1990-12-07

Hon. Marcel Danis (for Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-93, an act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, it is surprising that Bill C-93 is not being spoken to by a member of the government to introduce to the House and to the people watching us the importance of this piece of legislation.
It is a bill which brings into effect certain amendments made to an international agreement to which Canada is a party, establishing the International Monetary Fund. The effect of the legislation and of that agreement entered into earlier this year by members of the International Monetary Fund is to increase Canada's quota, as well as the quota of many other nations, to the fund and to provide certain additional sanctions for borrowers from the International Monetary Fund who failed to meet their obligations.
I am sure that all members of the House are well aware of the success of the International Monetary Fund, as an international institution, in providing a means of funding the balance of payments of nations around the world. It has been a useful institution in providing advice and direction to many countries, both
developing countries as well as developed countries, in the context of providing the financial services that it does.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the beginning of Government Orders today, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance did stand, but was not seen at that point and the opposition was seen first.
I gather the opposition would prefer to have the government's speech, in introduction of the bill, occur first and, if that is the case, we would certainly give unanimous consent to begin with the parliamentary secretary and then move to the member who is now speaking. Of course, the member who is now speaking has the right to continue, but it would be the choice of the opposition as far as we are concerned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say that the hon. parliamentary secretary was not rising. The Chair did not see him. But, with consent, if there is agreement, I would be glad to recognize the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks by the Chief Government Whip, we would like to know which minister will be introducing this particular bill at second reading before we give our unanimous consent.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: It will be the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Finance who would proceed to explain the bill to the House on behalf of the government.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped that the traditions of the House would be adhered to and that a Minister of the Crown, who has taken an oath of office, would stand in his or her place to provide the government position in regard to second reading. However, in view of the fact that that cannot be, because either there is no minister readily available or they refuse to introduce this particular bill, we on this side of the House, in the spirit of Christmas, would want to be unanimous in allowing, on one hand, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to commence his remarks if, on the other hand, the time which is allotted to our speaker

December 7, 1990
Government Orders
will revert to the normal provisions of the Standing Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I see no problem with that. Does the House agree?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs) and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleagues on the other side of the House. I guess it is because of my inexperience that I was bobbing up and down here, two or three times. I am not just sure exactly when you have to have your head up and when you have to have your head down. I can assure the hon. Whip of the Liberal Party that I also have taken an oath of office and I will try to fulfil my responsibilities to the best of my ability.
I would like to begin today's debate on Bill C-93, proposing amendments to the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, by reminding members of the International Monetary Fund's role in the world financial system. The International Monetary Fund, or IMF, is a central institution of the international monetary system.
The IMF has two central roles. First, it monitors the economic policies of all its member countries, assessing the consistency of policies among countries and providing policy advice. Second, it provides credit to countries facing balance of payments financing problems. For the most part, financing is provided on the condition that countries undertake policy reforms designed to eliminate the imbalances within their economies, thus creating the conditions necessary for sustainable, non-inflationary growth.
The IMF's continuing ability to operate effectively is crucial to the smooth operation of the world monetary and financial system. This is particularly the case in the early 1990s, when the international financial situation is facing difficult and challenging conditions. There is uncertainty about the world economic outlook and prospects for further sustained global economic growth arising from a number of factors. Foremost among these is the crisis in the Persian Gulf. The evolution of global payments imbalances necessitates a continuing need for balance of payments financing, possibly on a substantial scale.
An agreement was reached last spring by the fund's interim committee-the major policy advisory body of the Fund which, to our honour, is chaired by the hon. Minister of Finance-to increase total fund capital subscriptions by 50 per cent. Quotas are an important feature of the IMF. They serve three purposes in its operations.
First, the quotas which members subscribe are the major source of funds which the IMF lends to countries in balance of payments difficulties in order to correct their imbalances, without resorting to protectionist or other disruptive measures.
Second, quotas serve to determine the amounts which members can borrow under the various facilities of the IMF. Finally, quotas determine the voting strength of members and the composition of the executive board.
The proposed increase in IMF quotas is part of a regular cycle for reviewing fund quotas. The higher level of total IMF quotas is required to ensure a better balance between the resources available to the IMF, and the needs of members for balance of payments financing over the next few years.
While other institutions will provide the bulk of development financing for the developing world, the IMF has the specific responsibility to use its resources in support of growth-oriented economic adjustment programs, for both developing and developed countries. In turn, IMF financing should catalyze additional financing from private and official sources.
There will be a need for the fund to continue to play a major role in the international debt strategy by supporting countries which are having problems servicing their external debts in their efforts to restore creditworthiness. Developing countries have made extensive use of IMF funding in recent years, and will likely continue to do so.
For its part, the fund has shown innovation and flexibility in its policies in response to the special needs of the major debtor countries. One clear example of that innovation was the decision to use IMF resources and those of the World Bank to permit developing countries to buy back a portion of their commercial debt at a discount in the secondary market, thus reducing their over-all debt burden. The proposed increase in IMF quotas would create scope for similar innovation in response to future needs.
December 7, 1990

But fund resources are not restricted simply to the developing countries. An important element of the fund's activities in the period ahead will be to facilitate market oriented reforms in east European countries. In fact, the emerging democracies of eastern Europe are already looking to the IMF for advice and financial support. Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia currently have fund programs, including policy guidance as well as financial support. Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria have recently joined the fund and have already begun policy discussions with the IMF staff. We expect close co-operation among the IMF, the World Bank, and the new European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in support of the economic transformation that is now taking place and will be required in eastern Europe.
The last increase in fund quotas was seven years ago. That increase served to support in conjunction with large-scale borrowing the fund's policies on the use of its resources in responding to the debt problems of many developing countries. During that period, however, arrears to the IMF accumulated and it started to threaten the fund's continued ability to assist members in dealing with their balance of payments problems. The reason for the accumulation of arrears by countries such as Sudan, Liberia, Peru and Vietnam are many and complex.
However, one characteristic is shared by all these countries. Each has suffered from a fundamental failure to deal with its economic problems head on through a commitment to sustained economic policy reform.
In response to its mounting arrears problem, the fund has undertaken policies to prevent arrears from increasing and to promote the elimination of existing arrears. As a further measure to strengthen the funds arrears strategy, it was agreed during the quota negotiations that the quota increase would be conditional upon the passage of an amendment to the articles of the agreement, allowing for suspension of the voting rights of members in arrears.
This would be an intermediate step between powers which the IMF already has under the articles. The articles it has now is an initial sanction of suspension of borrowing rights and the ultimate sanction of expulsion.
Government Orders
The new quotas will come into effect when members having 85 per cent of present quotas have consented to the increases in their quotas and to the suspension amendment.
I would also note for the House that at the Houston economic summit last July, the Prime Minister and the leaders of the other major industrial countries called on the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD and the New European Bank for Reconstruction and Development to conduct an extensive evaluation of the economic situation of the Soviet Union. This study is now progressing, reinforcing the vital and central role of the IMF in the entire world economy.
The fund must also stand ready to deal with crisis situations, both with regard to individual members as well as more systemic threats to the international monetary system. The fund has recently demonstrated its flexibility in responding to countries affected by the events in the Middle East and will be a key player in helping these countries adjust to changed economic circumstances.
It is in this context, Mr. Speaker, that I propose the legislation before us today, Bill C-93, to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act. Bill C-93 is a central element in Canada's continuing commitment to the smooth functioning of the international monetary system. It provides for an increase in Canada's quota subscription in the International Monetary Fund from 2,941 million special drawing rights, or SDRS, to 4,320.3 million SDRS.
This is confusing, Mr. Speaker, to most people in the House and I am sure to most people following. In Canadian dollars this would mean an increase in Canada's quota from approximately $4.9 billion to $7.2 billion, an increase of $2.3 billion.
I would note here, Mr. Speaker, that although our subscription in terms of Canadian dollars will increase by $2.3 billion, the actual Canadian dollar payment is $5.8 million.
This payment is a non-budgetary expenditure. Of the remainder, 25 per cent will be paid in special drawing rights from our international reserves, while the balance of our commitment is held in reserve in the event that the IMF needs to draw upon additional resources. Commensurately, the larger IMF quota adds to the

December 7, 1990
Government Orders
resources available to Canada in the event of balance of payments needs.
The increase in Canada's quota will allow us to continue to lead a constituency at the fund, composed of Ireland and a number of Caribbean countries.
More important, agreement by Parliament to the proposed amendments to the IMF articles will allow Canada to maintain an effective voice on the IMF issues.
Canada has been a full participant in the activities of the IMF and strongly supports its role as a central institution in the international monetary system. In order for the IMF to continue to play a critical and an effective role in the system, and in order to Canada to show leadership on international financial matters, Canada must act to ratify the quota increase and suspension amendment.
Recent developments in the Gulf and uncertainties in the world economy makes it desirable to bring the quota increase into effect at the earliest possible date. I believe strongly that it is important that Canada show leadership by earlier ratification of the amendment.
Our legislative approval of the quota increase and a suspension amendment will demonstrate the importance Canada attaches to the role of the fund.
I urge my hon. colleagues in the House to give timely consideration and early passage to this bill.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should, under the agreement whereby I interrupted my previous introduction of the bill, remind the government that we are back to the usual time.
As government members may be aware, one of our colleagues down the corridor in the other place is endeavouring to set a record for the longest participation in debate. It is something like 45 hours. I would like the government to know that I do not intend to be outdone by a senator. Since I have unlimited time, I intend to do my best to exceed 45 hours in discussing Bill C-93.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would just like the hon. member to know that it is now 27 minutes after 10 by these clocks.


John Paul Manley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for providing me with
a copy of his remarks. With respect to his comments concerning the IMF and Canada's role in it, I am pleased to associate myself with those remarks.
As I was saying earlier, the IMF has performed a very useful and distinguished role in the world economy. Canada has been an active participant in the activities of this fund since it was established after the Second World War. I believe we should continue to strongly support the IMF in its central position in international financial matters. Consequently, I do not see that there will be any difficulty in the Official Opposition supporting the proposed amendments to the agreement, as Canada has already agreed to these, because they make ultimate sense in the context of the international arrangements.
I would like, though, to draw out one point that the parliamentary secretary did refer to in his remarks. This would be of concern to many of our constituents. In increasing Canada's quota in the fund, there is no impact on the budgetary position of the Government of Canada.
Essentially, what we are being asked to do is to increase the amount of special drawing rights that are held on account in the International Monetary Fund for Canada. It is as though we are putting additional funds into a different bank account. It is not an expenditure. It does not affect our ability to pay for other things. I think it is important that Canadians understand that.
What we are doing here is agreeing to an increased commitment to international financial stability in not committing ourselves to an increased expenditure of Canadian taxpayers' money.
As I understand it, the actual amount of cash to move from Canada into the fund which would be on deposit for Canada is in the order of $6 million which, while a lot for an individual, is not a lot for the Government of Canada, nor is it an expenditure by the Government of Canada. The only thing I can say about this bill that gives me any cause for concern is the fact that the Minister of Finance for Canada played a role in negotiating these amendments to the agreement. That gives me cause to pause, given the condition of our economy at the present time. Despite that reservation that I expressed, I can say on behalf of the Official Opposition that we will be supporting this bill.
December 7, 1990


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am slightly shocked that the member from the Liberal Party that will, without question, support this kind of a bill. We recognize the need for this and the need for it being in place.
His party and the party across the way were both signatories to a report which was established by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade called Securing our Global Future which indicated very specific concern with the method that the World Bank and the IMF are following.
Although this bill has a very innocuous name, the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, it is a very misleading title. Perhaps when these institutions were put in place in 1944 they had some specific value. They operated at that time to aid the world.
This act has done a lot to enslave much of the Third World. It was not intended to do this. Enslavement is not in the mandate of either the international bank for reconstruction and development, nor is it in the list of purposes for the International Monetary Fund. After all these years, enslavement has been the result for millions of people in countries which have taken the bait and thought that they were on their way to prosperity and health by borrowing from these august institutions.
In fact, most of the Third World countries which have accepted this process are harvesting death, hunger and increasing poverty. I am not suggesting that was the mandate, but that is the result. Canada has not helped to alleviate that result. We are being asked here today to acquiesce once more, without thought or without analysis, to being part of the failure of this world financial structure. Should Canada yield to the world financial institutions and put its signature to the disaster of unmanageable Third World debt? Should it stay part of this structure?
This debt is having the effect, as I said before, of killing children, starving people and devastating the countries which have accepted it. For what? It is designed to protect the financial system from its own failure. Failure is the only term that I can really apply to the impact of the Third World debt and the relationship of those Third World countries to the Bretton Woods institution.
Government Orders
On Thursday, June 7, 1990, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade passed its fifth report entitled Securing our Global Future, Canada's stake in the unfinished business of Third World debt. That committee requested a comprehensive response in accordance with Standing Order 109 from the Government of Canada.
The report was an invitation to the Government of Canada to take some leadership in solving the problems of Third World debt. It was a plea from the members of the committee, members of every party in this House, to the Government of Canada to take some action to break the tradition of accepting the World Bank and IMF domination and say that people are more important than some myth which these financial institutions perpetrate, a myth that the world will fall apart if these debts are not paid back to the IMF or the World Bank, and if they are not paid on time and paid in full.
What this bill does is add to the quota and make more money available to Third World countries because they are in trouble as a result of having borrowed previously.
The committee recommended and specifically urged Canada to seek the support of other governments for an international conference on debt and sustainable global adjustment. Such a conference would aim for negotiated commitments to policy reform by all countries, not only the poor and indebted. One of the things that our international financial structure has done to these Third World countries is to enslave them by saying: "If you want money to pay your debt, you must follow certain requirements", and certain conditions are put in place.
The subsequent recommendation of this committee spelled out the principles and directions that it thought should be the basis of the process of global reform in handling Third World debt. Canada was asked by the committee to take a leadership role, and Canada came up lacking. The response to this report, which was required under the regulations, did not pick up any of the recommendations. Instead of a world conference which would look at world debt, it suggested a seminar. It denied the Third World countries a forum in which they could share the information as to how these institutions are affecting their economies. It refused to give these Third World countries an opportunity to share

December 7, 1990
Government Orders
information about the pain and distress that they are feeling. Canada denied them this opportunity.
What does this have to do with the bill? I quote the committee report:
The sub-committee does not offer a blueprint, a perestroika, in a Bretton Woods institution such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the General Agreement on Thrifts and Hade. But we are convinced of the need for structural adjustments here, not just in developing countries, and not on the basis of some utopian ideal, but as a pragmatic necessity for the future of the planet.
There is no alternative to concerted political action among the major developed-country governments. Canada is a respected member of that group and active in many international organizations. We have a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Finance Minister Michael Wilson now chairs the key policy-advisory committee of the IMF's executive board. It is time for Canada to use its international position and influence to maximum advantage.
That was part of the report of an all-party committee of this House, its recommendations and its discussion with the government.
What is this debt that we have been discussing? There is a $1.3 trillion debt which has been accumulated by the developing countries. Sixty-seven of these countries, roughly one-half of all the so-called Third World countries, are experiencing debt servicing difficulties. It means that their debt has become unmanageable relative to their economies. Their indebtedness has threatened their economic development and political stability.
In most debtor nations, real per capita income has eroded in absolute terms to the position where their standard of living is at 1960s levels. The World Bank, but particularly the IMF, have invested in scheduling this $1.3 trillion worth of debt. That is what this money that we are talking about here today is for. The $1,378 billion that Canada is expected to come up with is for rescheduling by the IMF. It is intended to allow these countries to reschedule their debt. If one already has no possibility of paying the debt that one has, what value is rescheduling? It is fairly obvious that no amount of rescheduling can possibly resolve the problem.
In most of the debtor countries, the total national debt exceeds the total national income by several times. Also, debt services, that is interest paid on the debt and other services, are more-and this is an average across the
board-for these countries than two-thirds of these debtor countries' export earnings. Export earnings are the only way they can get the money. If the services take up two-thirds of those export earnings and they need something to live on, what is left? Therefore, the payment capacity of most debtor countries is declining even as the IMF is rescheduling their debt.
Mr. Speaker, do you get the feeling that this bill might just be asking us to throw some good money after bad? If we continue to use the structure that is in place, as far as the World Bank and the IMF is concerned, that is the only thing that we can assume. This seems to be an almost bottomless pit under these circumstances, a bottomless pit which is soaking up whatever funding is served up and will continue to do so.
The IMF and the World Bank are both institutions which are considered business-like in their approach. But what they have done, as do all banks-at least I am told-is through initial loans and rescheduling loaned at least $4 for every dollar that these institutions have received from their donors. Canada, of course, is one of those donors.
They have loaned out $4 for every dollar they have received from the donor. If this thing suddenly collapsed, not only would they lose the donors' contribution, but they would have to go to those donors and find another $3. They do not think that would happen. So they go on perpetuating their structure and hoping that some day it will clear itself up. I am not at all sure that that will happen.
When the World Bank and the IMF cannot collect from an impoverished country with an unmanageable debt, they impose what these institutions call structural adjustment. The World Bank and the IMF, and possibly commercial banks because they work through the IMF, will decide how a nation generates its wealth from now on.
For instance, if a country needs yams to feed its people, but it can sell bananas, it grows bananas because it will be able to sell those bananas and get some money. The people will go hungry. The World Bank and the IMF decide how people will spend any wealth that they manage to produce.

