benefit that the union had won for them and that the companies had agree to. They were able to leave the workforce. Between 1982 and 1986 my community of Port Albemi, which has a population of about 19,000 within the city, had lost about 2,500 workers in the forest industry. As a result of the change in the pension plans of the International Woodworkers of America, hundreds of young people were able to move into the workforce. People who had not worked for five or six years as a result of the decline in the forest employment in that area were able to move into the workforce as the older people retired and enjoyed the benefits of their pensions without penalty.
It was a terrific boost to employment in our region without any further trees being cut down, without any further development taking place in the forest industry. What happened was that everybody was happy as a result of that move.
The forest industry has not gone broke as a result. It is perfectly able to pay those pensions. In addition, it has new, enthusiastic, young workers who are coming into the system, who are no longer on unemployment insurance and welfare, and who are feeling good about being back in the workforce again and contributing productively to the local economy, to the provincial economy, and to the economy of Canada.
That is one thing I think the government could consider. It is something that has been proven elsewhere in the world. It is possible to lower the voluntary retirement age to 55 with no loss of pension benefits so that people can leave the workforce earlier and that young people who are currently unemployed and drawing welfare or unemployment insurance, or working at part-time jobs for very low rates of income and not feeling very much self-esteem as a result, can get into the workforce on a continuing basis and do what they want to do as continuing workers in the Canadian economy.
It astounded me, when the member for Burlington talked about the various training programs and the adjustment programs included in Bill C-21 or under the

October 9, 1990
Supply
ministry he serves, that we generally wait until people are unemployed before we make these programs available to them. It does not seem to make sense, so let me propose another idea that has been used in countries of northern and western Europe that might be of value here in Canada. One of those ideas is paid educational leave.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, a story that was told to me by the principal of the College of New Caledonia in Prince George when I went to visit him a few years ago. He said that they had a meeting between the pulp and paper workers of the pulp industry in Prince George and pulp and paper workers who had come from the Scandinavian countries of Sweden, Norway, and Finland. They had meetings. They went through the mills in Prince George. They took a look at the equipment at which the people were working and the machinery with which people were working. They took a look at the amenities that were available to workers here, the payment rates and the programs that were available to workers here. At the end of this visit the Scandinavian workers sat down with the Canadian workers and the principal of the College of New Caledonia asked them to be perfectly frank about what they felt was right and wrong about the Canadian pulp and paper industry.
One thing that the Scandinavian workers mentioned about Canadian workers was that they could not understand how people with such low level of education could survive in such a high technology industry involved in competition world-wide and that has some of the highest technology in terms of the equipment they use in that industry.
It was a fact, and I think if you analyse the workforce across Canada you will find that education levels in our workforce are much lower than they are in places like northern and western Europe where paid educational leave is encouraged.
I was listening to the member for Burlington when he talked about the fact that he was training his own workforce. He was worried that people who took the training in his workforce would then be snapped up by other employers. That is a problem. I think that is one of the reasons why the government should share with industry in paying for paid educational leave.
One thing that is going to happen is that many people may take the training they have always wanted to take in order to make a career change so that they do not have to go back to work in the same industry. You can understand, Mr. Speaker, that if a person is working in an industry he does not want to work in he is not going to be as productive as if he does make a career change, gets the required education, and goes on to work in an industry where he feels he will be more productive and wants to make a greater contribution.
On the other hand, everybody who leaves the workforce in order to take advantage of that paid educational leave will create a vacancy for others, younger people who want to move in. I think that is the value of paid educational leave. It creates employment for people who do move into the industry. In addition, it expands our education system and it makes our education system responsive to the needs of industry and to the needs of our workforce.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate. I thank the member for Etobicoke North for presenting this motion. I certainly hope that the government will take my positive suggestions to heart and that we can improve the employment in this country by listening to those suggestions.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: I will be dividing my time with the member for Ottawa West. In the few minutes that I have, Mr. Speaker, I would like you to think back with me to a couple of days ago. I was sitting at home-one of the rare occasions I had-and I happened to catch one of the American League play-off games when Boston edged out the Blue Jays. There was quite a pitchers' duel going on. We got into the eighth inning and before we knew it Boston had been blown away. Their bull pen was not up to the task of facing the hitters from Oakland.
I could not help but think as I sat there watching how that game went that what we are seeing in Canada today is that pitching-catching duo that the government has put up of the Minister of Finance as pitcher and John Crow, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as catcher. They are just letting the economy drive them out of the game.
The Minister of Finance has a few pitches that he likes to throw. He has a fast-ball. That is his deficit reduction pitch. He has a curve ball. That is his tax reform pitch. He has a spit-ball. That is the GST pitch. Now some of them have got past a few of the batters, but lately he has been getting hit. His fast-ball, his deficit reduction pitch,
October 9, 1990

