1991-09-18

Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of the House the hon. member for Burlington is rising on a question of personal privilege which arose out of a matter that was brought to my attention yesterday. I want to say to the House that I view the matter that was raised as grave and serious. I will hear the hon. member.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Following the controversy over my remarks in the House in addressing the hon. member for Hamilton East, I have had an opportunity to review the television tape and wish to address the House on a point of personal privilege. I lost my temper and said something I should not have said. What is most unfortunate is that my choice of words has offended the hon. member and also has offended the temper of the House. I unequivocally apologize to the hon. member for Hamilton East and to all other hon. members who may have felt maligned by my remarks. I completely withdraw all of those comments made by me yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, I regret this incident and I want to assure all my colleagues of my respect for this institution.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond wishes to rise on the same matter.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton East is currently on her way to northern Ontario. However, she
has advised me that she is prepared to accept an apology on this matter. But I would like to point out that while the hon. member for Hamilton East is prepared to accept this particular apology on this specific incident, the issue I believe before the House is far greater than that specific remark. The issue is the way in which women members of Parliament, indeed all women employees of the House of Commons, are treated by men.


Mr. Speaker:: It may very well be that the hon. member and the hon. member who is unable to be here, the hon. member for Hamilton East, may wish to take up the issue of the treatment of any particular person in the House or group of people, but I am very much of the view that this probably is not the proper time to do it. I would ask the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to conclude his remarks. I certainly feel that it is appropriate that he is able to speak within the limitations of this particular specific issue on behalf of the hon. member for Hamilton East.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, very briefly then, I will conclude. As I indicated to you yesterday, I would hope that you would review the tape. I would ask that you as the Speaker of this House review what has happened and to issue a statement to the House on a matter which is veiy serious, not only to the hon. member but, we believe, to all women.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to remind the House and all who are listening that there is a long and ancient tradition in this place that when someone has erred and they come before the House and they unequivocally withdraw, and do more than that and extend an apology to the person whom they have perhaps maligned, or at least offended, and to the whole House, that has to be the end of that specific issue.
I indicated in my remarks a few minutes ago that I view what happened yesterday, and these are the words I said: "as grave and serious" and I think I would have the support of almost all hon. members in using those words.

The hon. member for Burlington has looked carefully at the words he has just expressed and has most unequivocally withdrawn all his comments-not just some of them-but all his comments and has given an abject apology not only to the hon. member for Hamilton East who, as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond says accepts that, but also an apology to the House.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is raising another matter which may very well be appropriate to raise at another time on another occasion, but I would ask the support of all hon. members at this time in remembering that what is taking place here is consistent with the traditions of this place. I have to say that in my view, because as I have said I think it was a grave and serious matter yesterday, it was very important that it be clarified and dealt with at the very earliest opportunity.
I am going to proceed with statements by members, but I want to advise the House that the time that has been taken for this will be extended to both statements and to the Question Period.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. 0.31


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, the Yugoslavian presidency under Stipe Mesic and the people of war torn Croatia have called on the international community and the United Nations to establish a peacekeeping force in Yugoslavia following what they have described as a military coup.
Croatian-Canadians in my riding and from across Canada want their government to do everything possible to help their relatives and friends in Croatia. In light of the daily bombings, razing of villages and death at the hands of break-away Yugoslav forces, Canada can no longer stand by and watch.
Given the admitted failure of the European Community observer mission, I urge the Government of Canada to use its influence at the United Nations General
Assembly, the UN Human Rights Commission and its seat on the UN Security Council to bring about peace in war-town Croatia by immediately calling for the establishment of a United Nations peacekeeping force in that republic.


THE SENATE
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Australia has a federal parliamentary system. It also has a Triple-E senate. Australian senators are elected on the basis of proportional representation and not on a plurality vote. This guarantees that the political composition of their Senate will differ from their Lower House.
Each Australian state has an equal number of senators. Their Senate, because of its proportional representation and its veto power, requires their cabinet to publicly convince senators and members of Parliament of the need for each piece of proposed legislation.
If Canada followed the Australian model, our reformed Senate could be proportionally elected. Each region-rather than each province-could have an equal number of senators and with veto power our Triple-E Senate could effectively ensure that our cabinet is responsible to Parliament in practice as well as in theory and, at the same time, by creating a more open process help to restore Canadians' faith in our political system.


WOLVERINE TUBE
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, in New Westminster, we are reeling from the blow dealt by Wolverine Tube. They are shutting down their factory, a key source of revenue and jobs.
To save the plant, employees went out and found a buyer. It is a progressive plan, a joint venture between business, unions and employees. Everyone would benefit. Jobs and revenue would stay and the company would get a good return on its investment.
Wolverine had a surprising reaction. They rejected the offer to purchase and insisted on closing the plant. Wolverine also stated they did not want any competition.
September 18, 1991

Since Wolverine bought this plant, the Bureau of Competition policy has monitored the acquisition. Evidently its work is not over.
The facts lead to only one conclusion: A full tribunal must be ordered by the minister responsible. The anticompetition allegations cannot be ignored any longer. It is a critical issue.
Wolverine is threatening to dismantle this plant today. Will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs use his authority under the Competition Act to reopen this investigation immediately?


QUEBEC'S ECONOMY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Quebec Liberal Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Gerald Tremblay, described in alarming terms Quebec's economic situation with respect to productivity at the industrial relations consultants' convention. He based his reading on the fact that Quebec companies are behind in productivity, job training and research and development.
Mr. Tremblay predicted that if Quebec did not start to solve its problems right away, capital and the most mobile human resources would leave. He said that Quebec's quality of life would diminish considerably and that government deficits made it impossible to improve the quality of services and to reduce the dramatic impact of unemployment and poverty.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the metropolitan Toronto police department is one of the finest police forces anywhere in the world.
According to a public opinion poll last week, 89 per cent of Toronto residents felt that the metro police force was doing a good job.
Unfortunately, however, in spite of the very fine efforts of the metro police, crime is on the increase in
Toronto. Drug offences are up 22 per cent. Robberies are committed at a higher rate than last year. The murder rate is higher than it has ever been. The public is very concerned and frightened about drugs, crime and the safety of their children in their very own neighbourhoods.
The police are doing as much as they can with the resources they have. Local police forces across the country are busy busting drug dealers, only to see the federal government lay claim to the confiscated money and property. This is unfair.
I call on the Minister of Justice to return the confiscated money and assets to local police forces across Canada. The federal government should at the very least reimburse the cost of an investigation that results in the seizure of drug assets.
Toronto is in a crime crisis and may soon be competing with Detroit and New York for the highest crime rate in North America. The federal government must take immediate action to properly provide for our front line soldiers in the war against drugs.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, it is just like the Liberals and the NDP to try to use the Public Service strike as a way of gaining political advantage behind the guise of compassion.
Well, we know better and the strikers know better.
We are not talking about Daiyl Bean and his cohorts who insisted that the Public Service strike, no matter what the cost.
We are talking about public employees who were forced to strike out of fear of retribution.
Thanks to this government, union representatives are meeting at the bargaining table, strikers have returned to work and can resume earning the wages that keep roofs over their heads and food on the table.
Oh, you can be sure the opposition parties will try to take the credit, but we know better.
We know they would have seen the strike continue until they could squeeze every ounce of political advantage out of it.

September 18, 1991
A word of advice while they scramble to retrieve a few shreds of dignity: keep your petty political tactics inside these hallowed halls where the damage can be minimized by the Conservative government.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has exceeded his time.


EARTH SUMMIT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the Earth Summit will be held in Brazil nine months from now, chaired by a Canadian, Maurice Strong.
Canadians deeply identify with our role as UN peacekeepers, with the role of the Red Cross, with the message of Greenpeace and other Canadian environment groups.
The world must join together to struggle for peace and environmental security. The time has come for a global green cross led by Canada to take on the crisis of the oil fires and spills in Kuwait and Iraq, to clean up the damage of toxic and hazardous wastes poisoning eastern Europe, to take on the spread of deserts and deforestation, to fight the contamination of the seas and the atmosphere, to take on poverty and population, the challenge of survival. It is to that that Canadians seek leadership, not the blind business as usual of James Bay II or Kemano II, not for hundreds of millions of dollars more for Canadian nuclear reactors to Romania rather than alternate energy sources, and a reversal of global warming, not an acceleration.
It is time for a Canadian led green cross and to wage peace for a living.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, through a campaign of misinformation the Conservative government would have Canadians believe that the recession has passed us by and the so-called prosperity agenda has kicked in.
Tory prosperity is hardly a picture perfect paradise for the people in my home town. Here are the unemployment rates in Hamilton: April, 8.1 per cent; May, 8.5 per cent; June, 9.7 per cent; July, 10.8 per cent; and last month the unemployment rate matched the rate of factory closures, 11.4 per cent. That means there are
38,000	unemployed people in Hamilton.
The Minister of Finance says the recession is over. Not even his own Tory backbenchers believe it. Permit me to quote one:
People in my riding would probably disagree with the statement
that the recession is history and I couldn't disagree with them-There
are a lot of jobs that have yet to be regained.
That was said by the Tory member for Halton Peel.


FOETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, during the last few years it has been discovered that the use of alcohol by women during pregnancy is responsible for the development of a condition in infants known as Foetal Alcohol Syndrome.
It is characterized by small size, physical and mental retardation and high mortality rate. It can be completely prevented by abstaining from alcohol during pregnancy. As many women are unaware of the problem, it is important that the government provide clear labelling of all alcohol products to warn of the danger.
Tobacco products contain warning labels and Canadian alcohol products exported to the U.S. must cany the label. Can we do less for Canadians?


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great relief that I rise today to celebrate the survival of free collective bargaining in Canada.
The leadership demonstrated by Daiyl Bean and the Public Service Alliance, following the tremendous show of union solidarity Monday when Mr. Bean made a conciliatory gesture and announced that the lines would come down at airports and border crossings, was the first step toward getting collective bargaining back on track. That is responsible leadership.
The President of the Treasury Board's respect for the report of the Public Service Staff Relations Board was a
September 18, 1991

responsible position on the part of the minister, and he is to be congratulated.
The events of yesterday have shown that where there is good will on both sides the toughest issues can be resolved. We wish those returning to the bargaining table well and hope that the commitment to a negotiated settlement will prevail.


BILL C-29
Mr. Jacques Vien (Laurentides):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Public Service Alliance and Treasury Board agreed to resume negotiations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29, whose purpose is the return to work of federal Public Service employees, is suspended.
Furthermore, it should be noted that Treasury Board has agreed to resume negotiations with no prior conditions, although we intend to remain firm on 0-3-3.
These are clear indications of the government's good faith and show that we have favoured negotiations to reach a settlement.
Let it be clearly understood that we will always favour discussion over confrontation to end any disagreement.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, as the picket lines came down this morning, public servants returned to work and the negotiators prepared to return to the bargaining table, the question being asked is: "Who is the winner?"
Reporters anxious for a punchy headline or soundbite may identify the employer or the union or some intermediary. The truth is the Canadian public, the taxpayer, is the winner. The Public Service is back at work without adding to the deficit or increasing taxes. All of us in government are faced with zero, three and three: MPs, ministers, the Prime Minister, senior management, and PSAC.
Confrontation, not the Canadian way, is over. Dialogue, the Canadian passion, is resumed. Services essential to our physical and economic health will flow again. Canadians can get to and from work without hindrance. And, should it all come unstuck, Parliament is ready to act very swiftly.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, last spring we had a debate on Montreal's economic problems. The minister responsible for Montreal was present, veiy relaxed, and considered the situation to be normal. He had to be unconscious or deaf. Disaster was looming: the transfer of many Air Canada employees from Montreal to Toronto, the move of pilot training from Montreal to Toronto, the lay-off of at least 450 Air Canada employees and others that I do not have time to list.
Mr. Speaker, for the good of Montrealers, the Prime Minister should act quickly and replace this incompetent minister-I urge him to do so.


ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, last June, the government announced a $1.7 million program to establish a Canadian youth secretariat that would be in charge of organizing environmental seminars across the country, to prepare Canada's youth for participation in the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in 1992.
Preparations started in Rouyn-Noranda last June, and after a series of six regional seminars, followed by a national conference, the position taken by Canada's youth is to be announced by the middle of October. All this was possible thanks to the Green Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our youth's commitment and involvement and the high level of their discussions by young people on environmental issues. I am convinced that the proposals made by our young people will lead to a world consensus on youth's role in the struggle to protect the environment and to promote sustainable development.

September 18, 1991
Oral Questions


ANTUN KIKAS
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has stated that her government is urging the Yugoslav army to end its use of what she calls "excessive force" in the conflict in Croatia. By this statement the minister implies that she accepts the role of the Yugoslav army but just thinks it should be limited.
The Yugoslav army, acting without legitimate political or democratic control, has bombed civilian targets and taken offensive and brutal actions that totally belie its claims to neutrality. These actions deserve the condemnation of this government.
Many Canadians are also deeply concerned about the welfare of Mr. Antun Kikas, a Canadian citizen recently captured by Yugoslav forces and reportedly tortured while in detainment. Mr. Kikas' circumstances are rife with rumour and uncertainty. Canadians who know Antun Kikas are anxiously awaiting a statement from the minister with regard to his current status and whether any steps have been taken by this government to safeguard his health, dignity and human rights.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, the major national event of yesterday was a magnanimous victory for the Canadian taxpayer. The fact that the Public Service Alliance has agreed to return to work without preconditions except for the absolute understanding that a wage settlement will not vaiy from the zero, three, three formula is great news for the nation's economy.
That may appear to be a tough position on the part of the government; that is because it is a tough position. However, when balanced against the one example of
150,000	prairie farmers who will be suffering economic decline for more than a decade-many have had to abandon their farms-it would be unreasonable for the government to assure absolute job security and increased salaries for about the same number of federal public servants, when the only method of payment is higher taxes or a larger debt.
Public servants ought not to be a class immune to the realities of the world. Yesterday was a great victory for government. It was a victory in the battle against deficit spending. It was a victory for the taxpayers. A win is registered for the taxpayers in Canada. Clearly from that will flow a victory for the Public Service itself.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Canadians realize how important a passport is.
When new Canadians receive their passports, it is probably the greatest event of their lives. Today, however, this document is also coveted by drug traffickers and fugitives of every kind.
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could tell us when his government became aware of this disastrous situation and what it intends to do about it.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the passport problem.
A Canadian passport is coveted the world over, and the problem is that it is a very popular item with thieves and people of that ilk.

I want to point out to the hon. member and Leader of the Opposition that security is a crucial element in the development of our passport policies. We try to provide good service for those who require passports. We issue
1.2	million passports a year. We are very concerned by the allegations about the Canadian passport and we are investigating them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Prime Minister if he will answer some of these questions.
September 18, 1991

The very people who are putting crack and cocaine in the hands of the children in our school yards are the same people today who are using the Canadian passport as a calling card.
When was the government made aware of this situation? Which ministers were aware of it? Why has nothing been done about this horrible situation?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is assuming far too much. The Canadian Passport Office has been aware of the fraudulent passport cases that were outlined in the article and it reported them promptly to the RCMP.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that it is not a very big problem. According to the Montreal Gazette this morning, the list of people who got these illegal passports reads like a directory of the international drug trade.
Who is running the department of passports in Canada? Is it the Colombian drug dealers? Which ministers were aware of this? Why has nothing been done? When will the Prime Minister take his job seriously for once in our lives?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I will not respond in the way I am thoroughly tempted to respond.
I have asked for a full report on this situation because, as I said in response to his first question, I do take the situation very seriously. I have asked my department for a full report.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned about crime. They want our cities and communities safe. Yet today Canadians are outraged to learn that organized crime world-wide is using Canadian passports issued by External Affairs to conduct illegal activities all over the world. The minister has confirmed that she is investigating.
Why has this government allowed the Canadian passport, a symbol of our proud country, to be used as a calling card for international criminals?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we issue 1.2 million passports a year. There are 6 million in circulation.
Oral Questions
Security is our highest priority in the issue of passports. Eighty-three per cent of our passports are issued personally to those who apply for them.
I have asked for a full report on any allegations that have been made that this situation is a difficult one.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that security is a prime responsibility-


Barbara Jean McDougall: I said it was a priority.


Thomas (Tom) William Wappel: Priority, that is fine, as it should be. The minister has known since 1989, or her predecessor has known since 1989, from reports by the RCMP that this matter has been going on two full years.
What has taken so long to begin the investigation? Why are you investigating now? If you had started your investigations in 1989 when you should have done so, why is the matter still going on?


Mr. Speaker:: I have to ask the hon. member to address his questions through the Chair.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that I am told that the passport office had been made aware of some of these cases and reported them to the RCMP immediately-immediately, I said, they reported these incidents-and I have asked for a full report on the whole issue. I should also point out that the article in the Gazette says that this is not widespread.


MIDDLE EAST
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to personally thank the President of the Treasury Board for seeing an opportunity yesterday and for the good work he did. I would like to thank him on behalf of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. News reports yesterday and today indicate that there could be potentially a very serious resumption of conflict in the Middle East. We are all concerned about Iraq's persistent refusal to agree to inspection of their nuclear sites.

Oral Questions
We understand that the United States is moving forces into Saudi Arabia and that U.S. planes are on alert for a possible strike on Bagdhad. Of course, everyone in this House is concerned about this. In a report from the White House, it did say that western allies have agreed to this operation.
Could the Prime Minister tell this House what Canada has agreed to, if anything, and could he give us some information on this situation from a Canadian perspective.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think that Secretary Cheney of the United States has indicated that these reports are very considerably inflated in regard to what may or may not be contemplated.
What is taking place, as my hon. friend knows, is repeated violations by Saddam Hussein of United Nations' prescriptions and rulings pursuant to agreed upon resolutions of the Security Council in regard to implementation. He persists in violating and flaunting the will of the international body. The United Nations has conveyed to him the views that these must be accepted in their entirety. His attitude has been to understate the case and be extremely unhelpful.
I hope it was not lost on him what happened when he proceeded with imprudence the last time. If Saddam Hussein has any vestiges of intelligence, which many people doubt, he will immediately follow to the letter all of the rulings of the United Nations Security Council.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us specifically what Canada's response is and whether Canada would have a role in this. Could he tell the House specifically what his instructions have been on behalf of the Government of Canada regarding this?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Inasmuch as Canada has not been asked to play any given role, I cannot respond because it would be entirely hypothetical.
Canada was a member of the Security Council when the matter was resolved and the prescriptions were drawn up and designed. As a member of the Security Council and as a member of the General Assembly we, along with every other nation in the world, with one or
two exceptions, insist on the full and strict application of those sanctions as they apply to Iraq.
I suppose the message all members would want to send to Iraq is that in their own interests, and the interests of all of their people, to urge their leadership to comply immediately and totally with the prescriptions of the United Nations.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. Did President Bush get in touch with the Prime Minister about the situation? And if so, what was the Prime Minister's answer?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, President Bush did not get in touch with me about this, and in fact we are referring to resolutions already ratified by the United Nations Security Council. What we see today is a refusal by Saddam Hussein to comply with rulings already approved by the Security Council.
Three months ago, the President of Iraq refused to proceed with caution. He underestimated the political will of the civilized world. The direct threat to peace, to his neighbours and to Israel was very real. It was made clear to him what the consequences might be but he has refused to comply with the resolutions of the Security Council. He is now being urged to comply, fully and without delay, with those resolutions.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
The government is playing the fiddle while Montreal bums! This summer, government members begged the government to do something about the situation in Montreal. It has done nothing.
This morning, the government of Quebec released a devastating report on the economy in the metropolitan area which totally contradicts all the claims made by Tory ministers. Things have never been worse in all the 25 years I have been a resident of Montreal.
My question is this, and I think the time for the usual stock answers is past, what specific plan-perhaps the Prime Minister would care to listen to what I have to
September 18, 1991

Oral Questions
say-what specific program is the Prime Minister prepared to implement and when, to guarantee that children in Montreal will no longer go to school on an empty stomach?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that the prosperity of Montreal is contingent upon the economic prosperity of Canada as a whole. This is the first step.
Second, last February when the Budget was brought down, we tabled an economic recovery plan for this country based on a number of principles. We had to reduce the deficit, bring down inflation and reduce interest rates, and are making considerable headway on all three fronts.
I may add that since the beginning of our economic recovery, 47,000 jobs have been created, including more than 27,000 in Montreal. So the government is doing a lot for Montreal, and it will do a lot more.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the new minister responsible for Montreal.
The minister is right: Montreal is suffering the consequences of the government's policies: an excessively high dollar, cuts in research and development and no manpower programs. Make no mistake: the roots of our national unity crisis are economic as well as constitutional.
My question is this: When will the minister or the Prime Minister or at least someone on the other side finally realize that if Montreal is taken care of, Quebec will be in better shape and Canada will be better off?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Liberal Party ask questions about Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention three instances in which this government wanted to do something and, in fact, did something for Montreal but was unable to get any co-operation from the Liberal Party.
First, when the time came to establish the Space Agency in Montreal, why didn't Liberal members from Montreal support the plan to locate the agency in then-city? Second, in the case of Bill C-22 concerning drug patents, what did these members do? They were all dead against helping Montreal. Third-and these are just
three examples-as far as the petrochemical industry is concerned, from 1980 to 1984, the Liberal government, and more specifically Mr. Lalonde, wanted to kill Petro-mont and the petrochemical industry in Montreal. Without the Prime Minister's intervention, thousands of jobs would have been lost. And we saved those jobs!