The first thing a country must do is pay the interest on its debt, whether the people are hungry or not. Then a country is required to pay, if possible, some of the principle but it is not supposed to any of that wealth that it has created to increase the people's productivity, such as on health and on education.
The World Bank and the IMF will tell these countries how to invest any wealth that they might have. They invest only in more banana fields, not in something which might, in the long term, increase their productivity. What the IMF and the World Bank want is shortterm cash tomorrow. A country produces bananas and sells them. There is no investment that might increase the standard of living of the people of that particular country.
Debtor countries are not free to set monetary or fiscal policy. They are not free to set export or import quantities. They are not free to set social and health programs, or wage and price policies. In other words, the structural adjustment has enslaved this nation, not only enslaved it, but removed democracy; democracy being the ability of the people of a country to make its own decisions. So they have eliminated democracy to a certain extent.
The debtor nation has by this process of structural adjustment given up its sovereignty and exchanged it for, what? Prosperity? No. It changed it for economic slavery.
Adolfo Perez Esquivel made a very worth-while statement. Esquivel is a broadcaster and a journalist in Costa Rica. He is also an 1980 Nobel Peace Prize winner. He puts it this way.
It isn't possible to think about real democracy if the economy of a country is oriented only towards satisfying the demands of the international banks.
Perez Esquivel worries that debt not only diminishes democracy, it also requires repression. Policies designed to pay the debt hurt the people; the people protest-and then governments turn to police and military forces to keep the lid on. Even civilian rulers use repression-when the belt has to be tightened more than the waistline permits.
That article is called "Low Intensity Democracy" and I commend it to anybody who is interested in this.
The article goes on to talk about the drain from Latin America and it says:
-creditor nations drained an estimated $500-billion out of Latin America in the form of debt service, profits, royalties and capital
Government Orders
flight. That haemorrhage reduced living standards to the levels they were 12 years ago; in some countries, per capita income has gone back two or three decades past-
But more common is the spread of hunger and disease that kills a thousand children a day in Brazil alone. Will millions of abandoned street kids believe in a democracy that does not believe in them?
That is part of an article about Latin America by Bob Carty.
The choice seems to be democracy or economic enslavement. The NGOs across Canada, in the United States and some of the other NGOs of the world have a position paper which they call "Working Group on the World Bank". This group has actually attempted to work with the World Bank. It has been in place for 10 years but has not been particularly successful. Hopefully in the last couple of years it is making a little bit of headway because I think the World Bank and the IMF are recognizing their failure.
It commends the World Bank for doing certain things and I would recommend again that anyone who is interested in this particular area should take a look at the position paper of the NGO working group on the World Bank because it makes a number of recommendations. It comments on the structural adjustment. It comments on conditionality. It comments on the World Bank and IMF effect on the environment. It abhors the lack of participation by Third World countries and the people of Third Work countries. It also abhors the lack of information given by people who are most affected by the decisions made by the World Bank and the IMF. I could spend a long time on the recommendations of the NGOs.
Our external affairs committee unanimously, everyone from all parties in this House, gave our government an opportunity to take a leading role. As I said earlier, the committee did establish Canadian principles upon which it believed that our government could develop a world strategy which would deal with debt, not only with Canada's relation to the rest of the world or to Third World countries, but that it should take a leadership role within the the IMF and the World Bank in which we have a certain amount of commitment and into which we have put a certain amount of money. We should take this opportunity to develop some kind of world leadership and use it. I want to just briefly cover a little bit of the guiding principles which the committee said Canada should look at when it started dealing with Third World debt. The committee suggested that the Third World

December 7, 1990
debt must allow sustainable human development in the debtor countries. It suggested that the creditor countries reduce the debt service on old debt and not impose it on any new debt. It suggested that poverty and debt are the enemies of development and, if you want development, you must eliminate both poverty and debt. Adjustment can only be successful and should be supported as part of the holistic development approach in co-operation with the debtor country. In other words, it is suggesting that maybe we should pay some attention to the people who are the recipients and that they be part of the decision-making process.
I know, when you walk into a bank, you are told that you can have money under certain conditions, and if you do not like these conditions, no money. That is almost exactly the way these institutions are dealing with the Third World countries. It suggests also that social impacts of adjustment programs must be assessed. A country should not be so constrained that it cannot maintain its basic social programs. Support for debt relief and structural adjustment should be determined, case by case, but according to consistent criteria which reflect Canadian values. This means the values of the Canadian public, I hasten to say, not the values of Canadian banks and financial institutions. Those values are: the commitment of debtor countries to reform to benefit the poor and the vulnerable groups, respect international norms of human rights, encourage democratic traditions, and eliminate the linkage of economic recovery and the debt so that there can be some kind of sustainable development allowed. That is the approach that the all-party committee recommended to the Government of Canada. Again, I have to say that the government came up lacking. Our friends in the opposition supported this as well.
Instead, what is the government doing? The government is asking us to pass this Bretton Woods bill and accept the old, unsuccessful methods of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The government is asking us to allow the kinds of things that have been done, for at least the last 20 years, to continue to be done. The original Bretton Woods institutions were established in 1944, as part of the reconstruction of Europe after the war and did, at that time, a considerable amount of good. But they do not fit the present structure and they should not be the bodies responsible
for the "elimination", and that is the only word I can use, of Third World debt.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have failed in their mandate. They have failed to do what their mandate insists they should do. These institutions have shown they were a failure as long ago as 20 years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, having doubled the national debt between 1984 and 1989, from $160 billion to $320 billion, the government now uses the excuse of the bottom line to lay off 1,100 CBC employees, just like that. Yesterday, there was a job; today, there is not, compliments of Prime Minister Grinch just before Christmas. It is cold comfort to hear on the air the President of the CBC say that he is sorry.
When will the government learn that people and their lives are not pawns, that it cannot cut left, right and centre CBC, VIA Rail, Air Canada, putting people on the street and using the excuse of the balance sheet. What hypocrisy. To lay off 1,100 CBC employees means a terrible shock to each of them, and beyond them, a shock to the creative and technical community which supports them.
The government's march towards the virtual dismantling of the nation through step-by-step weakening of Canadian unity continues inexorably. What a shame.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes I will go back to my riding in Abitibi, and I do so with pride, now that a new tax benefits plan for northern and isolated areas has been announced. By extending tax benefits to a transitional zone, Canada's Minister of Finance has shown he understands the needs of workers
December 7, 1990

in northern Quebec, including the communities of Mata-gami, Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Joutel, Desmaraisville, Wa-swanipi, Miquelon and Mines Selbaie.
Today, I want to thank the council of northern municipalities, all economic partners, members municipal organizations, workers, unions and the people of these communities who supported me since the very beginning of this tax revolt.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Government of Canada, on behalf of the people of Northern Abitibi.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today once again to provide the House with a demonstration of the general public's outrage at this government's goods and services tax.
I wish to inform the House that I will be forwarding today to the Ministers of Finance and National Revenue a list of several hundred names from my riding of Prince Edward-Hastings of persons who are particularly annoyed over the government's recent advertising campaign, that cartoon fiasco, which among other faults took direct aim at the restaurant industry by encouraging people to avoid paying the GST by eating at home.
Not only does it seem that the government wants to put Canada's restaurant owners out of business by slapping a disgraceful tax on them, it now also seems to be waging an advertising campaign against this industry. It is just one more indication of the government's uncaring attitude toward small business in Canada.


MARGUERITE D'YOUVILLE
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, Marguerite D'Youville will be cannonized by His Holiness Pope John Paul II on December 9. A large number of residents from the St. Albert riding will join hundreds of Canadians in Rome for this historic event.
Marguerite D'Youville is the first Canadian bom saint. She was bom in Varennes, Quebec in 1701 and founded the Sisters of Charity, the Grey Nuns. This order has contributed to the early development of our country by educating the young and by caring for the sick and the less fortunate.
Under the leadership of Father Lacombe and Bishop Vital Grandin, the Grey Nuns were responsible for the first school and orphanage, and the first seniors' home in St. Albert. These were followed by hospitals in the province of Alberta.
Today, I join with Canadians from coast to coast to pay tribute to the Grey Nuns and their founder, Marguerite D'Youville.


EAST TIMOR
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the 15th anniversary of the illegal Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Nearly one third of the population of East Timor have been killed or starved since this brutal invasion.
The UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council adopted resolutions demanding Indonesia's immediate withdrawal from East Timor. Indonesia continues to defy the United Nations.
Canada abstained from the UN General Assembly resolution and has voted against resolutions endorsing East Timor's right to self-determination and humanitarian assistance. Since 1980, Canada has voted against the withdrawal of Indonesian forces from East Timor. Canada, of course, has more than $1 billion invested in Indonesia, being the third-largest foreign investor.
Canada's failure to support East Timor contradicts the position Canada has taken against the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.


SUPPLY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, farmers from my province of Prince Edward Island are following the GATT talks with baited breath in concern over the future of our supply management system.

There are over 600 dairy, egg and poultry farmers in Prince Edward Island whose livelihoods may be significantly altered by the results of the GATT negotiations taking place in Brussels. Both the National Farmers' Union and the P.E.I. Federation of Agriculture have expressed concern about the possibility of our supply management system being significantly altered by these negotiations.
Canada's system of orderly marketing has created the most efficient producers in the world. Our system is not geared to create surplus and has not contributed to the current trade distortions in agriculture.
I call on the government to consider the interests of the dairy, poultry and egg farmers in its negotiations in Brussels and I ask it to maintain its position to strengthen Article XI.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, the fate of our garment workers is now in the hands of GATT. The results of the GATT talks have left the future of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement in limbo. With the recession, high interest rates, loss of consumer confidence, free trade, Mexico, the GST, GATT and the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, Canada's garment industry has more than enough on its plate.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has about 2,500 clothing manufacturers. In Quebec, this means 63,000 direct jobs and
100,000	indirect jobs. The industry generates sales totalling $8.5 billion in this country. The rules of international trade in the garment industry are changing too fast and on too many fronts at once.
Mr. Speaker, if the Multi-Fibre Arrangement is ever abolished, we must have a fairly long period of transition to allow the industry to adapt at the same rate as the United States, our principal trading partner.


BELANGER-CAMPEAU COMMISSION
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, appearing before the parliamentary commission on the constitutional future of Quebec which held a hearing in
Hull on Wednesday, December 5, several witnesses stressed the lack of communication or co-operation, if you prefer, between the Government of Quebec and the federal government in a number of important areas.
Here in the Outaouais, one of the most important dossiers is the completion of highway 50 from the Outaouais to Montreal. Perhaps I may remind the people in our area that the agreements signed with the federal government go back to 1972, in which year the section from Hull to Masson was completed.
When the Parti Quebecois came to power in 1976, no funds were allocated by the Government of Quebec to complete the highway. In 1985, once again the Government of Quebec refused to invest any more money in completing the highway in the Outaouais. We are now in 1990, and the differences are political rather than constitutional. The reason why highway 50 in the Outaouais area is not being completed is because of political differences between both levels of government. We urge the federal government and the Quebec government to agree on an item that is extremely important to economic development in the Outaouais.


GOODS ANS SERVICES TAX
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, I always knew there were some very smart Liberals. In an article I read recently, Raymond Gameau, ex-Finance critic of the federal Liberal Party, said that the goods and services tax proposed by the federal government was probably the fairest and least harmful tax to be found in this day and age of global markets.
Mr. Gameau explained that the existing federal tax on manufactured products was a disaster for Canadian industry because it was exported along with the products themselves, which made Canadian companies less competitive.
Mr. Gameau said that this tax was fair to everyone and would certainly prevent tax evasion to a considerable degree. He said it was the only solution the government had to raise more money, especially among big consumers.
As for the attitude taken by the Liberal senators, Mr. Gameau said it was unconscionable and an incredible

example of political partisanship. Nobody in his right mind believes that people welcome new taxes.
Mr. Speaker, here is another federal Liberal who finally saw the light. Liberal senators, stop fooling around and pass the GST-hurry up!


RAILWAY SAFETY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, there is growing concern among railway workers and the general public about recent changes in rail safety policy, changes which are increasing the risk to the public and worker safety.
CP Rail is allowing unsafe or bad order freight cars to leave Winnipeg for further destinations, instead of being repaired in Winnipeg where and when the defective components are discovered.
VIA Rail has done away with visual inspections of its passenger trains in Winnipeg, meaning that there are no inspections between Toronto and Vancouver, in spite of the fact that since May 11 rail workers have detected 15 defects on VIA trains.
CN Rail is violating Uniform Code of Operating Rules No. 104 by instructing its conductors to leave rail switches in the open position, instead of returning them to the appropriate configuration following the train movement.
The 1989 Summary of Railway Accidents and Incidents prepared by the Transportation Safety Board shows an 11.9 per cent increase in derailments on the main line tracks of CN and CP. This report indicates that approximately 40 per cent of the train derailments that have occurred on the main track over the past five years have resulted from defects on the track itself. Do you remember all the section gangs, Mr. Speaker, that were eliminated? The report also made the observation that "derailments due to equipment failure increased significantly in 1989".
There's more to come, thanks to the negligence of this government.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the employees of CBC have once again been dealt a harsh blow. The recent announcement of spending cuts of $100 million dollars means close to 1,200 Canadians are out of a job.
It is saddening that a national institution like the CBC has to struggle to survive. Perhaps the government does not realize that it is cutting out the very heart of Canada.
Canadians last year were hit by VIA Rail cutbacks and now the government is cutting off CBC. With no transportation and no communication, how does the government expect to keep the country together?
Next Thursday, at noon on Parliament Hill, my colleagues and I will be joining other Canadians in a rally in support of our national institutions. I call on Canadians all across Canada to rally in support of the CBC.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE LATE JEAN DUCEPPE
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to pay tribute to the memory of Jean Duceppe who died last night in Montreal.
Mr. Duceppe was a great Quebecer. Of humble origins, he played all the great roles on the stage. On radio, he was well known for his energy, humour, warmth and passionate feeling. On television, he played in some of our most popular "teleromans". On the stage, he acted in some of our best "beaux dimanches" offerings, and he even founded a theatre group which bears his name and which, I imagine, will continue to exist as living testimony to his talent.
As a union organizer, a nationalist and a performing artist, Jean Duceppe made a tremendous contribution to the world of the performing arts in Quebec. He leaves us a rich and challenging cultural heritage. With Jean Duceppe, our cultural roots have blossomed.

December 7, 1990


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday across Canada we remembered last year's horror in Montreal. We remembered with grief and outrage the unnecessary death of 14 women. We remembered the hate and violence that caused those tragic deaths.
We must also remember that the hate and sickness that led to those murders occur to varying degrees every day in the country. It is simply not enough to remember that one horrible day. We must act to ensure that such a tragedy never occurs again. We must work to eliminate the ongoing abuse of women that occurs daily in our society.
This is not just a women's issue. As men, we have a particular responsibility. It is our daughters, our sisters, our wives, our mothers, and our friends who are at risk. For their sakes, and for those who are yet unborn, we must work together to guarantee them safe and secure futures.
The government must proceed as a minimum with tighter gun control legislation.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to join the Minister responsible for the Status of Women in marking the 20th anniversary of the release of the Royal Commission's Report on the Status of Women.
I would like to commend the efforts of the many groups and individuals who, over the past 20 years, have helped bring Canada to the level of equality we know today.
Women's groups across Canada were instrumental in the establishment of the royal commission and in providing input to it. They continue to be important agents for change in our country.
Following on the recommendations of the commission, women's directorates in all provinces and territories have been working hard over the years to improve the situation for women in their jurisdictions. Status of Women Canada has helped bring about change since
1976 by advising the minister and other federal departments and agencies on a wide range of issues affecting women. The Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women has also played a critical role in identifying and publicizing issues of concern to women since its establishment in 1973.
Let us recognize the collaborative efforts of these organizations.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regret to call attention to the continued problem of family violence that unfortunately characterizes our society.
On the same day that Canada and the House of Commons was commemorating 14 victims of violence in Montreal, we learned that a judge in Quebec City gave a man a suspended sentence for killing his wife. The judge commented on the wife's aggressiveness and vindictive personality as a cause. I regret, and I am certain this House regrets that once again a woman victim has been blamed for an act of violence that resulted in her death.
Those of us who have worked in social services and family court realize that domestic violence is rarely started by women. Yet, they are almost always the casualties of physical violence.
Yesterday, we showed our collective grief in commemorating 14 victims. Today, we must start dealing with violence, whenever we find it and wherever we find it, as a social problem to be attacked and eradicated.


CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the violation against the charter is justified in a free and democratic society. We either respect the charter or we do not.
Recently, on the basis of the charter, the justice system has protected the rights of women to have access to abortion, the rights of religious groups to wear turbans and carry kirpans, and the rights of refugees to have lengthy hearings. But when it comes to senior citizens who have contributed the most to the building of this

country, all of a sudden the justice system has double standards.
The justices of the Supreme Court have made a political decision and should be censured. I hope this House, which is the highest court of the land, will bring forward a motion showing the will of its members that this decision is unacceptable.


