1991-03-20

Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the Forest Resource Development Agreement with the province of Ontario expired in March 1989.
This deal was for $150 million, funded equally by the provincial and federal governments.
During the last two years, the Minister of Finance has cut the Department of Forestry's budget by $60 million. It is no wonder that the Minister of Forestry had only $25 million to offer Ontario to renew the agreement. Provincial officials had no choice but to refuse such an offer. An offer that contains a cut of 66 per cent in funding is unacceptable.
I therefore urge the Minister of Forestry to stand up for the forest industry at the cabinet table and obtain the necessary funds to renew the agreement with the province of Ontario.


INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members, I would like to take a few minutes of your time to reflect on the importance of Thursday, March 21 the International Day for the Elimination of Discrimination.
Canada is known as a country where justice and equality are the rule. We all know that but today, that is something that bears repeating. We have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Employment
Equity Act and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Soon we will have a new Canadian Race Relations Foundation and a new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Racism exists, however, and unfortunately, some Canadians do not live up to our reputation as a nation.
That is something to think about, Mr. Speaker. Racism is a pernicious evil and it requires our utmost vigilance. It undermines people's confidence and prevents them from reaching their full potential.
Only when we have managed to root out this evil will we be worthy of Canada's reputation as a just and tolerant society, a model for the rest of the world.


LEBANON
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, the conflict in the Persian Gulf has managed to obscure completely the very serious situation that exists in Lebanon. Canadians of Lebanese origin have made an impressive contribution to Canada's economic and social development. For this reason-one of many-it is unacceptable for the Canadian ambassador to be absent from Beirut. Lebanon is an occupied country. There are flagrant and constant violations of international law. Unfortunately, Canada has been very slow to react and to denounce those responsible. This is an intolerable situation. The Canadian government's silence on this matter should be a reason for Canadians to do everything they can to help the Lebanese people recover their independence and freedom.


EQUALITY
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it is shocking but not surprising that the 1990 report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission highlights how this government has perpetuated gender based discrimination.

March 20, 1991
Canadian women are still over-represented in underpaid and part-time jobs. "Better child care arrangements", the report states, "would give women a better chance to participate in the workforce on an equitable basis".
But where is the national child care program that this Prime Minister has wholeheartedly promised more than once?
The broken promises are as abundant as the pink-collar ghettos that this government has increased, and that this report laments.
We should all be lamenting the fact that last October our Status of Women minister was quoted as saying that her government has no intention of adding targets and timetables to the hollow Employment Equity Act.
No targets, no timetables, no commitment. That is the record of this government on women's equality.


DUCKS UNLIMITED
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, Ducks Unlimited of Canada has been in the business of conserving waterfowl habitat and enhancing our wetlands across Canada for over 50 years.
Last year, Ducks Unlimited spent close to $60 million on projects from coast to coast, $60 million that went toward preserving and constructing new wildlife habitat.
Ducks Unlimited is a good corporate citizen. It not only spends this money on preserving waterfowl habitat, but it spends it as well to educate and inform Canadians, particularly young Canadians, about the value of our environment.
Ducks Unlimited deserves recognition and the thanks of all Canadians for a job well done. Even before it was popular to be an environmentalist, Ducks Unlimited was on the job of conserving.
When a flock of waterfowl fly over you this spring on their way back from the south, give a thought of thanks to Ducks Unlimited.


LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to announce today that at the next Francophone summit, Canada intends to move a resolution that would designate March 20 as the Joumee intemationale de la francophonie.
In 1986, at the first Francophonie summit, the Francophone community project took shape. Since then, there have been summit meetings at Quebec City and Dakar. Participating countries have constantly broadened the cultural concept to include science, technology and economic issues. Consisting of more than 40 nations and nearly 400 million men and women, la Francophonie is based above all on language and a set of values. It has already set a number of goals in the areas of training, scientific research, and the advancement of cultural industries and communications. La Francophonie is not utopic but a forum for exchanges of views and a source of growth for all member countries.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, the attempt to show support for our Canadian merchants in border towns by introducing a fast lane at border points is nothing more than a licence to import goods illegally into Canada. I suggest the revenue minister would be hard pressed to find one Canadian border town merchant who would support this initiative.
What was needed was more employees at border point crossings to enforce the import rules. In an effort to facilitate Americans entry into Canada, the government has abandoned the concerns of Canadian businessmen in border towns just at a time when they are already witnessing severe business downturns.
This new procedure does not even warrant a trial period. On behalf of the retailers in all Canadian border towns, I am asking the government to close the fast lanes now and start to show some real concern for the problems confronting merchants in border towns.
March 20, 1991


GALA DES FIDEIDES
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening in Quebec City, 800 people attended the Gala des Fideides to celebrate excellence and top performances in the business world.
I would like to congratulate all finalists and award winners: Restaurant Melrose, Transport Besner, Ber-clain Gestion Operationnelle, Multitel Inc., Centre d'ar-britrage commercial national et international du Quebec, Systemes Fortune 1000 and Glaverbec, and pay special tribute to the organizer of this event, the Sainte-Foy Chamber of Commerce, which together with other local chambers of commerce made this evening a tremendous success.
This is further proof that the Quebec City area has a dynamic business community.


MANPOWER AND OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, annually, the federal government and the Government of Quebec spend nearly one million dollars on manpower and occupational training programs. Forty per cent of these expenditures is earmarked for program administration.
Duplication and overlap resulting from both governments' failure to co-ordinate their initiatives are responsible for another $100 million being wasted. In fact, what we have here is a net loss of $500 million. Taxpayers are getting only 50 cents worth of direct services for every dollar invested.
That is why the Conseil du patronat, the central labour bodies, the Co-operative Movement, the Quebec Liberal Party, the Parti Quebecois and the Equality Party are asking for patriation to Quebec of all powers with respect to manpower and occupational training.


CHILD POVERTY
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the National Council of Welfare, an advisory committee to the government, tabled a report which stated that this government is the first government in history to pull back from its basic commitment to the needs of the poor.
In January, the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology tabled its report "Children in Poverty: Towards a Better Future". In its list of 16 recommendations, the committee calls on the government to fully support the objective of substantially reducing child poverty in Canada and show leadership by undertaking co-operative strategies with other levels of government and the public at large to address the needs of our country's children.
The report also recommends that a national conference involving all levels of government and the general public on the subject of shared solutions to the problem of child poverty be held within the next 12 months.
In light of the Prime Minister's commitment and that of his government to the ratification of the UN declaration of the rights of the child, it is indeed pressing that such a meeting be called. Allowing children to grow up in poverty is not an option we can afford to leave unaddressed.


EARTH DAY 1991
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, 10.02 p.m. tonight marks the vernal equinox, the beginning of spring, the time when light and darkness are equal in both hemispheres of our planet. It also marks the celebration of Earth Day 1991, which this year is being held at the United Nations General Assembly.
At exactly 10.02 p.m., the United Nations Peace Bell, a symbol of global harmony cast in 1954 and made from melted coins collected by children around the world, will be rung three times by the personal representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations signalling a global moment of silent reflection and prayer for the well-being of Mother Earth. After the minute of silence, all available ambassadors from UN member states will each ring the bell one time to indicate global solidarity and the desire to preserve and nurture our common home, Earth.

March 20, 1991
In speaking with the Canadian Ambassador to the United Nations, the Hon. Yves Fortier, yesterday morning, it is my understanding that Canada will be represented at the ceremony.
At the moment the United Nations peace bell rings, I hope all Canadians will pause and pray with the world community that we all find the strength internationally to become responsible trustees of earth, each in our own area of ability and influence.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the National Council of Welfare, the government's own advisory board, said what the NDP has been saying all along: Cuts to the Canada Assistance Plan are irrational and unconscionable, especially at this time of a recession.
It is just the latest indication of how ill-equipped the Minister of Finance is to deal with issues of social policy, and how inappropriate it is for him to attempt to do so. The budget is not the appropriate vehicle for major changes in social policies such as the cap on CAP.
Where did the Minister of Finance get his advice from? From bankers and businessmen who have never spoken to a person on welfare in their lives? Where was the highly publicized Children's Bureau when the latest cap on CAP was being considered? Was it even consulted, or are its powers so limited that it has no real say in how the policies of this government affect children? These policies do affect children because children make up 37 per cent of Canadians receiving welfare.
If this is what the Prime Minister means when he says children are our most valuable resource, then I fear for the future of children in this country.
This government does not listen to Canadians, but should it not listen to its own advisers and stop these attacks on Canada's social programs?