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, confidential revenue department studies report that the Minister of National Revenue knew that the GST would cause dramatic increases in cross-border shopping. Yet he has consistently denied that the GST is the main factor in this cross-border shopping increase.
If the Prime Minister still believes that his ministers should demonstrate integrity and responsibility, when will he ask his Minister of National Revenue for his resignation?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have always known that the hon. member is in the dark most of the time.
I was not so certain about my friend, Alan Freeman of The Globe and Mail, whose story the hon. member is referring to because the contents of this document were made public May 7 of this year. They were refuted by the Deputy Minister of Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, when she concluded in her public press release of May 7 that the study represents one person's opinion and does not reflect the view of the department or the government.
Further to that-I am sure the opposition members are not going to be happy with this news-today's Canadian Economic Observer from Statistics Canada reports that the GST was not to blame for cross-border shopping because cross-border shopping, according to Statistics Canada, is decreasing as of January 1, 1991 as compared to the previous three years. That is a fact.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether the minister can skate around his statements; the issue is that the minister knew what would be the impact of the GST on cross-border

September 18, 1991
Oral Questions
shopping because his own department had given prior warning.
He knew but did nothing. Worse, he continually told Canadians that cross-border shopping and GST were not related.
The behaviour has so incensed Canadians in the business community that today the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses called on the Prime Minister in the interests of decency and honesty to fire his minister. When will the Prime Minister act on the federation's advice?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I guess John Bulloch has been in the dark the same way as the hon. member because the statistics speak for themselves.
Canadian Economic Observer, a publication of Statistics Canada which was released early this morning-I am sure the hon. member has not read that yet-concluded that in 1987, the increases of cross-border shopping was 20 per cent. In 1988, it was 17 per cent; in 1989, it was 20 per cent; in 1990, it was 20 per cent and in the first two quarters of 1991, after the introduction of the GST and the scrapping of the unfair manufacturers' sales tax, the increase in the first quarter was only 2.3 per cent and in the second quarter, it was lowered to 1.3 per cent. That is progress.


LAND CLAIMS
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, before the last election, the Prime Minister signed a land claims agreement in principle with the chiefs of the Dene nation.
He said he was building a lasting relationship with the Dene people and a more united Canada.
Three years later, the agreement has disintegrated, Dene funding has been slashed, the government refuses to discuss outstanding issues and the Prime Minister is too busy to meet with the leaders of the Dene people.
Will the Prime Minister commit himself to meet with Dene national chief, Bill Erasmus, who is in Ottawa this week to resume building what he called a lasting relationship and a unified Canada that includes the Dene people?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
It gives me an opportunity to remind the House of the remarkable progress we have made in dealing with land claims, introducing new specific claims policies, preparing in conjunction with aboriginal leadership new alternatives to the Indian Act and all of the debilitating impact that act has had on Indian people and on the new constitutional initiatives which my colleague, the minister responsible for Canadian unity has brought forward.
I meet regularly with the leaders of all First Nations people and have met Mr. Erasmus on numerous occasions. I find it unfortunate that he chose to persuade his people to abandon what was perhaps the most global and significant land claim agreement in all of Canadian history.
I hope we will have a chance to revisit that agreement in the not to distant future.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Twenty-four of 27 Dene communities have rejected the land claims agreement which extinguishes their aboriginal rights. In fact, no other group in Canada is required to surrender its rights under the Constitution or the Charter as a precondition of reaching agreements with the government.
Will the Prime Minister remove the extinguishment of constitutionally protected aboriginal rights as a precondition to settling land claims in this country?
Will he get back to the bargaining table with the Dene without the precondition of extinguishment?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that many First Nations people have defined aboriginal rights under treaty, including the Dene people of the Western Arctic.
Furthermore, where those rights have not entirely been respected by previous governments, this government has made tremendous progress, as we did in Saskatchewan just last Friday when we signed an historic cost-sharing agreement with the government of the province of Saskatchewan to settle treaty land entitlements with some 27 First Nations bands of Saskatche-
September 18, 1991

Oral Questions
wan, something that previous NDP governments never had the courage to do.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. His standard line in his answer today is that everyone is in the dark. I submit to you that the Minister of National Revenue is skating on thin ice on this one.
Last fall, a study prepared by his own department warned that the GST could lead to an annual increase of two million travellers to the U.S. In fact, in the first six months of the GST, same-day cars to the U.S. increased by 4.8 million. Why did the minister go across the country saying that the GST would not be a factor in increasing cross-border shopping when he knew better.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I will out-skate that hon. member anytime.


An hon. member:: He is just an old referee.


Otto John Jelinek: Obviously he already had his question written prior to the answers I gave to his colleague. So instead of repeating my answer, I will just point to the Canadian Economics Observer from Statistics Canada which confirms the things I have been saying for the last 18 months.


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are blowing the whistle on this minister.


An hon. member:: They are going to throw him out of the game.


An hon. member:: Put him in the penalty box. [Translation]


Robert (Bob) Kilger: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of National Revenue. The bankruptcy rate among small and mid-sized businesses has reached a record high. Unemployment continues to rise throughout the country, particularly in border communities. Can the minister explain his inaction in view of the damages to the national economy? Will he now admit that the mayor of Sarnia was telling the truth when he said that Revenue Canada was aware of the problems and their consequences but that neither the minister nor his department did a thing about it?


Otto John Jelinek: have met with all the border communities and their mayors as well as the border business communities, including the Mayor of Sarnia, the former Liberal candidate in the last election by the way. We have come to the conclusion, and I believe, that there are many problems which are far more complex than just taxation and federal government policies. This problem of crossborder shopping spreads across all three levels of government, the private sector, labour and other organizations.
As a result, in co-operation with the Retail Council of Canada, with the chambers of commerce, with labour and the provinces and the communities, we have embarked upon a program which is resulting in the reduction of the cross-border shopping which Statistics Canada released this morning. I think we are on the right track.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have from the Minister of Agriculture a definitive answer on emergency assistance to farmers. I am not looking for information on what the government has done so far, nor am I seeking information on what the government might do under the new safety net programs over the next couple of months.
Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to address the $1 billion shortfall of the last crop year. That shortfall has left farmers in dire straits.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


John Harvard: Shut your mouth.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out to the hon. member that if it is necessary, he might ask the Speaker to intervene. Would the hon. member put his question, please.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the farmers are demanding emergency assistance, and I would like to know from the minister whether he is going to provide it, and if so, how much?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the hon. member does not want me to repeat the impressive record of this

September 18, 1991
Oral Questions
government in supporting farmers. I can tell him that that record speaks for itself.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the farmers already have certain information. The critical information they do not have relates to emergency assistance. They want to know what the government is going to provide. If the minister does not know, there have been numerous protests and rallies already to tiy to get through to this minister just how serious the situation is. In fact, there will be a major rally in Brandon, Manitoba tomorrow.
I ask the minister again to take this matter seriously and tell us now the kind of assistance he is going to provide to Canadian farmers.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I should assist the hon. member. If he is attending the meeting in Brandon tomorrow, he will be one day early. It is on Friday. From past experience we certainly hope he attends.
I can inform the hon. member of the assistance which has been made available by the Government of Canada, in co-operation with our partners, the provinces and the producers. Some $300 million plus in NISA will be provided between now and the end of the year. The first interim payment under GRIP, which is decided by the provincial governments and the provincial agency-


John Harvard: I know that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: He says he knows that. If he knows that, why would he continue to say we are doing nothing when over $2 billion will be provided to producers under those programs that have been worked out by the producers, by the farm leaders, by the provincial governments and the Government of Canada?


EAST TIMOR
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
As the minister knows, the Government of Canada was quick to support sovereign self-determination for the Baltics, to condemn and go to war over the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, yet our government has consistently
supported Indonesia in its illegal conquest and brutal oppression of East Timor.
I want to ask the minister, whether in spite of Canada's substantial bilateral aid and billion dollar private investment in Indonesia, will Canada now act to support United Nations initiatives to free East Timor from Indonesia?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, Canada considers that Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor is a fact, recognizing that there has never been any history of independence or self-determination or self-government in that territory.
We do not condone the manner of incorporation and we deplore and condemn the loss of life that occurred, but we very much support the unsponsored dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia as the most promising means to reach an understanding in that very unfortunate and unhappy circumstance.


SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is reported that the Prime Minister is being pressured by External Affairs and the business community to visit South Africa this fall, despite the fact that the majority in South Africa are still denied their democratic rights on the basis of their colour.
Has the Prime Minister received a message from Nelson Mandela asking him not to visit? Has the Prime Minister decided to comply with that request and to withhold a prime ministerial visit to South Africa until the blight of apartheid is truly lifted in that country.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is in error. I have been pressured by absolutely no one, least of all any members of various communities in regard to any possible trips to South Africa or elsewhere.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs returned from New Delhi where she chaired, as agreed, the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers Conference in respect of sanctions for which Canada has had the chair for some years prior to the conference in Harare. The recommendation from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to me, upon her arrival, was that in the circumstances, even though President de Klerk had made some very courageous gestures towards a reconciliation in South Africa, that a visit by the Prime Minister
September 18, 1991

Oral Questions
of Canada at this particular time would not be helpful. In consequence, and acting on the direct recommendation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I advised President de Klerk of my intention to delay a visit to South Africa until some other time.


YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary' of State for External Affairs.
Would the minister agree that the United Nations Security Council urgently needs to consider the grave and tragic Yugoslavian situation and offer to mediate it and, should that mediation process begin, also offer to send a United Nations peacekeeping force into Yugoslavia so that the democratic process and the wishes of the people will be respected in determining their future?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me say, in response to this question, and also some of the remarks that were made earlier, that Canada very early condemned the violence in Yugoslavia in all its aspects and, indeed, the Prime Minister has written letters to the President of Yugoslavia. I have raised it directly with the foreign minister of Yugoslavia. We completely agree that it is time for the UN Security Council to consider the matter and indeed, the Prime Minister, in discussions with our ambassador there, has recommended that we explore with the President of the Security Council all avenues that are open to the United Nations.
We are very concerned about the situation. We have discussed it with the Croatians, who obviously are distraught about this situation. I have offered the resources of my department to try and help them stay in touch with their families. If a peacekeeping operation is organized, of course Canada will be there offering to help.
We are also in regular touch with the President of the European Community who is doing his best to try to manage this situation in the meantime.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for regional development, the Minister of Transportation, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Aside from ancient history, quibbling between the old parties and all the bragging, the fact remains that Montreal's economy is in a sorry state. Everybody agrees on that point, except for the minister responsible. You do not have to be a native of Montreal to know that Montreal is the motor of the Quebec economy and that, should Montreal's economy crumble, it would spell disaster for the entire province. I ask the Prime Minister: at long last, will you tell us, tell this House and tell Quebec what you intend to do to put Montreal's economy on track again?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that Montreal is going through a difficult time while adjusting to structural changes in the economy. In the early 1980's, when the manufacturing sector was very strong in Montreal, the members opposite who were then in power imposed upon Montreal a protectionist policy which is now proving to be catastrophic. What we have tried to do first in our February Budget, was to bring down the deficit, to curb inflation and lower interest rates. And we have no doubt that this kind of policy will bring about a strong economic recovery.


Mr. Lapierre:: Platitudes!


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, same old tune! This is a serious question and I will put it again to the Premier Minister. He knows Montreal and its people well. He knows what the community thinks. He knows that the people are worried and wonder how much longer they will have to suffer from the incompetence and indifference of the present minister responsible for their area. When will the government and the Prime Minister appoint a minister truly responsible for Montreal, for Montreal's sake?


Marcel Danis: We are
doing a lot for Montreal, Mr. Speaker and always with the future in mind. Tomorrow's industries not yesterday's need our support. We are doing a lot to support

September 18, 1991
Oral Questions
them and my hon. friend knows full well that to speak of a space agency is to speak of an industry of the future. The same is true of pharmaceutical research and a bill was passed about this. Another industry of the future. Similarly when I talk about good jobs in the petrochemical sector.
So, we are indeed interested in the future of Montreal and we are indeed introducing legislation to enhance its future.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. To date, all Quebec agriculture ministers have supported the quota policies brought in by the previous government. I have met with the President of the UPA, Mr. Proulx, and the Quebec Department of Agriculture, and we are veiy interested to know unequivocally from our minister-we want the assurance that you will never drop Article XI of GATT and that you will strengthen more than ever our farmers' right to quotas, the pillar of our agricultural system.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my colleague has consulted with the UPA president. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and I met Mr. Proulx less than a week ago and spent three hours discussing all the issues affecting Quebec farmers.
I can assure him that if ever a government took an interest in Canadian and Quebec farmers, especially milk producers, it is this one, because we have implemented a long-term dairy policy. We have managed to take to GATT a national position that was supported by all Canadian farmers, whereas the previous government left farmers, especially milk producers, in limbo for five years with no long-term dairy policy-you never brought one in, but we did. We have maintained it. The Prime Minister is committed to having a long-term daily policy.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian farmers know what we have done for them and we will continue to defend them. Only this government is able to do so.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Several senior members of our supply managed commodities told us that they have been told by senior Canadian officials that Canada is changing its position at the GATT and is now willing to give up Article XI in order to get an agreement at GATT.
I ask the minister: Will he make a commitment in this House today to stand up for Canadian supply managed farmers and say that he will not sign anything at GATT that undermines Article XI?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member in all frankness that whomever he may use as his source is factually incorrect. If they are representing themselves as officials from the Government of Canada, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to speak directly to them.
The Government of Canada has stated, as my colleagues have, its position on Article XI. We are not talking about weakening Article XI. What we have asked for, and what the policy of this government is, is that Article XI should be further clarified and strengthened. That has not been changed and will not change until the government says it will change.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe - Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment. The minister is well aware of the devastating failure of the inshore fishery in some regions of Newfoundland and Labrador. Indeed, thousands of fishermen and plant workers in my riding in the Strait of Belle Isle and White Bay on the Baie Verte Peninsula are looking to the government for assistance.
I want to ask the minister of employment, who is a former minister of fisheries and is well aware of the situation in the province today, what measures are being contemplated to assist these inshore fishermen and plant workers and when may we expect some announcement of the government's intentions?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the government is well aware of the difficult situation in certain parts of
September 18, 1991

Newfoundland and on the coast of Labrador in terms of the fishery.
As my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, indicated yesterday, we are considering with the provincial government and with the union in Newfoundland and Labrador the method by which we can help the citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador to meet that difficult situation.
As we are speaking, officials in my department and at Fisheries and Oceans are working on this. As soon as we are in a position with the support of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the union to make public our recommendation, we shall.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. Indeed it is encouraging to know that the provincial government, the federal government and the union are working together. I think what people want on September 18, at this time of the year with children just back in school, no income, down to their last dollars, is to make a decision whether to carry on fishing to put bread and butter on the table. What they want from the minister, understandably, is some assurance that assistance is going to be forthcoming soon, within a matter of weeks. Last year assistance was not forthcoming until the end of December.
Can we have a quicker response this year so that fishermen know they can carry on fishing for what little resources are left out there?


Bernard Valcourt: If the hon. member is concerned about the timing, do not go back to December of last year. Look at the ice conditions of this spring. This government acted expeditiously to put in place a program of $18 million that benefitted 9,000 people from Newfoundland and Labrador.
I think those people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that the Conservative government in Ottawa works.


EMPLOYMENT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
Oral Questions
Two years ago the government gave $1 million to Kendall Canada to help it move from my riding to Peterborough, Ontario. A week ago Kendall announced it was closing its new manufacturing operation in Peterborough and moving its production to the United States, resulting in a loss of some 165 jobs in Peterborough, following a loss two years ago of some 700 jobs in my riding.
What steps does the government intend to take to stem the growing number of manufacturing job losses in this country? Also, can the Canadian taxpayers at least expect to get that $1 million back?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my hon. friend and I join him in expressing empathy for those who will lose their jobs. He should know, however, that when Kendall moved to Peterborough, the whole operation would have gone to the United States. This was before the free trade agreement two years ago. The whole operation would have gone there. As a result of this contribution, Kendall was moved to Peterborough and a part of the operation will remain in Peterborough. More importantly, I will make sure that the terms and conditions of that grant are adhered to and make sure the control period is adhered to.
Also, under the over-all program, IRDP, Coca-Cola moved to Peterborough, Minute Maid moved to Peterborough, Royal Homes moved to Peterborough. Thousands of jobs were created under that program.


HOUSING
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. When will the minister direct Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to remove the high risk designation for mortgage eligibility from the city of Fort McMurray, a city of 35,000 people?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing this matter. I have every sympathy with the hon. member's eloquent representations in this regard. We are looking at the policy and if it is possible to do so, we will have another look and see if it can be effected.

September 18, 1991
Government Orders CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The government has stated that it intends to stabilize Canadian carbon dioxide emissions at their 1990 levels by the year 2000. However, on Monday, speaking to a meeting of the Canadian Coal Association, energy standing committee chairman A1 Johnson said: "This is an impossible goal".
My question is: Was Mr. Johnson's statement a signal from the government? Is the government abandoning even its wishy-washy capping goal? Or is the chairman of the standing committee simply personally repudiating his government's policy?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as they say: "none of the above" as to the options the hon. member put in his question.
The hon. member should know, and he and I have discussed this in committee before, that it is Canada's policy to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. We are working on moving that toward a signature for Brazil in 1992. There are obviously great differences internationally as to how stabilization can be effected. I can give him, for example, the European proposal or the American proposal where they include CFCs and where Canada has not.
If we exclude some of those issues then for Canada it makes it much more difficult to meet some of the criteria that other countries have given themselves and for which they are given credit. When we look behind the veil, so to speak, it is not the same as it appears.


Mr. Speaker:: The time for Question Period has, even with the extension, concluded.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to designate tomorrow as an allotted day.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture, in response to my supplementary question on the PVY-N virus, replied:
-regardless of the strain of virus it is not accepted in the United States.
I would like the hon. minister to clarify that statement.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, it is not only the area of the United States. It is those in areas within Canada that are not looking forward and are resisting every effort to have a virus transmitted into their region. We hope that through the process that has been established by Agriculture Canada and the openness with the United States that there may be able to be a reopening of the table market for Prince Edward Island potatoes.
But I am sure the hon. member supports the efforts of the Government of Canada and the moneys that have been expended in eradicating the PVY-N virus which, although not dangerous to humans, is dangerous to the production and the ongoing support in the agricultural industry.


Mr. Speaker:: I might just remind hon. members that I certainly would be prepared to hear points of order, but we do have an order which compels us to vote now.
If the hon. member feels it is of great urgency, I will hear it now or I will hear it later.