they have been driving that one right out to the big green monster. They have been hitting that one so badly that he had to come forward a couple of weeks ago and say: "Sorry, folks, my deficit estimate for this year's budget was off by $1.5 billion."
His curve ball, tax reform, we know what happened to that one. He managed to get it past the batter the first time up. He said this is phase one, and he squeaked it past and lowered taxes for a few groups of people; but the next time he threw it he thought he was throwing a curve ball-it was actually a spit-ball and called the GST-and he cannot get it past the batter. In fact the last we saw it was a wild pitch and it had rolled back to the back stop behind the catcher. I think it is clear that it is time that the pitcher comes out.
Now the catcher they have got is a solid guy. He maintains pretty consistently what pitch it is he wants thrown to him. He gives the same signal every time to the pitcher. He wants high interest rates. That is the pitch he calls for. So far most of the pitches have been pretty high in the strike zone. Lately they have been starting to come down, but it has not been working anyway.
What we have here, if I can put my analogy aside for a second, is a situation in which in the words of this motion some of the key things we ought to be looking for from our polity makers in government have been abandoned. We should be looking for full employment. We should be looking for international competitiveness. We should be looking for sustainable development. Instead what we have been getting is a steady diet of deficit reduction and high interest rates, an attempt to bring inflation down to zero. Now those pitches have been getting hit. It is not working.
Let me just talk for a second about full employment. Clearly this is not one of the objectives that this government is pursuing. Employment policies have really been one of saying we will sacrifice employment on the altar of low inflation. We are going to try to bring inflation down by literally creating unemployment, so we have this month's employment figures. We are now at an unemployment rate of 8.4 per cent. The rate has been going up steadily since April of this year. It was 7.2 per cent. There has been an increase in unemployed individ-
Supply
uals. The rate was 987,000 unemployed in Canada in April of this year. Now it is at 1,150,000.
The government likes to talk about efficiency. It likes to talk about how it wants the economy to operate more efficiently. Mr. Speaker, I challenge you to think of anything that is more inefficient than creating that many new unemployed individuals in Canada because every one of those unemployed individuals represents somebody else who is disheartened, losing out, maybe collecting unemployment insurance, welfare or social assistance, is not earning money to pay taxes, is not producing goods and services, is not helping the Canadian economy operate efficiently. Surely to goodness in this day and age, we should recognize that a polity of forced unemployment is one of the most disheartening, inhumane policies that a government can pursue.
We used to think we knew what full employment meant. We thought it meant that if you wanted a job, you could get a job. Now they are talking about about full employment meaning something they refer to as NEI-RU, the non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment. In other words, what level of unemployment are we going to live with in Canada just to keep the rate of inflation down.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for a new pitcher to get into the game and start throwing a good, clean, fastball for full employment and stop throwing this high interest rate ball that is getting nowhere but put out.
What about international competitiveness? This is something that has been of great concern to a lot of us for some time, but when we look at the figures we see that if you consider competitiveness in the context of the necessary investment in science and technology, the government has not been attempting in a serious way to achieve an increase in our scientific research and development in such a way that it will create our competitiveness. We still rank, according to so many indicators, well behind other countries in the world.
If you compare us, for example, to the U.S., Germany, France, U.K., The Netherlands and Japan, our gross expenditure on R and D as a percentage of GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is the lowest. Our industry-funded R and D as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is the

October 9, 1990
Supply
lowest. Government-funded R and D is the second lowest. Higher education R and D is the second lowest. Advance degrees awarded by population are in the middle. Domestic patents granted per 100,000 individuals are the second lowest. International patents are the lowest. Our total R and D personnel in the labour force is the lowest. We cannot be competitive and maintain facts like those. Our rating in the world has got to improve.
My colleague for LaSalle-Emard spoke quite eloquently earlier today on the issue of Canada's role in sustainable development. It was not that many months ago in this House when the government brought in its bill to create the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, a major department bringing about industrial development in Canada. When it had the option of including in the mandate of that department sustainable development quite in keeping with the recommendations of the Brundtland commission, it refused to do so. It defeated that amendment. It refused the recommendations of the Brundtland commission on the floor of the House of Commons. So much for sustainable development.
Then we have the whole question of what the government's policy is with respect to the economy, the GST, the budget. We have a Minister of Finance who has repeatedly said that his mandate for the goods and services tax, for example, comes from the 1988 election. If you go back and look at what he was saying in that election about the goods and services tax, Mr. Speaker, you will see that he was talking about a national sales tax, integrated with the provinces, visible, fair and revenue neutral.
What has he delivered in the goods and services tax? He has delivered a tax which is at the federal level only. Canada will be the only country in the world with two levels of retail tax, federal and provincial. He has delivered a tax which will not be visible, which is not going to be integrated with most of the provinces, and which is anything but revenue neutral. By his own admission he claims that the GST is central to the strategy of lowering the deficit. If that is revenue neutral, I would like to see how he works his numbers out.
Mr. Speaker, my time is up and I defer to my colleague from Ottawa West.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, given the nature of the motion, some of the statements in the House on the government side today have been truly remarkable, because they have dealt with unemployment rather than with employment as this opposition motion does.
I want to touch very briefly on some of the social implications of a high unemployment rate, a failure of the government to address the need of its people to work to provide for those basic needs. Such a policy falls disproportionately on the most disadvantaged in society. It falls disproportionately on women leading to the poverty of women. It falls disproportionately on children, many of whom grow up without adequate nourishment, adequate clothing and adequate security to do well in school, to be able to contribute in the long run to the betterment of society and to provide for their own needs as adults. It falls disproportionately on those who always have a problem in employment, those who are of visible minorities, persons with disabilities, problems which we have not yet been able to solve in our society or even in our public service of giving every one of our citizens, everyone who is working in Canada the opportunity to develop fully their talents and abilities to make the best contribution they are able to make to the well-being of society, to the well-being of the country and to the well-being of the world.
It is only when we accept that full employment is possible, that a job for everyone who wants a job is possible and stop saying that having well over one million people consistently unemployed in this country is essential to fight inflation. Only when we believe that there is another way will we develop policies and programs that make that happen.
Common sense tells anyone that it is better to have someone working, paying taxes, contributing to the health of the economy through the purchase of goods and services and creating jobs for other Canadians than to have them idle, their talents under-utilized in society and to have them in fact drawing on public funds. That is a less desirable option clearly than a full employment or near full employment policy.
I want to address the environmental implications in this motion and our international competitiveness. I have written to the Minister for International Trade drawing to his attention the fact that whatever extreme
October 9, 1990