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, over the past dozen or more years, CKNW-98 in New Westminster, British Columbia has celebrated the arrival of spring by distributing B.C. grown daffodils to all members of Parliament.
In spite of the snowiest winter of the last 40 years on the B.C. lower mainland, these daffodils remind us that spring comes to B.C. first and symbolize the start of a new season of tourism in British Columbia.
Thousands more daffodils are being distributed to shoppers throughout the lower mainland today by CKNW hostesses.
By the way, the station CKNW stands for Canadians Know Nice Weather. We welcome you all to truly beautiful British Columbia.


RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, commemorates the day in 1960 when more than 70 people were killed and over 180 wounded while demonstrating peacefully against apartheid in Sharpville, South Africa. Six years later the United Nations proclaimed this date as a special day of observance when people of all nations should not just examine their own record on racism but do more to combat it.
Racism is a violation of human rights and dignity. It limits an individual's potential and dehumanizes both its victims and it perpetrators who themselves are victims of ignorance and fear.
I invite every citizen of our great country to renew his or her commitment to equality and freedom. The Canadian dream will not be complete until all people across this nation are accorded equal dignity, equal access and equal participation. In our hearts and minds we have to make every day the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We have the vision; we have the drive; we have the will.
March 20, 1991



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Prime Minister.
Over the past several weeks we have been raising a number of concerns about this government's abandonment of Canadians most in need.
Seeing the Prime Minister now, as well as wishing him a happy birthday, I would like to ask him a very serious question.
As the Prime Minister knows, there is probably no sadder situation than young people who have turned to street prostitution. I have now had a chance to review in depth the decision of the Minister of Justice to refuse to fund programs to help get street prostitutes off the street. Is the Prime Minister aware that, in rejecting these programs, the Minister of Justice stated that she was doing so because of:
-the reality of budgetary constraints, the multitude of issues competing for government's attention -and the need of the government to spend money where it's most needed.
What can be more needy than the need of the street prostitute to get off the street? My question is to the Prime Minister.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to a very complex social problem. I have not said that I am not willing to participate in such programs. My remarks were made in the context of a response to a report by the standing committee of the House, and my concern is that the evidence shows that many street prostitutes are not getting off the street. Therefore, if we focus our program solely on those who are willing to come off the street, we will miss the opportunity to provide a very important connection between society and its caring services and those who are on the street.
However, I made it very clear in the report that I was interested in discussing the matter further with provincial governments who have the primary responsibility of delivering services in that area, and I am very open to supporting programs that can be shown to be effective.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in fact the studies show the exact opposite. The studies show that the majority of young street prostitutes want to get off the street.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made by his Minister of Justice, which reads:
It is open to question whether such projects-
That is referring to projects to get prostitutes off the street.
-would have much impact on prostitutes, given the reality of the minimum wage that is available after having completed most training programs.
The minister's statement can be interpreted in one of two ways: either the minister is admitting that government training programs are a complete failure and people would be better off in prostitution, or she believes that people choose to be prostitutes in order to make a lot of money.
Will the Prime Minister dissociate himself from the remarks that were not made off the cuff, were not made in passing in a random interview, but were tabled in a report in this House? Are those his views and the views of his government?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's comments on my remarks are in a sense taken out of context of what I was doing, which was responding to the recommendations of the standing committee. I have in fact been involved in the city of Vancouver with programs that are designed to help people who want to get off the streets, not just prostitutes but other kinds of street kids.
Clearly it is a complex situation. The report of the standing committee seemed to be of the view-solicitation was in fact what it was reviewing; it was making recommendations on how to deal with the solicitation of responding or doing a review of the application of the government's law-that there was a simple connection between those programs and getting people off the street.
I was simply making the point that that is not clear, that it is a much more complex problem than that, and that all of those young people who are on the street need to be dealt with whether or not they show at any time a

March 20, 1991
Oral Questions
willingness to get off the street, as opposed to providing programs for those who indicate a willingness to get off the street before they enter the program.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. minister has not even read the Badgley Report on this subject. If she had, she would know that the majority of young street prostitutes do not want to be on the street. She is giving the wrong impression. It is absolutely not true that they are on the street because they want to and this is a totally ridiculous answer to a genuine social problem. I will direct this question to the Prime Minister. Given that his Justice Minister has turned her back on the young street prostitutes, will the Prime Minister at least give the young men and women who want to get off the street the chance to do so with federal programs or will he also turn his back on this major social problem?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the program is designed to assist young people on the street, whether they are prostitutes or not. The program is delivered by three levels of government. I come from a city in fact where the question of street solicitation is in fact more severe than in any part of the country, and I do not have anything to learn from the hon. member about that.
My response was to a suggestion that getting young people off the streets and out of street solicitation was a simple question of providing those kinds of programs. That is not the case. It is a much more complex problem than that. I believe it has to be dealt with by all of the levels of government that are involved in it.
I indicated very clearly in my response my willingness to continue to discuss these programs with provincial governments that have the primary responsibility in that area.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Human Rights Commissioner indicates that the list of aboriginal issues continues to grow. The government has repeatedly ignored its responsibility to address the complex issues aboriginal peoples face. Many native communities are living in Third World conditions.
Will the minister commit himself to end the tragic price aboriginal peoples are forced to pay because of government policies that foster economic dependence instead of autonomy and self-reliance?


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from the hon. member today, because it gives me an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and say that the four pillars the Prime Minister announced in last September's speech are well under way.
There is a very great concern in this government to see that the issues that have been dealt with in the human rights report are addressed. We are working toward that as rapidly as we possibly can.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Human Rights Commissioner would like to hear that, because it is a very well-kept secret if anything is happening. I assume that even CSIS does not know about it, it is such a well-kept secret.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Aboriginal people and their leaders continue to be excluded and ignored in all serious constitutional talks. Last night, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development withdrew the government's promise of last summer for a royal commission on aboriginal issues. Another promise is broken.
Will the Prime Minister today announce a specific timetable and agenda for including the aboriginal people and their leaders in the constitutional process?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: step-by-step progress on the four pillars that this Prime Minister announced. That is what we are doing.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The news gets worse. Bankruptcy is up 68 per cent. Our national exports are down by $353 million. This means thousands of people have seen their dreams across this country die. It also means that the government's hopes of an export led recovery look out of sight.
The Canadian dollar continues to rise against other currencies. Will the government admit that this is forcing thousands into bankruptcy, cutting back our exports, and seriously threatening the national unity of this country?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, nobody is pleased with bankruptcies.
Although the bankruptcy report today is not a pleasant one, there are signs that the incidence of bankruptcy has dramatically slowed down. Therefore we feel that the economy is starting to turn around.
I might remind the hon. member that in the period of time from February 1990 to February 1991 there have been 132,613 new incorporated businesses in Canada. So businesses are being created; put that in the proper perspective.
There is economic activity going on, and there are businesses being created. We do not take heart in the statistics that came out today, but we do see signs that that type of activity is slowing down and that the economic activity is starting to perform much better.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact in the past year there have been 430,000 permanent jobs lost in this country. If that is prosperity, you can have it, because we do not want that kind of prosperity in this country.

Mr. Speaker, here is my supplementary. Last November, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs promised to introduce a new bankruptcy legislation to protect the workers. All that has happened so far is that the number of bankruptcies increased every month. The
Oral Questions
government did nothing. Why? Why not have helped the people during this terrible recession?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned earlier and as I said myself on a number of occasions, the government is just finishing the outline of reform of the Bankruptcies Act. As soon as all is in place, we will announce the concrete steps that will be taken and, considering the effort that was put into this, I am convinced that the Canadian people will be satisfied with what we will put on the table.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT BONDS
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I hope I have his attention.
I think we should keep in mind that most developed industrialized countries do not pay their investment brokers to sell government bonds.
How does the Prime Minister justify taking money from children to reduce the deficit when at the same time his government is paying Bay Street investment brokers $20 million to $60 million to sell Canadian bonds?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this has been done for decades. The hon. member knows that. He is bringing a red herring to the floor of the House of Commons as usual.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the past 24 hours we heard that 1,800 employees lost their jobs at General Motors in Sainte-Therese; 125 jobs were lost at Emballage Sommerville in Longueuil and 90 jobs were lost at Ballin Inc. at Saint-Laurent, where a foreman and a vice-president were wounded by an employee who was told he was fired.