An hon. member:: Later.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-29, an act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada and to amend another act in relation thereto, be
September 18, 1991
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
[Stage Direction]
Members
read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F; and the amendment of Mr. Chretien (p. 2227).
Mr. Speaker:: It being three o'clock p.m., pursuant to an order made Tuesday, September 17, 1991, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the motion at second reading of Bill C-29.
Accordingly, the first question is on the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Chretien. Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
September 18, 1991
Government Orders
NAYS
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.	Members
The next question is on the main motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the main motion carried.	
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Tuesday, Sep tember 17, 1991, proceedings on the bill are halted.
September 18, 1991


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was unavoidably detained, but had I been here for both votes I would have voted with my caucus.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton- East Richmond.


POINTS OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House a subject matter which I believe to be of great importance. The hon. member for Burlington made an apology earlier and it is totally accepted by the hon. member for Hamilton East.
I wish to talk about something which is beyond that. I ask the Chair for direction. I make a suggestion to the Chair, in view of the broader issue, for the Chair to take under active consideration the prospects of meeting with representatives of the three national parties, as well as members who are independent in this Chamber. I ask that the Chair sit down with those members at a time later this week or early next week and have a discussion with regard to some of the conduct of members on all sides of the House, as it relates to how females are treated in this Chamber.
It is becoming more and more apparent each and every day that sometimes there is hissing and sometimes there are certain catcalls, certain expressions which are not appreciated. Nor do we believe that they should be put forward on the floor of the House of Commons.
All of us, from time to time, in expressing our views may or may not use certain colourful language. There has to be a restriction and that restriction, Sir, I think, must be administered by you, the impartial person in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you reflect on my suggestion-perhaps other members opposite or, indeed, other parties might wish to make a comment or two-but do so with some dispatch, and come back to this House and provide some rules and guidance on that particular specific issue.
Mr. Speaker, for too long I think those of us in this Chamber have not accorded the kind of treatment that
Points of Order
human beings, whether they be female or male, ought to have in this Chamber. I respectfully request that you give serious consideration to this request.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, who kindly and courteously advised me earlier that he would rise on this matter. I draw it to members' attention that he has been very careful in what he said. This is not a reopening of the incident of yesterday which has been dealt with today.
I wish to say to hon. members that I would be very prepared to meet with members of each of the parties in the House and others for a discussion on this matter and, perhaps, on a wider range of matters that arise from it. I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention. My office will be in touch with his office and others in the Chamber.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order, who has very patiently waited until this moment to bring it to our attention.


REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: I rise on a point of order. I know the hard working Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader bears a tremendous burden in this House, but I think his zealousness has carried him a bit too far.
I looked at Hansard and reviewed the answers to the questions that he so kindly provided in the House yesterday. They were numerous. I noticed that printed with each answer in Hansard is a statement of the time that some person took to prepare the answer and then the parliamentary secretary has deigned to provide us with the cost of providing the reply.
That is very, very nice, but I suggest that there is an ulterior motive here and that is to suggest that somehow parliamentarians, particularly opposition members, who after all seem to be the only inquisitive ones in this House, put forward questions and that somehow they are wasting public money in requesting information from the government. With respect, that is not so. In fact, the answers themselves give away greater evidence of waste than any cost of any of the answers provided. I could cite those but I would not want to do that on a point of order. It might not be fair.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary to, first of all, look at the answers he provides. Second, I ask the Speaker, since we are not allowed to put partisan

September 18, 1991
Points of Order
comments or assertions in our questions, to ensure that the parliamentary secretary is not permitted to include in answers extraneous material that has nothing to do with the question asked, namely the amount of time it took to complete and the estimated cost of completion, It is very nice of the parliamentary secretary to provide the information, but I suggest it is quite out of order and I ask Your Honour to so rule.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to reply. I think my hard working, very capable and outstanding parliamentary secretary is being much maligned unnecessarily. The member for Kingston and the Islands is correct that the answers he has received, and will receive, put down factual information. Whether the questions come from this side or that side, or wherever they come from, it is simply factual information. If it is as he alleges, the answers to the questions themselves that show great waste and so on, surely those who read Hansard diligently, as he does and I do, and I am sure millions and millions of Canadians do, can make their judgments as to the validity. But I find it passing strange that we have a member of the opposition standing up saying: "We don't want this information about how our tax dollars are being spent". Providing the information about how government spends the taxpayers' money is what we are prevailed upon to do constantly, and we are doing it as openly and as frequently and as thoroughly as we possibly can.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would like to say that on the answers I received back yesterday, I was really surprised and amused to see the time, four hours, and the amount of money, $72 an hour, I think.
I would like to know if we can state in our questions, when placing them on the Order Paper, how many letters we have sent asking the minister's office or the minister for information, or in questions or in committees how long we have been asking for those answers. I found it veiy ironic that it took four hours of time of somebody in the department at $72 a hour to answer two of the three questions that I had asked. I also found it very ironic that I am not allowed to say how long my
constituents have been waiting for some of the answers I got yesterday. I cannot believe that there was one involving a program that I have been asking since last year for the answer and I could not get it until I put it on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker, I think that my rights as a member of Parliament should be the same as those of the ministers or the civil servants who prepare the answers who have at their disposal those answers to those questions for a year, some of them, and I am not allowed to have them. How do you think my constituents feel when the government will not even respect the right of a member of Parliament in this House to have an answer and yet I am told it takes them four hours to prepare it. when we have been waiting a year in some cases to get answers.
I think that we should be able to put into the questions that we put on the written Order Paper how long we have been asking for such an answer.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the arbitrary change in the manner of reporting answers to the House disturbs me. The questions on the Order Paper are a tool provided to members of Parliament and, through them, their constituents, to seek information from the government of the day; information about programs, information about government practices, information about government spending.
It may be quite legitimate for this House to make a determination as to whether the cost of providing that information should also be provided as part of the response. But I do not believe it is up to the government of the day to arbitrarily provide the additional information, particularly because this House has no understanding of how it was arrived at, no assurance that it would withstand an audit, no understanding or knowledge of how the calculations are made. I mean, what are the rates? Also, Mr. Speaker, there is no indication of what this new process is costing the taxpayer in order to track this information.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to review this, and until such time as you have reviewed the correctness of this change-in fact, to determine whether or not the government can arbitrarily do this-that until that time this information not be collected and not be included in the answers to questions tabled in this House.
September 18, 1991


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the House unduly. I just want to say very simply that I think this is the kind of information that the Canadian taxpayer has the right to see.
Second, I remind the Speaker that there is no restriction on the type of answers that I and the ministers provide to questions. I would want the Speaker to keep that in mind in the ruling he may make.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the comment by the hon. member for South West Nova, and the comment of course by the hon. member for Atiko-kan.
I have also listened carefully to the government House leader and the parliamentary secretary. It may be a fine point but I think hon. members would ask that I get a chance to read carefully the rule under which the answers are given. I shall try to return to the House with something which may be of assistance to all hon. members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today a document submitted to me by the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council and entitled Protected Areas-Vision for Canada.
The council plays a major role with the department and advises the minister. My predecessor had requested a consultation paper on this very important issue previously debated in this House.
Routine Proceedings
I now have the privilege of presenting you this paper, Madam Speaker.


CANARCTIC SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED
Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 1990 annual report of the CanArctic Shipping Company Limited.


PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.)



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 34, to table in the House in both official languages the sixth report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.



CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
September 18, 1991
Routine Proceedings


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-33, an Act respecting the use of foreign ships and non-duty paid ships in the coasting trade.


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

Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to amend the Constitution Act 1867, oath of allegiance.
He said: Madam Speaker, since 1774, members have had to take an oath which has not borne any mention of Canada but to the Crown of Britain. Because of my respect for our institutions and traditions, this bill would not do away with the oath as it stands, but would build on it by having all members pledge allegiance to Canada as well as the Crown.


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

Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act respecting the diversion of pension benefits payable in respect of service in the Canadian Forces.
He said: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to ensure a more equitable distribution of pension funds accumulated by members of the armed forces upon break-up of their marriages.
The government has indicated over the years that it intends to make changes in this area of the law. I am simply trying to speed up the process.


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


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: for leave to introduce Bill C-272, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, this bill is one to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. The amendments were inspired in the course of reading the annual report of the RCMP Public Complaints Committee.
The Public Complaints Committee recommended a series of changes to the act. I took the liberty of having the complaints drafted as legislation. I am introducing them in the House for the purpose of discussion. I believe that only by drafting these kinds of things into bills can we usefully use the reports that are submitted to this House. I felt it a useful exercise for the House to go through, to study the proposals in detail. That is the purpose of the bill and I invite hon. members to consider the changes to the RCMP Act in accordance with the report of that body.


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


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I seek consent for three motions which I will present one at a time.
I move:
That the Standing Committee on Finance and necessary staff be
authorized to travel to Washington, to study the American
experience with spending control legislation, from September 22 to
September 24, 1991.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion.


An hon. member:: Point of order, Madam Speaker.
September 18, 1991

Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I cannot take a point of order once a motion has been put. I will recognize the hon. member for Shefford later.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Translation\
Jean-C. Lapierre: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is much easier for us to give consent to motions members opposite have had the decency to give notice of than to motions we have never seen. I notice the Deputy Prime Minister is nodding. I know, this approach is so much easier for them and much less degrading too.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I wish to acknowledge the hon. member's intervention and thank him for his co-operation and, as usual, I will do everything I can to co-operate with him in a precedent setting manner.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary had another motion.



HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT


Albert Glen Cooper: I move:
That pursuant to section 57 of an act to amend the Hazardous Product Act and the Canada Labour Code to enact the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto, Chapter 24, Third Supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, section 12 of the Act be referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, and that the committee undertake a comprehensive review of section 12 and submit a report to the House no later than December 1, 1991.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I move:
That pursuant to section 168 of an act respecting Customs, Chapter I, Second Supplement, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, a special committee of the House undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this act and submit a report no later than March 1,1991; that this special committee be appointed, at the latest, five sitting days after the adoption of this motion, and that the membership be composed of eight members; that the said special committee shall have the powers of the standing committee as per Standing Order 108(1).
I did hear my friend correct me. That should have read March 1, 1992.1 thank the hon. member from Saint-Denis.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the House grant leave to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to put his motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions which are in conformity with the

September 18, 1991
Routine Proceedings
rules and regulations of the House of Commons. The first one is with respect to the goods and services tax.
The petitioners point out that this is the 34th tax increase-they note, another one. They also identified that it contributes to higher taxes, higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher unemployment.
They appeal and ask the government to have the decency to withdraw a tax that hurts seniors, students, small businesses and others.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my second petition is with respect to education.
The petitioners point out that the government has reduced the transfers to provinces by $485 million. They are alarmed at the closing of campus employment centres, which they feel is a detriment to their employment possibilities and they are particularly angry at the 3 per cent tax on student loans.
I do not know if you knew this, Madam Speaker, but you have to put the cash out front before you can get the loan. It makes a mockery out of what the government talks about; learning, culture and competitiveness.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House petitions from my constituency of Hamilton Mountain and from other ridings in Canada. These petitioners support their right to collective bargaining.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to continue to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm support for free, collective bargaining for Canadian workers.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of residents of Nova Scotia, Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the NDP plan to restore VIA Rail service cut on January 15, 1990, to maintain where appropriate upgrade remote services upon which many Canadians rely and provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail and to make available to VIA the resources which it needs to
become a modem passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the rest of the western world. They want to put Canada back on track.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege today to present petitions signed by the Croatian community of the city I represent, Thunder Bay.
They implore this government to show their deep concern about the fate of the families and their compatriots who are suffering today in Yugoslavia and in particular, Croatia.
What the petitioners are trying to say in essence through their petition is that the Canadian government should realize its obligations in its peacekeeping roles that have been consistent throughout Canada's history since 1956 in its role in the UN, take its obligation seriously, provide the peacekeeping efforts that are so necessary to bring peace and order to Croatia, and recognize the independence and sovereignty of such a nation.
I have the privilege to present this petition on behalf of the Croatian community from Thunder Bay.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to present the following petition with over 1,000 names from the United Steel Workers in the area of Thunder Bay. They petition this government to reconsider its program with respect to the defence contract that is pending on the mine sweeper program.
The petitioners are concerned about the viability of the future of the shipbuilding industry in Ontario. They know that if Ontario is not the recipient of part of this government contract, part of this mine sweeper program, that the shipbuilding industry in the province of Ontario could veiy well close down putting out all of the workers, not only the iron workers who are presently employed by the boilermakers union in Port Weller but the shipbuilding industry in Thunder Bay.
Therefore, I have the pleasure of presenting this petition on their behalf today and implore the government to act accordingly.
September 18, 1991


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present four petitions all on the same subject from my constituents of Kenora-Rainy River, specifically Ear Falls, Dryden, Emo, Rainy river and of course Fort Frances.
These petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament of Canada will reject the imposition of a wage freeze and will consider the importance of the collective bargaining process in this country and how fragile it can be for all Canadians.
While I am on my feet, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the minister on the job well done yesterday, for getting both parties back to the bargaining table and giving them an opportunity to get a collective agreement that will make everyone happy and help us to make this country as great as it can be.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to present, pursuant to Standing Order 36, over 800 signed petitions from my constituency of Winnipeg North and from across Canada.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm its support for the principle of collective bargaining now enshrined in law for all Canadian workers.
Like my colleague from Kenora-Rainy River, I would like to congratulate the President of the Treasury Board for eventually agreeing that the government will sit down at the bargaining table with the Public Service Alliance of Canada on behalf of its members. I am glad that the government has listened to the demand of the opposition led by my leader in this Elouse.
I am proceeding with the presentation of this petition to safeguard the interests of all public servants, especially the women workers who also cry for pay equity, particularly in view of the votes of just a few minutes ago. Therefore the parliamentary sword of Damocles still hangs over Canadian workers.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 from a number of residents of Avola, Clearwater, Little Fort and Kamloops who are concerned about a proposal to dam the North Thompson River at a community named Vavenby in order to divert water into the San Diego, California area through a series of canals and pipelines and river systems.
They remind us of the NAWPA proposal, which is of course to divert Canadian rivers into the United States and northern Mexico. They are simply calling upon the government to indicate categorically to the Americans that it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed and diverted into the United States and to state clearly that Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have petition on another matter to present on behalf of a number of constituents from a variety of communities in my constituency and elsewhere.
They are concerned of the possibility of still further cutbacks to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and are simply calling upon the Government of Canada to ensure that proper funding is provided to the RCMP to enable it to fulfil its mandate as expected.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition today signed by hundreds of Canadians from across Ontario, particularly from Mississauga, Burlington, Caledon East, Brampton, Osgoode, Cornwall, Kitchener, and other places closer to Ottawa.
These petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject the imposition of wage controls and reaffirm their support for the collective bargaining process in Canada. I am sure they are delighted with the outcome of the negotiations yesterday and are pleased that we will not be proceeding with the bill, at least pending the resolution of the current labour dispute.

September 18, 1991
Routine Proceedings
[Translation\


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, if question No. 94 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 94 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Althouse: For each year since 1989, has Agriculture Canada undertaken
field testing of genetically altered crops and, if so, (a) what tests were
done (b) were environmental assessment studies carried out before
each test and, if not, why not?
Return tabled.


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


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To say that I was heart broken to see that my question was not answered yesterday is putting it mildly.
On May 13, I placed a question on the Order Paper which I had previously placed on the Order Paper on February 25 this year. I asked for a 45-day response. It is still unanswered.
The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was on his feet a little while ago asking about the situation in Montreal. I can understand why he was not asking about his constituency because my question asks about government largesse in that constituency in the by-election.
I ask what promises the government has made and whether they have been fulfilled. I think it is fair that the answer would not take eight or nine months. This is simply an abuse of the process, and I ask the parliamentary secretary to look into this matter and provide the answer at an early date. It has got past the stage where I
should have to rise and object. I have done so on two occasions before and have had my pleas fall on deaf ears.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising his concerns. I must apologize to him. I am quite certain I signed that particular question off. I thought I had tabled it in yesterday's group. I will certainly check to see where it is because it was my understanding, if my memory serves me right, I signed off several over the weekend and I was quite certain that his was in that group. I will check.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. P-2 and P-3 in the name of the hon. member for Churchill.
P-2-Mr. Murphy
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and communications regarding the issue of Bill C-79 between the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, and any Cabinet Ministers and/or their agents and the member of Parliament for Levis, or anyone acting on his behalf.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, there was no correspondence or communications exchanged between the Privy Council Office and the member of Parliament for Levis on the issue of Bill C-79.
A copy of Order in Council PC-1991-813 dated May 7, 1991 was faxed to the member of Parliament for Levis on May 7, 1991 from the Privy Council Office. As for any communications between the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, cabinet ministers and the member of Parliament for Levis, it is not the policy of the government to divulge communications between members of Parliament and ministers.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion and ask that it be transferred for debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
P-3 -Mr. Murphy
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence and communications regarding the issue of Bill C-79, between the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, and any Cabinet Ministers and/or their agents
September 18, 1991

and the Member of Parliament for Lotbiniere, or anyone acting on
his behalf.


Albert Glen Cooper: There was no correspondence or communications on the issue of Bill C-79 between the Privy Council Office and the member of Parliament for Lotbiniere.
As for any communications between the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, cabinet ministers and the member of Parliament for Lotbiniere, it is not the policy of the government to divulge communications between members of Parliament and ministers.
I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion. In the case of his absence, once again perhaps we can transfer that for debate.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the other Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received one application pursuant to Standing Order 52.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, this motion calls for a special debate under Standing Order 52 to address the serious problems facing the Canadian agricultural industry today.
Desperate financial cash flow problems are facing a generation of Canadian farmers. This is due to the government's drastic cutback in income support during the 1990-91 crop year, the lack of emergency transitional funding as the government was moving from an old system of ad hoc assistance to a new program for the new crop year 1991-92, and the lack of that additional cash. As well, the situation has been exacerbated by droughts in some parts of southern Ontario.
The crisis is very real. Canadian farmers are suffering. This issue needs to be addressed by the House of
Government Orders
Commons. I call on the Chair and the government to debate this important issue so that farmers will know that members of the House of Commons are concerned and ready to act on it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Algoma for his explanation. Coming from a rural riding myself, I know that there are problems out there and that some efforts are being made.
On the other hand, there other things that we could talk about today. Tomorrow being an allotted day, the hon. member may want to discuss this with his party and try to bring this subject to the House very shortly. I do hope that it is brought to the House very shortly.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-21, an act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada, and referred to Legislative Committee F.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to move second reading of Bill C-21, the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account.
The legislation we are dealing with today is part of the comprehensive package of policies and programs that date back to 1984, a strategy designed to put Canada on the road to economic recovery and restore long-term prosperity. It was particularly designed to help Canada meet the challenges of globalization, which all countries of the world have to face, especially those countries which are heavily reliant on exports, as is Canada.
The initiative begun in November 1984, as reinforced in the February 1991 budget, set out a comprehensive plan for economic recovery based upon controlling inflation, improving our competitiveness, and controlling government expenditure, with the objective of achieving sustainable growth with price stability.