measures we might take to fight global warming or to fight the depletion of the ozone layer, those measures will be without result if we do not come to grips with the fact that most of the continuing environmental degradation is attributable to poverty in the developing world. We must come to grips with the fact that we in the developed world have to play a major and responsible role in allowing the poorer parts of our world to achieve the material comfort we have achieved without doing the environmental damage we have done. Yet we continue to have a policy on international trade and on international aid that says that they will not be subject to the same kind of environmental criteria we are applying at home.
We have a minister now going into negotiations on free trade on a tripartite basis with Canada, the United States and Mexico. I wonder if he is prepared to start Canada's leadership role in ensuring that international environmental standards will be part of any trade agreement, any trade negotiations and any trading relationship? As long as we continue to export polluting technology to China, Southeast Asia, India, and South America, any steps we take at home to reduce environmental degradation, will be rapidly overrun many times by what we are helping to happen in less developed parts of the world.
I want to take a final couple of minutes to comment on the implications of sounder environmental policies for employment, and for economic opportunities and international competitiveness. The minute we talk about doing things in a more environmentally sustainable way, by reducing our demand on the finite resources of the planet, by reducing the damage we do to the ecology of the world with our use of those resources, some member around a committee table or in the media will say: "We cannot afford it, it costs more".
Experience is telling us quite clearly that doing things in a more environmentally sound and sustainable way is less costly, leads to greater productivity and increased competitiveness, not the reverse. It is seif-evident that if you use less energy to produce products, you are more productive, not less productive and your operating costs are cheaper. It is self-evident that if you find ways of reducing waste production, operating costs are cheaper
Supply
and you are more productive. It is self-evident that if you use less of the various components, products, resources, and so on, that go into your product, you are more competitive, not less competitive. We have to explode this myth, that being competitive means it is necessary to damage the environment, not only at home, but abroad. We have to start promoting the truth that saving the environment saves dollars, saves productivity and saves jobs.
There are unique and valuable opportunities for Canada in developing the technologies that will save the world, that will allow the poorer countries of our planet to start enjoying some measure of material comfort without doing the tremendously destructive damage that we in the industrialized world have done to this planet. Research, education and science are all part of Canada's seizing that unique opportunity which is there before us, not only to be competitive and do well in the international markets, but also to make a major contribution to reverse the damage done to the world and therefore leave a better world to future generations.
This is a brilliant motion in that it combines a call for a policy that is socially and economically beneficial not only in Canada but beneficial to the environment around the world. I commend it to the House for approval.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81 (14).
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.

Supply

And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.
It being 6.15 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CANADA LABOUR CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, May 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Plamondon that Bill C-201, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (scabs and essential services), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in debate on the Private Member's proposed legislation, Bill C-201, this evening.
I would like to congratulate the member who introduced this bill for discussion. Labour legislation, I suspect, is of interest and concern to all members of Parliament, not just those who claim to represent labour. Our New Democratic friends so often claim that they, alone, represent labour, and possibly some of my Liberal colleagues believe that they are the ones who represent labour and the unions of the country. The fact is that that cannot be the case. If that were so, they would be in government today.


An hon. member:: Cheap shot.


Felix Holtmann: The hon. member calls it a cheap shot, but if all labour supported the New Democratic Party, it would be in government today. In fact, we do have a lot of labour who support the Conservative government. I still commend the member who brought forth this bill for discussion concerning the use of scab labour and the term "scab labour" during labour disputes or strikes which occur in the Public Service and in Crown corporations.
When these disruptions occur, members of Parliament from all sides probably have an interest in their effects on the country. These disruptions are caused by an inability to come to a new consensus in respect of working agreements. Herein lies the debate.
It is Quebec which has adopted such legislation and it is the only province which has adopted such legislation. In fact, to this date, Quebec has no conclusive evidence that this has worked as it should have.
Private Members' Business
Let us analyse this particular legislation. If it goes through, as is, one would have to wonder what ramification or effect it would really have in terms of how we determine what is essential work in the workforce. Members on all sides of the House know what it has done to Canada when we have had disruptions because of strikes by civil servants and in our Crown corporations.
There are times when I believe all workers should have the right to ask for more benefits, more funding for their hourly wages, and better conditions. I speak as a westerner, a prairie farmer, and one who has experienced so many disruptions by our national railways and the private rail companies. In the case of the national railways, I can tell you that the plight of the farmer was never considered, in my view, by those who implemented such a strike by a Crown corporation.
Looking at our record as a nation in terms of strikes- whether against the Post Office or other Crown corporations such as the national railroad, or even against non-governmental corporations-which have put a tremendous hardship on the economy of the country, there may have been times when some of us in the House would accept that the insecurity of an extended period without a contract is not acceptable to anybody in the workforce.
All too often I have seen a strike hit at a time when the very services of commerce was too disruptive, and we have seen this happen. We have seen the shipping on the St. Lawrence brought to its heels.


An hon. member:: That is the purpose.