March 20, 1991
Oral Questions
My question to the Prime Minister is this: When will he and his government announce economic policies that will stop this steady stream of unemployed workers that is engulfing Montreal? Montreal has become the unemployment capital of Canada. When is he going to do something about it?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (TVansport)):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, I welcome this opportunity to answer the question put by the hon. member for Saint-Leonard. As far as General Motors is concerned, the hon. member claims that 1,800 employees were fired, while the truth is that General Motors management announced they were considering temporary lay-offs to prepare for the new Firebird production line, which takes quite some time. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard is probably aware that our government, together with the Government of Quebec, was responsible for bringing General Motors to this location by providing a $220 million interest-free loan, and that employees affected by these lay-offs will be 95 per cent protected as far as their salaries are concerned.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, there we have the results of the government's economic policies. After investing over $200 million, we now have 1,800 employees laid off for a year. So much for the government's policies! When will you introduce policies that will put Montrealers, Quebeckers and Canadians back to work?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, I may again remind the hon. member for Saint-Leonard that he is hardly in a position to criticize the government, since the party to which he belongs was responsible for record job losses in the Montreal area from 1980 to 1984. When they fortunately were defeated in 1984, Montreal Island had been laid waste by a government that did absolutely nothing for Montreal Island during all the time they were in power.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
One of the principal justifications for the GST was that in replacing the manufacturers' sales tax it would promote Canadian exports. Yet, today Statistics Canada announced that in January imports rose by more than $500 million while exports declined by more than $300 million.
If the GST was intended to help our exporters, why has Statistics Canada concluded that "the net effect of the tax change was to generate an upsurge in imports, not exports"?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who just asked the question is one of the most intelligent members of the opposition, so it throws me into despair that he would ask such a question when he knows that we cannot go by the immediate short-term one-month results. Everybody has to look at a period of at least five or six months to see what the trends are.
At the end of this year, believe me, the GST will have more than proven itself with the improvement we will have in our exports during the year. However we simply cannot go by one month only, and he knows that.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister might prefer to read the comments of Statistics Canada if he does not want to wony so much about what I say. The fact remains that the success of the recent budget will depend in large part on export led growth. Yet, recent trade figures suggest that the very opposite is happening. This is a direct result of this government's failure to close the major gap between Canadian and U.S. interest rates and to lower the value of the Canadian dollar.
How can the Minister of Finance expect export led growth when he persists in maintaining interest rates that do little or nothing to close the gap between Canadian and U.S. interest rates?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, apparently the outside world looks very favourably upon Canada and wishes to invest in Canada. We can hardly blame our Minister of Finance and the government because we have done such a good job that more people want to invest in Canada than want to deinvest in Canada.
March 20, 1991

One of the penalties is that our Canadian dollar increases in value. This is not something that we can deliberately wreck.
I would like also to point out to the hon. gentleman that today we are announcing that we are accelerating tariff elimination again at the insistence of the private sector. We are going to have a second acceleration of tariff reductions with the United States on over $2 billion worth of goods to follow up on last year's accelerated tariff elimination, which once again proves the success of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Human Rights Commissioner Max Yalden has said that the number of complaints received by his office increased by 10 per cent last year. He expressed concern about racist incidents that have taken place in many parts of the country, such as flag trampling and the desecration of graves.
My question to the Minister of Justice is: When will she finally bring to this House the important amendments to the Human Rights Act that she has promised?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I hope to bring them forward some time this year. It is a source of regret to me that I am not able to bring them forward at this time. It has simply been the press of work and the other things that have gone forward from the Department of Justice.
It is a very, very comprehensive review, and I hope within the year to bring the amendments before the House.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister acting for the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Oral Questions
Yesterday, the Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, according to The Globe and Mail, rejected Mr. Yalden's call for a royal commission on aboriginal affairs.
Will the acting minister tell this House why the minister rejects that proposal and how their government plans to address what Mr. Yalden calls, and I quote: "this country's number one human rights priority"?


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, nobody has rejected anything in terms of dealing with the question of Indian affairs.
What the government has done is launched on a program of real progress to address some of the issues that are outstanding.
For example, we have made great progress in the outstanding land claims issue in B.C., in spite of the court case that we heard a while ago. We intend to continue with that commitment regardless, in co-operation with the Indian bands out there and in co-operation with the B.C. government.
We also have a chiefs' committee which is in the final throes of discussions about how to fast track some of the specific claims that have been outstanding for years and years and years. We feel that we will be able to bring that forward very shortly.
We have just signed a framework agreement with the Westbank band of B.C. for self-government. We have many AFA agreements. Two of the latest: one in Saskatchewan gives the Lac La Ronge band the authority to manage $54 million and there was another one in Nova Scotia. There are a couple of AFAs coming up in Manitoba next week.


PROSTITUTION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I want to know what the Prime Minister thinks about the tragedy of young people forced into prostitution.
We know what the Minister of Justice thinks because in her reply to the Standing Committee on Justice report on prostitution she said: "The Badgley committee and the Fraser committee have demonstrated that very few prostitutes really wish to leave the street solicitation trade".

March 20, 1991
Oral Questions
The Badgley report says that 57.2 per cent of prostitutes wants to leave prostitution and start a new life.
Outreach and community workers are appalled by the fact that even a low statistic like that would be quoted by a reputable group like Badgley. They say it is much higher. Why is the government backing away from this? Why are they trying to slough off this problem? Why does the government not show some overdue and much needed compassion by bringing forward educational programs for the prostitutes to get them away from prostitution and on with their lives?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it must be a slow day on the other side of the Chamber for the hon. members to be-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


A. Kim Campbell: -repeating the same questions over and over again. I addressed the same question when it was asked by that member's deputy leader.
Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Acting Leader of the Opposition would ask that question, but I am surprised that the hon. member would ask it since he is a lawyer and would have the knowledge of the Constitution of Canada and the constitutional jurisdiction. He would know that the provision of social services falls primarily within the provincial level. I can tell him that I am aware of and have been involved in discussions with people offering services at the provincial level to deal with those who are on the streets.
If the hon. member would be intellectually honest and would read the whole of my response to the standing committee report, he would know that I responded to three recommendations. Among the things that I did for example was indicate that I would not follow the recommendation of that report to fingerprint prostitutes, which is a very distinct way of confirming their identification as criminals and making it harder to get them off the street and back into a life. They are not criminals as such.
They are people with deep social problems that need to be addressed.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the definition of slowness is how long it is taking this minister to act on this very serious problem.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: How can we as Canadians and parliamentarians go blindly forward, knowing that the average age for young people entering into prostitution is 15-sometimes as young as 10 and 12-and they are out of the business by the time they are 25. If it is so lucrative, as the minister would have us believe, it is strange that they are out of this profession by the time they are 25. They do not want to get into prostitution. They are forced into prostitution. Physical violence and drugs threaten their every day.
Why will this government not act to do something to provide immediate help for these people?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, regrettably volume does not improve the coherence of the hon. member's comments.
The hon. member knows that social services are delivered primarily at the provincial level. The two senior levels of government have veiy specific responsibilities and I believe that our government has addressed its responsibilities seriously. Street prostitution and prostitution among young people are symptoms of a much deeper social problem. One of the aspects of that problem is family violence. Many of these young people go on to the street as a result of trying to escape from violent and abusive relationships in their families.
This government has just announced a very significant program to deal with that and the justice aspect of that is quite considerable. My colleague, the minister of health and welfare, is the lead minister on this.
We have our particular responsibilities as a federal government and our responsibilities push us in the direction of addressing some of the root causes of this
March 20, 1991