September 18, 1991
Government Orders
This bill is part and parcel of that initiative, as is the proposed spending control legislation which is currently being studied by a committee of this House.
This government is committed to a policy of sustainable growth with price stability. We are committed to an economy that can support the social programs that have made Canada a good place to live. We are committed to ensuring that our tax system is fair and to deficit reduction and debt control. We are committed to this because we want to ensure that future generations will not be strangled by the huge overhanging burden of debt.
Fiscal responsibility is more than a matter of protecting the interests of the future generations of Canadians who are not here to speak for themselves. Greater fiscal responsibility is essential for improving the health of the Canadian economy in 1991 as we head into the next decade. Essentially it is important for a strong recovery, sustained growth, and renewed prosperity.
Since 1984 we have been taking a number of steps to reduce the federal deficit so that we can control and reduce the burden of national debt. We have done this by cutting waste and inefficiency, by controlling spending, and by imposing new taxes where necessary.
The recession that began in the spring of 1990 placed new upward pressure on the deficit. Government revenues have been lower than expected in the February 1990 budget and expenditures have been increased in order to meet the needs of the needy, particularly in the form of unemployment insurance payments to aid farmers who are plagued by low prices, particularly in the grains and oilseeds sector, resulting from the trade war.
In the plan for economic recovery that we introduced in the February 1991 budget the government renewed and reinforced its commitment to deficit reduction and debt control. The plan puts emphasis on controlling expenditures to reduce the deficit and help bring down inflation, which is obviously the key to lower interest rates.
We have already seen the effect of lower interest rates resulting from the reduction of inflationary pressures and inflationary expectations.
The plan severely controls the cost of government and extends the two-year expenditure control program which we introduced in the 1990 budget through to 1994-1995.
The debt servicing and reduction account is one of the important new weapons that we have introduced to help us in this continuing fiscal battle. To put it into context, we need to look at the origin of Canada's serious debt problem which began in the mid-1970s.
From 1950 through to 1973 Canadians enjoyed an outstanding record of economic growth and personal prosperity. Our standard of living virtually doubled in a single generation. Inflation at that time was less than 3 per cent. This kept interest rates down and governments generally lived within their means so that the annual federal deficits were small or non-existent.
Starting in the mid-1970s Canadians began to take prosperity for granted. Wages and prices began to climb dramatically. Each year the government began to spend more and more money than it collected. In fact, by 1984 for every dollar of tax the government collected, for every dollar it received in the form of revenue, it was spending $1.33 on its programs and services. The government had to borrow the money to cover this difference.
From 1974 to 1984 the debt rose from $27 billion to $206 billion. That is an increase of 800 per cent.
The plain fact today is that the interest payments on the 1984 debt of $206 billion which we inherited are the only reason we are in a deficit position today and the direct cause of the debt having nearly doubled in the last six years.
Since 1984 the government has turned a $16 billion operating deficit into a $13 billion operating surplus. That is a turnaround of about $29 billion since the 1984-85 fiscal year.
During that same period the annual debt interest cost has increased by $21 billion, leaving a net reduction of only $8 billion on the deficit. There is a continuing increase in the cost of servicing the debt which is being compounded and that increase has been the only contributing factor to the growth of our national debt.
Throughout this period the government has had to carry the growing burden of compound interest charges
September 18, 1991

on the $206 billion debt it inherited. As a result, public debt today is in the range of $400 billion.
The government is now spending more on interest than on old age security, family allowances, veterans' pensions and unemployment insurance combined.
In the face of this mountain of debt our fiscal and economic strategy has resulted in substantial progress over the last six years. For example, program spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product has dropped from 19.6 per cent to 16 per cent. That is a 3.6 per cent difference which is equivalent to $24 billion less in annual spending.
That is the lowest level of spending as a percentage of GDP in 20 years. The average annual growth rate of program spending during this period of time has been cut from an annualized increase of 13.8 per cent. There was an annualized increase of 13.8 per cent in program expenditure increases for 15 years prior to 1984-85. It was 13.8 per cent. That has been reduced to a level of 3.7 per cent, well below the rate of inflation at 4.4 per cent.
We intend to reduce that to 3 per cent as a result of the spending control legislation which we will be introducing and dealing with later.
This compares to a 5.8 per cent figure in the United States for this year. The United States will be carrying a deficit of $350 billion in fiscal 1992, the year which will begin in October 1991.
This spending restraint has helped us to slow the growth of the national debt. In 1984-85 the debt was growing at an annual rate of about 25 per cent. Today, it is less than 10 per cent. However, as colleagues in this House know, it is still not acceptable.
With our budget measures, we aim to eliminate completely the need for new borrowing within four years and to begin reducing our outstanding publicly held debt by that time.
I should say that if we had followed the same policy course that was prevalent prior to 1984-85 and into the year 1984-85, had we done nothing, we would be looking at a deficit today of something in the order of $100 billion. That would be very, very serious.
Progress has been made and I know my hon. friend across will agree with that.
Government Orders
While tax increases have been necessary, government program expenditures have carried two-thirds of the burden of restraint. That is the ratio.
Expenditure cutting as we all know is a difficult exercise and it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the government and for Canadians.
We all know that a good portion of federal government spending is spent on fiscal transfers to people and provinces. Today, more than half of all program spending consists of major transfers to persons and other levels of government.
The tax points that are provided for, along with the transfers to the provinces and transfers to persons in the form of old age pensions, family allowances, veterans' pensions, et cetera as well as the Established Programs Financing and the equalization program, would amount to about $77.5 billion for this year. That is a huge amount of money in cash and in tax points.
The other large area of program spending is provincial transfers supporting health care, education, and welfare services. The two combined work out to about $77.5 billion. The rest of the program spending covers eveiy other aspect of government activity, including national defence and the internal operations of government. If we take inflation into consideration, the cost of government operations has been reduced by about 25 per cent. We continue to work to cut out waste and inefficiency, overlap, and duplication.
As we all know, every time we go through the exercise of expenditure reduction, it gets increasingly more difficult. On the other hand, the pressure is always there to spend more. Managing the government spending priorities within a tight fiscal discipline is a pressing challenge that we face as a government. I think it is a pressing challenge that each and every one of us face as individual members of Parliament. It is a challenge that must be met.
I have already noted that Canadians have been called upon to pay more taxes to help deal with the deficit and the debt. The progress that has been made in dealing with the deficit has come from two sources: expenditure reduction and increased taxes. It is about two-thirds expenditure reduction and one-third from taxes.

September 18, 1991
Government Orders
If my hon. friend checks, he will find that is correct.
We should know and we must realize that every time the government is called upon to provide new programs they can only be funded two ways, either through new taxes or through an increase in the deficit. There are really no other options. We all have to face that task because all of us are being judged on how we contain federal spending and whether we are good custodians of the public purse.
How a country's tax system operates is critical to the economic well-being and that is why tax reform is such an important part of our economic strategy. We all know that we have gone through a number of changes in the tax system since we became the government in 1984, seven years ago yesterday.
Hon. members will recall that in stage one of the tax reform, we lowered and simplified the personal income tax regime. We replaced many personal tax deductions with tax credits, eliminated others, and eliminated or reduced many special corporate tax breaks and introduced a corporations tax. Stage two of the tax reform process was sales tax reform, which is also an integral part of our economic plan to eliminate the deficit and reverse the growing debt problem that we face.
We believe the goods and services tax is key to strengthening the economy and managing our fiscal problems in a way that keeps Canada growing, producing jobs and better living standards for all Canadians. By increasing Canadian competitiveness and by removing other economic distortions, the GST will create a healthier economy. Real domestic output is expected to expand by as much as 1.4 per cent annually or by some $9 billion in today's dollars as a result of replacing the old outdated federal sales tax with the GST. The old FST was commonly referred to as a silent killer of jobs.
This is an important structural change. It is an important structural change to make the tax system fairer and to enhance Canada's competitiveness. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association has spoken out in the last couple of days to criticize the federal government. It had called upon successive federal governments to overhaul the federal sales tax and put in place a better tax system that would make manufacturers more competitive so
that they could compete more effectively in the export market.
Obviously the ultimate design of the GST was a reflection of the extensive consultation that took place during the course of its development with business groups, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, trade associations, tax professionals, social groups, and ordinary Canadians to ensure that the new system put in place would be the fairest possible. It is a major, major undertaking to put in place a new tax system such as the GST.
As a result of this process we incorporated a number of special features in the design, for example the simplified accounting measures, the public sector rebates to municipalities, to universities, to schools, to colleges, to hospitals, the rebates to charities and non-profit organizations, the GST credit, the housing rebate, just to name a few. Now that the tax is being implemented, we are still making changes, fine tuning and ensuring that the tax is administered in a fair and equitable way. This is an ongoing process and will continue to be an ongoing process to ensure that the system works to the advantage of all concerned.
More recently we have been listening to many Canadians who are concerned that the revenues from the GST might be used to finance new spending programs instead of reducing the deficit. We know that during the course of the debate many Canadians said: "Look, I wouldn't mind the GST if I was assured that this money would be earmarked to pay down the debt or help defray the cost of carrying the debt". There was concern about the fact that it would generate more revenue than that which was projected. There were accusations it would be a cash cow.
In recognition of that fact the Prime Minister gave a commitment that the GST revenues would be used only to contribute to the deficit reduction rather than to provide the government with leeway to expand discretionary program spending. In this bill the debt servicing and reduction account delivers on that commitment.
To our critics who will maintain that the GST will provide the government with revenues to spend on unnecessary discretionary programs, I say this: The object of the government has been and continues to be to cut costs and control spending wherever possible so that the deficit can be reduced. The fiscal progress that we have achieved results in large part from a determined adherence to this objective.
September 18, 1991

We know that we will be judged, as will any other government, on how we stick to this course. I suspect all members of Parliament will be judged on this course of action and the results or the successes that we achieve.
The debt servicing and reduction account will receive the net revenues from the goods and services tax, net proceeds from the sale of Crown corporations, and earmarked contributions for the debt reduction from individuals or businesses. It really will accommodate three specific cash flows.
By net revenues of the GST we mean that this will result in the flowing to the fund of the GST revenues after paying for the various rebates and credits that are directly a part of the goods and services tax, for example the low income GST credit, the input tax credit, the housing rebate, the tourism rebate, and the GST transitional grant to small business. In addition, private citizens and businesses will be able to make direct tax deductible contributions to the fund.
The revenues deposited to the debt servicing and reduction account will be used to pay the interest on the public debt and over time to pay down the debt itself. The bill requires that the account be audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada.
The debt servicing and reduction account we believe is a key step in assuring Canadians that the GST revenues will be used only for deficit reduction, rather than new program spending. To reinforce this initiative the government announced I believe a very important complementary measure, and that is legislated limits on program spending which will result in a program ceiling of government spending over the next five years.
Legislated spending controls will represent a fundamental change in how the federal government operates. Difficult choices and tradeoffs and reallocations will be required if spending exceeds the limits set out in the budget. This is especially so, bearing in mind that so many of our program expenditures are governed by statute and so many of them are indexed. It is going to take a great deal of skill and management to achieve these targets.
That places a greater deal of importance upon the need to contain inflation, because as we can contain inflation we can contain the costs associated with indexation. The fight against inflation is critical in terms of
Government Orders
bringing down and keeping interest rates down. It is critical in terms of bringing down and keeping government expenditures down in the interest of fairness and equity for all Canadians, particularly for those Canadians who are on fixed incomes or our senior citizens.
It will take time, I am sure, for Canadians to appreciate fully what these spending limits mean. But, as a good illustration, I think we only have to look at the wage policy outlined in the February 1991 budget which limits Public Service salary increases to 0 per cent and 3 per cent.
Some would say this would cost a few hundred million dollars and we should have gone along with the PSAC. But, as I said earlier, to do this would mean we would either have to impose a new tax or increase the deficit; in other words borrow more money. Those are the two options.


Mr. Manley:: Don't forget about cutting.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Oh, yes, we have talked about cutting and we have heard from opposition members about cutting. We have heard their response. Every time we have tried to cut back we have heard the howls coming from across the way.


James Ross Fulton: How about the corporate sector?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The corporate sector's profit and balance sheet does not look very good. The hon. member is the first guy to stand up in the House and cry for jobs. Where does he think we are going to get the jobs from if we are not going to get them from the corporate sector? Unless you have got healthy balance sheets in the corporate sector, you are not going to have any investment that will create the jobs. The hon. member speaks out of both sides of his mouth.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We will see where the hon. members come down, whether they want to continue the old ways of spend today and borrow tomorrow that brought us that 800 per cent increase, that eightfold increase in the public debt in a 10-year period. That is when it all happened and that was in great times.
The proposed Spending Control Act will ensure that any government that tries to break the spending limits will be held accountable to Parliament for its actions. The legislation was introduced in draft form and it is now being studied by the House of Commons. We hope that we will be able to proceed with this bill very quickly in

Government Orders
the House as soon as we get the report back from the committee.
Our intention is that both the debt servicing and reduction account and the spending control limits will be in effect for 1991-92.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Preston Manning wants it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He is talking about Preston Manning. I understand that there is an organic union taking place between the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party of Canada. That will be an interesting mating season, I am sure.


Mr. Mills:: Be careful of those descriptions in this House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, I guess so. In light of the debate that has been going on, I guess I will have to.
Working together, the two measures will ensure that the GST revenues will not be used to fund new programs but only be used to reduce the deficit.
As a result of these and other budget measures, the deficit will be held to $30.5 billion this year, then fall to $25 billion in 1992-93 for the first time in a decade. The deficit is then forecast to decline rapidly year by year to reach $6.5 billion by 1995-96. The net public debt will begin to decline as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product in 1992-93. By 1994-95, the need for additional borrowing from the public will be eliminated for the first time since 1969 and 1970. The government at that time will begin the painful process of starting to pay down publicly held debt, and that will be a alleluia day for all of us I am sure.
These are indeed challenging measures at challenging times. They are matched to the toughness of the fiscal challenge that faces Canada. They reflect the government's commitment to winning the battle against the deficit and the debt and they reflect the views of many Canadians who have told the government to lead the way and take decisive action necessary to get the job done. I think they have gone beyond the government. I think they have asked MPs to lead the way to fight the battle of the deficit and the debt.
Deficit and debt control are vital foundations for more than just our future economic prosperity. They can contribute directly to the bonds that link us together as a
nation. One of the keys to strengthening the unity of our country is to strengthen our economic union and improve our fiscal position. This will help generate the confidence and make available the resources we need to address the regional aspirations and social concerns that challenge us all.
By putting our financial house in order, we can help to ensure a prosperous, united future for all Canadians. Unity, prosperity, economic renewal, political responsiveness, all of these are inter-related. These are the goals that have guided and will continue to guide our policies and the future we seek for Canada. By continuing to fulfil our commitment to these goals, we will ensure that Canada continues to provide generous social and economic benefits to its citizens.
This is an important piece of legislation. This is an important debate and I know that all members will take a very deep interest in it for what it means and what it will do. I urge that all members support this bill. I hope that we can move it through the House and through the committee with dispatch.


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, today I would like to say a few words about the bill but also about our national debt and national deficit.
First of all, I want to say we intend to support the principle of the bill on second reading, so that it can be referred to committee for consideration.

We will support this Bill C-21 in principle at second reading so that it can go to committee and so that we can study it further. In doing so, there are two principles which we see at issue here that we are willing to support.
The first of these is that the revenue from the GST not be used to go into the patronage tank or the vote-buying tank that many of us suspect it was intended for when the GST was brought in. If a measure can succeed in doing that, it is worthy of our support.
The second principle we see in the bill that we are willing to support is that the growing problem of the government debt and the continuing problem of its deficit need to be addressed.
September 18, 1991

On behalf of my party I am prepared to say that we recognize that, indeed, the problem of the deficit which has been continuing over the years of this government is one that has to be addressed and understood by all Canadians.
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what the deficit and the debt mean and why they are what they are today. I would like to address some of those before I talk more directly about the bill that is before us.
I want to say that it is clear that Canada's problem with debt and deficit is one that has to be addressed, because in relative terms to other countries with which we compete in the Group of Seven, we are doing and have been doing rather badly.
For example, I will cite some of these numbers. They are not entirely up to date. In 1989 for example, the government deficit in Canada as a percentage of GDP was 4.9 per cent, including not just the federal government, but also the provincial governments.
Other than Italy at 10 per cent, that is worse than all other countries in the G-7.
Similarly, our total government debt, federal and provincial again, as a percentage of GDP in 1989 had reached 71.6 per cent. That too, is higher than all other G-7 countries other than Italy which was at 97 per cent.
For example, France in that year when we were 71.6 per cent was at 47.3 per cent. The United Kingdom, 39.6 per cent; Germany, 42.7 per cent. In relative terms, I think it is clear that the deficit, as it has accumulated and built into a debt now of about $400 billion at the federal level in Canada, is a problem that needs to be addressed by this government and by any government. It cannot be put aside, and it cannot be trivialized.
It is clear that our debt has to be financed out of either our savings domestically or out of attracting savings from other countries. This is contributing in part to the level of interest rates that we are having to pay. That is clearly acknowledged.
There are some things that I think have been misunderstood by Canadians. There is a popular fear and despair in Canada that if we do not pay off the debt, in some strange way we will not own Canada.
Government Orders
I would like to go back to 1984 when the then Minister of Finance presented his statement in November 1984, soon after the election, when he talked about the borrowing being analogous to a family with its mortgage.
He expressed the view that many of us have taken on heavy debts with the expectation that our incomes would rise and that we would be able to accommodate the debt load as our incomes went up: mortgages, consumer loans and so on.
He talked about that, and I think that it is an appropriate analogy in this sense. The problem that we are experiencing in Canada as we watch the total debt faced by Canadian governments rising in relation to our income, measured for example by our Gross Domestic Product, is the problem that we have to be concerned about.
At the federal level as we approach about a 60 per cent ratio of the debt to the GDP, we have a problem. We have a much greater problem than we had in the early 1980s when we went into the 1981 recession when that ratio was in the order of 30 per cent.
As we went into a recession a little over a year ago, the resources were limited to deal with that recession in ways that they were not limited in 1982.
I take exception to the rather simplistic explanations of the development of the debt situation in the previous recession, at a time when our abilities to spend in order to resolve the issue of the recession, which was very acute at the time, were much greater. In other words, the resources that were turned to fighting the recession in 1982 were available to a country whose debt was only about 30 per cent of the federal level, 32 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product.
We went into the recession in 1990. We were experiencing a ratio at that time in the mid-fifties. The minister has said that he expects that ratio is finally going to turn down as we approach the next year. We can only hope that he is correct.
The record of his government in making such projections is rather dismal at best. I go back to his predecessor's statements in 1984 when he said that if the current policies, the ones that he inherited, continued that the debt by the end of the decade of the 1980s would be approaching $400 billion.