Felix Holtmann: A member of the New Democratic Party says the purpose of the strike is to disrupt national commerce. This may be so to some individuals, but I thought the purpose was to gain a better contract for the worker. To disrupt so many people in the commerce across the nation without the consideration of the pride and the national unity of this country could jeopardize the very thing that holds us together. The very thought of that scares me.
There is no argument that there are times that a strike may be warranted. But when it disrupts so many other innocent people in the chain of the economy, I have a lot of difficulty in saying such a strike should be sustained.

Private Members' Business
I know the word "scabs" is used. I never had the opportunity where I was on the payroll, so to speak, of such a corporation. I am sure many in this hall have never been on the payroll of a Crown corporation or a federal department-maybe some. My point is, however, that those who have been paid over the years by a corporation have sustained a fairly balanced, and probably a better, package than those in the private sector.
Generally speaking, federal Crown corporations look after their workers pretty well. It is based on tradition. It is not like the private sector. Federal administrators are not as conscious of profit-making. They are not geared the same way. The net result is that the packages to the workers are generally fairly lucrative compared to others.
To suggest that when a disruption takes place, no alternative worker be allowed to take over affects the services of so many other Canadians to their financial detriment. In effect, they are saying: "We will force the Crown corporation of the government to come to their knees." I do not think that is a responsible Canadian agreement.
There are those occasions when one would tend automatically to say: "Well, that's it. We're shutting this thing down. Nobody else can come in until we get exactly what we want." In looking at what the demands are, they are not an inflationary increase in wages. They are not just an extra few days. But every time I have heard what the union demanded, I could not believe it. It would be something such as a 30 per cent pay increase. They tell me that they have to ask for that because management will offer substantially less. Somehow they try to meet half way.
Those are the scary things that happen in our society. We play these shell games between management and labour, which leaves us all totally frustrated. I accept that this should be discussed in a common place like our House of Commons on a regular basis, and I accept there are other points of view.
On top of that, I sincerely believe that collectively we should find ways out of these disruptions before asking for the most ridiculous amounts of money to settle strikes or the most ridiculous kinds of things we hear, maybe from management as well sitting so tightly.
My position is that I cannot support this private intervention on this basis.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member who brought this bill forward. It gives us an opportunity to talk to particular areas of the legislation which I think are very meaningful.
Under Bill C-201, if it is read very carefully, there are two portions to the bill. One is the anti-scab legislation and the other is the central service legislation which in effect has a two-tier mechanism as it relates to this particular piece of legislation we are talking to.
First of all I would like to indicate the good news. I think the anti-scab legislation has some merit. The reason is that in this party we understand that there are certain corporations, be they private or Crown corporations, that are within their beliefs that using scabs during a strike is of importance in order to maintain the company or to carry on with its service. That is why I say to the members opposite that the anti-scab legislation portion has some merit.
The difficulty I have with this bill is simply the essential service part. Mr. Speaker, when you take a look at the bill and break it down, it relates particularly just to Crown corporations. If members opposite would look back into the history of Crown corporations, one of the reasons we put it at arm's length to the government was to allow it to do business in a private sector world in the same manner that a private company would.
Having said that, putting in legislation that would tie the arms of one particular corporation because it is a Crown corporation versus a corporation in the private sector would create some phenomenal problems. For that reason, I think this particular piece of legislation would not carry much weight in the labour movement, in business for that matter, or in the Crown corporations themselves.
One thing I found very interesting in the intervention of the sponsoring member of this bill was his discussion about Canada Post and the fact that Canada Post is probably one of the biggest problems in the Crown corporation world that this government has as it relates to scabs.
When I read this piece of legislation, it almost seems like it is tailor-made for Canada Post. The fact remains that when there are disruptions between management

and labour there is a particular reason for it. There are many reasons, but the major reason is that they are looking for a good collective agreement and a good contract.
The other one is that even though they may be getting a good contract there are other reasons, for example, contracting out. The fact remains that in this particular corporation scenario one may look at Canada Post as an example. Its biggest problem seems to be that it does not honour the contract it has.
When one looks at the number of grievances at Canada Post now, I would suggest that that is the reason there are strikes there. That is the reason why it uses scabs. Canada Post is entering into a phase of changing the way it does business versus what its original intent was, that is to be a service for Canadians. Now they are entering into what they call a business mode, particularly to make profit. When you change the mandate and the reason why you came into being, then you create difficulties for the union that is there. That union is there basically to not only supply a good wage and a good livelihood for their members but also to present good service under the mandate of that Crown corporation.
There are some other aspects of Bill C-201 that I want to mention in the short time that I have. Under this bill there is no definition of what an essential service is. It talks about safety to the public. It talks about safety to the individual, but what does that mean? Does it mean we are talking in economic terms? The fact that a third party could be affected as it relates to dollars and cents? Are we talking about the fact that there are some physical safety problems when scabs are being used? There is no definition in this private members' bill. That is a difficulty because when you are talking about changing the labour code you also have to talk in veiy specific terms about what you mean.
If we want to look back at the abilities of the government to stop what it considers to be essential services from striking, as we all know we have back-to-work legislation which the Parliament of Canada can use whenever it sees fit. That is what really disturbs me about this particular bill. I would like to mention clause 90.9(1), the suspension of the right to strike, which is really in essence an executive power which is given to the
Private Members' Business
Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister.
It is a very dangerous precedent when you start to allow ministers of the Crown under their recommendation to have executive powers of a magnitude where they can, in essence, because all Crown corporations are now under this umbrella, at the stroke of a pen, without debate in this House I might add, put a stop to a particular company, union, or labour force that has a legitimate grievance.
I think it is a very dangerous precedent to look to change because the legislation we have on the books right now took many years to put in place, many hours of debate, and many years of refining. Now all of a sudden to just take that away and give it to the executive of a particular government I find to be a very dangerous precedent.
Also, I go back to clause 90.3(1) where it allows the Governor in Council again to give the opinion that a strike in a Crown corporation might endanger the public health or public safety. I am very nervous about what public health or public safety means. It has to be defined and hopefully if this piece of legislation goes a little further the opportunity for it to be debated will give the definition they need.
Having said that, I would like to say on behalf of myself and my party I think it is a good undertaking, a good endeavour to look at in a serious way as it relates to scab legislation. If it was brought back just with the anti-scab legislation portion I think we could seriously consider supporting it. I think that is what the difficulty is when you have these kinds of strikes in quasi-essential services like Canada Post or CN Rail where there are third parties affected a great deal.
When they turn around and use scabs it creates violence on the picket lines and other places, man against man, woman against woman. If this bill remedies that, I agree. But I do not think that making all Crown corporations into an essential services would do us any good because of the fact that under their original mandate they were put there essentially to be able to do business in the private sector world and to tie their hands behind their backs-and I mean by that the private sector itself because now you are giving an unfair advantage to the Crown corporations. I do not think that