terrible social problem. We are doing that. We are living up to our responsibility.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, how can the Prime Minister reconcile Canada's national interest and the sale of our key Crown corporations to foreign competitors?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: What key corporations, Mr. Speaker? For if the hon. member is asking me whether there is something incompatible between the sale of some Crown corporations and the national excellence of Canada, quite the contrary is true. For too long now the federal government has endorsed intervention into the private sector on the part of the central government and its public servants who have not always had the experience required to run some of these companies which normally should operate in the private sector.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday de Havilland announced 110 more lay-offs at its plant in Downsview. These lay-offs are just part of the downsizing of de Havilland to make it more attractive so that the Italian and French governments can buy it off.
Will the Prime Minister step in a block this sale of de Havilland to its major international competitors, or is the Prime Minister still insisting on going down in history as the architect of Canada's deindustrialization.
This government's policies are so bankrupt that that bankruptcy is matched only by Canada's record bankruptcies today.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, that particular firm announced a productivity strategy in 1989 which stated that there would be some downsizing. The whole market for aircraft around the world has levelled off and has declined. They cannot be immune from that plus, these cutbacks were in the productivity plan tabled over two and a half years ago.
Oral Questions TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
A series of Conservative ministers of transport have presided over the destruction of our national transportation infrastructure, VIA Rail and trucking in particular. Now this Minister of Transport wants to add the marine sector to the list of transportation modes disabled by the government.
Will the Minister of Transport listen to the warning voices from the marine industry and cancel the government's cost recovery program?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, under the previous ministers of transport of this government, there has been a great increase in the amount of service to the Canadian public. The trucking industry has had some difficulties, but we are working on that.
The airlines have increased service, and my friend well knows that particular fact.
The question of cost recovery has come up. I put out a discussion paper and allowed three months for input. I was asked to extend that deadline and I did so, from November 1 to the end of January. There were several submissions to my officials. We are looking at them and reviewing them and trying to come up with a solution which is reasonable for both the airline industry and the marine industry.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people of Brandon who lost all air service because of deregulation would be pleased to listen to the minister's remarks on the great things that deregulation has brought us.
In The Montreal Gazette this morning, the Canadian Exporters Association is quoted as saying:
The higher charges will unreasonably discourage Canadian
exports and encourage the expanded use of U.S. sea and air ports by
Canadian shippers.
They said that in a letter to the department.
Given the fact that we have already had a number of ships reflagged to foreign countries, a number of ships carved up for scrap, because there is not enough work on the Seaway or on the Pacific coast, will the minister not recognize that at very least in the marine industry, we

March 20, 1991
Oral Questions
cannot afford any additional costs. If we do so, there will be less ships, less taxes paid and less people working.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: As I indicated to my hon. friend, we are looking at the submissions made by the marine industry and will factor them into whatever decision we come up with.
My friend made some comment about air services. I tell my hon. friend that we are working on a rather new concept these days. It is called market determining service.


DISASTERS
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
As the minister is aware, an unfortunate tragedy occurred in my riding on Monday when a Coast Guard ice-breaker collided with The Captain K, a smelt trawler, about 20 miles south of Port Dover with a tragic loss of life.
How could the ice-breaker Griffon, part of the Coast Guard's fleet responsible for the safety of our Canadian waters, with radar equipment which should detect boats in a 10-mile radius, not know The Captain K and crew were in its path. What assurances do the fishermen and their families have that every rule of safety was followed, that all the equipment used by the Coast Guard vessel was checked regularly and was completely functional the afternoon of March 18?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I join with my hon. friend, and I am sure, everyone in this House and in the country, in expressing regret about the loss of life.
I can tell my hon. friend that the search has been undertaken by the OPP. We are providing any and all assistance we can to the OPP in that search. The circumstances of the accident are under investigation by the Transportation Safety Board.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the same minister. Will the minister give his commitment in this House today that an independent federal inquiry will be held so as to assure the fishermen and their families that everything is being
done to determine the cause of this accident and prevent any further occurrence of such a disaster?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my hon. friend that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada is in fact an independent board. I have every confidence that such an independent investigation will take place.


FRIGATE PROGRAM
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services.
The minister said in the House yesterday with regard to the $100 million contract for the translation of the frigate technical manuals:
- the cost of doing the translation through the company which was set up by the prime contractor is competitive with the cost of doing translations within government and other areas.
Will the minister tell us exactly what he means by competitive costs of such a task?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is dead wrong. It is not a $100 million contract. It is a contract for $21.9 million.


An hon. member:: That is a big difference.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Department of Supply and Services canvassed industry throughout North America and around the world to see who could do some bidding. Industry has cited to DSS cost estimates of $300 to $500 per page for this type of technical translation. That works out to a contract, for the amount of pages being done, of between $30 million and $50 million. In fact, we were able to arrange a contract with a firm in the province of New Brunswick for $21.9 million. That is a cost saving to the Crown of Canada.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the figures I have seen are quite different. If the minister was doing his homework he would know, through the Secretary of State's translation department, that he is paying about three times the normal price for that kind of technical translation. The cost of such a job is about 35 cents per word. Canadians would save at least $50 million.
In view of this situation, will the minister explain why a contract of such magnitude was given without public
March 20, 1991

Oral Questions
tenders having been called? The minister refused to answer yesterday and today. Canadians want answers.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are getting answers, unfortunately the member is not listening.
Translating incredibly complex technical design pages is much different than doing instantaneous translation here in the House of Commons. We insist on making sure that we have good translations. We are not prepared, in any way, to jeopardize the safety of Canadian men and women at sea because the manuals, which explain how this sophisticated ship functions, are inaccurate or slightly different in their English and French versions due to translation errors. The law requires translation and we believe that francophones in this country should have the same opportunities on those ships as anglophones.


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for science and technology.
The National Research Council has laboratories in every province except Alberta, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. In its five year plan, the NRC stated that it would like to build a major laboratory in Alberta. The lab would compliment Alberta's economic strength and help us in our drive to diversify the economy.
My question is this. When will the government establish a major NRC presence in Alberta?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definitive answer, but I can tell the member that the five-year plan for the National Research Council has been approved. The regional initiatives have all been approved in principle, and we are going to continue to develop the plans for these regional initiatives. When those plans are complete, we will then look for the appropriate funding.


MANPOWER AGREEMENTS
Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Shared jurisdiction over manpower creates over-all duplication of programs and wanton waste of human and financial resources. This is why Quebec is asking for the repatriation of its powers. In the short term, however, that is between now and March 31, agreements between Quebec and the federal government will end.
Therefore I would ask the minister whether these agreements involving $433 million will be renewed on a temporary basis to avoid penalizing unemployed Quebeckers, particularly in Montreal which now has the highest unemployment rate in Canada?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, for quite some time now officials of both government levels have been discussing the terms of the agreement due to expire at the end of this month. But we have often said that the Canadian government does not negotiate on a piecemeal basis with the Province of Quebec, that is clear.


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for total repatriation, I am asking for the renewal of the current $433 million agreements within the existing constitutional framework.
I want to know whether the minister intends to renew these agreements on a temporary basis, in fullest respect for the letter and spirit of existing agreements. That is a clear question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister gave the appropriate answer. We do not share the member's opinion concerning the dramatic outcome he envisages without first consulting all Canadians.
Indeed I am not the only one who thinks that way. In an article published in the March 15 Vancouver Sun the deputy leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Mr. Lapierre, is reported as saying, and I quote him because this is an interesting comment which the hon. member ought to read: "Well, as long as the political contract remains

March 20, 1991
Speaker's Ruling
unchanged, I am a Canadian", said the Bloc Quebecois House leader on Thursday, "I am still a Canadian, I still have my Canadian passport and, in the end, I will probably remain a Canadian".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On December 10 I asked the minister-I will wait until the House quiets down a minute.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will please put his question.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: On December 10 I asked the minister whether he would uphold the Canada Health Act in respect of deterrent user fees planned by the Government of Quebec for people using hospital emergency wards. At the time the minister said that he would ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act would be fully respected and that he would communicate this to Quebec.
My question for the minister is this. Since the Quebec minister of health made it clear yesterday that he was proceeding with the introduction of deterrent user fees, can the minister tell the House if he did inform Quebec that these fees are a violation of the Canada Health Act and will he inform the House how he intends to enforce the Canada Health Act now?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec is well aware of the provisions of the Canada Health Act. As the hon. member knows, following the proposals made by Minister Cote in Quebec, the federal government got in touch with the Government of Quebec to request more information.
The minister in Quebec has indicated that he believes that what he is doing can be done within the confines of the Canada Health Act. The ball is in Quebec's court to demonstrate that it can be done.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton East on a single question.