THE LATE JEAN DUCEPPE
Mr. Gilles Rocheleau (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, a very sad news for Quebec this morning, the loss of Jean Duceppe, an outstanding artist who made his mark in Quebec history, a man who never left anyone indifferent. I felt a pang of anguish when I heard the sad news this morning. To me, Jean Duceppe was an artisan of Quebec proudness, for he made an exceptional contribution and used his remarquable talent to promote our culture. His heart-felt dedication, his love for Quebec will be our full inheritance. Wherever he is now I am sure he knows he can rely on his son Gilles, our colleague the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, to uphold the legitimate aspirations of Quebec here in this House.
To his wife, to Gilles, to his children and grandchildren, to all the artists who will continue his work in Quebec, may I say on behalf of all Quebecers: Thank you, Jean, thank you for everything!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today is another sad day for working people in the country because Statistics Canada has reported that in the past month the rate of unemployment has climbed to 9.1 per cent. Sixty-two thousand more Canadian workers lost their jobs in the past four weeks alone.
These figures may be cold, hard, anonymous numbers on a page for this government, but they represent
Oral Questions
thousands of real people, Canadians who have lost their jobs, who will not be able to meet their mortgage or rent payments, who will be having increasing difficulty in feeding and clothing their children and families.
When will the Prime Minister and his government recognize the misery that their policies are bringing to thousands and thousands more Canadian families? When will this government drop its policies that create unemployment and move to new policies that will create jobs; policies of full employment for all of this country?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, no one takes pleasure in reading unemployment statistics. No one appreciates losing their job. Anyone who has, knows the difficult periods that you must go through. We understand that.
This was not unexpected. The Minister of Finance said there would be a slowdown in the economy this year. Most of the jobs that have been lost are in the manufacturing and construction sectors.
I can say to the hon. member that interest rates have dropped almost two percentage points since the end of May. Mortgage interest payments now are at the rate they were approximately two years ago. As inflation is wrung out of the economy, those rates can continue to fall.
As far as the manufacturing industry is concerned, we have, after taking advice that has been given to numerous governments over 50 years, changed the tax system which was penalizing Canadian manufacturers.
If the hon. member wants to do something about that, he can stop his friends in the Senate from speaking 40 hours at a time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this government raised the current manufacturers' sales tax four times since it got into office.


Some hon. members:: Shame.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Its policies which it is defending have created the current economic mess. All across this country we see the price Canadians are paying for the economic mismanagement of this government.
Already five out of 10 provinces have unemployment rates at double digit levels, above 10 per cent. Is this government pushing for a perfect 10 out of 10, to have every province with double digit unemployment rates above 10 per cent? That is not even counting the 1,000

Oral Questions
workers in the CBC who have lost their jobs in places like Windsor, Matane and Sept-Iles.
Why will the government not wake up and see the damage it's policies are doing to this country? Why will it not bring in today new policies of job creation and not job destruction?


John Horton McDermid: The hon. leader of the party opposite is talking about provinces. There was some good news in the statistics as well.
For example, the unemployment rate fell in four provinces: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Employment rose in four provinces. The number of unemployed fell in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan. There are areas of light in this country.
I might tell the hon. member that if we start comparing the unemployment figures today with what went on in the period of time when he sat in the cabinet of another government, we are not going to break those records. I can assure him of that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I just said, Mr. Speaker, in five provinces-Quebec included- the unemployment rate is already over 10 per cent and, last month, more that 39,000 workers were laid off in the Province of Quebec. So I ask the Prime Minister where are the policies he had promised which were supposed to create jobs? Why is he so intent on making life ever more difficult for workers throughout this country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my friend refers to Quebec as an example. Let me point out that the current unemployment rate in Quebec is 11.4 per cent as against more than 13 per cent when the Liberals left office in September 1984. Almost
400,000	new jobs have been created in Quebec.
As the minister just said, despite the hardships we are experiencing with respect to employment, we learned this morning that four provinces did make substantial
gains in that sector. That has to be an encouraging sign, given the difficult national and international context.
As the Minister of Finance stated on a number of occasions, there is still hope and every indication is that this decline will push interest rates down. This will eventually pave the way for an economic recovery which in turn will reduce unemployment, which is what we and all political factions in this House are striving for.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The result of the induced economic slowdown in the Prime Minister's own words has been the rise in unemployment that is recorded in today's statistics.
When is the government going to come forward with policies to help those Canadians who are hurting and suffering as a result of this economic slowdown? Canadians want to know whether the Prime Minister knows that Canadians are hurting, and if he does know, what is he going to do to help them?


John Horton McDermid: I find it passing strange, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member whose party held up an unemployment insurance bill that is providing training and retraining money to the tune of $800 million would ask a question like that. Of course we are bringing policies forward to help people for training and retraining who are unemployed. But it was held up in the Senate for almost a year.
He stands up and asks what policies we are bringing forward. That is one. Another is the GST. If the hon. member will shake up his friends across the hall in the red Chamber and tell them to get on with taking a final vote on the GST, businesses which are planning for it will proceed with that and we can restructure our tax programs to help companies and businesses in this country, not hinder them, and create economic activity and employment. That is how he could help us.
We have introduced the policies. The Grits in the Senate are holding it up.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, if there was any mystery about why this government is at

14 per cent in the polls it has got to be answered when the question "What will the government do to help Canadians?" is answered by "We'll bring in the GST". Who is going to believe that?
The monetary policy that this government has pursued so far has resulted in two things, the high unemployment rate that we see today and the government's budgetary deficit going further out of control so that it needs to borrow another $2.5 billion.
I ask the Prime Minister how the government can justify a monetary policy that one and the same time increases unemployment and increases the deficit?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we were left with a $200 billion debt and any additions to the debt today are compounded interest from the debt that was left when we took office in 1984. That is fact number one.
Second, the hon. member knows full well that the inflationary pressures in this country were at alarming proportions. They talk about the senior citizens and the low-income people. They are the ones who are hurt most by high inflation. When the Grits ignored high inflation, it went up to 13 per cent and 14 per cent, and who hurt the most? The unemployed, the poor in our economy, those on fixed incomes, and senior citizens.
This government was determined not to let that happen. Inflationary pressures are dropping. Interest rates are dropping. We want to get them down on a permanent basis. That is what this is all about for the economy of this country and its future.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. the Prime Minister. We are aware this morning that the unemployment rate has jumped again. The recession now has taken root nationwide in pretty well all regions of this country, with tremendous increases in unemployment. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since we have in this country a made in Canada recession that was deliberately and methodically created by the Government of Canada to fight inflation by increasing interest rates and increasing the value of the Canadian dollar, what is the plan to fight the recession? What is the plan to put people back to work? We, in this party, have suggested a five-point
Oral Questions
program. What has he, as Prime Minister of Canada, going to do?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party proposed a five-point program in a press release. There was no back-up material and no costing. Every single legitimate economist who has taken a look at it laughed, and said it would put this country into a recession like they have never seen before, causing very high interest rates and high inflation. Every economist has said that that is what would happen if the NDP brought in its policies. We do not plan to do that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is about time the Prime Minister fired this minister. We call for a reduction, not an increase in interest rates.
As the leader of this country, I want to know from the Prime Minister of Canada whether in the last five or six months he has been to the unemployment lines that are getting longer and longer? Has he been to see the unemployed? Has he been to food banks in this country? Has he seen some of the almost million kids who are in poverty in Canada? What is going to say to all those people? Will he go down to those lines and talk to those poor people instead of spending all of his time sipping champagne, eating caviar, with his wealthy friends on Bay Street in Toronto?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the last time that I sipped champagne and had caviar was at a Socialist International convention, and I was an observer.
I share the sincere concern of my hon. friend about any increase in unemployment rates. I think he would acknowledge that when this government was sworn in, unemployment was at 11.6 per cent. It is now down to 9.1 per cent. In almost all of the provinces of Canada, including his own, unemployment has decreased very substantially over the period of time and employment has increased very dramatically.
For example, in the case of youth unemployment, which is a particular concern, it is down over 4 percentage points over the period of economic growth. It could not be otherwise because in the last six years, 1.5 million new jobs have been created in Canada, 83 per cent of them have been full time and 64 per cent of them have

December 7, 1990
Oral Questions
gone to women. During this period of time, Canada has led all of the OECD countries in terms of job creation. It is a very impressive job creation record.
We are going through a period, along with others, of economic difficulties. We recognize that. We are seeking to bring about lower interest rates to re-energize the economy to make sure that we go through another sustained period of impressive economic growth. We cannot do it artificially. We cannot do it by repealing the laws of economics and instructing anybody, tomorrow morning, to lower interest rates by 3.5 per cent. We must reduce the deficit, obtain the confidence of the international investment community, attract those investment funds and create the employment. That is the way the economy moves and that is what we are trying to do.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister is aware, the situation is worse now than it was last year. Canada is now in a full-scale recession. In Quebec, the unemployment rate has now reached 11.4 per cent.
What is the Prime Minister going to do now to create-and this is very important, Mr. Speaker-to create jobs for the unemployed in Baie Comeau and for welfare recipients in Montreal? What is he going to do now for people in Canada who are living in poverty? This is a question many thousands of Canadian men and women across this country are forced to ask. What is he going to do now? Figures are not enough. What kind of concrete action is he going to take for the benefit of those Canadians who are now living in poverty?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is perfectly right. Figures as such don't mean a thing when we are talking about an individual or a family. That is why the economic progress we have experienced for six years is particularly encouraging. The nature of this progression is such that today,
956.000	Canadians are no longer living in poverty;
333.000	women and 297,000 children and 83,000 senior citizens are no longer living in poverty.
So I think that, although our programs still leave much to be desired, we have made progress towards a fairer and more equitable deal for Canadians. Job creation and the resulting prosperity have been relatively equally
distributed throughout our society. These figures are still quite substantial. Nearly one million Canadians more managed to get out of the poverty cycle during the past six years, including children, the elderly and families.
Last Saturday, some new figures came out, which indicate:

"Average family income in Canada now exceeds $50,000 for the first time in our history." This is the kind of sustained economic growth that we have been working on, and I think my hon. friend would agree with me that, while we have difficulties, there are areas of substantial encouragement.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Prime Minister should brag about these figures, because they show that in the past year, nearly 24 per cent of our jobs were lost-232,000 Canadians less are working this year compared with last year, in other words, 1,217,000 Canadians and their families will not be able to afford Christmas because they are out of work. I therefore want to ask the Prime Minister and his government exactly what kind of policy they have that will give hope to these millions of Canadians and their families who can't even think about buying Christmas presents for their children.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that programs are aligned with dropping interest rates. We now see the beneficial effects of these reductions, which although they are relatively modest, are being sustained and are starting to have a beneficial impact on the economy. Once this impact has been absorbed by the economy, we will see a drop in the deficit, and we will experience sustained economic recovery. What we see this morning is what we are seeing in the United States and in many countries throughout the world.
I agree with my hon. friend that figures as such don't mean a lot, and with the hon. member I also deplore the existence of these very human problems in a society like ours. However, as I just mentioned to my NDP friend from Saskatchewan, today, nearly one million Canadians less are living in poverty, thanks to the economic growth we experienced in Canada during the past six years. And
December 7, 1990

I believe that by maintaining our policies, we will be able to do more for the neediest in our society.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not listening.
In the last month alone, 48,000 fewer people are working in the manufacturing industry and 47,000 jobs have been lost in the construction industry. His own government is predicting a further job loss in the construction industry of over 70,000 people beginning next year.
I want to ask this question of the Prime Minister, three weeks before Christmas, on behalf of those thousands of Canadians because Canada has been bleeding jobs in the last month. What hope is he going to give to those Canadians and their families that his government will introduce specific programs before Christmas to give them a chance to get back as productive members of the workforce? What hope is he giving to those 1.2 million Canadians who are forced to go on unemployment insurance to survive this Christmas?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be no members of the House who would expect us to devise economic policy based on the statistics of a given month or even of two months. There are international trends and currents with which any government must deal. We are in the process of seeking to deal as best and effectively as we can with the problems that have been visited upon the nation by an extremely high debt and a very high cost of servicing that debt.
For example, and it is very important, the United States spends roughly 15 cents on the dollar to service its debt. The province of British Columbia would spend four cents. A have-not province, like New Brunswick, spends 16 cents. The Government of Canada inherited a situation where 35 cents on every dollar-one of the worst records in the industrialized world-has to go to pay the interest on the debt.
This, of course, very severely limits the kinds of government programs that can be initiated. Inasmuch as my hon. friends in the Liberal Party are being particularly aggressive in regard to this this morning-
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: We should be.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says she should be and I agree with her. I point out to her that eight years ago this morning, when the leader of the Opposition, who is sitting next to her, was the President of the Treasury Board, inflation, which is today 4.8 per cent, was then 9.9 per cent and unemployment which is this morning 9.1 per cent was then 2.6 per cent and the hon. member did not have a word to say.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Shirley Maheu: This is no joke, sir!


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Shirley Maheu: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Statistics Canada has just revealed that in Montreal alone, the number of jobless increased by
58,000	during the past year and that this trend continues. Of that number, 51,000 were from the manufacturing sector. What is the government doing about this particular case and what is being done by the minister responsible for Montreal?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear a question about Montreal's economy being raised by the Official Opposition.
I remember that in 1984, when I ran for election, the Liberals who were in power at the time did everything to kill the economy in Montreal. The then Minister of Finance, Mr. Marc Lalonde, wanted to kill the petrochemical industry in Montreal. Without the personal intervention of the Prime Minister, we would have lost about 20,000 jobs in Montreal, both downstream and upstream.
Since it is common knowledge that the Liberal Party wanted to block Bill C-22 on the pharmaceutical industry, I fail to see how today, it would dare to criticize our policies. You killed Montreal and we are trying to save it!


Shirley Maheu: It's wonderful to live in the past, Mr. Speaker!

Oral Questions
My question is again directed to the Prime Mnister. There are at least 386,000 jobless in Quebec, including
184,000	in Montreal. When and how does the Prime Minister intend to put a stop to this crisis before there is a depression?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, we have signed a number of agreements with the Government of Quebec, including one that will involve investing $500 million in regional development. Under Bill C-21, as was said earlier by my hon. colleague, we will invest $800 million in training programs for Canadians, and Quebec will, of course, get its fair share.
We have also investesd $350 million in a project to keep young people from dropping out of high school. What Canada lacks, of course, is training programs. This government has, I think, come up with the best training programs in the history of this country, in the form of Bill C-21. And who blocked Bill C-21? The Liberals!


NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for whoever is answering on behalf of the Minister of Finance.
Fourteen months after receiving the task force study on northern tax benefits, the Minister of finance 45 minutes ago released his new plan.
Under the old system, there were 3,200 communities in this country that received northern tax benefits. Under the proposal of the task force that was going to be reduced to 400 communities.
No one in the Department of Finance can tell us how many communities are still going to receive the northern tax benefit. We do know from our own work on this that over 40,000 individuals in Newfoundland alone will lose their northern tax benefit.
Can the government come clean and state how many communities will lose their northern tax benefit, and how many Canadian citizens will lose that benefit?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did release the tax benefits for northerners today.
As you know, there was a tremendous amount of study done. A task force looked into this and came in with a recommendation which caused a great deal of discussion in the country.
The Minister of Finance spent a considerable amount of time working with municipalities, with members of Parliament from the various areas, consulting with many people across this country to try and come to a solution that was both fair and equitable.
I believe that the announcement that he released today was a very good one, a very fair one. As the minister has said, and I will quote, "We are accepting the task force recommendation for a single northern zone and adding to it an intermediate zone that bridges the gap between the northern zone and the less isolated areas of the country. This will put an end to the arbitrary and divisive community by community approach, while continuing to ensure that communities which are both northern and truly isolated continue to have the tax assistance that they need."
I think the hon. member will agree that it is a far better system. I can remember his House leader standing up and complaining about the old system.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the minister, by his own definition, would say that there is absolutely no remote, or no isolated community on the island of Newfoundland. That, by his own definition and by the map that we have is how the government looks at this country. None of those communities will receive the full tax benefit. None will receive half the tax benefit under the government's proposal.
The government took 14 months before it put out a press release 45 minutes ago in reaction to the task force report. A number of Conservative MPs counselled their mayors, the city councillors, the media, their citizens, not to complain.
As the government took 14 months to come up with its response, will it give the thousands upon thousands of Canadians who are going to be cut off a chance to appeal this process?
December 7, 1990


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the reason it took 14 months from the time the task force delivered its report to the government and was made public was for the very reasons that he stated, we had consultations with municipalities from one coast to the other, including Churchill, I might add. It is the hon. member's own riding, I believe. I am sure he is pleased with the results that were released today by the Minister of Finance. I can tell the hon. member that tremendous consultation has gone into the northern benefits tax package. I think it is a very fair one. I think it is veiy equitable, and I believe that it will benefit numerous Canadians who live in isolated areas of this country.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications or for whoever is answering for him in the House today.
With the closing of CBC TV in Goose Bay, Labrador has been cut adrift from the rest of Canada because there is no alternative TV as there is in many parts of northern Canada.
Why, in the remote, unique part of Canada that has a story to tell, that has a voice to raise in this important national debate, is the government allowing that TV station to close at this time in our nation's history?