Private Members' Business
was what was intended and I would not agree to that point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before allowing the Hon. Member for Chambly to rise, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Hubert.


Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give my views and make some comments on the bill introduced by the Hon. Member for Richelieu.
I wish first of all to emphasize the importance of this issue which has serious consequences on Canadians as far as maintaining essential services in some industrial areas under the Canada Labour Code.
I wish also to emphasize the fact that my hon. colleagues have for once an opportunity to discuss labour relations in an atmosphere more constructive and less tumultuous than is the case during a debate on a back to work legislation.
The Hon. Member for Richelieu has brought to our attention a veiy thorough bill with many features indicative of the care which the hon. member brought to its drafting.
This bill is directly related to the provisions of the Canada Labour Code dealing with the operation of Crown corporations. According to Section 90.1 of Bill C-201, "Crown corporation" means a corporation referred to in section 5 of the Canada Labour Code, Part I. Well, the said Section 5 states, and I quote:
"This Part applies in respect of any corporation established to
perform any function or duty on behalf of the Government of
Canada-, except any such corporation-that the Governor in
Council excludes from the operation of this Part"
Mr. Speaker, this bill my hon. colleagues are dealing with applies to a number of Crown corporations, but not all of them. For instance, among the Crown corporations which would be affected by this bill, let us mention Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, all the administrations of the Canada Ports Corporation, from Halifax to Vancouver, the Canada Post Corporation, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Atlantic and Pacific Pilotage Authorities, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority as well as the Royal Canadian Mint. Those are the various industries which would be affected by this bill, if adopted.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with another aspect of this bill, namely the essential quality of the industries which come under the Canada Labour Code. I will be satisfied with saying that this essential character, within a labour relation context, is not a static principle. The notion is linked to the duration and the circumstances. So, what is applicable in some instances may not be in others.
Among the Crown corporations I mentioned, there are obviously some which provide goods and services vital to the economic well-being of the country or to another essential aspect, while others will not fit the definition of ''essentiality" that we could agree on. Therefore, we must ask ourselves if the bill accomodates the uniqueness of these corporations. I mean is it appropriate to make all Crown corporations comply with the stringent restrictions provided for in the bill? Does the essentiality of public goods and services warrant such constraints? It must also be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that collective bargaining is not standard procedure and only a few unionized workers are protected by collective agreements in certains fields. In others, many competing corporations would be likely to look for alternate goods and services suppliers in the event of a work stoppage. In both cases, the essentiality of the corporation itself is irrelevant, since essential goods and services will normally be maintained.
One aspect of essential services we may find worthwhile to reflect upon for a moment is the point or stage of a work stoppage when an intervention would be warranted. In certain essential industries, the work stoppage will generally not have negative economic or social side effects in the firt stage of the strike or lockout, say during the first week. I suggest that it is unrealistic to think that an immediate response is necessary. The reason being that a premature response could adversely affect collective bargaining by reducing the pressure to settle placed on both sides and therefore allowing workers and employers to evade their responsibility toward collective bargaining and the public.
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the bill and keeping in mind the various aspects of essential services I can only experience a feeling of doubt with respect to what I would call a measure of equity when we are dealing with the many Crown corporations that are subject to the Labour Code. For one thing, Mr. Speaker, the prohibitions provided in the bill concerning the use of outside