PROSTITUTION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my single question to the Prime Minister. It is in response to the ridiculous answers that his Minister of Justice gave to the opposition's suggestion that 15-year old prostitutes should be given help to get off the street.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister to give us his view of whether in fact he supports the position of the Minister of Justice that there should be no federal assistance to help get street prostitutes off the street, or whether in fact he rejects the position tabled by his minister on the first-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the question is: Do I support the position of the Minister of Justice, as described by the Leader of the Opposition? No.
Do I support the position of the Minister of Justice, as articulated by the Minister of Justice? Yes.
Apart from the sensitivity and knowledge that the Minister of Justice conveyed in her responses, she also conveyed an intention of the Government of Canada to work very carefully with the Government of British Columbia, other provincial governments, and the municipalities, to make certain that as a society, since it is an important societal problem, Canadians make progress to ensure that this problem is dealt with in an effective way.
That is what the Minister of Justice said. That is the policy of this government. And that is what we are going to do.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On Friday, March 8, 1991, the hon. member for Ontario rose on a point of order to object to the inclusion of items in the Supplementary and Main Estimates which would authorize the payment of $153 per diem allowance to senators. He argued that the authority to pay such an allowance should have been sought by means of an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act. He quoted extensive authority to the effect
March 20,1991

Speaker's Ruling
that spending estimates cannot be used to amend legislation, and he invited the Chair to use its authority to rule the offending estimates out of order.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands spoke to the issue on March 11, 1991. He asked the Chair to take into account that the Estimates are recommended to the House by the Governor General but that this recommendation is secured on the advice of Ministers of the Crown.

The hon. member then referred the Chair to two precedents. One concerned provisions in Appropriation Act No. 2 in 1965 for the payment of a gratuity to the spouse of a deceased member. The second related to the inclusion in vote 1 under Privy Council Office in Appropriation Act No. 3 in fiscal year 1989-90 of the salaries for ministers of state who do not preside over a ministry of state.
The hon. member for Churchill expressed the view that vote 2c in the Supplementary Estimates violated the Financial Administration Act in that it sought moneys to be used beyond the current fiscal year. Furthermore, he noted that the allowances in question should have been sought through an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act. For this reason, he explained, the decisions of previous Speakers have been breached.
Finally, the hon. member for Churchill concluded that it was particularly inappropriate to secure an individual profit for certain members of Parliament by a means that are in any way questionable.

As both the items objected to are estimates requested by the Upper House, the Chair's initial reaction was to consider the propriety of this House interfering with the Estimates of the other place. In the last 20 years or so that the items from the Senate have been before committees of the House of Commons, no witnesses from the other place have appeared before the standing committee charged with considering the Estimates from the Upper House. Therefore no guidance can be sought in the review of those Estimates.

The "parentage" of the particular items challenged also remains doubtful. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out that these estimates were recommended to the House by the Governor General, and by constitutional convention, he notes, that must indicate that they are approved by cabinet. The hon. member for Churchill was more direct. He claimed that the government had improperly brought these estimates before Parliament and that the government had responsibility for ensuring that they were in proper form. The hon. member for Calgary West, on the other hand, has clearly distinguished between government estimates and the estimates from the House of Commons and the Senate.
These latter two, he stated, are not government estimates and come before us through the mechanisms specified in the Parliament of Canada Act. Now, section 51 of the Parliament of Canada Act provides that the estimates of the House of Commons "shall, on approval by the Board of Internal Economy, be transmitted by the Speaker to the President of the Treasury Board who shall lay them severally before the House of Commons with the estimates of the government for the fiscal year." On a plain reading of these words, it appears that the hon. member for Calgary West is perfectly correct in claiming a special status for the House of Commons estimates. The Chair was not, however, referred to nor has it uncovered any similar legislative provision as respects the Senate.

Against the issue of ownership of the Senate Estimates and the propriety of any intervention by the House of Commons is arrayed a formidable force composed of a substantial body of significant rulings by my predecessors and the provisions of the Financial Administration Act and citation 233 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which states that:
''The cardinal principle on which the whole of our financial system is based is that of parliamentary control, and by this is understood not the control of Parliament in its constitutional sense, but control by the Commons alone."

The hon. member for Ontario has made his case carefully and well. In his intervention, he set out all the relevant sections of the Parliament of Canada Act to demonstrate that there is no provision in that statute upon which the Senate's present request for an allow-

March 20, 1991
Speaker's Ruling
ance could be based. The hon. member then marshalled the various rulings of the Chair since 1971 in support of the concept that authority to act is received through legislation, whereas money to finance authorized action is received through the passage of an Appropriation Act. He contended that the allowance sought by the hon. senators should have been obtained by means of an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act and, in an impressive survey of Speakers' rulings, demonstrated that in the past, attempts to legislate or to amend statutes other than Appropriation Acts by means of items inserted in the estimates have been disallowed.
The hon. member for Churchill agreed that there was an attempt here to do through appropriations what should be done through legislation and that this was in breach of the Speakers' rulings. He also made the point that the estimates according to section 27 of the Financial Administration Act should relate only to expenses for the current fiscal year and drew attention to the fact that Senate vote 2c in the Supplementary Estimates sought authority for the payment of the allowance in the current and subsequent fiscal year. It should also be noted that Senate vote 5 in the Main Estimates 1991-92 seeks the same authority not only for the current and subsequent fiscal years but for all subsequent fiscal years.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands in his intervention did not question the impact of the authorities quoted by the hon. member for Ontario. Rather, he provided for the Chair's consideration two precedents which the Chair will discuss briefly.

It appears common ground in the arguments that have been made, first, that statutes ought not to be amended by means of items in the estimates; second, that authority to act in cases where statutoiy provisions already exist should be sought by the passage of amending legislation and only then the money to finance that action should be sought through appropriation acts and, third, that funds requested in the estimates must relate only to the fiscal year for which they are requested.
In this event, there remains only for the Chair to decide, as the member for Kingston and the Islands put it, whether the items in the estimates providing for the senators' allowance fall into the impugned type of estimates.

The hon. member referred the Chair to a particular item in the schedule to Appropriation Act No. 2 for 1965 which authorized the payment of a gratuity to the spouse or estate of a deceased member of the Senate or House of Commons. I believe the hon. member himself recognized that this precedent is of little utility in the current circumstances, because it relates to a time when there was a radically different supply process in this Chamber and, of course, it predates the significant ruling of the Chair in the 1971-84 period.

The hon. member's second precedent referred to an item in the schedule to Appropriation Act No. 3 for the financial year 1989-90. Vote 1 under Privy Council Office, he noted, provided for the payment to ministers without portfolios, or to ministers of state who do not preside over a ministry, a salary equal to the salary paid pursuant to the Salaries Act to a minister of state who presides over a ministry. There are other provisions therein, but it is not necessary to quote at length. On June 18, 1982, the hon. member for Calgary Centre challenged precisely this item. He said, as recorded at page 18607 of Debates:
In spite of the Chair's very clear rulings there is one vote-which seeks io amend legislation. I am referring to Privy Council, vote 1 which states:
Program expenditures, including the operation of the Prime Minister's residence; the payment to each member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who is a minister without portfolio or a Minister of State who does not preside over a Ministry of State of a salary equal to the salary paid to Ministers of State who preside over Ministries of State under the Salaries Act, as adjusted pursuant to the Senate and House of Commons Act -
The Salaries Act, as amended last July, states the remuneration to be paid to each minister. Section 5 states:
The salary of each Minister of State, being a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, who presides over a Ministry of State is $30,800 per annum.
What Vote 1 of the Privy council seeks to do, is amend that act, because it says that ministers of state who do not preside over a ministry of state will have a salary equal to that paid to a minister of state who does preside over a ministry of state. That is exactly parallel, Madam Speaker, to a vote which you ruled out of order, appropriately so, last
March 20, 1991

year, being vote 30 of Agriculture in the 1981-82 Main Estimates. That vote stated, and I quote:
Agri-Food Regulation and Inspection-Contributions including compensation at rates determined in the manner provided by Section 12 of the Animal Disease and Protection Act to owners of animals affected with diseases coming under that Act that have died or have been slaughtered in circumstances not covered by the Act.
So that vote attempted to extend the act to situations not covered by it. Quite properly, Madam Speaker, you ruled that was an amendment to the legislation. Privy Council, vote 1 does exactly the same thing, and is clearly out of order based on your ruling of last year.
Madam Speaker Sauve ruled on June 21, 1982, as recorded at page 18646 of Debates:
The next item objected to by the hon. member for Calgary Centre is Privy Council, Vote 1 on the grounds that it seeks to amend legislation and, on this basis, the hon. member makes a parallel with Agriculture, Vote 30 in the 1981-82 Main Estimates which was ruled out of order on June 12, 1981. I must admit this vote caused particular concern to the chair. Agriculture, Vote 30 was specifically seeking to go beyond Section 12 of the Animal Disease and Protection Act and was ruled out of order for attempting to amend existing legislation, whereas Privy Council, Vote 1 does not refer to specific legislation but is in fact a continuation of a vote in the 1981-82 Main Estimates covered by the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1981-82. In other words, Privy Council, Vote 1 does not attempt to amend the Salaries Act but provides for the salary of certain Ministers of State assigned by virtue of Section 23 of the government Organization Act, 1970, which is itself the legislative authority required. The authority for the amount can be found in the Appropriation Act No. 2, 1981-82. I therefore find Privy Council, Vote 1 also in order.
That 1982 precedent, based, as it was, on existing legislative authority, is not on all fours with the present case. By extension, neither is the 1989-90 identically-worded item referred to by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
There is a clear line of authority evinced through Speakers' rulings as to the distinction between the proper subject-matter of legislation and the proper subject matter of supply.