September 18, 1991
Government Orders
In fact, he says that by 1990, it could approach $410 billion. Elere we are in 1991 and by the end of this fiscal year we should be, I think, at about $419 billion. Again and again over the course of his years as Minister of Finance, the previous minister talked about deficit reduction and controlling the debt. He talked about it in his November statement. He talked about it in the 1985 budget, his first budget presented as Minister of Finance. He talked at that time about, and I quote: "a clear and realistic medium-term plan."
In that 1985 budget, with its clear and realistic medium-term plan, he said that the budgetaiy deficit, which had been anticipated for 1984-85 to be at $36 billion, would be reduced by 1990-91 by $20 billion. In other words, he was projecting back there with his clear and realistic plan a budgetary deficit for the year just ended this past April of about $16 billion. What did he accomplish? He accomplished a deficit in reality of $30.5 billion.
In his 1986 budget, the minister had adjusted his projections into the future that he had made in his realistic and medium-term plan. By 1986 he thought that by 1990-91 we would have a deficit of $22 billion. So he was about $6 billion closer, as it turned out, a year later. And so on it goes.
By 1989, after the election, he was no longer offering clear and realistic plans. He was offering, and I quote, "an ambitious five-year fiscal plan." Perhaps because his projections had been so bad in his realistic plan, he thought by calling it ambitious it would give him a little bit of an escape hatch if he missed on his projections that time around.
What he projected then was a budgetary deficit in
1990-91 of $28.5 billion. He was off by $2 billion as it turned out. He thought by 1993-94 it would be $14 billion and by 1994-95 he thought it would be $10 billion.
What happened under the ambitious five-year plan. In 1988-89 we had a deficit of $28.7 billion. In 1989-90 we had a deficit of $29 billion. In 1990-91 we had a deficit of $30.5 billion, and in 1991-92 we are expecting a deficit again of $30.5 billion.
So under the ambitious five-year plan for reducing the deficit, it rose from $28.7 billion to $30.5 billion, and I guess that is what the minister would have called progress.
With that legacy, Madam Speaker, it troubles me when I get out the 1991 budget, this year's budget, and see what he is promising under this five-year plan. I do not have an adjective for this one. Neither did he describe it as clear and realistic, nor did he describe it as ambitious. But here is what he is saying is going to happen. He said that between 1991-92 and 1992-93 the deficit would drop by $6.5 billion. It would drop to $24 billion. It would drop to $16.6 billion in 1993-94 and to $10 billion in 1994-95 and down to $6.5 billion in 1995-96.
If he had achieved what he had set out to achieve in 1984, we would not even be looking at these large numbers today. What is the history that has gone behind this. We had in the 1980s a period of exceptional economic growth, continuing and prolonged.
I am sure the current minister would agree that the idea is to reduce the deficit in good times so that you have got the resources to fight recessions in bad times.
What happened in the good times of the 1980s? This government talked about deficit reduction and managed while increasing taxes many times to increase the deficit virtually year after year, not quite but by the time we got into the 1980s it was going up each year, and at the same time to reach the targeted debt which the bad old Liberals would have produced if their policies had not changed in 1984. In other words, they failed totally in what they claimed to be able to do and what they set out to accomplish.
It does not give me a very good feeling about supporting this latest effort at convincing Canadians that we are bringing down the deficit.
There are some other fundamental concerns about the economic policies that have been pursued by this government and its ability to achieve economic projections based on what it has done in the past.
Let me start though by going back again to that 1984 statement by the minister. I am sure you hear, Madam Speaker, that the government has alleged that when it came into office the deficit was $38 billion. It has been said on the other side of the House.
That was the deficit at the end of the fiscal year 1984-85. This government was elected half way through that year. The Minister of Finance, when he came into the House in November, having looked at the books, proposed a number of serious policy changes. He said that had he not proposed those changes, and I quote:
September 18, 1991

"With no policy changes the deficit for this fiscal year would be $34.5 billion". That is in November 1984.
By the end of March 1985, he had managed to run it up to $38 billion. Then he spent the last seven years going around Canada claiming that the Liberals left an annual deficit of $38 billion.
In the interests of keeping the record straight, surely the government will take responsibility for the last $4 billion it added on between November and the end of March when it shoved through every possible expenditure in the hope that it could build up that deficit and then claim to have reduced it in percentage terms over the following years.
Let us look at what has been happening throughout its mandate. We have experienced a recession over the last year and a half that was clearly induced by the need, claimed by this government, to pursue a monetary policy that would control inflation.
You have to ask yourself how we got into inflationary times five years into the mandate of this government. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the answer lies in the economy of 1988. It was a very rapidly growing economy. It grew close to 5 per cent in 1988. What policies did the government pursue at that time?
It pursued policies of tax cuts introduced in the first phase of tax reform in 1987 and it pursued a policy of relatively lower interest rates. You will recall that the interest rates began to increase sharply at the end of November 1988. I find it passing strange that when the economy was growing that quickly that prudent managers of the economy would bring in both tax cuts and low interest rates.
The only explanation that I have been able to think of is that we had an election in this country on November 21, 1988. As a result by 1989 Governor Crow was appearing before the finance committee saying that he had brought interest rates up very sharply in order to address the very fast economy that we were experiencing and had been experiencing through the end of 1988, rapid wage increases, a very hot housing market in southern Ontario.
Government Orders
I suggest that more prudent policies pursued in 1988 might have been less popular at election time but would have preserved the growth in the economy on a more sustained basis through 1990. Our recession need not have been induced by the government. One and a half million Canadians need not have been put out of work, even if we are arguing on the government's own terms.
Furthermore, throughout its mandate the government has failed to ensure Canada's future economic growth by failing to pursue policies intended to build a skilled and adaptive work force, more scientific research and development and more aggressive multilateral trade relations.
Its policy has been quite clear. It addressed one kind of deficit alone. It only addressed the financial deficit. It has failed to address the deficit in spending on research and development. It failed to address the deficit in training, in education. Why is it that in a country like Canada 30 per cent of our high school students drop out before completing school? Why is it that we have a high illiteracy rate? How on earth are we going to compete, not with the Mexicans but with the Japanese and the Germans, and even the Americans? If the government only focuses on one deficit, it will create deficits in many other areas.
What about the deficit in our infrastructure? Why is it that across Canada roads and bridges and sewers are breaking down, and governments at every level are feeling the strain of maintaining those resources? They are key to our future economic development. Sometimes you have to spend a dollar to make a dollar. I think that is how the business community would describe it.
Why is it that this government pursued a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States of America promising, and I quote, "massive adjustment programs", and delivered on none of the training programs or adjustment programs that were so necessary to ensure that our work force continued to be employed during the difficult adjustment phase that necessarily followed the implementation of that agreement? When the agreement was combined with an increase in the Canadian dollar, from about 76 cents when the trade agreement was negotiated today at 88 cents, how on earth did the government expect Canadian manufacturers to compete without any assistance?

Government Orders


An hon. member:: lalk about those numbers.


John Paul Manley: Government members do not like to talk about those numbers. They do not like to talk about the deficit in manufacturing jobs that they have generated through their policies over the last two years-300,000 plus jobs lost. That is a deficit.
So now we are presented with this bill, the debt financing and reduction account act.


An hon. member:: Smoke and mirrors.


John Paul Manley: Well, I have said we will support it in principle but frankly I have trouble doing it with a straight face.
Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, what the 1991 budget says about the debt servicing and reduction fund.
After the first full year of operation, ending in 1992, the balance in the debt servicing and reduction fund will be a deficit of $26.85 billion. The second year $25.69 billion will be added to that. After five years of operation the fund will have a deficit of $121,765 billion. This is not my number. These are the government's numbers, page 94 of the budget. What kind of a debt reduction fund is that?
For that matter, if you remember, this GST tax was to be revenue neutral. Revenue neutral in relation to what? The government started talking about replacing the old federal sales tax with a value added tax at the time of tax reform in 1987. Then it put it off. It cut income taxes in 1988, as I have mentioned, just prior to the election and then introduced its technical paper on the goods and services tax about a year after the election in 1989. Government members did not want to talk too much about it during the election campaign, although the hon. member for Mississauga South managed to put his foot in it during the election campaign and said that the tax was going to bring in a lot more money than anyone was admitting.


An hon. member:: An extra $10 billion.


John Paul Manley: He said an extra $10 billion and was promptly told to be quiet. He was right about those numbers.
What astonishes me is that a government that tried to finesse this tax through on the basis that it was going to be revenue neutral is now trying to finesse it through on the basis that it is going to be used to reduce the deficit.
How can the government have it both ways? If it is revenue neutral then it is neutral in its impact on the deficit. If it is not revenue neutral, then why did the government say it was revenue neutral? Furthermore, as I said earlier, revenue neutral in relation to what?
When the Conservatives took office, the federal sales tax was 9 per cent. They raised it to 10 per cent. Then they raised it to 11 per cent. Then they raised it to 12 per cent. We must remember that all this time we were being told that the federal sales tax was a terrible tax. It was doing untold damage to Canada's manufacturing sector. It was unfair. It was terrible. When they went into the election at 12 per cent and still did not want to talk too much about the GST they just said: "There will be a new national sales tax and it will be revenue neutral compared to the old one". Then they raised this terrible tax to 13.5 per cent. It is still not revenue neutral because now they want to use it to lower the deficit.
With all these reservations, with my conviction that what is really going on here is a bit of smoke and mirrors, a bit of flimflam, another attempt by this government to fool Canadians into thinking they are doing something serious about the financial mess they have created while in office for seven years, why would I say that we will support it in principle at second reading? It is a bit of a stretch I have to admit.
The basis of our support in principle is that, first, the GST proceeds must not be spent on buying votes in the next election campaign by this government. Second, Canadians have to realize that the deficit and the debt is a problem recognized by national political parties and shared by all Canadians regardless of their political affiliation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood rising, but there is no period of questions or comments after the first two speeches at second reading. I will now recognize the hon. member for Essex-Windsor.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what amazes me most, the spectacle of the government coming before us having doubled the deficit in its seven years in office and claiming to the people of Canada that this piece of bookkeeping subterfuge is going to do something about that deficit for which it is largely responsible-I am not sure if that is the most amazing and ridiculous spectacle-or the spectacle of the Official Opposition getting
September 18, 1991

up and saying that they are going to vote in favour of this piece of nonsense.
I think that both represent an attempt to hoodwink the Canadian population with respect to this piece of legislation. More important, both seem to be supporting what is in effect a sugar coating of a very bad tax, the goods and services tax, which should be eliminated in this country, not used to exercise as some kind of pretence as a solution to the deficit.
The goods and services tax has been a disaster for people across this country. The vice-president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, who is not exactly a socialist or a supporter of the New Democratic Party, has said: "The GST is an albatross around the neck of the Canadian economy".
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which again is not exactly a group which sends in thousands of dollars to the New Democratic Party, has said, and I quote from their study of cross-border shopping with respect to Quebec "The introduction of the GST, has meant that the Canadian tax system penalizes small firms much more heavily than it does larger firms".
We are talking about a tax which has pushed people outside of this country, increasingly and in damaging numbers for our economy, to make their purchases in the United States.
The Minister of National Revenue got up today to try to suggest that cross-border shopping was not something that was increasing as a result of the GST, because the numbers of trips had not increased as significantly this year as they had increased in previous years.
What he did not mention was how much money was being spent by people on thee trips that are taking place. Using the figures provided by Statistics Canada for 1990 and comparing them with the figures for 1991, for the first six months of each year in each case, it will be found that the amount of money being spent by people making auto trips across the border has increased by 57 per cent. That tells me that the GST has done precisely what we predicted it would do. It has forced Canadians, especially in border communities, to look at their budget situation, which is especially serious for them in the middle of a recession. It has forced those people to make the
Government Orders
decision, because of the GST, to cross the border and to increase their shopping, as these figures show, by 57 per cent.
Now anybody could have predicted it. You cannot introduce a tax on retail purchases and retail services in Canada when no such tax exists in the United States and not expect people to react to the market differential that is created.
The government establishes a situation that it says it can defend because virtually every country in Europe has a GST. It is right. And virtually every country in Europe is beside another country in Europe which has a GST so there is no market differential that pushes people from one side to the other side of a border.
But if we create here in Canada an effective rate of taxation, as is the case in our community of Windsor, of 15 per cent for consumers on goods and services and the sales tax in Michigan is 4 per cent, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that people will cross the border in search of bargains.
The further proof of this is the retail outlets. Services in my community and in communities across this country close to the border have now started to advertise with new approaches. They have said to their customers: "We will pay the GST." They have advertised that in newspapers, on television and radio, and the consequence has been to attract customers back.
I meet the constituents that I represent coming back from shopping trips to the United States and they tell me: "Steven, we would like to be able to shop here in Canada, but we have got kids." The unemployment rate in the Windsor area is 13.9 per cent. These people have got to get their kids ready for school. There never used to be any tax on clothing in Canada, no retail sales tax of any kind in Ontario. Now, with the GST, there is such a tax so they go to the United States. They do so directly as a tax revolt against this government, as a tax revolt against an unfair tax, a tax which cannot be justified in economic logic, which cannot be justified in terms of any solution to the economy itself, which cannot be justified in terms of fairness because what we have seen happen under this government is a whole set of tax breaks to upper income people, to large corporations and a whole

September 18, 1991
Government Orders
set of tax increases through the GST to the ordinary, everyday person in this country.
We have seen, for instance, $100,000 in capital gains tax given to people who are rich enough to get capital gains increases from the stock market, the sales of yachts, the sales of whatever speculative investments they have kept. We have seen that come from this government. We have seen a decrease come from this government from 34 per cent to 29 per cent in the income tax rate for upper income people.
That is almost as bad as the decrease in income tax levels for upper income Canadians which the Liberals brought in before this government. Both these two parties here, which are supporting this piece of flimflam in front of us this afternoon, talk about their concern about the deficit. They created the deficit through the tax breaks that they gave upper income Canadians and large companies in this country.
In this country, we have seen, the statistics are absolutely clear-cut, if we go back to the 1970s, deficits which were sensible and which had some kind of relationship to what the country could pay. We saw deficits which, for instance, from the period 1966 up to the period 1975 did not at any stage exceed 1.4 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product. There were very small deficits in relation to our national income.
We then saw a Liberal government which came into office and started to increase expenditures dramatically. At the time, it started to decrease tax revenues from large companies and from upper income Canadians. The result was that the deficit levels in this country escalated dramatically.
As of 1975, the total level of debt in this country was $47 billion. That is not a small level. It is not something massive that we would have to be as terribly concerned with as we are today. In 1975, the debt was $47 billion.
By the end of the fiscal year 1984, for virtually all that period the Liberals were in power, the deficit had increased such that our national debt was $175 billion, almost four times what it was just nine years previously. It was almost four times higher.
The Conservatives came into power in 1984. They wanted to make sure that they could give some tax breaks to upper income Canadians, so they cut the tax
rates even further. They decreased the level of taxation for large scale corporations in this country.
If we look at the revenues which have been received, they have gone down dramatically from large scale corporations, while tax rates for individual Canadians have of course gone up dramatically.
But not to be outdone by the Liberals with respect to deficits, if we take the end of the fiscal year 1984 where the deficit was $175 billion, let us compare that with the end of the fiscal year 1990-91; in other words, the end of the most recent fiscal year under the Conservatives. As at the end of this most recent fiscal year, the deficit is $408.5 billion.


An hon. member:: The debt.


Steven W. Langdon: The debt is $408.5 billion. I must admit that it does take some doing to parallel what the Liberals did in terms of increasing debt, but the Conservatives have done it. The Liberals increased our national debt in their last nine years in office.
Mr. Speaker, I think, if you checked your time, you would see that I have more than a minute.
To make this point quite clear to people, what we have is $47 billion as debt in 1975, and that increased to $175 billion by the end of the fiscal year 1983-84. Then, taking the Conservative period, we see that increasing from $175 billion to $408.5 billion. In other words, a much greater increase in our national debt in seven years of Conservative government than there was in nine years of Liberal government.
The government comes before us today and says that here is a piece of legislation that will somehow magically start to do something about the problem. I say to people across the country that this piece of legislation which is in front of us, does absolutely nothing about the deficit. It does absolutely nothing about the national debt. All it does is try to sugar-coat a bad tax, the goods and services tax.
That is why, unlike the Liberal Party, we will continue to oppose the goods and services tax. Unlike the Reform Parly, we will continue to oppose the goods and services tax, even if there is this attempt at sugar-coating. We will vote against this legislation because we think Canadians deserve to have things put in front of them in a straightforward, clear and honest way. This piece of

September 18, 1991

sugar-coating of the GST represents exactly the kind of dishonest subterfuge which to us as a party and to us as a country is not acceptable.
I hope that when many Conservatives and many Liberals actually read this legislation they will see it for the piece of flimflam sugar-coating that it is. I hope they will vote against it to express their disgust and the disgust of their constituents with that unfair goods and services tax which was brought into this country by the government that sits in power but does not have a legitimate right to exercise power given its level of support within this country.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to compliment the hon. member for Essex-Windsor for his presentation to the House today.
I would like to make a comment, prior to asking a question, about some of the effects on my community of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, much of which is along the border as is the member's constituency of Windsor.
We have seen some difficulties over the course of time from the effects of the goods and services tax along with the monetary and fiscal policies of this government with the high interest rates, the increasingly high dollar rate as opposed to the United States dollar and the difficulties of course of the cross-border shopping as a result of that.
This summer I went to a number of industries such as the forest industry and value-added industries in the forest industry and other industries within my area that were supposed to benefit by manufacturers' sales tax being taken off and the goods and services tax being placed on them.
What I find over that course of time-I am wondering whether the member has seen the same problems in the Windsor area-is that these people are tied down now in higher costs because of the fact that they have higher costs of doing their books. They have to employ more people in the bookkeeping areas, and they are finding that the government is slower and slower in getting rebates back to them.
One of my constituents had been waiting for a rebate for over three months of over $40,000 from the government. One of the problems is that throughout the course of all of this it appears that the Conservative government
Government Orders
has not been telling the full truth of all of the ramifications of this to the people of Canada.
I think the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has pointed that out in a recent letter to the Prime Minister asking for the Minister of National Revenue's resignation in saying that he certainly has not come clean with a recent report that showed that there was going to be a major effect. I think the study shows that it would be 3.8 per cent cheaper to buy goods in the United States as a result of the goods and services tax.
It appears that it has suppressed this over a period of time in bringing it in, as it has suppressed all of their studies that showed it was going to increase recessionary times in this country. It was going to increase many of the problems as opposed to assisting the people as they have told us it would be.
Can the member tell us some of what he has seen in his own riding of Windsor and the devastation that the goods and services tax has brought about, and whether he has a comment on what appears to be a fact that the government has constantly covered up what the effect of this is on people and how much it is going to use of this in debt and deficit reduction?
It appears that this is a shell game that it is playing with this. It is simply going to take money from one pocket and put it in the other. Would the hon. member comment on that for the people of Canada?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Let me say just two or three things. First, I think to call it a shell game is a useful comment.
What we really have here is something which says that all GST money will go into this account and we will use this account for certain expenditures such as paying the interest on the national debt, such as paying rebates to certain income tax concerns such as paying off certain parts of the GST rebates. If we happen to have anything left over after paying all those interest costs and so forth-which will not be the case-but if we had, we would pay that against the deficit.
This is very interesting, but it does not really prevent the government from doing with other accounts other things. If it uses this GST account to pay for interest costs on the national debt, then it can take the money in its general account, which it would have used to pay

Government Orders
interest costs on the national debt, and it can use those to pay for those election goodies which my friend from the Liberal Party is so concerned about.
I must say I am most surprised-and I have been thinking about it ever since I started my speech-not by the government's attempt to bring in this shell game piece of legislation before us, because that is par for the course as far as they are concerned, I am most surprised by the fact that the Liberal Party, which has claimed to oppose the GST, should say that yes, it is now willing to support the sugar-coating for the GST, the shell game which the government is carrying forward. I just hope, Mr. Speaker, there will be some effort on the part of some of the saner members of the Liberal caucus to get them to change their position.
Certainly as far as my constituency is concerned, which is what my colleague was also raising, we have had firms protesting this summer. We have a trucking protest which is taking place at the present moment. We have had manufacturing protests by manufacturing owners and by workers, all concerned with the incredibly heavy burden which the GST is placing on them. We have to get rid of that tax; that is what we should be talking about in this debate.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Essex-Windsor what particular training he has that allows him to so ably and capably give a speech with a straight face claiming that the NDP is interested in the national debt when, since the Parliament started, in virtually every example I can think of, it has asked us to spend more money.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let me give a short history lesson to my Conservative colleague. When this new government first came into office, one of the things we suggested to them was that the Cape Breton heavy water plant should be shut. That was not anybody else's suggestion; it was not their suggestion, not coming from the hon. member. It was our suggestion. This was a white elephant that was costing this country incredible sums of money.
We have also suggested at various stages in recent years, but especially since the changes in eastern Europe took place, that there has to be a very significant cut in the defence budget of this country. In fact, my colleague, the member from Victoria has put some very strong points with respect to the need to do that.


An hon. member:: He is the chairman of the standing committee.


Steven W. Langdon: He made some very strong points with respect to the need to do that in response to the government's recent defence statement. This was a defence paper that has come out suggesting that we will cut the military, we will cut bases, but by gosh we will still spend more. Talk about Conservative financial policy. That seems to be the best example. We will get 8,000 fewer soldiers, two less bases and we will still spend more money.
If I might, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member that when we first came into this House after the 1984 election, we told this government that its attempts to manage the economy by cutting taxes and so forth for high income people, by giving benefits to the large-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time for questions or comments has expired.