workers during a strike would seem to apply to all Crown corporations.
Leaving aside the more contentious question of whether it is appropriate to restrict the ability of the employer to make an effort to maintain operations during a strike, as proposed under the bill, we can see that the interdictions in the bill would apply to all Crown corporations regardless of the extent to which the goods and services provided are essential. There would be no point in applying such measures to Crown corporations which are governed by the Canadian Labour Code and which do not provide essential public services. If the interdictions of the bill were to be applicable in such cases, that would thwart the normal process of collective bargaining. In fact that would thoroughly upset industrial relations and the collectivwe bargaining process.
According to the provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker, exercising the right to stike implies the agreement of the employer who must accept designated limits covering services to be provided and employees expected to be on duty during a work stoppage. For starters, when employees and employers in an essential industry are completely at odds in collective bargaining, I think it is highly unlikely they will manage to reach an agreement about services to be provided and employees to be designated as performing essential duties. The fact is that in a labour dispute the negotiations would more likely relate to their respective economic strength.
I would venture to say that no employer, public or private, would endorse an arrangement enabling a union to shut down an industry by a strike. In all likelihood the collective bargaining process would be seriously impaired if both parties had to make designations, and their chances of concluding an agreement would be next to nil because they would almost certainly wait until the government or Parliament intervened.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could be more optimistic in connection with the likely impact of the bill on the prospect for peaceful industrial relations in Crown corporations offering essential goods and services. I cannot, and so I conclude that under this bill collective bargaining would be either upended or less effective than it is now.
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Chambly.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to support my colleague, the hon. member for Richelieu, whose riding borders my own riding of Chambly. It is a rare occasion when a private member's is introduced by a member who knows something about that bill by experience. Bill C-201 is about scabs and its main purpose is to prohibit the hiring of scabs by Crown corporations.
The hon. member who introduced that bill has himself experienced the problem of scabs. He was on the picket line in 1987. He is a lawyer who understood union members' problems very well. He was aware of union problems that existed in Quebec before Bill 45, a provincial anti-scab legislation. He was able to appreciate the impact of Bill 45, which created a much better environment for union members in Quebec.
I have often said here in the House how proud I am of Quebec's labour legislation. I have often mentioned Quebec's consumer legislation, the Petty Claims Court Act, Bill 101 on the French language, and I am also very proud of Bill 45, which is more or less reflected in the Private Members' Bill of the hon. member for Richelieu.
This bill is extremely important. It can improve the circumstances of union members, because when a strike is called and union members are out of work and on the picket line, they will not be inclined to use violence of any kind against those we commonly call scabs or strike breakers, who are hired by an employer to lessen the impact of the strike.
The hon. member for Portage-Interlake said he was against strikes, because they tend to disrupt business across Canada. Mr. Speaker, the whole purpose of a strike is to disrupt business! Its purpose is to disturb the employer, to disturb people, to attract their attention to union members because they have a serious problem which must be dealt with right away.
The situation is different now in Quebec, thanks to legislation similar to the bill proposed by the hon. member for Richelieu. Before Bill 45, strikes in Quebec were very violent. There were some very long strikes.

Private Members' Business
Among companies that were not affected by Bill 45, we saw some very long strikes, like the one at Voyageur which lasted two years. The strike occurred after Bill 45 was passed but in Quebec, Bill 45 did not apply to Voyageur. I met union members winter and summer, since my office was nearby and the strike lasted two years. They were on the picket line. Today, I know one of the Liberal members of this House was president of Voyageur and wouldn't even give them the time of day-
The strike went on because they hired strike breakers, scabs and because of that, workers involved in the Voyageur dispute were unemployed for two years in Quebec.
I don't want that to happen to anyone. It's very hard on a family. And that is why I am delighted to support the bill presented by the hon. member for Richelieu.
Now, to give you an example of the impact of Bill 45 on which the Private Member's Bill of the hon. member for Richelieu is based, if we consider the hours or time lost as a result of labour disputes in Quebec-this bill was passed ten years ago in Quebec-the average number of days for a labour dispute dropped from 171 to 111 today. That is what I call progress.
If we accept the fact that some strikes are inevitable, because some employers are smart and others are not so smart, and if we give employees the right to strike and at the same time give an employer the right to hire strike breakers, what are we really doing? Well, Quebec's statistics tell the story. We are telling union workers: Go ahead and go on strike. You don't have to eat. You don't need money. You don't need peace of mind. Other people will take your place. I am the employer, and the government gives me the right to hire whoever I need to replace you. Go ahead and strike! I don't mind, as long as it doesn't hurt me. By giving unionized workers the right to strike, we have made matters worse, because their strike has no impact and it does not in any way disrupt the company. This means that workers are out of work, are not getting a salary and have to beg for their minimum needs. Meanwhile, the employer can play "Joe Cool": Sure, there is a strike, has been for two years, but who cares? And that is what the situation is like, Mr. Speaker.
The bill presented by the hon. member for Richelieu could vastly improve relations between labour and management. That has already been poved in Quebec.
I heard critical comments from the Liberals and the Conservatives. I thought it was rather funny to hear the criticism coming from Conservatives, especially since the hon. member who presented the bill is a former Conservative member who saw the light, who realized what it meant to be a conservative and changed his affiliation. Now he is right next door to us, on this side of the House. When I hear his former colleagues speak out against him, saying that this bill is bad for the country, I think that is pretty farfetched. They say this bill is going to disrupt business when the exact opposite happened in Quebec! Instead of disrupting business, it settled a number of disputes in almost record time, Mr. Speaker.
I heard both Conservative and Liberal critics say the bill only affects Crown corporations. And so what! We have to start somewhere. You start with Crown corporations, and you will see how effective this kind of legislation can be. I don't think this criticism is valid.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must say essential services are not defined, and that this does not allow a department any discretionary authority. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec legislation, provides for a commission that determines what services are essential and hands down rulings in this regard. For the past ten years, this has worked well in Quebec. I hope that by supporting this bill, we may then be able to amend it, if necessary and at least refer it to committee for consideration.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, once again hon. members of the House are asked to give further consideration to Private Member's Bill C-201, introduced by the hon. member for Richelieu, and first debated in the House on May 31, 1990.
From the time of our first consideration of the bill, we have had an opportunity to reflect and consider the arguments that were put forward in support of the bill when it was first debated. We have since had an opportunity to weigh the strengths and shortcomings of these