Twenty years ago on March 10, 1971, when the House was just embarking on the present supply practice, Speaker Lamoureux ordered three one-dollar items
Speaker's Ruling
struck from the motion to concur in the Supplementary Estimates. He explained as recorded at pages 4125-7 that such items when "-they are clearly intended to amend existing legislation should come to the House by way of an amending bill rather than as an item in the Supplementary Estimates." Speaker Lamoureux had occasion to confirm this principle in both 1973 and 1974.

Mr. Speaker Jerome, called upon to rule on a number of disputed items in Supplementary Estimates on March 22, 1977, characterized the central question to the issue as "whether or not the government can obtain, through the passage by Parliament of a supply item in an appropriation bill, authority which it does not have under existing legislation." He capsulized the discussion held in respect to that central question around two key points:
First, changes in legislation ought to be dealt with by legislation and not by supply items. The opportunity to debate, to consider, and to discuss the two are totally different. Therefore, where changes to legislation are sought, they ought to be done in the proper way of all stages of a bill. The second point is that appropriation acts have temporary duration, being for the balance of the fiscal year. Therefore, they ought not to be used as a vehicle to finance or authorize ongoing programs.
That is in Debates, page 4220. In pronouncing on the general question for the sake of providing future guidance, Mr. Speaker Jerome said:
On the general question, it is my view that the government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation;
That is in Debates, page 4221. This was further expanded upon on December 7, 1977, in a similar ruling where Mr. Speaker Jerome said:
I think all honourable Members understand that the supply process is confined in its method of debate and exposure to the House in that it is put forward by way of an estimate which is examined by the committees of the House, and, at the end of that process when the estimate is deemed to be reported or in fact reported back to the House, it is dealt with rather quickly by way of a supply bill on the final supply day of the particular semester in which the estimate was originally advanced.

March 20, 1991
Speaker's Ruling
This is a process which has long been adhered to by the House which provides for an examination of the estimates in rather great detail, but does not provide for extensive debate between the various stages of the supply bill. As a result of that, it has long been a tenant (sic) of the House that supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended; that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the government, and not to be extended in any way into the legislative area, because legislation and legislated changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in the regular way which requires three readings, committee stage, and, in other words, ample opportunity for Members to participate in debate and amendment.
That is from Votes and Proceedings, page 184. [Translation]
As the hon. member for Ontario acknowledged in raising his point of order, Madam Speaker Sauve in a carefully-structured ruling on June 12, 1981, set out the principles established by her predecessors. She said: This history shows that during the past ten years, members have objected that in one way or another the estimates that have been submitted from time to time by the government have attempted to do more than set out the spending requirements of the government for the next fiscal year. This is of course supposed to be the acknowledged purpose of estimates and appropriation acts. {Debates, page 10546)
In light of this line of authority, the direction the Chair must take in this regard is evident.
The language of both Senate vote 2c in the Supplementary Estimates 1990-91 and of vote 5 in the Main Estimates 1991-92 is specific. Vote 2c reads as follows:
To authorize the implementation of the Forty-first Report of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 2nd session, 34th Parliament, adopted by the Senate on June 5, 1990, and to authorize, in the current and subsequent fiscal year, payment of the allowance referred to within the report.
Vote 5 reads:
To authorize the implementation of the Forty-first Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, 2nd session, 34th Parliament, adopted by the Senate on June 5, 1990, and to authorize, in the current and subsequent fiscal years, payment of the allowance referred to within the report.
In both instances authority is sought, first, to implement the Senate committee report which recommended the allowances and, second, to pay the allowances. The very wording of the votes confirms that there is no existing statutory authority under which the allowances could be paid. If the statutoiy authority existed there would be no need to seek approval for implementation in this fashion. The type of authority sought here is akin to approval in principle and, as was made clear in the rulings of both Speakers Lamoureux and Jerome, should be sought through legislation other than appropriation bills.
The lack of legislative authority on which to base a request for funds exceeding an existing and continuing act of Parliament, alone, would be reason enough for the Chair to order that the offending items be struck from the estimates; but authority is also sought to spend in a time period beyond the current fiscal year. That too is also clearly prohibited. The cycle of supply is articulated at page 677 of May's 18th edition "According to the "principle of annuality", which is strictly enforced every financial year is treated as a closed period separate from every other financial year. Money voted for and revenue received during a particular year cannot be applied to the use of a subsequent year; furthermore citation 483 of Beauchesne's fifth edition refers to "the Main Estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year". Citation 484 states:
The purpose of the Estimates is to present to Parliament the
budgetary and non-budgetary expenditure proposals of the
Government for the next fiscal year.

May and Beauchesne read together leave no room for doubt on this point. Supply requests, through main or supplementary estimates must relate solely to the fiscal year for which they are granted.

The weight of precedent and the strength of the argument made by members in the House compel me to find that vote 2c under Parliament in the Supplementary Estimates 1990-91 and vote 5 under Parliament in the Main Estimates 1991-92 are not properly before the House, and are therefore deleted from the estimates. All proceedings relating to those specific votes are declared null and void and there can be no further proceedings relating to those two votes.
The Chair extends its appreciation to the hon. member for Ontario who so carefully set out his point of order
March 20, 1991

and to the hon. members for Kingston and the Islands and for Churchill and for Calgary West for their contributions to this procedural debate.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege deals with the Standing Committee on Transport. I raise this matter now, based on the motion agreed to last week by the House pertaining to the standing committee on corporate affairs. That decision impacts directly on the point I want to make today.
My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier correctly pointed out, at page 18323 of Hansard for Tuesday, March 12, that the consumer and corporate affairs committee had not been convened for some time due to the resignation of the chairperson and had not met because there was no chair to preside.
I will spare the Chair the remaining details of that case. However I cite it for reasons of precedence because the next day, at page 18427 on Wednesday, March 13, the government Whip introduced a motion, agreed to by the House, that facilitated the committee's resurrection. In fact the Whip then noted the actual date and time the committee would be convened to hear representation regarding the Spicer commission.
Your Honour also conjectured, at page 18326 on Tuesday, March 12, as to why a resignation of the chair of the consumer and corporate affairs committee had not yet been filled. As the House knows, the chairman of the transport committee also resigned six months ago and the committee has not been able to meet say for one token attempt.
I respectfully submit that the transportation committee has a great deal of important work to cover in the interests of Canadians, including the parliamentary scrutiny of nearly $50 million in supplementary estimates, public fund expenditures which will not have been examined because of this government's refusal to have the committee sit.
I request that a similar motion to that adopted with respect to the consumer and corporate affairs committee be moved immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be able to assist hon. members. First of all I think I should point out that if I had to rule on this I would have to say, given the circumstances, it is
Privilege
not a question of privilege. It is more a point of order raised probably to invite the government to respond.
As I had to say the other day, this is not something in which the Speaker, under the present rules, can intervene. The Speaker can encourage hon. members to try to settle these matters. There may very well be discussions taking place at this very time. It is not necessary for the government to respond under the circumstances, but I would invite the hon. member for Calgary West to comment if he so chooses.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for raising the issue. It has been of considerable concern to government members that we have had eight of our committees, one special and seven standing committees that do not represent the balance of the House. We were pleased to be able to stand last Wednesday and resolve one of the problems.
The government's point of view on this from the beginning has been that there is a need, if we want to retain the same number of committees, to reduce the size of committees because the large size committee of 14 was not working well. The solution we had for consumer and corporate affairs was to increase that one to 15, which provides something closer to the composition of the House.
I want to report to the House that that committee has met successfully twice, but of the seven seats assigned to opposition members only three have been filled on each of those occasions. Thus there have been four vacant seats.
The obligation of governing has required us to fill the eight seats. Last night that led to a dilemma in that opposition members who were present did not want the government members each to have their turn in questioning the witnesses from the Spicer commission. They felt that the questioning process went on too long because there were in fact 10 members involved before getting to the second round. In fact some visitors to the committee who are Independents in the House walked out because they were having to wait so long and did not have a chance.
I think it speaks to the issue from the government point of view that if the committees in many cases, not all, were to be somewhat smaller then the participation rate of members both on the opposition and the government side would be fuller and more complete and we would not have the phenomenon of filling the chair simply to fulfil the voting function of a committee.