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I should inform the hon. member that not one of the 1,600 CBC transmitters across the country will be shutting down, including the one in Labrador.
What is happening is that there is a reallocation of scarce resources going on within the CBC with emphasis on regional and national programming. I think it is entirely reasonable to consider that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is a region in the context of the CBC, and that the regional coverage will continue along with news gathering taking place within Labrador and being seen on the screens of Labradorians.
Oral Questions


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a broadcaster. He knows that a transmitter is not a voice, a transmitter does not make up newscasts, it does not throw out TV films, and you cannot send a broadcaster from St. John's, Newfoundland to Goose Bay or the remote coast of Labrador to gather the news. It is unreasonable. It is unthinkable. It is incredible that the government should think of that.
Will the parliamentary secretary ask the CBC to reinstate stations like Goose Bay that are remote, that are unique, that are in northern Canada where there is no alternative. Will he give an assurance that in the further cuts to come, radio in the north, including Labrador, will be protected because this is just the tip of the iceberg?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the CBC plan for Labrador, there is no intention to stop having news coverage emanating from Labrador. That is, there will be news gatherers within Labrador.
With reference to the radio part of this question, the reduction of radio affected by this restructuring within the CBC amounts to 1 per cent of the total and will not adversely affect service in any part of Canada.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister deals also with the cuts in the CBC's budget. Yesterday, the President of ACFO, the Association canadierme-frangaise de I'Ontario, remarked concerning these cuts, and I quote: "The CBC has just wiped out French Ontario from the map".
In view of the alarming rate of assimilation of francophones outside Quebec, why does the government allow these major cuts in the CBC's budget which represent an additional threat for francophones in this country?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the organization has conveyed to the government its concern about the CBC situation. I must answer the hon. member the same way the minister did yesterday the hon. member for Sudbury, namely that he should wait for the annual report which the CBC is expected to table within the

Oral Questions
next three months to find out about the funding of the French network.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, there is lots of money for GST advertising, but it seems no money to protect linguistic minorities.

Since the Prime Minister refuses to protect linguistic minorities, I will direct my supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that it is the Secretary of State's responsability to protect and promote linguistic minorities in Canada, is he prepared to protect these minorities which the Prime Minister and the Minister of Communications refuse to do? Is he prepared to do that?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: As far as linguistic minorities from coast to coast are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the services to linguistic minorities will be maintained in all towns and communities throughout Canada.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, this government's argument for the hatchet job on Air Canada, Petro-Canada, VIA Rail, and now the CBC, has repeatedly been the need to rein in the federal debt.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister where his priorities are when, this year alone, the government will commit $600 million on an air defence anti-tank system and in excess of $1 billion, on a gold-plated, radiocommunications system for our land based forces in Europe? It is my understanding that these systems are no longer even necessary. At the same time, the government pleads poverty as it takes the broad-axe to the heartbeat of Canada.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I really quite surprised by the tone of my hon. colleague's questions.
Is he calling into question the fact that members of our armed forces should have modem, up-to-date equipment, in order to do the kind of professional job which they are called upon to do? I can certainly assure my hon. colleague that both of the projects which he refers
to, the ADATS system and the TCCS system, will provide the most up-to-date technology, to enable our land forces to continue their functions in Canada, when they are called to help serve in the Persian Gulf or in peacekeeping operations in any other part of the world.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. After years of negotiating, the Uruguay round of GATT is in danger of breaking down. What contingency plan does the Prime Minister have if these talks fail? What action is he prepared to take to save the livelihoods of Canadian farmers? Is he prepared to give back to Canadian farmers the management tools that he took away from them so that they can compete internationally?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a very silly question. I think it is generally recognized, even by most members of the opposition, not my hon. friend, that this government has done more for farmers across this country than any other government in history. The deputy-
An hon. member How?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well my hon. friend says, "how". One way is by increasing assistance to farmers by 650 per cent in five and a half years, that is how.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture, with many others, are working very carefully in Brussels to seek to avert a collapse of the talks.
This government placed agricultural subsidies on the table of the G-7 at the Tokyo summit in 1986. It was as a result of that beginning, sustained then by the Cairns Group, that the question of trade-distorting agricultural subsidies has managed to make it to this part of the GATT talks.
There is clearly a very serious conflict between the European Community and pretty well all the rest of the producers, including Canada, the United States, and members of the Cairns group. There does not appear to have been enough movement, at this point in time, by the Europeans to save this particular part of the round, although the Minister of Agriculture and Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade and their colleagues are pressing on in the hope that perhaps a formula can be found which will avert a disaster, preclude the possibility of an ongoing trade war on agricultural subsidies between the community and the United

States and restore a degree of sanity which will benefit all Canadian farmers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I start Tabling of Documents, I must say that there has been a problem with the clocks in the Chamber. My clock here is in good shape, so I know exactly what is going on. We started at five minutes after and we ended up now, as you can see, the clock is back to 12 o'clock again. We ended up at 12 o'clock. Unfortunately, when there is a Question Period dealing with economic problems, sometimes it takes a little longer for members and ministers both to produce their questions and answer them. I hope that next week will be a lot better.
We will start with a point of order, the hon. chief Whip for the opposition.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we were five minutes late in starting, I would hope that the Chair would want to give serious consideration to extending the length of Question Period by five minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What I said is that it started at five minutes late and it ended at five minutes late.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I want to correct an impression that I left with the House. I said that eight years ago this morning, when the Liberals were in office, the inflation rate was 9.9 per cent and today it is 4.8 per cent. I indicated that the unemployment rate today was 9.1 per cent and that it was 2.6 per cent under the Liberals. In point of fact that was a grave error. It was 12.6 per cent.
Points of Order


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I know that all members, particularly the member for Hamilton East, would want me to correct that inadvertent error.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government members may be laughing about these numbers today. Canadians are not laughing.
I am rising on a point of order because on more than one occasion the Prime Minister and his colleagues have claimed falsely that the refusal of the Senators to pass Bill C-21 has resulted in the lack of job funds being made available.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: This statement should be corrected on two counts. First, the number of people who have been cut off as a result of the implementation of Bill C-21 is driving up the welfare rolls across the country.


Some hon. members:: Debate.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The second point, according to the public affairs spokesperson for the ministry of employment and immigration, the job fund will-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. On a point of order the hon. chief Whip for the Opposition.



LENGTH OF ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['That is debate.\nTabling of documents.\nRoutine Proceedings']
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the Chair the provision of Standing Order 30, particularly subsection (5). I presume the Chair is fully aware of it, but it refers to Question Period which is to commence on Fridays at 11.15 and, of course, it is to terminate at 12 o'clock.
It seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the fact-perhaps because the clocks are not working properly today-that you allowed the right hon. Prime Minister some two minutes and 13 seconds to respond to

Points of Order
a question from a colleague from the New Democratic Party, you would have given some consideration to the request that was being made by this party to extend the Question Period by a minimum of five minutes.
I would ask the Chair, in the spirit in which that rule is written and the way in which we operate in this particular Chamber, if the Chair would indicate as to why the Chair refuses to grant that request, in view of the facts that have been put before the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to comment to the hon. member. I said that I know we started at about 11.19 according to my clock. My clock right here is the one I look at. At 11.19 we started, and we finished at five minutes after 12. We did a minute over the 45 minutes. We had 45 minutes of Question Period.


An hon. member:: No, we didn't.


An hon. member:: Yes, we did.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Listen to him.


An hon. member:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In a spirit of Christmas, again I would like to repeat to the hon. members that I have knowledge of the time we commenced Question Period, and I know exactly the time that we finished Question Period. I made sure that hon. members had an extra minute over the 45 minutes. It was exactly 46 minutes.
If there is difficulty between the chair's clocks and my clock which is up here, then I am sorry about that. I must just say that the watches will have to be cleared up next week in order to facilitate this.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am surprised that the Official Opposition would be complaining about the time that they have for Question Period when, indeed, the government members did not have one opportunity to raise a question.
I think that needs to be put in context.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will obviously have to accept your ruling, but I would hope, as a courtesy to members on this side, that you would undertake to check with the clerks at the Table to see whether or not in actual fact the clocks have been synchronised between you have, Mr. Speaker, and as to what they have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will be glad to do that. The hon. member for Hamilton East.



Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in light of the 1.2 million Canadians who are without jobs today, I hope you will hear this point of order out-


Some hon. members:: Order.


Mr. Malone:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -because the government spokesperson today claimed on more than one occasion that the passage of Bill C-21 would result in job funds being made available.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Crowfoot, on a point of order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I had the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Hamilton East has twice now risen.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would you put the
point of order, please.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that funds that should have been available, according to government statements in the House, will not be available according to the spokesperson for employment and immigration until at least April of next year.
The government members are deliberately misleading the House on moneys available. That is a point of order, because a member cannot stand up in the House and deliberately mislead us on funds which are being held back for the 1.2 million people in this country who need jobs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Crowfoot, on a point of order.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, the question that was raised by the Whip of the Official Opposition in part asked about the rules of the House and how we conduct ourselves here.
One of the rules of the House which we all should be cognizant of and obey is that it is inappropriate and wrong in this House to say that anyone deliberately misled anyone. That, too, is a rule that ought to be given some attention.
December 7, 1990

Mr. Speaker, you have already ruled on the question of time. There should be no argument, because you have that big clock at your feet.
Since the question of rules in Question Period has been raised, let me also submit that there are rules that say that there should be no preambles to questions in the House. There is also a rule that is found in Erskine May and Beauchesne's that would indicate that no question ought to be argumentative.
In being here, I think that in recent times I may have heard a question that might have been argumentative. Sometimes, it seems to me, that there are preambles to questions.
Since you have ruled on the one, Mr. Speaker, I might ask the Chair if you could reflect upon, since we have the electronic media, the nature of Question Period for the whole purpose of instituting the rules that we do have, such that Question Period gives us the kind of decorum in the House that the people of the country would expect us to have.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, on a different point of order, you permitted the Prime Minister to clarify his comparative unemployment statistics when he referred to the rate of unemployment eight years ago today.
I feel that it is appropriate, so that the record is clear, to say that the Prime Minister was comparing two recessionary periods in Canadian economic history at a point at which-


Some hon. members:: Debate.


John Paul Manley: The Prime Minister did have the opportunity to make his point. I would like to explain that the recession in 1981-82 began at a different point in the year. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to take advantage of the opportunity to compare statistics later on when the-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate.
Tabling of documents.
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 59 petitions.
[Editor's note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
58TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 58th report of the Striking Committee. This report deals with membership of a legislative committee. Pursuant to Standing Order 113(1), upon presentation such reports are deemed adopted.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, now that the chief government whip has now joined us, I am sure that he would want to support me in the presenting of this petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, which calls upon the Government of Canada to withdraw the goods and services tax.
In particular, Mr. Speaker, the petitions that I have here, which I believe number seven in total, are primarily from the province of Ontario from Ottawa, Gloucester, and surrounding areas. The petitioners have impressed upon the Government of Canada that the proposed goods and services tax, which is to be implemented with regard to books, magazines and newspapers, ought to be withdrawn.

Routine Proceedings
They also believe that the goods and services tax at this time, in view of the fact that we are in a Canadian-made recession, with which I am sure my colleague would agree, that it would not be appropriate for us to proceed with the implementation of the goods and services tax because it will have a negative impact upon all Canadian consumers, as well as small businesses.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several dozen Canadians in which the petitioners lament and call on the government to roll back the goods and services tax as it affects books, magazines, and newspapers.
They point out that, in a free and democratic society, the printed word is the corner-stone of democracy, culture, education, and literature in a productive society, and that the GST will have a negative impact on these sectors of our economy.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it gives me great pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by many of my constituents, as well as many other residents of the national capital region, who are adamantly opposed to the imposition of the goods and services tax as it relates to books, newspapers, and magazines.
The petitioners are calling on the House to withdraw this unfair tax on education.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions signed by many people from across Ontario who are very much opposed to putting any GST on newspapers, books, et cetera.
We have never had a tax on reading in this country since Confederation. Today, when there is so much emphasis being put on literacy in the country, it is not only unfair, but totally unreasonable, to be imposing a tax on reading, whether it be newspapers, periodicals, or whatever.
These constituents from several ridings across Ontario are requesting the government not to impose any GST on reading.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from
a number of Canadians from across Canada and such places as Chapleau, Ontario; Tofino, British Columbia; Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario; Edmonton, Alberta; and communities all across the country.
These are people who have heard with some concern that the Secretary of State, in next year's budget, is planning even further rounds of cuts to aboriginal programs such as aboriginal friendship centres, aboriginal broadcasting, and aboriginal representative organizations.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to consider the advisability of reinstating both the Native Communications Program and the Northern Native Broadcast Access Program at full funding levels.
Further, they humbly pray that the said Department of the Secretary of State conduct consultations with groups funded under the said programs to devise plans for the future that will serve the needs of the department, as well as the aboriginal people and their media.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by residents of various Ontario communities, including Toronto, Port Colbome, Fenwick, Welland and Niagara Falls. They oppose the GST and especially disagree with the government concerning the application of this unjust tax on the printed word. They ask Parliament to reject this unfair tax.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
December 7, 1990



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of report stage of Bill C-81, an act to implement the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, as reported (with an amendment) from a Legislative Committee.
David Charles Dingwall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that we are proceeding with this particular bill and will deal with it in all stages. Thereafter, upon its completion, we will revert back to Bill C-93, for the continuation for the remainder of the day? Is that correct?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, yes it is.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
A. Kim Campbell: that the bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to begin third reading debate on this bill.
This bill was introduced to implement the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods which was adopted in Vienna in 1980 under the auspices of the United Nations so as to allow federal entities to benefit from its provisions.
The convention came into force on January 1, 1988. Twenty-eight states are party to it, including some of our principal trading partners, such as the United States, France, Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany, and China.

The convention constitutes an optional regime that defines the right of the seller and buyer in international
Government Orders
sales of goods between parties whose places of business are in different states, when the states are contracting States, or when the rules of private international law governing the transaction lead to the application of the law of a contracting state.

The convention applies to contracts of sale between parties having their place of business in different states where at least one is party to the convention. It does not apply to contracts for the sale of goods for personal use or such items as electricity, ships, and securities.
The convention applies automatically to contracts subject to it, but as the parties retain the right to make an express derogation, their will always prevails.
The convention establishes rules for the formation of contracts, including rules governing the conclusion of contracts, the periods of time available to offers and the acceptance of offers, as well as formal requirements.
By providing a uniform set of legal rules, the convention addresses a need that has become more acute with the increasing volume of international transactions in goods. It provides greater certainty as to which law governs the contract, facilitates trade between parties in different states and promotes as equitable a relationship as possible between the parties.

As the law of contracts is largely a matter of provincial or territorial jurisdiction, eight provinces and one territory have already passed legislation to implement the convention. They are Ontario, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Newfoundland, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.
The convention includes a clause allowing federal states to accede even if all its territorial units have not passed implementing legislation. The federal implementing legislation will allow all federal entities, even those located in provinces that have not implemented the convention, to benefit from its provisions. Moreover, it will ensure that federal entities are governed by a uniform regime for the international sale of goods.

December 7, 1990
Government Orders

The convention provides for four reservations or declarations.
Article 92 allows a state to declare that it will not be bound by the convention provisions relating to the formation of the contract or by the material provisions relating to contracts for the sale of goods, for example the obligations of the seller and buyer and the passing of risk.
Article 94 allows two or more contracting states with similar legal rules to declare that the convention will not apply between them.
Article 95 allows a state to declare that the convention will not apply to transactions between parties within its territory and parties within the territory of a non-contracting state, even where the rules of private international law lead to the application of the law of the contracting state.
Finally, article 96 allows a state to declare that the provision allowing contracts to be made in any form other than in writing does not apply to transactions involving a party having its place of business within its territory. Following consultations with the provinces and several experts, the Government of Canada has decided not to make any reservations or declarations so that the convention can be given its fullest application.
The Federal Court and all higher courts are courts of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of the International Sale of Goods Contracts Convention Act. The convention offers several benefits.
First, it standardizes the rules governing the international sale of goods by establishing an international system. However, it does not restrict the freedom of contract because it allows the parties to exempt any contract from the rules of the convention through an expressed derogation clause.
Second, as the convention applies automatically, it can facilitate trade by resolving the issue of which law governs the transaction. This provision is particularly advantageous in goods transactions with states whose commercial law is unfamiliar or even unfavourable to us.
Finally, the convention can reduce the effects of any inequality between trading partners because the weaker partner can ensure application of the convention more easily than the law of its state.
The business community has expressed support for Canada's accession to the convention precisely because of these benefits. In the opinion of experts in civil law and common law the convention is compatible with Canadian law.

Mr. Speaker, in short, passage of the bill implementing the Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods will enable federal departments, departmental corporations and agent Crown corporations, at their option, to benefit from the provisions of the convention in transactions involving the international sale of goods. The convention will likely be applicable for a substantial number of contracts as it is in force for most of our main trading partners.

I would like to thank the members of the opposition for their co-operation in dealing with this legislation and simply to conclude by saying that sometimes the most important-


An hon. member:: And members of the government.