arguments and to review the basis of our own views on the bill.
I would like to take a close look at some of the arguments that were put forward by the hon. member for Richelieu in support of the bill, especially those that deal with the duration of strikes. In this regard, I have to ask whether or not it is realistic to expect the proposed legislation to have the beneficial effects on strikes that the hon. member claims it is likely to have.
Before doing so, I will make a few observations on the level of strike activity in recent years. This is important because it gives us an indication of the environment that prevails today, compared to the 1970s and the 1980s.
One observation that I think should be made off the top is that the level of strike activity in Canada has been generally less than what it was in the early 1980s and the late 1970s. For example, the average number of strikes in existence per year over the five-year period, covering 1985 to 1989, was 683. This is a considerable reduction from an average of 823 for the previous five-year period, covering 1980 to 1984, and from an average of 1,024 strikes in the last five-year period of the 1970s.
There has also been a downward trend in the number of person-days not worked during work stoppages. Very briefly, the notion of person-days takes into account the number of workers involved in strikes, as well as the period of days that each individual worker is not at work because of a strike or lock-out.
The number of person-days not worked per year in the later half of the 1980s has been reduced considerably from earlier years. In comparison with the later half of the 1970s, the number of person-days not worked during work stoppages has fallen by almost half. There is clearly a downward trend in the level of strike and lock-out activity over the period.
We can place this amount of working time lost during work stoppages in the perspective of a measure of over-all production time for the labour force and arrive at an estimate of the percentage of working time forgone during work stoppages. In the later half of the 1980s, the percentage of estimated working time lost during work stoppages amounted to 0.17 per cent, compared to approximately 0.25 per cent in the first half of the 1980s, and 0.38 per cent for the last half of the 1970s. Significantly, the figures for the last half of the 1980s reflect a
Private Members' Business
reduction in the amount of production time lost during work stoppages of approximately one-half. The figures reflect an absolute reduction, as well as a reduction relative to the amount of production time available in the workforce.
With this brief overview of the trend in work stoppages in Canada, I would like to turn now to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Richelieu regarding the trends in work stoppages that he associates with the anti-scab legislation in the province of Quebec.
The hon. member for Richelieu indicated in his remarks on May 31 in the House that he obtained data in support of his support for Bill C-201 from a study by the Quebec organization Le Centre de recherche et de statisti-ques sur le marche du travail. The title of the study is Les briseurs de greve et le code du travail, and it was published in 1982. It is interesting to look closely at this study since it is one of the few studies on the effects of the anti-scab legislation adopted in the province of Quebec in 1977, and because it is the empirical foundation of the hon. member's remarks.
The data in the study covers two periods, the six-year period prior to the introduction of the anti-scab legislation, 1972 to 1977, and the three-year period following its adoption, 1978 to 1980. There are a very few brief observations that I would like to make concerning the comparisons made in the study on the effects of the legislation.
The study indicates that prior to the introduction of the legislation, 27 work stoppages representing 4 per cent of the total number of work stoppages in the period, were work stoppages in which employers made use of replacement workers. In the period following the introduction of the legislation, the incidence of such work stoppages increased to 56, representing 5 per cent of the total number of all work stoppages.
It is interesting to note that in the two time periods in this comparison, there was a reduction in the average number of workers involved in all work stoppages while the number of workers involved in work stoppages in which replacement workers were used almost tripled from 166 to 479 workers. I caution any hon. members against rushing to conclusions on this information, except to note that perhaps replacement workers tend to

October 9, 1990
Private Members' Business
be used more by larger companies, as is suggested by this information.
In a comparison of the two periods, we might have expected as one of the favourable aspects of the legislation, an actual reduction in the number of person days of work time lost. In fact, there was a slight increase in the number of person days lost during work stoppages. The number increased from 9.1 million person days to 9.8 million person days of work lost during work stoppages. For work stoppages involving the use of replacement workers, there was very little change. The average number of person days lost in work stoppages involving the use of replacement workers was 1.1 million person days in both periods.
On each of these points and on each of these measures of work stoppages, including the numbers of workers involved in work stoppages where replacement workers are used, on the average numbers of workers involved, and in the person days not worked due to work stoppages, the statistics point to a worsened situation in the period after the introduction of anti-scab legislation.
While the hon. member has cited a reduction in the average of duration of work stoppages, as evidence of the effectiveness of the legislation in the province of Quebec, it should be pointed out that the study he has made reference to also indicates a reduction in the average duration of all strikes in the period, not just those involving the use of replacement workers.
There is one final observation from the study by Le Centre de recherches et de statistiques sur le marche du travail. I earlier described the trend in some of the work stoppage statistics for all of Canada. I noted that there is a declining trend in the number of strikes and lockouts. There is a declining trend in the number of workers involved in strikes, as well as in the absolute decline in the number of working time lost and as a percentage of total working time.
There are any number of factors that might be considered in trying to determine an explanation of trends in work stoppage statistics. The state of the economy, for example, is one important factor. The high and rising rate of inflation in the 1970s is referred to by students of industrial relations as one factor in particular that caused a difficult period of adjustment for labour and management. Relative wages, industrial structure and job security are several other factors that have a bearing on trends and developments in work stoppages.
What I find difficult to come to grips with is how a single piece of legislation such as the legislation on anti-scab practices in the province of Quebec can be singled out as a source of improvement in the incidence of work stoppages when the evidence that I have just cited from the same study by Le Centre de recherches et de statistiques sur le marche du travail makes such a claim questionable.
Finally, there is one further observation that I would like to make regarding the average duration of work stoppages since this is the indicator used by the hon. member for Richelieu as evidence of the effectiveness of anti-scab legislation.
From 1972, the first year of the study by Le Centre de recherche, to 1977, the year of the introduction of the anti-scab legislation in Quebec, the average duration of strikes and lockouts in the province of Quebec was higher than in all of Canada. In the years since the introduction of the legislation, there has been no change in this relationship and work stoppages in the province of Quebec continue to be longer than those in all of Canada.
I hope these few remarks have been helpful in providing the House with a perspective on the information in the study cited by the hon. member for Richelieu. I believe the evidence on the effectiveness of anti-scab legislation, such as is proposed in Bill C-201, is less than satisfactory and I frankly doubt the soundness of the measures proposed.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the bill before the House concerning the maintenance of essential services in Crown corporations and the prohibition respecting the hiring of workers to replace their own employees in the event of a strike or lock-out. Let us examine the main elements of this bill.
First, after the filing of a negotiation notice Crown corporations would not be allowed to hire new employees to perform the work done by those who have gone on strike or who are locked out.