The time provided for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the second reading stage of Bill C-21.1 did not intend to talk about the GST. I wanted to congratulate my Liberal colleague who supports the bill on second reading, and I hope he will do the same on third reading. However, after listening to comments by the member for the New Democratic Party, I feel I must get back to the GST, as the hon. member did, and set the record straight.
Mr. Speaker, the member for the New Democratic Party referred to the GST as an unfair tax. He overlooked the fact that the federal sales tax was most unfair. Mr. Speaker, when I was doing a master's in tax law in 1978-79 at the University of Sherbrooke, our professor told us in a course on federal sales tax that it had outlived its usefulness. It had to be changed, and he was anxious to see a political party that would have the guts to abolish a tax that hurt Canadian producers who wanted to export goods and gave importers an unfair advantage. Mr. Speaker, this was more than ten years ago. The tax remained unchanged. It was the wrong kind of tax. We were the only country in the world that still had a manufacturer's sales tax, a tax that was grossly
September 18, 1991

unfair. We got rid of it, and all Canadians including the people in the riding of Trois-Rivieres would have loved to get rid of the old tax without putting a new one in its place. Mr. Speaker, I think that you are like everyone else-you do not like to pay tax. We are all the same. There is no problem. Yes, there is a problem. The problem is that in taking revenue away from the government, expenses stay the same. Although we have made cuts and managed well, there are expenses and the money has to come from somewhere. From the GST. To whom does this tax apply? That is where I do not understand the New Democrats. The GST applies to the rich. The rich pay it. If you have a low income, before spending anything on the GST, you receive a cheque from the federal government four times a year to ensure that you do not have to pay the GST.
It does not apply to basic food; it does not apply to housing; it does not apply to drugs. To what does it apply? It applies to yachts, and as far as I know, some people can afford to buy them. It applies to cars and even reduces the price of them. It applies to a host of goods and services that high-income people use. They spend on them and therefore pay the GST. Low-income people spend on their needs and receive their cheques. So this tax is fair because it applies to people who have money. When I hear my NDP colleague say that this tax is unfair, Mr. Speaker, I have a big problem with that.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21, now in second reading, is an Act relating to accounting for the servicing and reduction of the debt. Why do we have it, Mr. Speaker, and what is the purpose of this bill? We have to go back to 1984. In November of that year, Mr. Speaker, the finance minister at that time, the Elon. Michael Wilson, tabled a strategy, a plan for the economic renewal of the country. Since 1984, we have followed that plan for the progress of our economy and our country, Mr. Speaker, to make Canada a good place to live.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Canada is a good country to live in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands on a point of order.
Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, during debate on a government bill, a minister must be in the House and I cannot see a single minister here, Mr. Speaker.
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but I am sure that he would want to see one of his colleagues from the Cabinet present in the House to listen to his good speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has the floor.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I take note of my colleague's comment and I hope he will do the same and stay here to listen to what I have to say.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country where we have an economy and social programs. In the Spring, I had the opportunity to travel to Thrkey and also to Russia. It is during such travels that you realize how lucky we are to be living in Canada. It's important to say so. There are very few countries in the world which have, on the one hand, our wealth, and on the other, our economic system and moreover our social programs and everything else around it.
When you say social programs, Mr. Speaker, you see a country which provides a lot to its people and this means also a country which has commitments to meet. Despite these commitments we have tried since 1984 to put in place a tax system which would be fairer and more equitable for all Canadians. Take for example the changes we made, like the deduction for dependents, for children, and also the changes relating to the tax credits. It's in that area in particular that we made the tax system fairer and more equitable.
We also reduced income tax, Mr. Speaker, in 1988 when we introduced phase I of the tax reform. The second phase of that reform was the creation of the GST which was done this year.
What else did we do since 1984, Mr. Speaker? We reduced spending and God knows that everyone in this House, on this side in particular, is aware of it. We not only cut spending, but we put government spending under control and then, of course, there has been some tax increases.

September 18, 1991
Government Orders
In February 1991, Mr. Speaker, during the last budget, what did we say? We said that spending control was of primary importance. What does it mean for Canadians? It means that inflation is under control and eventually reduced. If you look at the inflation rate since the Progressive Conservative Party is in power, you will see that our record is excellent.
No later than yesterday, the Minister of Finance was comparing the rate of inflation today and the one we had ten years ago to the day. I remember that in 1981, the inflation rate was around 12 per cent. An inflation rate of 12 per cent, Mr. Speaker, means that shortly it will get to 22, 23 or even 24 per cent. The members in this House, like their fellow citizens who are watching us, remember when interest rates were at 22, 23 and 24 per cent, in 1981. They remember how that hurt not only their wallets but also the Canadian economy. So, what we have decided to do is to take harsh measures to control government expenditures in order to curb inflation and bring interest rates down to a reasonable level considered normal for borrowers, businesses as well as individuals. That, is rule number one for a flourishing economy and a prosperous country.
In 1990, Mr. Speaker, we announced that the expenditure control program would be applied for three years. This year, in 1991, we figured this nation's economy needed a breather. So we decided to apply the program for two more years, until 1995, to make sure that the government will not overspend. This leads us to the subject of the debt, our national debt. The NDP does not care about the national debt. It is not important. In 1973-74, Mr. Speaker, the debt was $25 billion. In 1984-85, the year we took power, it had reached $206 billion. Now, in 1990-91, it is $388 billion.
The opposition parties will say that it has doubled. But,in all honesty, they will realize that simply adding the annual interest charges on $206 billion comes up to $388 billion by 1990-91. Since 1984-85, we have made difficult decisions-heaven knows that the Canadian people know something about it-precisely to make sure the debt we inherited would not grow by more than the interest charges. The situation is still serious, Mr. Speaker. As we speak, the per capita share of the national debt in Canada is $15,000. This means that the child bom a
minute ago already owes $15,000. That is what Canada's debt costs: $43 million a year just in interest charges. That is $80,000 a minute. That is the price the Canadian people have to pay now for the debt we inherited in 1984: $80,000 a minute. That is the cost of the interests on our national debt. And we have not started paying off the capital. We are just paying interest.
That is why expenditure control is capital, Mr. Speaker, to maintain inflation at a reasonable level so that our economy can grow and that some revenue can be earmarked for the reduction of the debt.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the total amount of the cuts made by this government since 1984 is nearly $25 billion, not $25 million, but $25 billion. The CBC was affected, some of our military bases across the country were closed-yet more closures were announced yesterday-, high income earners were told that they will received lower old age pension benefits or none and couples will not be entitled to family allowances when their yearly income is over $70,000 or $75,000.
Our spending increased by 3.7 per cent on average since 1984; a 3.7 per cent average is better than any province and is better, Mr. Speaker, than the party opposite, which in the 15 years up to 1984 raised spending by 13.8 per cent a year on average. That is what is called controlling spending, managing and running a country.
In 1984-85, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada spent $16.1 billion dollars more than it took in, not counting interest costs. In 1990-91, Mr. Speaker, Canada spent $12.4 billion less than it took in. This means that in less than seven years, we turned spending around by $28 billion, that is what it means. You see my figures, Mr. Speaker, and a few minutes ago, I told you that we had cut $25 billion. So you see we are balancing quite well.
They are not easy decisions and they do not necessarily please Canadians, I agree. But at the same time, if I want to be serious, the Prime Minister shows his leadership, his interest in the country and the need to administer and manage as he should, not by polls and opinion surveys but on the basis of the economic reality of the country, its debts and especially, Mr. Speaker, its future.
September 18, 1991

You know what the future of a country means: its ability to continue to progress.
Mr. Speaker, a country can be compared to an individual. The day an individual has so many debts that he can no longer make decisions alone but only take orders from the credit union, the bank and his credit card issuers, that day, Mr. Speaker, he has lost his freedom of action. He depends on his creditors. It is the same with a country, Mr. Speaker. We must have freedom of action. To have freedom of action, Mr. Speaker, we must not be so much in debt that our creditors tell us what to do. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have understood that.
In this way, Mr. Speaker, the legislation we have passed and will continue to pass will benefit the country. Mr. Speaker, when the bill before the House today was tabled, I was convinced the Liberal party and the New Democratic Party would love it. I thought they would be falling over themselves to thank us for tabling it. The Liberal party said thank you on second reading but not a word from the NDP. Perhaps I should explain why they should thank us.
We realize Canadians are doing their share with the GST. We realize they don't like taxes and neither do we, but at least what they spend on the GST will be used only to reduce our national debt. It will not be used for anything else. We have created a special account. All the money from the GST, the net revenue from the GST, will go into that account, and the money will be used to reduce our national debt.
Mr. Speaker, when I say our national debt, which is nearly $400 billion, it isn't your debt or the debt of the people in my colleague's riding of Terrebonne, it is the debt of eveiy Canadian in this country. The problem is that it was accumulated between 1968 and 1984, and now we have to manage that debt.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is almost up. In concluding, let me once again thank the Liberal Party which told us it supported the bill on second reading, and perhaps I may urge the NDP to consider the importance of a bill that guarantees that the money Canadians spend on the GST will be used strictly to reduce our debt and not to increase program spending or other expenditures. Nothing like that, Mr. Speaker. It will be used strictly to reduce the debt. I would also urge them to read the bill and change their attitude, because this country's economy needs a lot of improvement and,
Government Orders
above all, we have to get rid of as much of our debt as we possibly can.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments and ask a few questions. The speaker before the last one mentioned that they had fought very hard against the GST. Since he is considered to be a very honest man, I would have thought that he would admit that the Liberals worked at least as hard to control this debt. There is also another point inherent to this: I find it surprising that he would have taken this opportunity to allege that we were not against the government. They often use this approach to try to discredit the Liberal Party. Maybe you could make some political comments about that.
My second comment is that we also want to control the deficit and the debt as much as anyone else. But it seems to me, and this comment is now addressed to you, dear friend, that, too often, you somewhat use this excuse.
You know, people often say: I am as I am, because of the way I was raised, or I have inherited this from my father or my mother. So, in your case, you have inherited the debt, which is very high, exceeding $400 billion, from the Liberals. You repeat that so often that, frankly, it becomes annoying. You have a problem. You buy a plant which has a debt: you accept that debt. You have to administer: do it! Don't always use the Liberal Party as an excuse for a lack of success.
I have a third comment. I have a letter from the previous minister of finance, Mr. Wilson, that says that, at the end of the 1983-84 fiscal year, the debt was under $168 billion. Five months and four days later, you were elected to govern the country. You took office, which makes seven months. Again, you claimed that the debt that you had to administer was from the 1984-85 fiscal year. Did you not have any responsabilities during the 1984-85 fiscal year? You were in office for more than half that fiscal year. It is very unfair to use these figures, these statistics from the 1984-85 fiscal year as you were in office for more than six months, nearly seven months.
Finally, and it will be my last comment, I wonder if you will give me somes reactions. You say that, on the average, your government spending for the last seven years was less than 4 per cent. I would appreciate getting an extremely frank answer here because it is so crucial for all the Canadians who are listening. Was it not less than 4 per cent because you cut the transfers of funds? Because you passed the fiscal burden on to provinces, territories, municipalities, hospitals, colleges, and universities? Controlling the debt is easy if I take my

Government Orders
responsibilities, my debt, and share it, pass it on to this one, and that one, etc. I wish to hear your comments, your reactions, please.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the questions asked by my colleague from St. Boniface and I thank him. He was talking-and I will take each point in order-I am not going to jump into the feud between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, I think it is up to them.
The second point was that he is tired of hearing me say that we inherited the debt from the Liberal government and I agree with him on that, Mr. Speaker. I am willing to promise not to mention again in this House or anywhere else that the debt we inherited in 1984 amounted to $200 billion and that we were stuck with it. I am willing on one condition. That my friend from St. Boniface promise not to mention anymore that we doubled the national debt and that it was our fault, because, Mr. Speaker, when they say "You doubled the national debt" I must answer: Yes, but only because of the interest on your debt. That is the problem and that is what I must answer him.
Then, if he stops saying that we doubled the national debt, I will not mention anymore that it was his debt, Mr. Speaker.
His other point was about the 1983-84 or 1984-85 fiscal year. He was partly right, but I would like to expand a little on the 1984-85 fiscal year, because that is the year this government was elected-seven years ago yesterday since we officially took power on September 17, 1984-


Ron J. Duhamel: Already seven years!


Pierre H. Vincent: Seven years. You see how fast it went.
Mr. Speaker, on September 17, 1984 his government, which had ruled up to that date, had already made commitments for the next fiscal year and you will understand that commitments made by a government have to be met, even if the government changes. This is why I say he was partly right as far as dates are concerned, but not as far as cash is concerned, Mr. Speaker because in 1984-85 we spent the money his government had decided to spend. This is also the kind
of situation we have to live with and I even remember, Mr. Speaker, voting for the budget of Marc Lalonde. I held my nose, but I did it. When we were elected we had to pass the budget of Marc Lalonde. What could I say?
The answer to the last question, Mr. Speaker, is yes, spending increases have averaged less than 4 per cent in seven years. And we have cut all the federal government expenses. We did not cut transfer payments to provinces, as claims my colleague. We have reduced the increase in payments to provinces. The best example of that is the fact that Quebec and Manitoba, his native province, will receive more money than last year. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have reduced the increase in transfer payments to provinces, I have said it many times in this House.
You are telling me again that I cannot speak anymore. Well then, I will sit down. Thank you.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place a comment and then a question to the member for Trois-Rivieres.
I liked his approach in explaining the historical development of the growth in debt that has occurred here in Canada. I think it is significant to note that we have an opportunity within four or five years to once again have a balanced budget in Canada. That is quite different than what we have heard over the last several years, and certainly a very different spending trend than had been established prior to 1984.
In the province in which my constituency is represented, Ontario, we have also seen in recent years a growth in program spending under the provincial Liberal government averaging about 10 per cent per year while the federal growth in program spending was at about 2.7.
Now, under an NDP government, we see a deficit this year of something in the order of $10 billion. Clearly, we must have learned that deficits are nothing more than deferred taxation.
Canadian taxpayers feel that they have been paying enough tax for many, many years. Of course, they find out that they have not been paying enough to pay all the bills. I would like you to sort of contrast the views, the opinions and the policies of the NDP in Ontario and what they are attempting to do and what the government
September 18, 1991

here is attempting to do in bringing a balanced budget back to Canada within four or five years.


Pierre H. Vincent: One minute, Mr. Speaker, is not much for such an important question.
When the economy is as slow as it has been, Mr. Speaker, there are two ways to react for a provincial or federal government. Ours is to say: "Let us reduce inflation and interest rates and recovery will follow.' ' That is what we have done and it is starting to work.
The other way is that of the Ontario NDP government which says: "No, the government will put money in the pot." But which pot, Mr. Speaker? They spend, spend and spend again, as Liberals have done in 1981.
Mr. Speaker, when a government invests in a slow economy, it does not automatically mean that, on the long term, the country or the province will benefit. I had a meeting with some people in Trois-Rivieres, Mr. Speaker, and let me tell you that the people in that area are very sensible, they are hardworking people and they really earn their money. They do not approve of a nosey government. These people do not agree when the government invests, and invests money coming directly from ever-increasing taxes.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservatives' approach at the federal level will give the expected results, and unfortunately the New Democrats in Ontario will probably have the same results that we have witnessed at the federal level, in 1981-1982.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I must stop here.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the previous participants in the debate this afternoon have drawn attention to the essentially false nature of the motion now before us. It offers to reduce first the deficit and then the debt through the application of revenues from the goods and services tax without reducing government spending in other areas by the equivalent amount. Therefore, we are simply transferring revenue from one account, as it were, to another without achieving real control of government expenditure.
Government Orders
When the government first introduced its sales tax or goods and services tax, it should have detailed why Canadians should pay a tax on almost all goods and services. There was then the possibility that the tax might have been received, certainly not with enthusiasm but at least with somewhat less consternation. I speak of course of the possibility that the government could have made a real impact on the burden of debt which Canada is carrying, which every Canadian carries and which every generation ahead of us will carry, by applying the revenue of a sales tax to the reduction and eventual elimination of our debt.
What did the government do in introducing its goods and services tax? In fact, it explained to the Canadian people that it was to replace the manufacturers' sales tax, a tax that it had itself increased on four different occasions. It argued that the manufacturers' sales tax penalized exports and lowered incentives to invest in Canada. Indeed, all parties, the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party in the previous Parliament agreed that that tax should be replaced by a more equitable sales tax.
The problem the government immediately encountered was that the manufacturers' sales tax was an invisible tax. I do not suppose more than a handful of Canadians realized they were paying such a tax. However, once the government introduced the goods and services tax, paid at the cash register, then Canadians realized that they were paying an additional new tax. What was the government's justification for the tax? To replace the manufacturers' sales tax. The finance minister of the day said repeatedly it would be a revenue neutral tax. The revenue generated by the new tax would be no more than that produced by the former manufacturers' sales tax.
There was no talk then, none whatever, of the government introducing the new tax as a method of reducing and eventually eliminating the debt that burdens this generation and future generations of Canadians.
Had the government at that time been candid with the Canadian people, it would have said: "We propose this new tax as a method of reducing the debt, and for our part as the government we will reduce expenditure. We will in effect enter into a social contract with the

Government Orders
Canadian people, with the Canadian taxpayers, that in asking them to meet this additional tax burden we shall make a determined and visible effort to reduce government spending". Then the tax might have been received not with enthusiasm but with at least a little less consternation than it did receive.
At no time when introducing its new tax did the government speak of segregating its revenue into a separate fund for debt reduction. It in fact envisaged, as the minister so often acknowledged, that the revenue would simply be part of general revenue and would go toward paying the ongoing expenditures of the government.
Unless one believes that paying one-third of every tax dollar to cover interest on the national debt does not matter there are only three ways to cut the debt and the deficit. The government can either increase taxes or reduce spending or do both.
In his budgets the former finance minister made some cuts. He cut some military spending, some foreign aid I regret to say, and some other programs. He rejigged unemployment insurance. But who can show where this government has acted decisively to curtail operational expenditures? Initially, the Conservative government did make some limited spending cuts, but by 1986 it had clearly lost heart, despite a booming economy generating new levels of tax revenue.
Re-elected in 1988 the government spoke a lot about reducing the deficit but it did not in fact do so. The deficit today is just as high as it was several years ago. The government failed to reduce spending significantly and relied almost entirely on tax increases to generate more revenue to move toward meeting government expenditures. It did so presumably in the belief that Canadians would rather pay more taxes than see expenditures cut.
If that were ever true it certainly is not true today. Canadians know that we are more burdened with excessive federal and provincial taxes than at any time in our history, compared to the standards of our trade competitors.
There are many disadvantages to using tax increases as a means of generating revenue rather than countering
the debt problem with spending cuts. The most problematic is the public perception that governments are not serious in their goals of attempting to reduce deficit and debt. They find it easier to raise taxes, but, among other things, the government in so doing has contributed to the inflationary pressures of which we have been uncomfortably aware in the recent years.
Sales tax increases are inflationary. Organized labour will understandably respond by demanding higher wages furthering inflation. The replacement of the manufacturers' sales tax by the goods and services tax pushed inflation above 6 per cent. Not only did inflation move above 6 per cent in 1991, but it was well advertised to move that high at least a year before. It is not therefore surprising that in such circumstances labour contracts throughout 1990 and again this year were based upon expected high inflation rates above the 6 per cent level.
At the same time that there has been inflation generated in part by wage demands which anticipate inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, supported fully by the government, has assured Canadians that he will continue to use high interest rates to counter inflation setting the stage for continued high interest rates and a high value for the Canadian dollar. This completes a vicious circle where high interest rates increase the deficit by increasing debt service costs.
If the government has been intent on following the tax route when it introduced the goods and services tax to make a real dent in the deficit, it might have appealed to taxpayers then to accept a comprehensive retail sales tax and match that new tax with a very real commitment to address the excessive government spending that has marked Canada's recent history.
We have all seen how the tax has failed significantly because the federal government itself failed to do what might have made it more palatable by demonstrating austerity in its own spending in an effective way as part of a bargain in which the tax would have been accepted as an essential part of a greater national commitment to reduce both the debt and the deficit.
What has happened is that the size of the national debt has almost doubled. Unacceptably high interest rates and exchange rates have been maintained in spite of repeated warnings and have contributed to the recession.
September 18, 1991