A. Kim Campbell: Yes, and members of the government. I am sorry. Forgive me. I am taking for granted the high quality of his co-operation and assistance, and I am grateful to my colleagues for the work they have done. It is just that so seldom one has the opportunity to express one's appreciation to members of the opposition, I feel that, as Mr. Speaker has suggested, in the spirit of Christmas one should take the opportunity to express generosity when you can.
I also want to point out, as my hon. colleague who has just spoken knows very well, that sometimes the significant things we do in this House are not particularly exciting in terms of news coverage. There are not throngs of people in the galleries to watch. But for a country like Canada, which is a trading nation second only to Germany in its need to trade to survive, any kind of legislation that facilitates our ability to carry out that international trade in a fair manner and with some certainty and protection for our own traders is very significant.

I would like to thank the members of this House for their support of this legislation.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her kind words. I know we on this side will not allow ourselves to believe that it is going to be a common occurrence, but they are much appreciated.
We feel that this is a good bill. The minister has stated quite accurately that this is a bill in the interest of Canada. Although it is something which we have been dealing with for some period of time, it is something which we have got to pass quite quickly. As I think we all know, there are 28 countries that have already signed this accord. As a prominent trading country we must not waste any more time in becoming members of this convention. It is not only in the interest of Canada that it be passed, but in the interest of all countries.
The problem of international trade has been with the western world for quite some time. Canada and other countries first played a role in addressing this problem in 1930 with the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law. They began at that point to try to get a harmonization of trade rules and their efforts brought forward some results. They were interrupted of course by World War II. They continued their efforts until the early 1960s when they came out with some results.
Unfortunately the differences in the legal systems of countries, particularly the differences between the capitalist countries of the western world and the socialist countries in the eastern bloc, did not allow these rules to work. There were too many differences to allow the system that was instituted to be brought into effect.
We went back and through the United Nations, the agency which we have come to depend on more and more in recent years, pushed to develop what we have in Bill C-81. As the minister stated, this is a good bill. It is in the interest of Canada. It is in harmony with Canadian laws. We can support this bill without any difficulty whatsoever.
I think the reason we are number 29 in ratifying this bill probably has little to do with our not moving quickly on it. That might have been the case but I really do not
Government Orders
have any evidence to indicate that. It may be a result of the fact that Canada is a federal country and we had to have the ratification of the provinces. This bill not only deals with trade and commerce, a federal role under the Constitution Act, 1867, but because it also deals with sales it comes under section 92(13) of the property and civil rights provisions of the Constitution. As a result, we had to have the ratification of the provinces.
As the minister has stated, we now have eight provinces which have agreed to it and one territory. It is my understanding that the remaining provinces, Saskatchewan and Quebec, and the remaining territory, the Yukon, have all agreed to ratify it. I commend the minister and the department for bringing this all together. In a federal country it is not always easy to bring things together and to have a consensus.
I would like to reiterate as well that while this is a bill that may not receive a lot of attention, it is very important.
We, as a country, have come to depend very heavily on their national trade. We are also a country that has come to depend very heavily on our trading partners. We have been a country that has helped a lot of countries that have not been as economically successful as we have been.
This is going to be very important to these countries, because it is going to be able to give them a common denominator.
There are ways of accepting countries negotiating a contract under the provisions of this act, either in whole or in part, through the agreement of the countries, but it does provide unless the parties agree otherwise a common denominator that has not only international law behind it, but an international reputation.
To say that this is going to provide all the answers on international trade would be simplistic and misleading. We still have to give interpretation to this convention in the respective courts of the various countries. That is going to provide some difficulties, but I do feel that this has come a long way in helping international trade.

Government Orders
Because it is helping international trade, it is going to help Canada and the Canadian economy. I am very pleased, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to support this bill.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset it appears to be the impact of an early Yuletide spirit.
I am humbled by the comments of the minister and pleased that she is able, through you Mr. Speaker, to suggest that we have been co-operative. I tried to count the times, but nonetheless if the government is interpreting that as our action, I appreciate the very thoughtful comments.


Mr. Boyer:: You did not come to the committee meetings.


David Barrett: No, I did not go to the committee meetings because I was, of course, tied up in other committee meetings of the external affairs and trade committee.
I want to talk about one section, and I will come to that in a minute, but I want to say a few words generally in the context of what has happened in the last few days in Brussels.
It is extremely regrettable that, as we debate this bill that enjoys the sympathy of all the members of this House, it comes in the atmosphere and a context in which this bill will be applied on those GATT hearings.
I regret very much that those hearings have collapsed. I am pleased that they have extended the dates on the hearings. Hopefully, some compromise will be reached.
It is important that in the context of this legislation the kind of decisions that GATT makes will, of course, allow this legislation to speed up what decisions are made privately and publicly in this country relative to business.
Although we are the 29th nation to sign, the reality is with the GATT collapse, the fact that it was that far behind has not hurt that much.
I want to address my attention particularly to the minister's comments, and correctly so, on article 94 about the legislation having no impact between two unitary states. In our case, we are not a unitary state, but certainly in terms of the federal basis we make the decisions on international trade at the federal level.
What I am concerned about is in the context of Canada's position at this moment, which is extremely unclear, with regard to the Canada-U.S.-Mexico talks and the application of this UN framework for legalization of contracts relative to those talks.
We have made the agreement with the United States through a free trade agreement. I do not wish to repeat all of my criticisms of that, especially since my criticisms are coming true. They were not self-fulfilling wishes. I regret very much that the warning sounded by many people in my party and in the Liberal Party-yes, even some Conservatives-who were concerned about the impact of the FTA.
Nonetheless, that is there and we leave that for another arena and another time.
In the context of signing unilateral agreements, we are witnessing now a debate going on without a clear-cut explanation for the government's position as to how this would apply to protecting what it says we have gained in the free trade agreement and a unilateral agreement between Mexico and the United States.
Should we be sanctioning this legislation on the basis that we may be tied into some of the contracts because of accepting a universal approach? Are we going to be bound by the United States unilateral action with Mexico that would impede us in developing unilateral talks with Mexico should we so desire that, and stay out?


A. Kim Campbell: What part of the contract was that?


David Barrett: What part of the contract is that? Section 94, where you clearly said that this does not apply to agreements between two states.
I have used this particular bill for a forum on my arguments against the free trade agreement in the past. I know that the minister is confused, but I have a tenuous link to that article to allow me to speak to the bill on this particular action. Should the minister desire the help of a lawyer to interpret that particular argument, I will assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I have not consulted one international lawyer on this particular point. I have used my political acumen as an anchor to make the point that I am making now. If the minister would not be prepared to debate me in court over this matter, I will continue with my political argument.
December 7, 1990

I think it is a serious mistake for us to take the position that we have to go to the table with Mexico to protect what we have gained under the free trade agreement and, at the same time, put ourselves at risk-


Patrick Boyer: Relevance.


David Barrett: Relevance, it is relevant under section 94 and extending your own interpretation, through you Mr. Speaker, about unilateral agreements between states. I am sticking very closely to this bedrock and fundamental article in this legislation to deal with my arguments against the Canada-U.S.-Mexico talks.
There is not even a quorum in the House, Mr. Speaker, to hear what I have to say. I call for a quorum count, Mr. Speaker.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There being 21 members present, not including the occupant of the chair, the debate shall accordingly continue. The hon. government Whip, on a point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the House that the NDP in calling a quorum was as blind as they usually are.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In the spirit of Christmas, on debate please.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members for allowing the Chair to have such a slow count. Were this a world boxing championship, I am sure that a dispute would take place with the WBC. Nonetheless, the count was accurate, although slow.
Now that I have the attention of all those members who have come back to create a quorum, the point I am trying to make is while we signed this kind of legislation, the research, the technical information and the detailed knowledge that we need before we enter into any further international agreements has not been evidenced here in this debate on this legislation or anywhere else during this session.
It is all very well to praise legislation that allows the contracts to take place, but without the specific information of what the government is doing in contracts makes the argument hollow. That is the point that I am trying to make.
If the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, refuses to understand that it is necessary to do research and to back
Government Orders
up knowledge before one rushes into international agreements, that is on their head. I feel compelled, as a matter of fact, impelled to make the point it is necessary for the work-


A. Kim Campbell: Impaled might be more like it.


David Barrett: Impaled, as it be. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that business-like governments are the first ones to make dumb business decisions. Where is the research? Where is the detail? Where is the back-up?
I know that on a Friday afternoon, I have not stirred the very entrails of this nation over this debate, nor has it appeared to the government that this is a seminal discussion. Nonetheless, I convinced you more than anyone else that unless this government is serious in doing some hard research and some background information gathering before it signs agreements, this is a hollow piece of legislation that is done purely for bureaucratic purposes and does not serve the needs of all Canadians unless that work is done. Why is that work not done? I will tell you why, because the government's agenda rushes us into some kind of trade agreement that does not take into account the needs of all the provinces and all the jurisdictions, municipal and otherwise in this country. So while the bill glides through the House, and while we have this overwhelming majority of members witnessing this intelligent debate, and why we have a slow count to get a quorum, the fact is that the government has not done its job.
Does it want to do the job? If it wants to postpone the bill for a while and reveal all the research papers it has that it has not revealed, if it wants to table the documents, if it wants to provide us with the material that specifically proves that this particular legislation will go a long way to facilitate the kind of trade talks that it thinks will be beneficial to Canadians, then let it table the documents. But, it has not. We have lost 160,000 jobs already on one of those trade agreements, and Lord knows how many more we will lose on the second one.
It is all very well to talk about facilitating the contractual arrangements and the necessity of being number 29th and catching up with the world, but what does it matter a fig if we are not protecting Canadian interests and Canadian jobs?

Government Orders
This is the kind of debate we should have. I am glad to hear the minister interject, and I know her comments about co-operation from the opposition are slowly dissipating. I hope that by the time I am through, they will be completely gone. We are not a rubber stamp like the Liberal Party which represents the same interests as the Conservatives. There is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.


A. Kim Campbell: We're not rubber stamping anything.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, of all the provinces of Canada, British Columbia knows that best. It is in British Columbia where they change stripes from Social Credit, Conservative or Liberal depending on what day of the week it is. I do not want to give a specific illustration to this minister, but I am sure she is familiar with it. No further comment.
I understand clearly how there is this love affair between the Liberals and the Conservatives on this issue, particularly with the loss of the former leader of the Liberal Party who was a clear spokesperson against the original free trade agreement.
Article 94 of this legislation has captured my attention, my riveted focus. It is the area under which I make these comments. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody thinks that goodwill in this Chamber is going to create the kinds of jobs or the protection necessary for Canada, they are wrong. They are wrong again. We cannot do anything about it, but I just want to go on the record to voice my opinion. The government has been a failure in international trade negotiations, has caused havoc in this country because of it, and this bill will not help one whit.
Thank you for your rapt attention, Mr. Speaker, and if you want my signature on a copy of my comments, I will make it available to you.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-93, an act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member Saskatoon-Humboldt had the floor. He has ten minutes remaining in debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to complete my remarks, and I will take only a few minutes of the time that you have allocated to me.
The roots of the Third World debt crisis lie in a development approach that increases the relationship between the local economies and that of the world and the World Bank system. That is why we have a great concern about continued support, or at least the kind of support as long as the World Bank and the IMF are on the track that they have followed in the last years.
The debt crisis currently is being exacerbated by the requirements of the World Bank and the IMF to adjust measures in order to gain further access for their lending.
By putting on Third World countries or debtor countries, conditions which are detrimental to their economies, the financial institutions have increased the possibility, or the likelihood, that the structure will continue to fail as it has for the last five to ten years.
There is enough evidence out there for this government to take some action, to lead the world in a direction which would make the value of IMF and World Bank funds greater and contribute to the fulfilment of the humanitarian dreams in some cases, humanitarian hopes of debtor countries of the world.
There is evidence to suggest that the IMF's confidence in the structural adjustment process is not too great. There is hope that some place along the way, these institutions will take a good hard look at their method of recalling or eliminating the structural adjustments that they have put in place.

In 1944 and at various times since, the IMF and the World Bank have come together to provide assistance to the Third World. They have become those countries' worst enemies; the worst enemy of real human progress in those countries, because loans that were intended to help are now unmanageable and are causing more disaster than they are help.
I am greatly concerned that we are caught in a systemic malfunction of the world's financial structure and that no one has the guts to admit it, let alone the guts to try and fix it.
We need to take a good look at the structure of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. We recognize that they have failed in their mandate. These institutions have known this for as long as 12 and 15 years, when I spent some time in Third World countries and worked with the World Bank.
At that time they were recognizing the failures of their policies. Here we are 15 years later, and in the last five years there has been a recognition of the tremendous failure of these two institutions.
In the last five years they have done more harm than good; some good, I recognize, but much harm. They have perpetuated themselves mainly by becoming sacred cows, whose structure and decisions are not questioned by the member countries. The structure and decisions are omnipotent in the eyes of the donor countries. They have convinced the donor countries that if these debts are not paid in full and on time, the world financial structure will collapse. They have forced us as Canadians to choose between the fluidity of the financial institutions and our humanitarian values, the values which we in Canada have tried to make the major values of our community.
This institution, which we are helping to fund, is forcing us as Canadians to choose between the fluidity of that institution and our humanitarian values.
We have to question whether we should go on supporting the World Bank and the IMF, because as they provide assistance to the Third World they have, as I said before, become its worst enemy, and the enemy of real human progress. The loans that were intended to help are now unmanageable. The systemic malfunction of the financial institution is coming back to roost and we do not have the courage to fix it.
Government Orders
Canada was given a chance by the recommendations in the committee report to do something about it, to show some leadership in alleviating world debt, but Canada was found wanting.
In conclusion, I can only grieve for the millions in the Third World who have not been given the help they need, and I can grieve also for those of us in the industrial, so-called first world countries who have not been courageous enough to help.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-93 provides increased funding under the International Monetary Fund from $2,941 million special drawing rights to some $4,000 special drawing rights and relates to the over-all operation of the Bretton Woods agreement as it affects and assists Third World countries.
I am conscious as well that the negotiations which have been taking place in Brussels this past week are designed to ultimately provide access for the Third World countries to the markets of the United States and European Economic Community countries and other nations around the world. It seems that the agreement or the negotiations have now been suspended and hopefully they will start up again early in the new year.
I think it is most unfortunate that these negotiations took place one day after the German elections when Helmut Kohl was re-elected as the chancellor of the new united Germany. It is difficult to expect that he would be able to reverse the position of Germany two or three days later at the GATT negotiations in Brussels after the commitments he made during the election campaign.
Canadian producers are very vulnerable at these negotiations, as are Third World countries, if no agreement is reached. In fact, there was already a decision by the GATT, almost a year ago that would open up processed dairy products to the United States producers without a reciprocal agreement on the American side. The decision on ice-cream and yogurt and has been accepted by the Canadian government and is supposed to be implemented as soon as the GATT negotiations are complete.
If the negotiations do not continue in the new year, then I guess they are complete now. In fact, the United States would have a perfect right to go ahead and demand access to the Canadian market for ice-cream and yogurt. It will be able to do the same thing with other

Government Orders

processed dairy products such as cheese, butter, and skimmed milk powder. That represents something like 63 per cent of the full dairy production in this country of processed dairy products, so we are extremely vulnerable if these talks are not resumed early in the new year. We have to hope for that.
It is interesting when we look at those negotiations, in terms of international development, the Bretton Woods agreement, and the vulnerability and the difficulty of access for the Third World countries to European countries, the U.S., and developed countries' markets. When we look at it from that perspective, I am conscious of a statement by the Prime Minister today that Canadian producers of agricultural commodities receive something like 600 per cent higher support and assistance now than they did in 1984. In fact, support programs in 1984 were $1,483 billion and, in 1991 they are projected to be $1,533 billion. So what is happening is that even though agricultural producers' pricing, commodity prices and the world price war have totally ravaged this industry for the last five or six years, that in fact the government's own projections of support and assistance are exactly or very close to where they were in 1984, when we were coming off of some very high prices and the international trade war had not even started. The Prime Minister's statement, if one looks at the exact figures of the Department of Agriculture, simply is not true.
the rollback of export subsidies, be 30 per cent, which was what was originally proposed by the EEC.
The unfortunate part for Canada, if this is accepted in a renewed round in early January, is that it is based on support programs commencing in January of 1991. Over that five-year period it would be looking at support programs based on $1.5 billion for Canadian producers. A reduction of that magnitude would reduce the support programs to something less than $1 billion over the five years. This would be devastating when you take into account that programs such as the western grain transportation Crow benefit amount to some $700 million. Therefore, it would not leave very much for anything else across the nation with some five distinct geographical areas of agriculture production.
Similarly, if we increase the access to our diary and poultry industry to 30 per cent-it is 2 or 3 per cent now-then the industry as we know it would collapse. The 30 per cent reduction likewise on export enhancement assistance would not have a very great effect on our Canadian producers because we do not have a program of any magnitude similar to the Export Enhancement Program of the United States or the export subsidies of the EEC which reduce relatively high levels of cost of production and domestic prices to world price levels.
I think he is in the habit of quoting things like that from the relatively higher payments that were made in
1987	and 1988. In fact, in western Canada, the support programs have been reduced from some $2.4 billion in
1988	to $1.2 billion in 1990. That is a reduction of exactly 50 per cent. They are further scheduled to be reduced to something over $900 million next year, in western Canada alone, at a time when world prices, in real terms, are the lowest in history, while the trade war rages on, and debt levels are very high. So our producers are in an incredibly vulnerable position.
The part that really concerns me is the last proposal to be put before the negotiations, according to a wire service story this morning from Brussels, that was proposed by the chairman of the agriculture working committee, Mr. Hellstrom from Sweden. He proposes that in fact the rollback of support programs, access, and
The Prime Minister needs to take a very close look at support programs. These programs, as planned by the Department of Agriculture last year, are very close to what they were in 1984. The ability of farmers to survive and the price of commodities in the marketplace are dramatically down. In fact, they are the lowest in real terms since the 1930s in the present crop year. The demand is very low because of a massive crop. Our producers are extremely vulnerable in this.
We appreciate some of the difficulties which Third World countries face. The international negotiations can take place possibly in about a month's time or early in the new year to re-establish the world trading arrangements for agriculture. We will have to hope that they will take place and that the dramatic removal of support programs that has taken place in the last two years by this government will not leave us in an unbelievably vulnerable position for the survival of Canadian agriculture in those negotiations.
December 7, 1990