March 20, 1991
Privilege
With that in mind-and I do not know if the member who raised this issue speaks for his party-I have said to at least one Whip of a recognized political party in this place that I would be only too happy to guarantee the consent of my side of the House immediately, if members would like, to a motion that would create the transport committee based on the same membership that we established for a special committee on transport in December and November to deal with a major transport issue. That is different from the solution for consumer and corporation affairs. That was to make the committee one larger. As I say the experience with that is the largeness was not really necessary and in fact has not been helpful.
If we go to the special committee which we created for November and December to look at the issue of open skies, that committee is smaller. It has eight members. It is something that approximates much better the balance in the House. If we have unanimous agreement at this point, within the next three minutes we could have that committee formed, and then I would be glad to instruct the 'fable to call a meeting to select a chairman.
It is an eight-member committee, with five government and three opposition members. That is the composition of it as a special committee. It worked very well on the open skies issue. What I am objecting to is too many 14-member committees where government members have to attend, but it frustrates the opposition because those who come from the opposition do not have adequate time and certainly the government members do not have adequate time. All we have been after is restoring the composition to reflect the House in all eight cases.
In this particular case, a committee of eight has already demonstrated its capacity to work well and would work well in the future. I stand here right now prepared to agree to that as a resolution if I can have agreement from the other two parties.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the offer which has been extended by the chief government Whip and we will take it under advisement.
I want to put on the record that in point of fact some of the statements alluded to by my colleague opposite are not correct in their totality. The member, I think, referred to the fact that the committees are not working. That was part and parcel of his understanding and desire to have change, particularly in the composition vis-a-vis the number of members on each of those committees.
From our perspective there are times and occasions whereby members of Parliament who may be assigned to a particular committee may not be able to attend for a variety of reasons, constituency related or what have you. By and large the committee system we are operating under has worked reasonably well for most members of Parliament, particularly those of us in the opposition. I cannot speak for my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. I wanted to put on record that there was no profound dislike for the committee system we operate under at the present time.
We have difficulties in the fact that the government has not wanted to proceed with calling these committees together for the purposes of reviewing various estimates and various Orders of the Day as they pertain to those committees.
I thank the hon. member for his offer. We will give it due consideration.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, having raised the point, I too want to thank the hon. member opposite. I also plead with the Chair and the House to take one step back for a moment. I am not trying to raise an issue where we can go into a period of negotiation across the way.
I respectfully submit that point of privilege I raise is a point of privilege because I do feel my rights and privileges as a member to participate on the transport committee to do its work are being infringed upon. That aside, Given the precedents of the past, last week; given the concern of Canadians on the transport committee, I am asking you, Sir, to rule specifically on whether that committee, as it is presently structured, will come together again to fulfil the work we were sent here to do, and not enter now a period of negotiation with the Whip across the way.
March 20, 1991


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has certainly put forward his case with great courtesy and obvious sincerity. I thank the hon. member for that. I thank the hon. member for Calgary West for indicating, as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has responded in like kind, a willingness to discuss the matter.
As I have said to the hon. member for Hamilton West, I have some serious doubts as to whether there is in this matter any question of privilege. However, he has asked me if I would look at it quietly. I will take that into consideration. I think hon. members know that it is a rare case indeed where the Speaker ought to try to intervene in a committee. There is an indication on the government side that maybe this can be resolved and an indication by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, speaking for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, that that willingness is at least appreciated. I suggest that hon. members might want to have further discussion concerning the matter.
I think it is legitimate to say that all members are concerned, and I would think that the public would be too, when a long period of time goes by without a committee being able to function, whatever the cause of that might be.
I thank hon. members. I will come back and comment on the point made by the hon. member for Hamilton West.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in relation to Bill C-98, the Farm Income Protection Act, with amendments.
In recognition of the importance of this bill to Canadian fanners, I would like to thank the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of State for Agriculture, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, the officials, farm groups and my committee staff who
Routine Proceedings
worked so diligently to allow us to make a rapid yet thorough examination of this bill.
Finally, may I thank the members of my committee, particularly those from the two opposition parties, who at all times worked toward the welfare of the farm community without partisan debate.
[Translation)


PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS-PRESENTATION OF TWENTY-SIXTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure regarding joint sittings of standing committees.


TWENTY-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the twenty-fifth report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in relation to the order of reference from the House of Commons dated April 30, 1990, in relation to the rules and procedures as they relate to the limiting of debate in cases where the committee has reached an impasse.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.)


PETITIONS
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of petitions from residents of my constituency who note that property taxes are escalating for health care, education, infrastructure replacement, social and leisure services, and protective services.
In that regard they note that the federal government should continue to bear at least 30 per cent of the cost of maintaining security of Canadian citizens and petition this House to continue with the 70-30 per cent cost sharing ratio between provincial and federal governments so that the RCMP can continue to be a national police force throughout this country.
They reject the federal government's proposal to off-load that on to the provinces and make it a 25-75 per cent sharing.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
[Translation]	GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 412 people to present on behalf on the students of Polyvalente Henri-Bourasse who are concerned about the effects of the war on their future. These high school students are asking us to look actively for peaceful solutions to the diplomatic stalemate in the Middle East to allow them to keep faith in dialogue and in life.
Mr. Speaker, the war may be over but there are still problems in that part of the world. A solution will have to found that is satisfactory to all concerned if we want it to be lasting. In the name of my constituents, I urge the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and all members of Cabinet to pursue their efforts, using the influence gained by Canada among the members of the United Nations, to identify and implement means of ensuring durable peace for our young people.


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-97, an act to provide borrowing authority, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, as we start the third reading on this borrowing bill, I am sure that most of us in this House of Commons realize that the greatest issues facing this nation today is national unity and of course the recession.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
*
*


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
This borrowing bill allows the government to raise money under the Financial Administration Act:
-by way of loan or by the issue and sale of securities of Canada, in such amount or amounts not exceeding in the whole twenty-six billion, four hundred million dollars, as may be required for public works and general purposes.
At the outset, I want to say to the Minister of Finance that when he stated during the 1984 election campaign that it would not be necessary to raise taxes to cut the deficit because all that needs to be done is cut government expenditures, he was laying the groundwork for his own financial management failure.
Since that time, not only has the government cut government services but the Minister of Finance has raised taxes 33 times. The last big tax hike was the GST. What is very discouraging to all Canadians is that in spite of all the cuts and the tax increases, the national debt is still growing by leaps and bounds. Financial management on the part of the government appears to them to be out of control.
Added to this is the longstanding and ongoing concern about the national unity of our country. This does nothing to create confidence in the economy of our nation, and that is sad. It is also sad that we are in the middle of a government created recession.
March 20, 1991