Canadian competitiveness is further in decline. Bankruptcies have reached record levels. Unemployment has continued to rise, so has the tax burden and so has inflation. The balance of payments and Canada's foreign indebtedness have seriously deteriorated and the Minister of Finance will know that government revenues are falling, as we saw as recently as the last quarter.
That was the background to the motion which has been brought forward today: a major recession, public finance virtually out of control and the country itself in serious economic difficulties.
This government, finding itself in such serious economic difficulties, has complained that its problems after seven years in office are really the fault of the Liberal government which went out of office in 1984.
We have had this story repeated to us several times today from the government side. Surely after seven years the government has some better explanation for its policies, can justify its policies, can offer some reasons to the Canadian people for why we are in the situation we are than to say: "Oh, it really was not our fault; it was the fault of a Liberal government that went out of office seven years ago".
The government anticipated what it said in its 1984 publication A New Direction for Canada, it offered a document that contained a sharp indictment of Liberal fiscal policies. The government that went out of office in 1984 was alleged, and I quote, to be "the source of poor economic performance", "soaring government deficits", "rising unemployment", "sluggish economic growth" and "an economy dangerously off course".
If that sounds familiar it is because it is a very accurate description of this government's economic policies after seven years in office. Every one of those points that they allege were the characteristics of the government that went out of office in 1984, are the characteristics of this government's economic policy today: soaring government deficit, rising unemployment, sluggish economic growth, and an economy dangerously off course.
If we look back to 1984, since my friends on the government side seem to be obsessed with that mythical explanation for its own folly, the truth of the matter is that the Conservative government inherited a surging Canadian economy which was demonstrating a remarkable recovery from the 1981-82 recession, a recession
Government Orders
that was as serious and as deep as any which the western world had encountered since the 1930s. It was a worldwide recession. It was generated, in part, by the volatile petroleum prices of that time. It was generated outside Canada. It was an imported recession, unlike the recession which this government has foisted on the Canadian people. It was not a made-in-Canada recession. It was a world-wide recession.
The fact is in 1984 the economy was growing at the rate of 4.7 per cent in real terms. That was the legacy that the Liberal government of the day left to its successor, the Conservative government, a growth rate that was never exceeded again except one year and that was marginally in 1988.
At the same time, unemployment had declined, inflation had reached the lowest rate since 1971. The trends were all positive. The merchandise trade balance had a surplus of about $20 billion, a near record level, and with a non-merchandise deficit of $17 billion, the balance of payments on current accounts showed a $2.7 billion surplus. That too was part of the legacy left to the incoming government by the outgoing Liberal government of the day.
Interest rates were falling, the domestic saving rate was increasing, and even foreign indebtedness was being reimbursed. I would like to hear any member on the government side of the House indicate in what way, in seven years in office, they have moved to reduce rather than increase, Canada's total indebtedness.
Perhaps myths die hard, but this is certainly a myth and we have heard it again today. I would repeat that the government must be singularly bankrupt in economic policies if the best it can do is to complain about a situation that did not exist but was allegedly left by a previous government.
It is evident to all of us that the record of this government does not include achievement in reducing and eliminating the debt and the deficit which remain such an albatross around the neck of Canadian business and the Canadian people.
In 1984-85, as my colleagues, the member for St. Boniface and the member for Ottawa South, have pointed out, the national debt was $199 billion. For this current fiscal year it has reached $388 billion. Next year it is estimated at $419 billion. Even on the assumption that the Conservatives had no responsibility for the 1984-85 year, which is not correct, Canada is paying interest this year on $189 billion of Conservative debt

Government Orders
and next fiscal year will pay interest on $220 billion of the reduction of the deficit and the debt". That came out Conservative debt.	of the entire debate.
So much for the accuracy and fairness of the government side in its footling allegations and pointless accusations about the situation it inherited when it came to office.
I see my time is just about ended but I want to say about this legislation now before us that it is essentially flimflam, it does not replace government expenditure. It merely opens yet another account, as it were. We shall support that this bill move into committee for closer study and examination because we are committed to ensuring that government expenditure is given the closest scrutiny. Any method that helps to encourage this government to rein in its excessive spending, we would support.


Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend's speech with great interest. He went through his history of the debt and how we got to our present position. He is right that it was $199 billion or $200 billion in 1984, and we are paying interest on that particular portion. With interest rates at that time it was approximately $22 billion.
The biggest indictment of the government of that time was the debt it left in the current account when it was not even paying for the programs it was providing. A $16 billion debt at that particular time and that aspect of its operations added together added up to the $38 billion deficit of that particular year.
Obviously, when you deal with it you have to close that program spending deficit. That has been done by this government and turned around. In fact, this year there will be a $13 billion surplus, approximately. In the meantime, of course, the national debt grows as a result of that. That is why it has reached the point it has now and that is why we have to pay interest on it.
I wondered why my friend did not make mention that particular aspect of the financial situation that occurred when this government came into office in 1984.
As far as the bill we are dealing with is concerned, my constituents have said: "Please use the revenues toward
My friend also mentioned the GST replacing the manufacturers' sales tax. He mentioned that the manufacturers' sales tax was a bad tax and was in fact hurting the economy. We know that by replacing it with the GST, a better form of tax, that the economy is going to grow by a significant portion as a result of that. In addition to the revenues from the GST there is an expansion of the economy. That was the reason the consumption tax was put in.
I would also like to know my friend's viewpoint on consumption taxes as a means of raising revenue.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has raised a number of questions. If I do not touch upon all of them, I hope he will remind me of his points.
The idea that somehow a government can explain away or excuse its fiscal performance by referring merely to an operating surplus or even an operating budget, always strikes me as a bizarre procedure. Let me quote for the benefit of the member opposite the chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada who said recently that the government talks about an operating surplus. That is what the member opposite speaks of, an operating surplus. But what does that mean? It is like an individual saying he or she would have a positive cash flow if it were not for the mortgage interest. It is true but it is irrelevant. The government still has to pay the interest on the debt. There is no point saying that the interest payment is over there somewhere and look instead at the grand job we have done on operating budgets. The fact is that it is a total package.
If the member opposite wants to consider why it is that the interest payments on the debt are so high, he would do well to ask himself two questions: who is it who has increased the debt over the past seven years, and who is it who has pursued a high interest rate policy to the detriment of every Canadian? Who is it? It is the government. Do not tell us that it is not the Liberal Party. It is not the opposition that did it. For seven years this government has driven up the debt and at the last minute it says: "Let us use the GST. That is a great
September 18, 1991

idea". Maybe there is some argument for using the GST. If one reduced one's expenditure by an equivalent amount one would be making a real impact. But this is not so. It is merely as if another bank account was opened, a second bank account over here, a third, fourth, fifth bank account. It is all the same. There are no changes being made. This is a flimflam.
Who has pursued a high interest policy in this country? Will the blame be put on Mr. Crow of the Bank of Canada: "Oh, it has nothing to do with us. We are just the government. It is Mr. Crow who chooses to pursue a high interest rate policy. He says that is the only way I can deal with inflation".
"I am the Governor of the Bank of Canada and the only way I can deal with inflation is to drive up interest rates". Do you know why he says that? This government has failed in its fiscal policies. He has pursued, and the government accepts this, a monetary answer to what is essentially a fiscal question. He pursues high interest rates in answer to what he perceives as an inflationary threat.
But the real way to deal with inflation in Canada is through fiscal policy, not monetary policy, and this government has consistently failed to do so. Do not talk to us about why interest rates are high. It is the government that has pursued high interest rate policies. It is not the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Do not blame him. There are procedures in place for the government to control and direct the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The government has endorsed and approved the high interest policy. Why has it done that? What have high interest rate policies achieved?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief comment and ask a question.
We have been talking a great deal about inflation. About a month ago I read an article which suggested that the major contributors to inflation were the 34 tax increases, including the goods and services tax, and I want to know whether he is in agreement or disagreement. I shall not be offended if he has a different opinion, but certainly that was the point.
The point was that the government's 30-plus tax increases were the major contributor to the high inflation rate.
Government Orders
The second point is that it seems to me when we talk about deficit and debt we really need to look at it in terms of the revenues that we have. If my memory serves me correctly-and I would be willing to bet that it does-the revenues for the government when it came into power were slightly about $70 billion. They will be approaching close to $130 billion this year, roughly twice as much. I have no problem in taking on a debt of $1 million if my salary is $2 million, but I have a real problem if I am earning $10,000 a year.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could perhaps make some comments with respect to inflation and the almost double revenues and what impact it has on deficit and debt.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I was quite enjoying my previous discussion and I would really like to pursue that. My hon. friend from St. Boniface, in his own excellent statement a few minutes ago, did draw attention to the inflationary effects of tax increases, and of course he is quite right. This government claims to have achieved so much. It never makes the one claim in which it would have some justification and that is tax increases. It has a history of tax increases that is unparalleled in this country. It has introduced taxes at every level and in just about every way that human imagination can devise.
One member has asked me what I think of consumption taxes. I would have the federal government out of consumption taxes. They are inflationary. There is no question of the inflationary impact of the GST. Look at your own numbers. Look at the numbers of the Department of Finance. Of course, we are told the impact is temporary. But tax increases with an inflationary impact have an unfortunate way of being a permanent feature of the economy.
The inflationary impact which my hon. friend raised is pervasive. It flows through the whole economy and it continues. The burden that the government has placed on the Canadian people is not merely in direct taxation or indirect taxation terms, that is, taking away more of their earned income, but it is also in its inflationary impact. Taxes drive up the cost of goods and services. That is inflation. The result of it is that the Governor of the Bank of Canada employs interest rates as a method of trying to counter what he sees as inflationary pressures caused by the government's own inflationary policies of higher taxation. It is a vicious circle and the govern-

September 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
ment must get out of this vicious circle. The way to do it is to show fiscal responsibility and not monetary excess.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-21, and particularly as it is known as the debt servicing and reduction account act. I am sorry that you did not recognize me, Mr. Speaker, when it was time for questions for the previous speaker because I was going to ask him if this was the same House of Commons that I was elected to in 1988 and was I a Conservative and was it a Liberal that I was hearing speak? Is it true that he is a member of the Liberal caucus? I thought I heard an awful lot of things being said which would almost suggest to me that somehow this House had flipped over, that I was sitting on the opposition side, as a Liberal, and I was listening to a Conservative speak. It shocked me tremendously. I will not deal with prior to 1988. I was not a member of this House prior to 1988. I know that in the 1984-88 period neither was the member who just spoke. I will not refer to the record when he was in the House because that is not fair in the 1980-84 period.
I want to refer to the two and a half years almost that he and I have shared this Chamber. He said that the government has failed to reduce expenditures significantly. I think I heard him say that. I heard him say that there are serious disadvantages to raising revenues to reduce the deficit versus expenditure cuts. He wanted the government to demonstrate austerity.
My question to him, which I realize he now cannot answer, is how did he vote when the government restricted transfer payments? How did he vote when the government restricted VIA Rail transfers? How did he vote when we cut CBC? How did he vote when we closed the base in Prince Edward Island among other places? How did he vote when we restricted foreign aid packages? How did he vote when we froze government operations for the last year? Most importantly, today, how did he vote when we decided to pass a bill dealing with the Public Service Alliance of Canada?
I do not recall today him standing up voting the same way I did. He must have either not been here or, I am sorry, I do not know whether he was here or not. But if he stood up and voted with his party, then does his party totally ignore everything he is saying? Does he have no influence on that party because they have voted against everything that we have done to deal with what he says is
the government's failure to reduce expenditures significantly.
Maybe he voted against it because we did not cut enough. Is that what I heard him say? Did he want us to cut further? I would like to speak on the debt reduction fund, and I realize I have a problem. I am out of time. I will be back here Friday morning, and I hope the member is back to ask me some questions when I next rise to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 7 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a Royal commission on prices to examine allegations of excessively high prices of various consumer goods and services in Canada as compared to other jurisdictions and which would include considerations of such factors as costs generated by distribution mechanisms, excessive mark-ups at various levels, differential pricing, economies of scale, interest rates and the exchange rate of the dollar.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it should be quite evident that what has provoked this motion has been the vast increase in cross-border shopping which has affected many communities in Canada.
In Windsor, for example, it has been calculated that the city of Windsor will lose something of the order of $100 million a year to its retailers and quite a considerable number of jobs. In fact, if one goes down the main street of Windsor, one will find that something of the order of one-third of our retailers are closed or in the process of closing. Some of them have been replaced by other businesses that do not operate in the same market that relates to cross-border shopping.
September 18, 1991

There have been a number of factors to which the increase in cross-border shopping has been attributed. We note that there was quite a significant increase even before the negotiation of the free trade agreement which was in some measure stimulated by the remarks of the then minister of trade that there would be an open border between Canada and the United States. By that, people were encouraged to increase the frequency with which they purchased in Detroit.
Subsequently, the free trade agreement was in fact invoked. Subsequent to that, we had the introduction of the GST.
I note that today the Minister of National Revenue was saying that the GST really had nothing at all to do with the increase in cross-border shopping. He says that he consulted widely with everybody down in our area, and they all agree.
His submission was that there was a relatively slight increase in the number of automobile trips between Canada and the United States. He thereby concluded that the GST had no effect.
The fact is that between 1990 and 1991, over the first six months, there has been an increase of 57 per cent in purchases on the other side of the border. What we are really talking about here with respect to other jurisdictions in our motions is the United States.
Of course, we did not need to have those statistics from StatsCanada. In fact, the minister had in his hand a submission from the Chamber of Commerce in Windsor that clearly indicated in a graph that with the introduction of the GST, purchases in Detroit went sharply up.
It is not just the GST to which we attribute increased cross-border shopping. There is a vast difference in prices between the two, even apart from the question of the GST. There is the simple fact that most Canadians have the perception that they are going to get most of their goods cheaper in the United States than in Canada, that they will be cheaper in Detroit than in Windsor.
Almost everyone has attributed these differences in part to higher taxes on the Canadian side that retailers and others must submit to such as property taxes, excise taxes and duties.
There is also the question of higher transportation costs in Canada and, of course, we frequently hear of
Private Members' Business
references to higher wages in Canada as being a significant factor in those price differentials. But there is also the question of the scale of the market in Canada versus the United States and a number of other factors. Of course the business sector, in particular, has made a great to do with the higher wage costs in Canada along with the tax burden.
The Chamber of Commerce in Windsor, in particular, took a position a little bit at odds with the general trend within the business community in Canada. It suggested that there are other factors that ought to be attended to over which it had more control in some measure, but there are other factors as well that this government should address in some way.
I would just like to give you an idea about what I am talking about. This tie that I am wearing was bought in Hong Kong last spring for $5.50 Canadian. When this tie arrives in B.C.. it is landed for $10. That is the price for which it goes to the first level of distribution, which immediately marks the tie up by 100 per cent and so that tie is now a $20 tie. It then goes to the next level of distribution where it is now marked up another 100 per cent and, magically, this $5.50 tie becomes a $40 tie and this is still at wholesale. If you go to buy this silk tie down on Sparks Street or in my home town, if you can find a store that is still open, if you can get it for less than $80 then you have made a very good purchase. So that is one dimension of the problem.
It is a fact that as a result of the auto pact most ordinary North American cars are sold at about the same price in Canada as in the United States. Of course, Canadians will pay additional taxes but the base cost of the automobile, a regular Ford Ihurus, a Chevy or a LeBaron, will be about the same to the consumer in Canada as in the United States; the same factors with respect to transportation would apply. But if you go and look at the higher scale models such as a fully loaded Lincoln Continental, that devil is going to cost you $45,000 in Canada. It will cost $35,000 in the United States. That is a $10,000 differential, which is not uncommon on upscale vehicles. In other words, without the introduction of any additional factors, there is differential pricing of some products in Canada versus the United States.

Private Members' Business
Mr. Speaker, you do not have to take my word for this. I am sure that most Canadians who have shopped in the United States and shopped in Canada have some knowledge of the two countries and can cite similar examples of extraordinary differences in price. But we do not have to go to common experience. Recently, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology did what was billed as a small study. It is called a preliminary study of the competitiveness of distribution channels in Canada. This work was done by Ernst and Young. It is intended that a more expanded analysis be done, but their findings were very interesting.
First of all, they looked at electronic equipment. The interesting thing about electronic equipment that they found was that the prices were comparable within 15 per cent or so between the prices that one paid for audio equipment, video equipment, television sets and so on between Canada and the United States. In other words, those things were only about 15 per cent higher in Canada. That small difference represented such factors as taxes, transportation and the like. But only about a 15 per cent difference resulted from that.
Of course all of these things are important. For some things which have just one step in distribution in Canada, if one looks around one can probably get just as good a deal in most places in Canada as one can get in the United States. However, it is interesting to take a look at bedding and linen, along with other kinds of textile products, which are to a very large extent manufactured right here. What one finds is that the price differences for those kinds of goods, that is bedding and linen, between Canada and the United States is in the range of 200 per cent.
We heard some discussions about the loss of jobs in the textile industry and wages pricing workers out of the market, and so on and so on. That 200 per cent difference between the American product and the Canadian product has bloody little to do with wages. In fact, it has to do with two things. They are: a more complicated distribution system in Canada and higher mark-ups at each stage which result in Canadians paying 200 per cent more for a product in Canada than in the United States.
In the case of those products just one additional level of distribution with mark-ups ranging between 50 and 100 per cent is what hits Canadian consumers in the pocket-book and has them getting on the Ambassador
Bridge or going through the Detroit-Windsor tunnel to buy linens and table-cloths and so on.
If one looks at women's apparel one finds that there is anywhere from a 40 per cent to a 100 per cent difference. In some respects, this is determined by whether that clothing is imported, whether it is name brand, or what. However the same things apply: additional levels of distribution and handling and higher mark-ups.
The Windsor Chamber of Commerce, although it is as concerned as any other group of businessmen and businesswomen about the usual targets of business-high wages and so on-and the big tax grab by government, said: "Look, there are some things that we can do ourselves as business people; some of it requires government action but some of it is in our bailiwick". What it concluded is that business is to some degree getting the business from business. Some businesses are making other ordinary businesses face really tough market conditions because they are too greedy at some stages. It is just that simple.
It is also true that in some instances the final line retailer is too greedy. There is a tendency in Canada to take big profits and keep the market relatively small through those big profits; whereas in the United States there is great deal more emphasis on rapid turnover at a small mark-up, a small profit. You see that in Pace, in the outlet stores and so on in the United States.
The Chamber of Commerce came up with the very interesting observation that under Canadian law and under the free trade agreement some of this could be dealt with.
We know that in some instances the manufacturers in the United States have a separate and distinct distribution system in Canada from the distribution in the United States. It is not uncommon to find that those special distribution establishments in Canada have much higher mark-ups and often represent that additional stage I was talking about.
The Chamber of Commerce in Windsor noted that under Canadian law, under section 75 of the Competition Act, as well as under section 102 of the free trade agreement, it could be argued that in areas where cross-border shopping is frequent there exists or should exist a single market. After all the purpose of the free trade agreement was supposedly to establish a single market. Why should Canadian retailers be expected to
September 18, 1991

get their goods and products at a different cost or different availability than their neighbours across the river in the same market under the free trade agreement without some kind of government response? The government response should be an application under the Competition Act to ensure that if there is a good or a product sold in Canada that could be construed as being sold in the same market but under different conditions this government should ensure that the same conditions apply. Those products should be available at the same cost so that retailers can make them available to consumers at the same cost.
The Chamber of Commerce has alluded to a possible solution to this concern about price differentials between Canada and the United States. However, we have already indicated that there are a whole host of factors exclusive of those usually considered: high interest rates, a differential on the dollar, distribution systems, transportation costs, differential pricing and all of these things which should be looked at very carefully. That is why I have suggested that there be a royal commission on pricing in Canada.
My first thought was that a Royal commission to look at this problem was a bit bizarre. However this is not a novel, and therefore certainly not a bizarre suggestion. In fact, in 1934 there was a Royal commission on price spreads between producers and consumers. In 1949 there was a royal commission to examine the exorbitant price increases that plagued Canada in the wake of the Second World War. In 1959 and 1960 there was a Royal commission to examine why consumer prices for farm products were rising while the income to producers was falling.
I hope that this House will support my motion. It is conceivable that members can think of alternative approaches to the same issue which could lead to the same result. However, I submit that a Royal commission, as the precedents indicate, would be the most appropriate means to approach the issue of why, even when one takes into account taxation and takes into account transportation and other similar factors, even in the absence of those costs, the prices to Canadian consumers for too many goods are far in excess of those in the United States and far in excess of what they ought to be. This royal commission could determine what reforms in
Private Members' Business
how we distribute goods in this country would be appropriate to make it more competitive to sell in Canada and more appropriate for consumers to buy in Canada.