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks and his real concerns for the plight of the agricultural communities across Canada.
The member will be aware that a few months ago the Prime Minister and his government caved in at the GATT on a decision regarding ice cream and yogurt. They hoped, I guess, that the GATT negotiations would be successful and that they could hide this decision behind some sort of GATT agreement.
Could the hon. member tell the House why the government has refused, as even today the Prime Minister has refused, to say what it will do now to help dairy farmers, given the fact of this GATT decision on ice and yoghurt, as well as the effect the free trade agreement is going to have on our diary industry, and indeed on our whole supply-managed areas.
Could he outline to the House his feelings in this area and what he would do to help solve the plight of Canadian farmers?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk for the important question.
It seems to me there are two distinct areas in the negotiations which are important. One area which I have spent some time speaking about is the terrible vulnerability of western grain producers because the government has effectively slashed support programs in the west by 50 per cent during the last two years. Of course, farmers cannot survive at that level.
With regard to the ice cream and yoghurt decision which was made just a year ago, essentially it grew out of the FTA-or, as the Minister of Agriculture likes to call it, the CUSTA agreement-where we essentially open our markets to access from the United States. The United States maintains its GATT waiver from 1954. We did not get any agreement in the FTA to limit the imports of commodities such as ice cream, yogurt, or other processed dairy products under that agreement.
Immediately the agreement was signed in January, 1988, the government assured us that we would be able to control imports-processed dairy products, for example-by simply putting them on the import control list.
It was rather interesting that Senator Bensten from Texas, immediately after the deal was initialled, said: "We will immediately petition you before a panel of
Government Orders
GATT and we will have access to those products." This was after the initialling of the agreement.
The government sat back and did nothing in spite of the warnings by the chairman of the Finance Committee of the United States Senate. As soon as the deal was consummated in 1988, the government put these commodities such as ice cream, yogurt and other commodities on the import control list.
True to their word, the United States immediately took us to GATT and it got a favourable decision in September of 1989. The government hemmed, hawed, and fumed for two or three months, but ultimately accepted that decision. It said it would not implement it until the end of the GATT negotiations.
The question is: Have we got to the end of the GATT negotiations? We hope not. We hope that there will be an agreement that they will only be suspended and that they will come back with an agreement in January. Hopefully, that agreement will sweep up this massive breach in our whole dairy industry.
If the negotiations are complete, then the United States has full access and the government will have to implement it, or the United States could take retaliatory action. It could slap a special duty or tariff on commodities coming from Canada to the United States.
One thing is clear. The dairy industry, Carla Hills, and the entire United States administration are determined they are going to have access, while at the same time maintaining a complete lack of access for our producers. This seems to be the unfairness of the whole FTA. They maintain full embargo or lack of access for our products, while they have gained access to our markets for processed dairy products.
It is little wonder, when the Prime Minister was questioned by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk, that he launched into one of his usual tirades about how much he has done for agriculture. Farmers across the country, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, are asking the government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Agriculture: "What have you done for me lately?" There is no answer.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. I know that the hon. member is an honourable

Government Orders
member and he was quoting some figures in his comment about assistance to agriculture. I do not recall them exactly, but I believe he indicated it was $1.1 billion in 1984 and $1.6 billion projected for 1991.
I am sure he has used accurate figures, but I also know that the assistance to the agricultural community in Canada in the last five years has exceeded $20 billion. I think the hon. member would want to acknowledge that that is a vastly different number than the numbers he was quoting. I am sure he would want to give credit for the assistance that has been given.
Unfortunately, there have been situations around the world with the subsidies that are going on in Europe that have put the industry in such a perilous plight that the government has had to provide that support. Ideally, we would not have had it. But I am sure the hon. member will want to acknowledge that there has been very significant assistance to the agricultural community over the last five years.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin has talked about the significant assistance to agriculture in 1987 and 1988. The argument that I am trying to put to him is that we are in the worst part of the world trade war of any time since 1986-1987 when it first started, and the government, for whatever reason, has dramatically reduced support programs in western Canada last year from $2.4 billion to $1.2 billion this year. This is a 50 per cent reduction. That is very different from the 600 per cent increase that the Prime Minister was talking about.
At a time when we should be going with all our armament to the GATT negotiations, in fact we are going with our producers totally disarmed. Programs have been slashed since the 1988-1989 budget. We would be totally snookered if we have reduced our support programs from a high in 1987 of $3.3 billion down to $1.5 billion next year. Assuming that the GATT negotiations continue in January, that would be the base year and we would be talking about a 30 per cent reduction using that new base year. All the figures that have been put before the GATT negotiations are based on 1987-1988 which were peak years.
We saw the Minister for International Trade buffooning in the House and complaining to the Minister of Agriculture that he was supporting $8.8 billion, when producers know that the net support this year was $1.9 billion, that the government plans to reduce it in 1991 to $1.5 billion. It is going down and down at a time when commodity prices are the lowest in history in real terms. The markets are very thin and skimpy.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on this topic. It is one that, quite clearly, a lot of members have a lot of concern over and is quite complex, involving not only the international monetary organizations but the groups that report to them and do work for them and also the complexities of international trade, as we have seen laterally with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the ongoing discussions that are held around the world in dealing with trade.
It is important that we recognize that trade is an important component on what we, the north, the west, the developed world, or the First World can do collectively to assist those nations that need our help as they emerge and begin to be able to develop economies that bring stability and added value into the countries where, in the past, we have been so quick to remove merely resources and put nothing back.
These are countries that traditionally we have not turned our focus to to see that contributions can be made, not only in terms of money, but also in terms of advice and substance to turn economies around, to help develop industry, and to help governments be able to provide even the most meagre services. It is important that we recognize that the agencies that do that, be it the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, be able to provide those resources and that advice, and be able to provide parameters in which economies can work as we put money into them, based on some solid but flexible business sense, and real live approaches to the problems that are there.
It is an ongoing question and one that the House, over the next number of years, will debate, I am sure. At this time, however, I would like to move:
That the question be now put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is fine. Further debate.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this bill.
I want to take this opportunity to look at the whole question of international debt in the developing Third World countries, because it is something that Canadians should look at not only in terms of the international plight of nations, but in terms of Canada's role in that and Canada's values that we purport to hold.
I want to take a look, first, at some of the purposes that are set out in the articles of agreement of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development. It states that one of the purposes is to promote the long-range, balanced growth of international trade and maintain an equilibrium in balance of payments, thereby assisting in rising productivity, standards of living, and conditions of labour in these countries. That is the key and goal that it set: to assist the rising productivity, standard of living, and conditions of labour in these territories.
The International Monetary Fund states its purpose to use the fund temporarily available to them under adequate safeguards, thus providing them with an opportunity to correct maladjustments in their balance payments without resorting to measures destructive of national or international prosperity. Those are nice goals, but if we look at what has happened over the years to the Third World debtor nations, those goals have not been met. In fact, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the restructuring of debt has driven many of these countries into poverty and slavery to the international monetary markets.
It reminds me very much of that old coal miners lament: "Loaded 16 tonnes of number nine coal and what did I get? Another day older and deeper in debt. I owe my soul to the company store". That is what used to happen before labour unions. The companies made sure that the miners always owed more at the company store. They charged them usury rates, they refinanced their debts, they kept them in bondage. That is basically what has been happening in the international monetary market.
Let us take a look at how some of those country's debts developed. I will give two examples. Many of the debts that came out of the Latin American countries
Government Orders
were run up by dictators who borrowed money not to assist the public, not to improve the working conditions, not to improve health conditions; but to line their own pockets, to put in developments that they or their families controlled, to make sure they had the military power to keep working people subjugated to their dictatorships. When they were overthrown they usually departed the country with the assets and the new emerging democratic countries were left with the debts. The new democracies paid the dictators' debts and forfeited their sovereignty.
The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and private bank managers are the ones which are now dictating how the nations generate wealth, spend it, invest it, and share it. Debtor countries are not free to set their own monetary or fiscal policy, export or import measures, social or health programs, or wage and price policies. A democracy should be able to do all of those things. These new democracies have now lost their sovereignty to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. All that the system has done is make it possible for dictators to remain in power for years and to depart the countries with untold wealth and leave the debtor nations in poverty.
Another thing has happened. If you look at many of the developments, who benefited from them? Was it the Third World countries?
I will give another example. A Third World developing Pacific nation was talked into building an international hotel, a solution to its economic woes because it would get western tourists, affluent tourists. So, it was lent the money. What happened? Of course, all the materials were imported to build that hotel because the local building materials were not suitable for a western style hotel. All of the equipment for the hotel was imported; air conditioners, cutlery, bedding, and construction workers. These people were not skilled in modem construction techniques, in concrete construction, electrical wiring, refrigeration, air conditioning, so they brought in the workers. None of the money was spent locally. It benefited solely the people in the developed countries. In the end, they operate a hotel and they bring in the food for that hotel because western visitors want western style food. They bring in the trained staff to run the hotel.
The only jobs that the local people have are jobs that relate to the menial tasks such as cleaning the grounds, cleaning the building. Their economic viability has been ruined because they now have this massive international

December 7, 1990
Government Orders
debt that they must try to pay. They have no economic basis on which to pay it.
I notice the Liberals are very silent on this whole thing. Of course, they sat there for years as the Canadian government and let the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank subjugate developing countries. They took no leadership role. They did nothing to try to break the cycle of debt and poverty that these nations are being put into.


John Paul Manley: What are you proposing; withdrawing from the IMF?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: There are many things that could be done. All we have to do is look at some of the recommendations. I notice everybody is getting very jumpy but it is time that Canadians took a leadership role and looked at those countries and seen what we have done to them.
We are asking the poorest nations in this world to sacrifice their meagre standards of living so us fat cats up here can make more money. That is what we are doing.


A. Kim Campbell: How about trading with them?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Trading with them? Let us trade with them on commodities they can afford instead of trading with them simply to get their natural resources at the cheapest dollar.


A. Kim Campbell: Do you want us to be protectionists?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: One of the things that we have to start to do is look at what the NGOs say on the World Bank and look at some of the things that they have to say in their assessment of what is happening. They point out: "There is no evidence to justify the bank's confidence that adjustment helps the poor in the long run. There is not any evidence to suggest that orderly adjustment, coupling with loan scheduling, offers in time a way out of the debt crisis".
We have got to start facing some realities. Further they go on to say: "Many of the elements of adjustment programs, including the rapid dismantlement and tightening of credit availability, the emphasis on export promotion and the cutting of public support for health
care and education are likely to increase inequities with the historical disadvantage of rural and urban poor being cemented in the place for another generation. Often what we are forcing these countries to do is to try to grow export commodities to satisfy their foreign debt to the disadvantage of their ability to feed their own populations".
We are saying to them: "Stop growing food crops and grow cash crops to feed the international debt". As a result we have driven these countries and the people into a lower and lower standard of living." They say for the bank to make a serious change in course, it will have to do more than support new poverty-focused programs. A fundamental rethinking of the development model that promotes it is required with active participation of local populations, sustainable development that builds upon their creative capacities and the efforts of the poor themselves. The monetary fund has to start working with these people instead of shutting them out of decisions. The bank should place more emphasis on protection for the domestic market, with food self-sufficiency as an important goal that should also be pursued. Many of these countries now even have to import food because we have taken away their basic agricultural market economy.
Another one of the recommendations is that the bank should publicly stress the importance of land reform and of increasing local food security through greater emphasis on subsistence and self-providing crops. These are what internationally known NGOs familiar with the international field say.
Another key to this is the fact that women in these Third World countries are probably the most adversely affected by these policies. These people go on to say that for adjustment and related policies to increase food production and security over the long run, policy-makers must directly target and enhance women's productive roles. There are many other recommendations.
What this bill does is say that we are going to increase our stringent and punitive control over debtor nations. We are even going to take away their voting rights, to force them to withdraw from membership if they do not
December 7, 1990

do as they are told. They are going to ensure that they have no voice in the policies that affect them the most.
What should Canada be doing? Canada had an opportunity to take a leadership role based on Canadian values. We missed it because we agreed with the policy. We agree with what is happening. Before an indebted nation can receive more funds from the IFIs, it must agree to impose harsh internal austerity measures. These conditions often lead to massive cuts in social programs, privatization, devaluation of currency and other market-oriented policies which are supposed to lead to an improvement in credit worthiness. Such structural adjustment measures, strongly endorsed by the Minister of Finance and the president of the Canadian International Development Agency, have caused violent protests in developing countries, such as riots in Zambia and Venezuela which caused the deaths of several hundreds of people.
In the 1970s and 1980s, these countries in the developing world were told to focus on exports to improve their balance of payments situation. Instead of growing food for internal consumption, debtor nations grew cash crops such as coffee to finance their debt and to draw hard currency into imports. The glut on the commodity market has worsened the debt situation and left African nations unable to feed themselves.
The whole situation is something that Canadians cannot take any pride in. Canada had an opportunity to take a leadership role.
An all party committee, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade, produced a report called Structuring our Global Future: Canada's Stake in the Unfinished Business of the Third World Debt.
This report does many things. It talks about what Canada should be doing. I am going to mention a few of the things that it recommends. It set out a number of guiding principles for Canadian policy.
The first one is that the primary long term goal of action for Third World debt must be sustainable, human development in debtor countries. It goes on to say: "But first, every means should be explored to reduce the debt services burden of all debts, including allowing debt repayment to be made in local currency for investment in human development projects in that debtor country."
Government Orders
It points out that poverty and debt are enemies of development, not structural adjustments per se. Adjustments can only be successful and supported as a part of a holistic development approach in co-operation with debtor countries.
It talks about how adjustment must be looked at. One minute, I am told, it states that the social impact of adjustment programs must be assessed. If there is no net benefit socially to that country, it should not be proceeded with.
Canada is a wealthy country compared to many of the developing countries, but we seem to be using our wealth along with that of most of the other developed countries not to assist in the long run the development of debtor countries, but to continue to ensure that they are always going to be in poverty and owing us money.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I hope at least for the sake of our viewers they do not leave with the impression that Canada has not been playing an international role in trying to deal with Third World debt and development around the world.
In fact, history can speak for itself in terms of the tremendous amount of contribution Canada has made to Third World countries and developed countries. I, for one, am very proud of the contribution Canada has made in the past and continues to make on the international scene.
Having said that, I would just like to ask my colleague one specific question about the hotel. He talked about the construction material for the hotel, the workers who built the hotel, the forks, the knives, the food the plates and everything that was imported.
I am sure many of the viewers in my riding of Ottawa Centre are wondering where that famous hotel is located. I want to ask the hon. member if he can tell us about the location of that hotel, when it was built and who built it. What money was used for that?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, the same thing happened in Western Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands and in Fiji. There are four countries.
The loan rates varied. One thing is quite interesting. The Liberals seem to say that Canada is doing a good job, but they were part of this committee that urged Canada to take a different view.

Government Orders
I will read again. This is what the Liberals forget that they signed up on: "There is no alternative to concerted political action among the major developed countries governments. Canada is a respected member of that group and active in many international organizations".
We have a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Finance Minister Michael Wilson now chairs the key policy advisory committee of the IMF executive board. It is time for Canada to use its international position and influence to maximum advantage. That is what they signed. Beyond these specific measures, the sub-committee urges Canada to seek support of other governments for an international conference on debt and sustainable global adjustment, such a conference to aim for negotiating commitments to policy reform by all countries, not only the poor and indebted. That is what will happen. We want the poor and the indebted countries to make all the adjustments, to make all the changes in terms of sustaining international development and sustaining international trade.
It is time the Liberals read some of the things that they signed. I know that they want to let this bill slip through, as they do every year, without really looking at the issues that the Third World countries are now facing. The Speaker is signalling I am out of time.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who has just addressed the House has made some points that are of interest and concern to all of us. He should know that it is not a matter of Liberals having forgotten the contents of the committee report or anything of the sort. Any of us, including myself, has encouraged the Minister of Finance in his role in the IMF to take into account the emerging understanding of development issues in the context of IMF loans being granted.
What the NDP seems to have forgotten is the issue that is before this House, not the issue before the IMF on any given day. What we have is a bill that essentially does two things. First, it increases the amount held on deposit by the IMF, reflecting the fact that world trade has increased and also that inflation has caused the volume of world trade to increase. Second, it imposes upon debtor nations, quite correctly as he points out,
certain measures that the IMF can take to tiy and enforce payment.
I am driven to the conclusion by hearing the NDP speakers that they believe one of two things, or perhaps both of them. They believe that either Canada should withdraw from the IMF-perhaps that is NDP policy- but the very least, they do not believe that the IMF reserves should increase to reflect the increased volume of world trade. Second, they do not believe that countries that borrow from the IMF should be forced to repay their loans. What kind of international financial order would that create?
If they want to talk about direct aid, let them talk about the appropriate vehicles for direct aid. Surely they can address their minds to the issues before the House of Commons that this bill presents instead of the silly gobbledegook to which we have been listening.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I am always interested in is watching the Liberals get up and talk about fiscal policy, after they demonstrated in this country that they could only drive the country into economic recession. Then they start saying, "Look, we are knowledgeable, we deserve to be listened to as we have some credibility".
The Liberal's credibility in fiscal and economic management is zero.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate, the hon. member for Elk Island.