Second, the bill would also prevent the corporation from re-assigning striking or locked-out employees to other corporate departments, or from hiring in the striken unit people who normally work in a company other than the Crown corporation.
The bill also provides that, at least seven days before the strike, both parties must reach an agreement concerning the maintenance of essential services. Should they fail to agree, the union gives the corporation and the minister a list of essential services. In both instances and under the proposed legislation the minister shall assess whether or not the essential services provided for in the list or in the agreement are sufficient. Those are the two main components of the bill.
Let us get back to the hiring of so-called replacement workers. We know that replacing workers out on a legal strike is a touchy and controversial issue. In Canada, only the Quebec Labour Code has provisions which, for all practical purposes, prevent an employer from calling in outside workers when the strike is legal. When examining the relevance of this kind of legislation with respect to the federal jurisdiction we must take into account a number of characteristics of industries regulated by the federal and provincial governments.
The Canada Labour Code applies to a sector of labour relations which, by and large, includes companies which play a leading role in the major economic sectors. For example, national and regional transport companies account for a large number of companies under federal jurisdiction. Once the requirements of the Canada Labour Code concerning the settlement of disputes have been met, there is no restriction on the right of employees to strike. In the Province of Quebec, note that some sectors such as health and municipal public transit services are protected in the sense that some workers are designated and cannot go out on strike. There is no comparable provision applicable to federally regulated private sector companies subjet to the Canada Labour Code.
Each level of government has evaluated its legislative needs taking into account the uniqueness of the industries concerned. One of the basic characteristics of the federal collective bargaining system is the recognition of
Private Members' Business
the fact that competing interests between unions and employers often put their economic strenght to the test.
For the union, the ultimate expression of strenght is the planned withdrawal of the workers from the employer's premises. We know that in reality more that 95 percent of all collective agreements in the federal jurisdiction are bargained without work stoppage.
The employer, for his part, has an equivalent power. He can impose a lockout or strive to keep operating in spite of the strike.
The Canadian Labour Code, with its procedures and steps to get bargaining agents certified and to eliminate obstacles to efficient and constructive collective bargaining, including mediation, is aimed at allowing the parties to settle their disputes with minimal government intervention. In that context, Mr. Speaker, the Code states that the parties can voluntarily accept to be bound by the recommendations from a conciliation commissioner or a conciliation board.
Let us take a look at the effects the bill could have on operations, given the type of industries the Canadian Labour Code applies to. The national industries concerned, such as railroad companies and airlines, are characterised by their numerous bargaining units.
Instead, they are grouped on the basis of trades or ranks, as is the case with pilots, mechanics, stewards and train conductors, all of them having their own unions. For instance, CNR employees are represented by 14 unions and are subjected to dozens of different collective agreements. In the case of industries under provincial jurisdiction most are structured on the basis of individual industry and very often each plant has its own bargaining unit.
To determine the usefulness of the proposed bill, it would be necessary to examine the consequences of giving a fairly small bargaining unit the power to paralyze the whole national transportation system. If it were impossible for a railway company to hire other workers to carry out the duties of its striking employees, that company would be unable to remain in operation.
In such a situation, we realize that the proposed legislation would make it possible for a small bargaining unit to paralyze a major corporation.

Private Members' Business
Another problem could arise from the consequences such legislation would have on the current structure of multi-union bargaining. In the railway industry, for instance, several unions represent dozens of joint bargaining units.
In some cases, management and unions in the railway industry have deemed appropriate to get together to organize a major multi-union multi-employer bargaining structure. Such arrangements have the advantage of limiting the number of possible strikes for employers and unions during the bargaining round.
We must ask ourselves two questions: Would these multi-union multi-employer bargaining structures which both parties appreciate, continue under a scheme forbidding the hiring of replacement workers? Also, would not the increased power of bargaining units run the risk of
dividing the system and, therefore, increase the number of conflicts within the system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but I must interrupt the Hon. Member.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 7.15 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
***********I
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, October 10, 1990