Mr. Jean-Marc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the hon. member from Windsor-Lake St. Clair's request concerning the establishment of a Royal Commission on Prices by the federal government.
For the benefits of all members, I think it is important to mention that several federal governments have appointed commissions of inquiry to monitor prices and other aspects of the Canadian economy. For example, the Royal Commission on Prices established in 1948, the Royal Commission on Canada's Economic Prospects created in 1955, the Prices and Incomes Commission of 1969 and Food Prices Review Board of 1973.
More recently, the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects, also known as the MacDonald Commission, has reviewed the whole Canadian market. This Royal commission highlighted the need to improve the competitiveness of the Canadian economy in order to meet the challenges of the global market. The Commission considered price competitivity as one of the main elements of the economic future of Canada. Mr. Speaker, common sense suggests that we don't need another commission.
The most important question is how to make sure that Canadian prices are competitive. One of the basic priorities of this government is its commitment to market forces. The whole question of the cost of goods and services is closely linked to this priority and no government in Canada has relied more on the market for the greatest benefit of the private sector and consumers. Market forces have brought a much greater flexibility in prices and hence flexibility and efficiency in the Canadian economy. This government has chosen the way of free competition as a mean to improve market efficiency, and the economic growth and prosperity associated with it.

September 18, 1991
Private Members' Business
Traditionally, only 40 per cent of Canada's national income came from sectors recognized as competitive. In the United States, however, 80 per cent of the national income is estimated to come from such sectors. Mr. Speaker, in the last budget, this government clearly showed its commitments to prosperity and competitiveness. We firmly believe that lower prices are not only desirable for the competitiveness of Canadian industry but that they are also very important for consumers, who account for nearly 60 per cent of the final demand for goods and services in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned in the last Speech from the Throne, we will soon begin a vast round of consultations on prosperity and competitiveness. We hope that this round of consultations will help us identify certain weaknesses in the Canadian economy and obstacles to competitiveness.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian businesses want to know what they must do to succeed and what policies of the federal government will best foster Canadian competitiveness.
I am very satisfied with this government's economic leadership. The hon. member's proposal shows a real concern for the welfare of Canadians. I invite him to cooperate with the government in implementing our prosperity initiative.
Mr. Speaker, the solution he wants on prices cannot be found in creating another Royal commission of inquiry or in government intervention but rather in a dynamic, productive and prosperous Canadian economy. That is the commitment we made to all Canadians in the Speech from the Throne and we will achieve it.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that it is a pleasure to be back after a pleasant summer with constituents, but mostly with family.
I wanted to speak on this particular motion. Normally there is a gem of wisdom that I might be able to glean after a lot of scratching down on NDP motions.
I know the the hon. member's intentions are good, but I think he is being a little mischievous. He puts forward to the House a motion, which if it is ever adopted, if the
government ever did do it, would cost the taxpayers of this fair land millions and millions of dollars. Surely to goodness the one thing that we do not need in this country at this particular time is another Royal commission.
Royal commissions are a convenient way for legislators, no matter if they are here or somewhere else, to take an issue they do not believe they are capable of dealing with, or that they do not believe they want to deal with because of the political implications, and they put it over to a body so they do not have to discuss it for two, three, four or ten, or God knows how many years. They do this all the time. The Royal commission goes on its way and leads Canadians to believe that it is something other than a depository for people's opinions. They cannot do anything about it.
After two or three years of study, the Royal commission will table a report which gathers dust in too many libraries across Canada and most particularly, the Library of Parliament.
I have heard the New Democratic member opposite speak eloquently in this House about his party's grave concerns for the people of Canada. I am not doubting for a moment that this member has those concerns and I am sure they are deeply felt.
We are in a time when there is not a lot of money. We on the Liberal side believe that if we were in government, we would spend government money a little more wisely and that we would, perhaps, have a better social conscience. We believe in a free market system but we also believe that government has a responsibility through its institutions and through various regulatory mechanisms to ensure that Canadians, no matter where they live, can share in the greatness of the country.
I remember at one time the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia used to be down on Cape Breton Island where I grew up, where we had great economic difficulty, a lot of hardships but they were very, very good people and we stuck together. The New Democratic Party would campaign and they would not only have one chicken in every pot if they got elected, they would have 10. They would go into an area where there was substandard housing and instead of being upfront with the people, they would say: "The day we get in, not only will you
September 18, 1991

have a new house, you will have a pink Cadillac in your yard".
Now, the New Democratic Party, in this particular motion the hon. member puts forward is playing the old double standard game again that the New Democrats play so well.


An hon. member:: You never make any promises?


Ronald MacDonald: The member opposite does not know when to keep his lips closed. I have just listened to him and I am trying to respond to what he said.
This motion is mischievous. This motion comes from a party that claims it is concerned about the government's cutbacks to women's programs. It claims that it is concerned about the government's cutbacks to post-secondary education and health care programs across Canada. It says this government has been wasting its money. The way it spends is misdirected. So, what does it do? It says another $20 or $25 million-I can hear the cash register going up and down-$25 million-another Royal commission. That is their answer to every problem.
I thought there had been a problem with employment for some of the senior New Democrats. Well, I know that Uncle Ed got his big job over at the international centre for God knows what. We have seen other hon. members from this House, like Mr. Deans, who has now found his pork barrel heaven over at the Public Service Staff Relations Board. It is very hard to believe they were New Democrats who sat in this House. Nevertheless, when duty called and the pay cheque was big enough they certainly went.
Then we have Bob Rae in Ontario. My God, there is Uncle Bob in Ontario. Uncle Bob in Ontario came forward and said: "We have the answer to all your questions. We are a believable alternative to the current old line parties". He got elected and what did he do? He took the economic engine of this country and he saddled it immediately after taking office with a $10 billion deficit in the middle of a recession and has been responsible for much hardship for the average person in Ontario. Industry is claiming that because the regime that the NDP government in Ontario has put in, it is not conducive to business. If it is not conducive to business, it is conducive to the consumers, those very people that this party opposite seek to get the support of.
I have no difficulty in using the traditional instruments that we have before us to solve the problems that the
Private Members' Business
hon. member has mentioned. I have no quarrel with his concerns about price gouging. I have no quarrels with his statement that the GST and the government's statements on GST have been at best misleading, but that the GST has caused perhaps a window in the marketplace for abuse in the consumer price structure. I do not argue that. What I do argue for once, for goodness sakes, we are in a situation where we have debated over the last few days a very serious piece of legislation. The public servants of Canada are the people who serve every Canadian, serve every member of Parliament and make us look good. That is who we call when a constituent has a problem
We debated in here whether or not Draconian legislation to force them back to work was proper. The Liberals said no. The New Democrats said no. Let us look at the hypocrisy. The New Democratic Party said, and rightly so, the public servants deserve a much better break. However, what the New Democrats said was $144 million is not much to pay, and it is not. Instead of coming in and debating a motion here tonight to talk about the proper allocation of limited resources over to people like the public servants of this country, who have served this country so well, what do they do? Irresponsible again. They walk in after debating that on the one hand and say: "Another $25 million for a Royal commission, there is no problem".
I am trying to figure out where in the name of goodness their priorities are. My priority is to help Canadians. My priority is to help my constituents. My priority is to try to ensure that legislation that goes through this place is properly directed and the limited resources hit where they should, hit most, and that is positively with the people of Canada. But no. I heard the hon. member over here just a few minutes ago. This was amazing. They always talk about the corporate welfare bums.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what the hon. member used as an example as to why there should be a Royal commission? Because a Lincoln Continental costs $10,000 more in Canada than in the United States. Can you believe that?

Private Members' Business
I can give you many arguments as to why we should go and use the instruments at our disposal, such as parliamentary committees, such as the competition bureau-


An hon. member:: Only Bob White can afford a Lincoln Continental.


Ronald MacDonald: Only Bob White or perhaps Ed Broadbent could, or maybe even Ian Deans, all those wonderful New Democrats who have the solutions for every problem in the world.
I have had a little difficulty in trying to figure out, because I think we should be realistic, if indeed we need a board of inquiry or, God forbid, a Royal commission. What do we hope to obtain by that?
I know better than anybody that there is always room for abuses and excesses in the free market system. Do not forget that the members who sit on all sides of this House are consumers as well. When those excesses take place in the marketplace, it affects everyone. It crosses partisan lines, but we had instruments to deal with that. Surely to goodness we have instruments to deal with that.
Given a choice between a U.S.S.R. style regimented economy-


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Ronald MacDonald: The hon. member is moaning in his chair. No wonder he is moaning. With the motion that he has put forward to us, he wants to go in and find out why Mrs. Smith at the comer store is charging 7 cents for the lollipop instead of 6 cents. Get with it. These guys are out to lunch on most things that come up. They claim to sit over there and represent the viewpoint of average Canadians.
The Lincoln Continental, I will never forget the Lincoln Continental. Perhaps just perhaps we should look and take their suggestion more seriously, if they could show me where we could find the money which would not take away from the just deserved wage settlement in the Public Service of Canada, the charge hands, and the dockyard workers and all those individuals. If they could show me that the money would not come from support for women's programs, for native friendship centres, if they could show me that it would not shut down more hospital beds, that it would not take away from the post-secondary education system, I would
say maybe we could look at this. But maybe, they should have had an amendment. The amendment should have said: "subject to financing being arranged through a loan guarantee" or perhaps a co-signature by the premier of Ontario since he seemed to have so much credibility with the financial community in this country.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have probably seen right now as my colleague who just finished speaking leaves the House one of the most deplorable exercises in insults to my NDP colleague who has tried to present a private members' bill which is not mischievous but is looking toward getting something for consumers across this country.
I am not going to respond to all of the Russian and socialist and other affirmations that I have from my colleague because I really think that this Parliament should be a Parliament of ideas and debate and not of gratuitous insults. I am tempted, but I will stay away from that.
I want to look at the question concerning prices in Canada because that, above all, is what we are looking at. A royal commission is what you make of it. On the other side, we were speaking about the Macdonald Royal commission having had some good aspects. I think it did have some good things to say.
We have had Royal commissions on the status of women which have actually led to a great deal of change in consciousness raising and change in our country.
To say that they are just going to gather dust and are of no benefit to the common everyday Canadian, I think that is wrong.
The question is: Is the subject of sufficient interest or urgency that it should be treated by a Royal commission?
I am a consumer advocate myself, non-partisan. I have never been a consumer advocate for Liberals, the Conservatives or the NDP per se. I was a consumer advocate dealing with the questions that were coming in from consumers and trying to give them answers as to why automobiles and automobile repairs were much more expensive here in Canada than in the United States.
I can tell you that apart from the question of taxation and transportation, even in transportation, the reason has been brought out very eloquently by my colleague. It is pure, simple greed and it permeates throughout our entire society here in Canada where we do pay a lot more

Private Members' Business
for products mainly because we have allowed companies to get away with it.
In certain industries, it is far more excessive than others. It is just common sense. We are being taken to the cleaners by this multiplicity of middlemen, of middle agents who add their percentage on top of the other percentage which means that we really, in effect, pay much more than the United States.
I believe if you ask the consumers from Cape Breton or the consumers from British Columbia, or particularly the consumers of Quebec that they would say: "When we go down south to Florida, one of the benefits we see is the difference in prices." We understand that there are some differences because we have perhaps a better, perhaps, social program in Canada. We have to pay for that. We have higher taxation. We have transportation and perhaps a shorter growing season as well.
All of that taken into account, it does cost us a great deal more for certain products and a satisfactory answer has never really been given to us.
Let me just tell you in the automobile field which I am most familiar with, it is not a question of Lincoln Continentals only. It is a question of the prices with the basic manufacturers' suggested retail price being basically the same in Canada as in the United States, once you add in the different things dealing with taxation as well as the question of transportation and those basic items.
As you get into those vehicles as they are sold by the dealers with the added equipment, you get into a labyrinth of price variations with which you would have a great deal of difficulty trying to discern what the real price of the automobile is. The United States has an act called the Monroney Act. It is interesting that we do not have federal legislation, as the United States does. That is not Mulroney but Monroney. The Monroney Act in the United States came about in the 1950s and required a sticker on every automobile sold so that the consumer could see basically what the prices are for equipment and everything else. This act, which applies in the United States, meant that cars which were transported from the States to Canada had that windshield sticker. However, these stickers were systematically removed in Canada so that the dealers and other middle suppliers could put on whatever price they felt necessary. Obviously that is unfair. Obviously that works against the interest of the consumers.
I think that a Royal commission could go into each one of these areas where we are really getting gouged and look at the extent to which we are getting gouged. As a result of a number of commissions that we held in Quebec dealing with automobile insurance, we actually had automobile insurance rates go down. I understand that for a certain period of time in Ontario, as a result of hearings being held, some of the automobile insurance rates went down. It is a case, as some people said, and as I believe, of the light being shone upon the practices of these insurers in the province of Ontario.
I believe a Royal commission on prices would have a salutary effect. I think it is important. It touches the lives of every single consumer.

I can tell you that as a consumer advocate in Quebec for the past 20 years and as my party's critic for consumer issues, I have always been intrigued by the difference in prices between the United States and Canada. I never felt the difference was justified in the case of cars or car repairs.
In the United States, there is a federal law, the Monroney Bill, that obliges U.S. automobile manufacturers to provide a label indicating the base price. We don't have that here. In fact, most vehicles imported from the United States into Canada have this label on the windshield but labels are routinely removed because first of all, there is no connection with the Canadian price and second, Canadian and Quebec consumers would start asking embarrassing questions about the gap between U.S. and Canadian prices.
I think the Private Member's Bill put forward by the hon. member for Windsor-St-Clair is very sensible, in that it demonstrates that we, as Canadian consumers, are being exploited to the nth degree. I think we should find out once and for all how badly we are being exploited, and I think this would have a salutary effect in two ways. First of all, with a Royal commission of inquiry we can ask people, producers and consumers, to appear before us, which, because of all the publicity, may force producers to lower their prices.

Private Members' Business
Second, we could regulate disclosure of prices at each distribution stage. As I was saying, in the United States- Mr. Speaker, the United States is not a socialist country. However, it may be a little more realistic than we are as far as prices are concerned. And I think that consumers, especially in Quebec where we have had legislation since 1980 which obliges distributors to have individual price tags on their products- I think the same approach could be applied to automobiles.
Finally, to my Liberal colleague who made disparaging remarks and claimed that all we want is to spend money and not really help the consumers, I would say that is not so. The bill introduced by my colleague is reasonable. We are in urgent need of this kind of legislation, because Canadians and Quebecers have had it with paying ridiculous prices for goods they can buy for less down south, in the United States. Also, this bill could be good for our business people, especially those close to the Canada-United States border, since they would be given a level playing field if we can just force suppliers to charge reasonable prices to their Canadian customers.
I support my colleague, and I think, as I said earlier, that this idea makes a lot of sense.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in accordance with Standing Order 44(1) which says:
No member, unless otherwise provided by Standing or Special Order, may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his or her speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, and the Member is not to introduce any new matter, but then no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.
It is quite clear that the hon. Liberal member did not understand that this debate was on the issue of crossborder shopping, the price differentials between Canada and the United States which impel it, the effect on consumers and the effect on business in this countiy.
It is unfortunate that he failed to do so. However, it is obvious that his comments, which were within the context of that speech irresponsible, could only be understood if he did not understand what I had said.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, you would obviously be aware that the member who just spoke on an alleged point of order in reference to rule number 44, which does not even apply in this particular case, was trying to find a way to get in the second speech. I hope that you would recognize that because other members would like to speak and make an important contribution to this debate and I happen to be one of them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: No other speaker having risen, the hon. member for Windsor-St-Clair availed himself of one of our rules, Standing Order 44, and no one objected. So, the Speaker showed some flexibility in recognizing the hon. member for Windsor- St-Clair.

There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of private members' business- Oh, I apologize, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I indicated when I rose on a point of order that I wanted to speak next.
First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth who effectively made such an important contribution, as he usually does, to this debate tonight. As the consumer critic for the Liberal opposition the member for Dartmouth is very concerned about prices in Canada, as we all should be. However, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am a little bit concerned about a Royal commission at this time.
I say this because we are having a debate right now in this countiy as to whether or not we have the money necessary to give a very justified wage increase to our civil servants. We are having some difficulty in finding the funds to do that. We are having a hard time finding the money to participate in social programs and other useful measures. At the same time, I see this request for a Royal commission, and examine its mandate:
-to examine allegations of excessively high prices of various consumer goods and services in Canada as compared to other jurisdictions -
September 18, 1991

Who knows that those jurisdictions are.
- and which would include considerations of such factors as costs generated by distribution mechanisms, excessive mark-ups at various levels, differential pricing, economies of scale, interest rates, and the exchange rate of the dollar.
That is a mandate which would probably be twice as expensive as the Spicer commission on which we spent $27 million we do not have. I say to the hon. member, who I know is listening attentively to this speech, the member for Windsor-St. Clair, who presented this motion to us, that I, as much as everyone else, want consumers to be better protected in Canada.
I have a solution to offer. I think that this is the kind of mandate that our own Standing Committee of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations could perhaps undertake right here in the House of Commons, but not to spend whatever it would cost, $40 million or $50 million, to look at this thing.
We have stacks and stacks of reports of Royal commissions in this country, some good, some not so good and some totally useless. I say to you that the three Royal commissions that we had going at the time of the deposition of the last estimates, namely the Royal commission on reproductive technology, the Spicer commission for lack of a better name, and the royal commission on reform, between the three of them there is almost $100 million spent. I am very worried about us spending that kind of money at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what we need in this country is better legislation to protect consumers. We especially need, as legislators, to protect the Canadian consumer. But for goodness' sake, Mr. Speaker, the last thing we need at this time is another Royal commission which will cost us, as I said earlier, God only knows how much. Fifty million dollars or so maybe. All that, of course, to produce a report which will unfortunately end up in file nine. We simply cannot afford such an expense, Mr. Speaker. Its mandate would be much too broad. I would suggest that our colleague withdraw his motion and
Private Members' Business
move instead to refer the matter to the Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, which could examine consumer prices in Canada, maybe comparing them to prices in the United States but certainly not with those in the rest of the world. This would be almost cost neutral. By this I mean that the costs could be borne within existing budgets instead of wasting money on another Royal Commission.

In closing, I hope that all members will think very seriously about establishing yet another Royal commission. It seems that we hear about Royal commissions every second week in this House and it is, upon occasion, an almost sexy thing to bring up. Well, maybe it is, but I think members will agree with me that it is time we put an end to some of these kinds of expenditures and try to favour some way of helping our constituents at lower costs to Canadians. Probably, because of the influence that we have as members in this House, in which I hope that we do have, that if a committee of this Parliament would look into this issue instead, we would actually have more influence than a Royal commission in any case in terms of getting something adopted by the government to help out the consumers in this country.
In summary, let us narrow the mandate for what is being proposed here. Let us make a reference to a committee instead and let us get away from this business of spending another $50 million or so that we do not even have and that the taxpayers of Canada are tired of seeing us spend their money.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: No other member wishes to speak on this issue?
There being no further member rising for debate, the time allocated to consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.52 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 19, 1991