Mr. O'Kurley:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Mr. Riis:: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that I move:
That the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca now be heard.


Marcel Danis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. After you recognized the hon. member for Elk Island I distinctly heard the hon. member say, "Thank you, Mr. Speaker". You had given him the floor, he had the floor and therefore I suggest that the motion is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, the hon. member for Sherwood Park on debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Point of order, the hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I think the record will show clearly that while you recognized my hon. friend from across the way, before he began speaking you recognized me on a point of order.


An hon. member:: That is right.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He can speak all he wants. The point is that you had recognized my point of order. I stood up on a point of order and presented a motion. I think the record is very clear. If we do not follow the rules in the House of Commons, then why do we have rules?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I recognized the hon. member for Elk Island. He was starting to speak. Then I came back to the hon. member for Kamloops. The hon. member for Elk Island has the floor. On debate.


Mr.   Brian@: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to remind the House and my hon. colleagues in the NDP that the IMF is a very specialized instrument designed to achieve many valuable and important economic goals of the international community.
One of the concepts that is embodied in this organization is the concept of balance. The proposed increases in IMF quotas is part of a regular cycle for reviewing fund quotas. The higher level of total IMF quotas is required to ensure a better balance between the resources available to the IMF and the needs of members for balance of payments financing over the next few years.
It is important to recognize here that while other institutions will provide the bulk of development financing for the developing world, the IMF has the specific responsibility to use its resources in support of growth oriented economic adjustment programs for both developing and developed countries.
The concept of working together with both the developing and the developed countries is very important. We know that that goes against the philosophy of the NDP which has shown and demonstrated from time to time through their activities and the activities of their sup-
Govemment Orders
porters that it supports more of a confrontational approach, as opposed to a co-operative approach.
This bill is reinforcing Canada's support of this co-operative approach by offering a program to both developing and developed nations. This bill is a very valuable initiative. I should add that it does not represent any significant additional cost to our country.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the
second reading stage of government Bill C-93, an act to amend the
Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion is adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I seek clarification from my hon. friend, the government whip. Earlier today my assistant and I had it confirmed that the government would not do what it has just done. It was not just confirmed with me. It was with my assistant. We asked whether the government would extend hours and the official said, "No, definitely not".
I repeated that question: "Do you plan to extend the hours today?". Again he said , "No, we will not".
I want to register my concern that when an official says one thing and then the government does another, it makes it very difficult to plan to do business.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: What you people do behind the curtain is of no concern here on the floor of the House. But I will allow the hon. government whip to answer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I want the House to know in absolute terms that no one from the New Democratic Party, official or person, has approached me personally with that kind of a question today. It was my understanding at our morning meeting that we were to get through second reading stage of Bill C-93 and we were to get Bill C-81 through report and third reading.

December 7, 1990
Government Orders
As the day progressed it became clear to me, as the government whip, from information that came to me from other members, that the New Democratic Party was filibustering the Bretton Woods agreement. That was not in accord with arrangements that were reached earlier in the week between our House leader, who happens not to be here today, and other House leaders or their officials. It has been communicated to me in my lobby that the New Democratic Party is not keeping the commitments that were made earlier this week in terms of what would happen on this day. Whether that is right or wrong I have no direct knowledge. I simply report what I was told.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, earlier today, the request came formally from the government House leader's office, asking if we were intending to complete second reading of Bill C-93.1 indicated that I thought it may not occur. In the best interests of doing business, if the government was to introduce Bill C-81, we would, in fact, agree to the completion of second reading. Our critic undertook to accomplish that and it has been done. It was under the assumption that we would continue the debate with no extension of hours. This is what the government House leader's office communicated to us so that we would agree to pass Bill C-81, which we did. I see that that agreement did not stand up.
To carry on the business of the House it requires the co-operation and honesty of all of the players. I am afraid that that is simply-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there is going to be any further negotiations on the floor, I wish it could be done behind the curtain with the two whips and the government House leader.
I will listen to the chief whip for the opposition party.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps one might be able to share some information with all hon. members so that we clearly understand what has transpired. There was a disposition on Wednesday that two bills would be under active consideration today, namely, Bill C-81, which has now been completed in terms of debate and that we would proceed with the completion of second reading of Bill C-93.
I recognize, and one can never attribute motives or indeed, intentions to anyone, that the House leader for the New Democratic Party was not privy to those particular discussions. He may have a different view, quite rightly or quite wrongly. Let's be clear that when one is imputing motives of members of this Chamber, that those in glass houses ought not to throw stones.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The negotiations that are going on here on the floor of the House should be done behind the curtain and in committee meetings. They should not be done on the floor of the House. This is debate on Bill C-93. I think I should recognize the next hon. member for debate.
I will recognize the hon. member for Kamloops just one more time on this same point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I do not want to leave this matter with these inaccuracies in the air. I would like to clarify one point.
Regardless of the discussions that have taken place earlier in the week, earlier today on a formal visit from the government House leader's office, the question came, "are you prepared to complete Bill C-93 today at second reading?" I indicated that I thought not. Again, one cannot predict the future in this place ever, as you well know, Mr. Speaker. I thought we had sufficient numbers of speakers that it likely would not conclude.
The official spokesperson from the House leader's office then indicated, "the government would like to pass C-81 today." I said that that was fine, we would agree to co-operate to facilitate that, because we felt that we had an obligation to seriously consider these two bills, which we did.
Bill C-81 was debated and passed. That is set aside. Let me go back to C-93. I then asked, "will the government extend hours," and was answered "absolutely not." I repeated the question because it is important that we know, particularly on a Friday afternoon when members are moving to their constituencies for the weekend. I asked them seriously, "Will the government extend hours today," and he said, "absolutely not." I assumed the government would not extend hours. All that transpired earlier today and the government has obviously decided to extend hours.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate on Bill C-93. The hon. member for Kamloops on debate.
December 7, 1990


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to this debate for some time. We recognize that Bill C-93 is an important bill for a variety of reasons. It is one of the few opportunities we have in this House to discuss the role that Canada plays in international finance.
We recognize, as we enter into the global economy and enter into a shrinking world in terms of international trade, how important it is that Canada continue to play its expanded role. Perhaps we were not there physically, but certainly over the years a lot of us have recalled those beginning days with the creation of the IMF as a result of an agreement signed by the 44 nations at the International Monetary and Financial Conference of the United and Associated Nations held at Bretton Woods. Therefore the bill itself is often referred to simply as the Bretton Woods legislation.
On that day in July, 1944 it was recognized that the various countries had a role to play in ensuring countries an opportunity to participate in the development of international trade. At that time Canada's intentions were very honourable. But as my hon. friend who spoke recently indicated, the IMF participation in terms of international development in the last number of years has been suspect. The doctrine of the United States that has been transferred to the IMF has often visited upon Third World developing countries an agenda that was simply illogical for the tasks that they had to address.
We have a long list of Third World countries which, in order to receive support from the IMF, have been presented with an agenda of fiscal and monetary initiatives that they were required to take, to say nothing of other political, social and economic initiatives that were suggested in order for them to participate in any benefits that the IMF may in fact provide. That is really an imposition of a particular ideology, usually an ideology that reflects the world view of the United States, on a country that may be interested in pursuing a different economic approach or a modified economic approach to solve its particular problems.
When one looks at the details of the bill, again in recognizing we are at second reading stage-and it is at this point where we talk about the principle of the bill-I must say we have serious concerns regarding the principle of the bill, to say nothing of some of the issues that
Private Members' Business
are indirectly related to Canada's participation in the IMF.
I think we all recall in the news just recently when a number of Central and Latin American countries asked questions of the International Monetary Fund about whether or not, in terms of the overwhelming amount of foreign debt that they had accrued, they could continue on in terms of introducing the various so-called reforms that the IMF was making of them. I think any of us who have any knowledge at all of many of these countries recognize that the introduction of these particular IMF agenda items was virtually an impossibility if it was not going to cause even more undue hardship to the peoples of these various nations.
At that time the discussion started in Canada about our participation in the IMF, to what extent were we associating ourselves with the ideological initiatives being presented by the IMF, particularly on developing Third World countries.
That debate has been raging across the country for many months, and as we have an opportunity now to culminate that debate as we begin the processing of this legislation, may I suggest it is going to take a long time to move this legislation through the appropriate phases.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-BILLS   CENTENNIAL FLAME RESEARCH AWARD ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-258, an act respecting the establishment of the Centennial Flame Research Award to publicize the contributions to Canadian public life of persons with disabilities, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Patrick Boyer: the bill be concurred in.

Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Yes.


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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Because it is Friday, there is an automatic deferral and, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division stands deferred until 7 p.m. on Monday, December 10, 1990.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-93, an act to amend the Bretton Woods and Related Agreements Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the motion of Mr. Reid (p. 16458).
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the comments which I just made regarding Bill C-93.
First, I want to set this discussion today into some context. Sometime back, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade submitted a report to the House on the international debt crisis. The government's response was simply to discount every, single recommendation made by the unanimous all-party report. I find it rather odd that a report that got the unanimous consent of all parties, which happens only infrequently, one that looked at and studied the debt crisis faced by nations that were facing serious indebtedness, that the government would choose simply to ignore all the work done by the committee. This puts into some context, I suppose, how serious the government is in terms of actually cleaning up its effort at helping countries out in terms of managing their foreign debt.
One of the items of Bill C-93, the conditionality of financing from international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is, of course, a reality. To put it more simply, before indebted nations can receive further funds from the IFIs, they must agree to the imposition of harsh, internal austerity measures. These conditions often lead to massive cuts in social programs, privatization programs, the devaluation of currency, and other market-oriented policies which are supposed to lead to an improvement in the worthiness of a country when it comes to credit.
While such structural adjustment measures may be strongly endorsed by the Minister of Finance, they have caused very strong and serious reaction in many countries around the world, particularly in the developing world. There have been riots in Zambia and Venezuela which resulted in the deaths of literally hundreds of people. Most Canadians who look at these policies demanded by these international monetary funds of one kind or another recognize that this is, in some ways, a rather indirect form of colonialism. The western countries, including Canada, which control the IMF and the World Bank are dictating economic policy to the less developed nations. Once again, in terms of allowing self-determination and self-realization and, in a sense, the self-government openness of Third World developing countries, we are imposing our view of what is right on them.
When I say "our view", I am of course referring to the government's view. A lot of us would have serious questions about the government's view of how to conduct the economy in terms of federal government measures, even as it occurs here in our own country of Canada. We have a monetary policy. Is it right for Canada? We have a fiscal policy. Is that right for Canada? We have a water policy. No, we do not have a water policy for Canada. Do we have a policy, in terms of regional economic development? No, we have not. We have a couple of slush funds which are operating in Atlantic Canada and in western Canada, but in terms of meaningfully assisting the development of serious economic infrastructure, particularly new economic infra-
December 7, 1990

structure in western, northern, or Atlantic Canada, such is not the case.
Even in our own country, the overwhelming majority of Canadians are saying that the government's policy in terms of economic development is haywire. It just does not make any sense anymore. On top of that, the government is going to impose a whole new set of taxes now called the goods and services tax.
I just returned from a visit to Japan and looking at its government's recent imposition of its version of the GST. The Japanese government decided that it was in its best interest to impose a GST of only 3 per cent. What did the people of Japan do at the first opportunity they had to indicate what they thought about that? They turfed out the government. I anticipate that at the first opportunity that Canadians have to show this government what they think of its economic policies, they will do the same and turf out this government.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: And elect a Liberal government in its place.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There is some noise from the Liberal benches about their future. I suspect that, if we look at their future-where could we look? We could look, I suppose, at what is going on in the province of Ontario. That would be one place to look. But will set that aside, Mr. Speaker. It is not worthy of even a response, quite frankly.
I should clarify the point. The point is that the government's view of appropriate economic policies to develop Canada's economy are wrongly placed. That is the same mentality that now is being visited upon Third World countries. There are governments such as our own here in Canada saying to Zambia and a whole set of other countries: "We know what is best. We are the big brother. Our country may be in a shambles economically, but our ideological view of what is best ought now to be imposed upon you. You have no choice, because if you expect support, indirectly and directly, from organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, you have got to do what we are telling you to do."
Government Orders
That is not the way the world ought to operate. I do not think Canada, the United States, or anyone else has the right to impose a particular ideological view on another country. That is not what the global community ought to be made up of, the imposition of certain views by some on others. That is why we have some concern in terms of the way the International Monetary Fund is progressing.
We recognize that the purpose of this bill is to provide for an increase in Canada's International Monetary Fund subscription by $906 million special drawing rights, about $1.2 billion. Another purpose, under section 1, is to provide for the proposed amendment regarding the suspension of members voting and relating rights. Relating to that are sections 2, 3, 4 and 5, as you well know, Mr. Speaker.
As I say, we have grave concerns of the implications of this particular legislation. I probably do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in the 1970s and 1980s the IFIs told the developing world to focus on exports to provide their balance of payments situation. Instead of growing food for internal consumption, these debtor nations grew cash crops such as coffee to finance their debt and to draw hard currency for imports. The subsequent glut on the commodity market has worsened the debt situation and left many of these nations unable to feed themselves.
In other words, they were following the dictates of countries such as our own in terms of saying: "We know what is best for you. Rather than develop sound food crops, you should be developing coffee, bananas, sugar, and so on for export." That is fine, as long as these things can be sold.
We know what it is like to be a farmer in western Canada or any place in the country now in terms of being able to compete in the international marketplace. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it is like to be a food producer in a developing country, without the hundreds of millions of dollars in support systems, or may I say billions of dollars, that our producers receive.
We think we are being treated unfairly. You can imagine the concerns that the people in the developing countries have at the near collapse of the GATT discussions that have just recently occurred.
I simply point out that our direction in the past has been demonstrated to be the wrong and inappropriate direction, and it has caused even further indebtedness of

Government Orders
the developing countries that we were so-called attempting to assist. By following the direction of western countries and the advice of western economists at the IMF, the developing world, in fact, has sunk further into its debt mire. Now, the IMF and the World Bank are telling the debtor nations to tighten their belts to make up for earlier bad decisions made by the United States primarily and the IFI.
It is appropriate that we recognize that the impact of this payment on condition is disproportionately filled at the lowest end of the economic scale: women, children, the dispossessed. We are talking about the unbelievably poor here and they bear the burden of this type of restructuring.
The impact of structural adjustment policies in countries such as Peru, Zambia and Guyana are really worth noting. In Zambia, the devaluation of currency has spurred inflation into triple digits. Here in our own country, when inflation reaches 5, 6, and 7 per cent, we start becoming seriously concerned. Tough policies are brought in to dampen down those inflationary fires. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what it must be like to be in a country where, in fact, it is in three figures when it comes to inflation and what that requires in terms of combating that incredible problem in terms of economic development? As a result of these restructurings in Zambia, we have also seen rising infant mortality, increasing unemployment, significant increase in illiteracy, and on and on.
Structural adjustment has now been applied in over 70 countries and has only contributed to stagnation and increased poverty. I must say that the IFIs are undermining the developing world and Canada, and Michael Wilson at the chair of the interim committee of the IMF-sort of the P&P committee of the IMF-is a key contributor to this policy. As a government we have to assume full responsibility for the types of policies now being imposed upon so many of these developing countries.
I want to go back to the point I made about the standing committee's recommendation that Canada has an obligation to work toward reforming the IFIs. I must admit I have not studied every single clause of this bill. That will come later in committee work. But from what I can gather, this bill does absolutely nothing, in spite of
our pathetic performance in terms of advice that we have been giving developing countries, to change the status quo. I do not know how my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, is able to stand in the House today and say that this is a good Canadian initiative, because it does not change a single thing that Canada has been doing and what Canada has been doing is not good for the developing world. We say that we have missed an opportunity here.
I know the government and the Liberals do not want to discuss this any longer, and I can understand why. If this was our legislation and we were doing absolutely nothing in light of the increasing debt build-up in developing countries, I would not want to be caught debating it publicly either. I chastise my Liberal friends for muzzling the debate in the House of Commons and wanting to get out of the discussion. I do not blame them. I recall their policies when they were in government. They were no different. Did they care about the developing world? There were some individuals, yes, but as a political party they never ever committed sufficient funds, in spite of years and years of promise, to economic development. Now the Tories really do no different. That is why I think Canadians are realizing that whether this policy, Bill C-93, is called Liberal policy or Conservative policy, there is no difference.
I listened carefully earlier and I asked: "Will we hear a different voice between my Conservative friends and my Liberal friends on this issue?" Mr. Speaker, I could not tell which side was talking.
The opportunity came, and I might say one of the very few opportunities members of the House of Commons have an opportunity to speak on international debt refinancing and restructuring, and do the Liberals want to speak? No. They do not want to speak. They want to curtail this debate and I say that is wrong.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We agreed to extend hours so that you could speak.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I know why they decided to extend hours-to muzzle debate. They know it is Friday. They know there are* number of members here and that is the easiest way to curtail debate. Do not try to fool and mislead the people of Canada. I will simply say mislead the people of Canada.
December 7, 1990

It is despicable, it is disheartening, it is sad, and it is a black day for Canada when it comes to the role it could play in terms of international development and assisting Third World countries.
I would like to close my comments by saying a very important Canadian was quoted recently in the news by saying: "The patient is very sick, but the medicine will only hasten the death." This was an outstanding Canadian talking about the plight and the challenges of many Third World countries as they struggle to survive, not even necessarily to advance, but simply to survive under unbelievable challenges.
What does the government do? It makes it worse, just as it is making it worse for the people of Canada. This ought to come as no surprise. This is an ongoing thesis now. It has developed almost monthly for the last two years.
Canadians, small business people are struggling to survive; farmers right across the country, struggling to survive; small manufacturers, struggling to survive; families, struggling to survive. What are the figures as a result of this policy which the Minister of Finance says is a policy of pain? It is going to be a scorched-earth policy because he says we want to inflict pain on the people of Canada in order to dampen down the inflationary fires.
They have done it admirably. They have killed off initiatives. They have killed off both so that there is an increasing sense of despair.
So I plead with my hon. friend across the aisle who is responsible for this particular initiative at this stage to rethink what the government is doing. While it is too late now, there has been pain that has been inflicted upon the people of Canada as a result of this federal government's policy. Let us not repeat that same pain and suffering for those people who are living in the developing countries.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the House leader for the New Democratic Party had to say. I was hoping that with the events in Ontario that he referred to earlier this year, when an NDP government was elected, and perhaps with the success that they are temporarily enjoying in the polls, the NDP would come forward with something substantive and serious; something that would give
Government Orders
us a clue to what they might do, if it ever befell us, that we had an NDP government in this country.
I could only conclude from having listened to him that either he has not given any serious thought to Canada's role in world institutions, or that he thinks that we should withdraw from the International Monetary Fund. That is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from his remarks.
The bill before us provides for two things. It provides for an increase in the amount of the deposits, the quotas, that are held by the International Monetary Fund to reflect the increased size of world trade and it provides for a means for the IMF to collect amounts owing from debtor nations, or to provide that they should pay them.
As I pointed out earlier today, many of us agree with the comments in the parliamentary report. Many of us agree with the sentiments which the House leader for the NDP is expressing in terms of what the IMF does in the context of granting its loans.
As I said earlier as well, many of us, including myself, have urged the Minister of Finance to take into account the emerging understanding of development issues in loans that are being granted by the IMF, for example in Brazil.
For the leader of the NDP to get up and say that the bill before us distinguishes parties, his and ours, for example, on those issues simply because this bill provides for the ongoing function of the IMF, is totally ridiculous. Why can he not get up and say specifically what he thinks Canada's role should be with respect to this quota system and to the collection of debts on an ongoing future basis?
Does he think that loans from the IMF should be without recourse against better nations? Should they be just simply gifts? In that case, why do we need an international clearing house like the IMF? What is it that the NDP has for a policy? In fact, do they have one at all?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to answer my friend, there is much to say on this issue. That is why we wanted to debate this issue. I do not understand why the Liberals want to curtail this debate.
This is the one opportunity we have for all members from the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, to express their party views. It is an opportunity for members of Parliament to speak on

December 7, 1990
Government Orders
what has to be one of the world's most important issues, the increasing indebtedness of the developing countries.
My hon. friend knows that what this legislation does. When I say that it maintains the status quo, it worsens the status quo, Mr. Speaker. He knows full well that it imposes additional sanctions on countries that are unable to repay their loans.
In other words, if you are so poor that you are simply unable to pay, they are going to impose heavier sanctions and make it impossible for you to even hope of paying it in the future. This is not good legislation.


John Paul Manley: What's your proposal. Give it away?


Nelson Andrew Riis: There are many proposals. The Liberals want the little catch phrase. The Liberals want some of these television quotable quotes. Their leader, Jean Chretien, has not said a single thing in the entire byelection. Try and find out where they stand on anything.
For example, we look to economic development as a role for the IMF to play. But the role is not to impose Conservative or Liberal-same thing-ideologies on developing countries. Absolutely not.
Look at international assistance and ask yourself the question: "Where does the most appropriate international assistance occur?" You have to say it occurs at the NGO level.
I realize that this is not exactly what this bill is about, but it is the only opportunity we have to discuss Canada's role overseas in terms of assisting economically or in other ways. These are the kinds of proposals we ought to have an opportunity to discuss. But, since we do not seem to be having that, I would like to propose a motion. Therefore, I move:
That this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I must say to the hon. member, and I know he has been around here for a long time, that Standing Order 25 states, and I quote:
When it is provided in any Standing or Special Order of this House that any business specified by such Order shall be continued, forthwith disposed of, or concluded in any sitting, the House shall not be adjourned before such proceedings have been completed except pursuant to a motion to adjourn proposed by a Minister of the Crown.
The hon. member realizes that. The motion is out of order.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few comments to the discussion that has already taken place on this very important bill.
As the House Leader of the New Democratic Party has clearly pointed out, there are serious questions about the increased debt on Third World countries. How much do we pile up? When do we say enough is enough? When do we stop imposing on the threat of that Third World debt our goals for an economy and our solutions for economic problems? How much austerity can we suffer in Canada and how much are we demanding that we impose on the Third World countries that are subject to the debt? Are we indeed the harbingers of some kind of Milton Friedman hard right wing policies that suggest that the IMF's role is to be a debt collector rather than some imaginative development of programs in the jurisdictions in which we are loaning the money?
If the government and opposition members argue that this should be a collecting agency, is there not a moral responsibility in the initiation of the loans to do some planning with the people who are borrowing the money? Are we making surrogate economies based on what we think is right? Or, are we focusing on what should be the force coming out of an indigenous need of those countries? Does the IMF take any time, as the Liberal Party raises the question about our policy, to express a desire that the indigenous economy was what should be supported and enhanced rather than impose some kind of unproven economic theories that are pursued in this country as the model?
It is very interesting to casually talk about what we hope to do and what we want to do. But, we always end up in effect imposing our views on the Third World countries and then expect, because we have loaned them the money, that they should be successful based on our views. We have done more to harm Central American and South American countries because of that attitude than we have to help them.
Sometimes it is best to have people help themselves, let them define what they need in terms of help rather than impose a regime that we think because it may or may not be appropriate for us, it certainly has to be appropriate for them. We have not been a good model, and if anybody wants any evidence of that, just examine what is happening in this country today. It is very
December 7, 1990

interesting to hear the Liberals and Conservatives squabble over who is responsible for the mess. I do not understand the basis of that squabbling. They both believe in the same policies anyway. The difference is between tweedledum and tweedledee. One is in and the other is out.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: And you're tweedledummer.


David Barrett: Mr. Member, I want to thank you for your very intelligent interruption. It is most appreciated. If you had anything positive to demonstrate, you would first of all explain why you have been such a failure across this country.
What are the options? The options are to understand that people in their own jurisdictions have the right and the responsibility to determine for themselves the direction in which they would like to go. If you examine the kind of pressures that have been created by multinational corporations through government instruments and through the IMF, to dictate to some of these smaller countries what they should do, you can understand why the policies have been so ruinous.
When does a debt come to an end? What are the consequences of the kind of policies we have been pursuing? Yes, there should be an all-party consensus in asking those questions. Certainly, we are not going to have that by extending the hours of debate and trying to ram the bill through. There is no thoughtful analysis of the mistakes we have made in this country and helping those people avoid them. I suppose the government's response, in terms of enhancing the view of the IMF, is to loan some of those countries John Crow. What an asset. We could send Crow down there. He just took a 27 per cent increase in his salary in a two-year period. Then, he tells the Canadian people that they have to cut to the bone and we have to fight inflation. His method of fighting inflation as a reflection of this government is take that whopping salary increase, and then deign to come into committee and say: "That is really not a committee matter."
I find it hypocritical, if I am allowed to use that word. I do not address that word to any single member. It is a
Government Orders
collective admonition, particularly on the Conservatives. The admonition is that if this kind of debate-


Patrick Boyer: The committee looked into it.


David Barrett: It is a rather pious comment from my good friend over there. Yes, the committee has pondered about this and yes, we have to make these moves.
It is still the agenda that is dominated by the multinational corporations and this government is a reflection of the policies of those large corporations to the detriment of small business in Canada and certainly to the detriment of the indigenous economy of many of the countries that we allegedly are trying to help by burdening them with these massive debts. These massive debts have not been dealt with in a frugal and fiscally responsible manner. We are imposing the same kind of thing and the corporations go on their merry way.
Sure the terms are going to be modified and sure, there is going to be a touch of patent humanitarian approach. The reality is you are imposing a fiscal regime that is essentially outmoded and would make Milton Friedman very happy. This government has been a failure with the same policies here in Canada and the same approach they are taking with the IMF.


Patrick Boyer: We've converted our loans to grants.


David Barrett: You have done some of it.


Patrick Boyer: We've done it entirely and we've forgiven loans.


David Barrett: I appreciate the interruptions because it makes for an unintelligible debate.
In pursuing that particular course of unintelligible debate in response to that particular interruption, even the head of Imperial Oil of Canada, who is not known to be a New Democratic Party supporter, has announced that grants such as my friend is talking about are foolish. He particularly mentioned what this government has done with Hibernia. He did that just yesterday.
He is talking about grants and the grants toward what kinds of programs and forgiving debts on the basis of a Milton Friedman right-wing kind of mentality and encouraging the Third World countries to mirror the kind of economic decisions made by this government. A grant is a grant is a grant, my friend. When Imperial Oil says Mobil should not get a grant, they are being converted

Government Orders
either to an understanding of basic economic theory or they are envious that they did not get the grant. Far be it from me to be suspicious of Imperial Oil. Imperial and other oil companies are in the Third World.


Patrick Boyer: We're talking about overseas assistance.


David Barrett: Overseas assistance. That is the way you treat Newfoundland. You think they are overseas and you gave them that kind of overseas assistance on a forgivable grant to the oil companies. Newfoundland is not overseas, it is part of Canada. Get that straight.
Let us understand, when they talk about these kinds of grants to the oil companies, and they give us examples of the Third World countries, that they are denying them the opportunity to enhance what is the indigenous economy, the kind of economy that enhances the jurisdiction within which it should flourish and develop based on their own internal needs and their own sovereign goals, not an imposition by another multinational funded government, such as the one that we have here in Canada.


Patrick Boyer: Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.


David Barrett: Nonsense, absolute nonsense, my friend says.
Let us take a look at the United Fruit Company in Third World countries and what they have done, along with the IMF loans. The United Fruit Company has monopolized the growing, the ownership, and the distribution from Third World countries of products such as bananas.


Patrick Boyer: This is a Canadian Parliament. Why don't you talk about Canadian companies?


David Barrett: It is a Canadian Parliament and we are dealing with Canadian taxpayers' money that ultimately will have to pay for these grants.
The United Fruit Company, which is a beneficiary of the kind of policies sponsored by the IMF, has a monopoly over the growing of such products as bananas. Does the IMF ask to support the continuation of corrupt governments and massive debts and still sponsor programs that benefit such corporations as United Fruit? If one thinks that these things are unconnected, one is wrong. They are connected.
International corporations have influenced those governments. Look at the overthrow of the Arbenz government in 1954 in Guatemala and you can see the direct connection between the thrust of IMF loans, the kind of forgiveness in terms of grants, and the continuation of the control of those governments and the internal policies by the outside multinational corporations.
There has to be a separation before the grants have any meaning. There has to be a separation between the IMF, and the international corporations' agenda, and right-wing governments' agenda, and an understanding that all the money loaned should be going toward the construction of the indigenous economy of the countries that receive money.
There is nothing wrong with that philosophy. I am proud to belong to a party that espouses the philosophy of supporting the indigenous economy. But to continue to pour money into programs that have no bottom, only to support the international corporations that are usually exploiting the resources of those Third World countries makes one question the whole idea.
What is the response of the IMF in terms of collecting debts? Squeeze the local people more. The multinational corporations just squeeze the campucinos more, not ask more from the resources. The peasants will cough up the money. It is absurd. We should have a debate on what this money is being loaned for, and ultimately the direction we hope that people will decide for themselves, not do what we tell them to do.
I agree completely with my colleague, the member for Kamloops. Fie made an outstanding statement here today, an outstanding position. Frankly, if I were a government member, I would have listened and probably come to the conclusion that the Tory government should resign. Since they do not seem to agree I just wanted to make these few comments in support of the admonitions of my good friend from Kamloops and the wisdom with which he gave his remarks to this House.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I have heard from the last couple of speakers the concern that they could not tell the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I would like to express one way that you can tell the difference. The hon. member for Ottawa South said that he was surprised that the NDP discussions have been bereft of any positive ideas that had any substance to add to this bill or to the discussion today. The difference between him and myself is that I am not the least bit surprised. This is something I think people from across the country are going to become more and more used to.
The discussion has referred to the International Monetary Fund many times today and the World Bank has also come into it. I wonder if the hon. members in the NDP understand the difference between the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and a food bank.
I hope they would not go to a food bank asking for a mortgage or financing for one of their businesses, or any economic development.
For the information of those members, we have different kinds of banks for different functions. When it comes to trying to help the developing countries to develop their economies in the most positive and effective manner as possible, the International Monetary Fund has done an outstanding job.
I am really confused by what the members from the New Democratic Party are saying. I have to draw the conclusion that they feel that the International Monetary Fund is not doing an effective job and I assume they are prepared to withdraw their support from it.
I really ask the hon. member who has just spoken: does he not feel that the best thing that we can do, especially in these developing countries, is to try to provide them with the economy and the sustenance they require to provide the long-range economic support that the people of those countries need?
I guess the simplest way of saying it is we all know the best social program is a job. In that respect, I do not see any difference between the Third World countries and Canada. Providing all kinds of assistance, although very necessary and very noble does not necessarily go very far in providing them with a good economy that provides jobs.
The International Monetary Fund does that, and I would hope that the hon. member would support that.
Government Orders


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to allude to my good friend's comments on the number of food banks, and the difference between food banks and other banks.
I think we should put it into perspective, relative to my criticisms of this government. Right now in Canada there are more food banks than there are McDonald's restaurants. That is really a hallmark of the success of the Tory policy.
It was this government that bailed out the Canadian Commercial Bank to the tune of $800 million, while the food banks continue. The hon. member has the nerve to stand up and talk about giving jobs so people can self-sustain.
The government pays off the banks when they go broke. Eight hundred million dollars. People out there in food banks went bankrupt. What is the government doing for them, giving them another hill of beans and promises?
Because of the wisdom of my comments, I call a quorum. There are not enough people in here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will count the members present.
And the count having been taken:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I now see a
quorum.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I could point out to the House that the member who was speaking has demonstrated his blindness twice already today. Maybe he would like to try for three. He cannot even see the quorum when it exists.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I take the admonition from the member for Calgary West, and I realize that the Liberals saved the Tories again.
If anybody wants proof of a coalition, just watch the Liberals come in and save the government again. There is the evidence, but far be it from me to make a political comment in a Chamber like this.
If we bring politics into this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, there will be no holds barred, so I will refrain from making any political observation about the Liberals saving the Tories again. But could I say that, I would have.
I want to continue my remarks on questions raised by my good friend, the member for Cariboo. He wanted to make the analogy, as he said, about the various institutions that are available for loaning money. One of the institutions that I pointed out that exist in this country to

December 7, 1990
Government Orders
help banks when they go broke is the Canadian taxpayer by way of the Conservative government.
If my friend is serious about the admonition of this House that the best way to create a better economy is indeed to have jobs, then what is the justification for bailing out the Canadian Commercial Bank? Why take $800 million of taxpayers' money and give it to the people who have the God-given right to go broke? I thought free enterprise meant taking a risk. The only people who take a risk in this system, in this way of loaning money, are the ordinary men and women of this country who end up at food banks, while the big banks are bailed out. I wanted to deal with that because he raised it.
As to the question of the options of the money, of course there are options for money. There are always conditions no matter what the options are, whether it is the International Monetary Fund or anywhere else. It is the conditions we are talking about.
The conditions are onerous when there is dictation down to the recipient, rather than listening to the request from the recipient and going along with their own indigenous economic needs, rather than imposing our own ideas that do not work too well for us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.
Is the House ready for the question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first question is on the motion of Mr. Reid. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
[Motion agreed to]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore the question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I call it three o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at one o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
At 2.49 p.m. the House adjourned.

Monday, December 10,1990