In spite of six years of economic growth which the Minister of Finance himself has called extraordinary, and in spite of 33 separate tax increases to which I have made reference, the accumulated public debt has more than doubled from $166 billion in 1984 to $351 billion in March 1990, and is expected to climb to $389 billion this year. In six years this government has more than doubled the national debt and is well on its way to tripling it. Yet the Minister of Finance back in 1984 thought that this whole matter was so simple that all he had to do was to gain power, get the finance portfolio, cut government expenditures, and the deficit would go away.
That did not happen. Canadians should not bother to listen to what this Minister of Finance has to say about the deficit and the public debt because he has no credibility left on this issue or on any other. The made-in-Canada recession, the Conservative government's first ever made-in-Canada recession, has reduced domestic demand and created an extra burden for our producers here at home.
The Conservative government's monetary policy has caused the dollar to increase from a low of about 69 cents U.S. in February 1986 by 26 per cent to its present level of nearly 87 cents U.S. The Canadian Exporters Association has reported that each cent increase in the exchange rate costs Canada $1.3 billion in lost export sales. That is certainly beginning to tell on the jobs and the unemployment figures across this country.
High interest rates have been used to prop up the Canadian dollar. Although Canadian interests rates have dropped dramatically from a high of over 14.05 per cent on May 24 of last year, they are still about four percentage points higher than the United States rates. This has made the cost of borrowing to modernize or expand prohibitive.
For those in the forest industry, it has had another effect. That famous memorandum of understanding was signed by the present government a few years back on the eve of the signing of the free trade agreement with the United States, whereby Canadian softwood lumber producers were charged a 15 per cent export tax to sell their lumber into the United States. They called it free trade.
Government Orders
Our Canadian manufacturers have had to find other markets and some have gone to Europe. In so doing, after they have sold their product and shipped it, they found that they had to wait for a long time-90 days and even over 100 days in some cases-for their money. As a result, they have to borrow money in order to keep their business floating. They borrow at high interest rates, and this adds to their costs of operation in addition to the 15 per cent that blocked them out of the United States markets. These people are having a very difficult time.
Then there is the old story, all the promises and all the rhetoric about research and development. In spite of Conservative government commitments to raise the level of research and development to 2.5 per cent of the GDP, spending on research and development has declined steadily over the six years of the present government's management, from 1.43 per cent in 1986 to a measly 1.28 per cent of GDP in 1989. The Conservative government has cut funding to the National Research Council by over 20 per cent since 1984-85. Certainly other scientific ventures in this country have been attacked as well.
At a time when the government brags about cutting back and being thrifty, the Fraser Institute, a private non-profit research organization, which monitors government spending and taxation trends, stated in a release on February 18 that "government spending is at an all-time high". The report goes on to say that "spending on defence, police and fire protection across the country are receiving a declining share of the financial pie".
It is very interesting to note that spending on defence, police and fire protection amounts to $835 per capita and has not kept pace with other categories of spending. In fact these functions now get a smaller fraction of total government budgets than they did in 1970.
Cuts in transfer payments to the provinces have meant that provincial funds have had to be redirected in order to make up the shortfall at the provincial level.
Last fall unemployment insurance certainly became a great issue in my area as it did in many others. The bill which was stalled in the Senate for a long time and which was supposed to be such a great boost to all Canadians came into force. In that bill there was a clause that emphasized the benefits to Canadians who are working for relatives, called the arm's length clause. Certainly we can use eastern Ontario as a good example because we have family owned businesses all over the place. When a

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
father laid off his son or brother-in-law or sister-in-law, they then went to apply for unemployment insurance only to find their case had to be passed on to National Revenue for a special ruling to make sure that they were at arm's length from the business.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration says: "That is right". I just wish that minister had been standing in my office when I had some of these people there making representations to me when they had not had a pay cheque for eight or nine weeks and that included Christmas. The government should be ashamed of itself for imposing that kind of restriction on people.
One person had worked for 20 years and had never claimed unemployment insurance. When he went into the office to apply, he ran into this great unemployment insurance rejuvenation bill that was supposed to be such a great boost to him only to find that he had to go through Christmas and New Years and nine weeks without a pay cheque.
There were so many calls over this that the department finally started getting it sorted out. The fact remains it was mismanagement of the legislation. Neither the department of employment nor was the Department of National Revenue was ready for it. Yet we heard screams in the House day after day about how terrible it was that this legislation was being held up. There are many people out there who wish today that it was still being held up.
I have obviously got my message through to the minister today, and I am glad, because many people have suffered through her trying to straighten out her department's relationship with National Revenue and to get the system working. It was not they who straightened it out, it was all those who had complaints and who were having their livelihood taken away from them or denied them.
Mr. Speaker, on the issue of national unity in Canada, which has so much to do with the future direction of our country, in fact almost everything to do with it, I want to share with everyone a very moving experience I had yesterday.
There is a little humorous incident I would like to relate to everybody. While we were in the VIP lounge at Uplands yesterday with the Governor General, the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, senior military personnel, policy people, and several others, a colonel stepped out and in his usual brisk and efficient manner said that they were going to divide the group into two parties. He said: "We are going to have the red party and we are going to have the blue party". At that stage, the Prime Minister spoke up and said: "Len Hopkins is going to be very lonely out there, we will have to give him a podium all by himself".
The irony of the whole matter is that the Prime Minister ended up in the red party and I was in the blue party. Can you imagine a situation like that for parliamentary unity? There are some great sacrifices one has to make from time to time in this place.
The other thing I want to really zero in on here is the tremendous welcome home for the first field hospital group. They were so glad to hit Canadian soil. You have to witness it to realize what an impact it really has on people. One young man said to me: "Len, I just feel like getting down and kissing the ground". A young nurse said: "You know, in this country we say we live in the greatest country of the world. But you never witness it until you have gone abroad, up to your ankles in mud, unhealthy conditions, see the economy in other certain parts of the world, see the difficulties that people face. You come home and you thank God for your nation".
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and every member of this House, and all Canadians, will agree that these people are great ambassadors at home for the work they do, but they are fantastic ambassadors when sent abroad. They have done a super job for us.
It presented a real challenge to me yesterday to talk to these people who had gone outside the country, and who had performed their duties so well for Canada, and who delivered the good Canadian message to foreign groups. Here we are at home, in this great nation they love so much, and we have issues here that could split the country wide open.
If there is anything that we, as Canadians, must take from this great experience, it is that we should back off a bit. We should take a look at ourselves in a mirror-and I do not mean just some, I mean everybody-and ask ourselves where we are coming from. Here we do in fact have everything that any human being would want on the face of this earth. God has blessed us with everything that any human being would really want.
March 20, 1991

The Fathers of Confederation put this nation together with great difficulty. Other people have come along since that time and have had tremendous input into it. Many people across this land have come from many other countries and built this nation and developed it. They worked long, hard hours.
I remember, even though I was not very big, the Great Depression of the 1930s. I was not even going to school, but I can remember what people went through at that time. I sometimes look back and wonder how people ever survived that. I think of my mother and father. The thing that I feel brought them through it and helped them to face up to those issues of providing food for their family and remaining very loyal to their country and very interested in their country and managing their affairs very scrupulously was the fact that they had a faith. They had a faith through their own religious beliefs and they practised them.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have witnessed this yourself, where your own parents taught you many great qualities: humanitarianism, your religious duties, your duty to your country, your duty to do a day's work for a day's pay, and a duty to look toward the future and find out what you can do for mankind.
I can really get carried away on this subject because there is nothing that is more important to every Canadian, from coast to coast and from south to north in this nation today, than to sit down and talk and put this nation together so that it is going to last for generations and centuries to come. It is going to mean a flexibility of our minds. We cannot all be staid in our ways and it is either my way or the highway. That is not the philosophy we are going to have to exercise in this country. It is part of our relationship with our own fellow people.
We as civilians in Canada need the same kind of dedication, breadth of mind, personal discipline, desire and seriousness to keep this country together. We will require a commitment on the part of all Canadians and a flexible attitude on many matters. That is what those young Canadian Forces personnel taught me yesterday. I have been groping for some time to find a real, sincere and open way to express my feelings. I must say, with the words they were expressing yesterday and what they have
Government Orders
come through and their dedication to duty, we must as civilians in this Canadian nation can do our work out there across the country, we must, as 295 members in this House of Commons do our work in a sincere and dedicated manner for this country and open up our minds and communicate well with each other and have a firm commitment. But we must also have faith in ourselves, we must also have faith in our maker and ask for his guidance and we must have faith in our fellow parliamentarians. That is what is going to keep this nation together. I think it would be a great idea if all parties in this House of Commons, perhaps even through you, Mr. Speaker, had a world day of prayer for the Canadian nation, a special service in every church, in every religious centre across the country.
I am delivering this type of speech at this time because we are today passing a bill to borrow billions of dollars to cover the costs of operating the country. We cannot just go on doing this forever. We must work closely together to put things together in this nation and to build the Canadian nation, but we must have that communicating factor and have our total act together.
Those men and women who have returned from the Persian Gulf are expecting parliamentarians in general to work to keep our country strong here at home. If we can do our work here at home as well as they are able to do theirs abroad, we will have it made.
It is important to have a strong federal government in Canada, one that relates in realistic terms to the regions of this country. If Canadians are going to continue to have any of the fine qualities and services of life that have been available to them for many years, this must happen.
There is another angle to this. If Canada is strong at home then we can continue to perform constructively and with humanitarianism in international affairs. When we look back over Canadian history, we have seen many Canadian statesmen who have led the way in many very useful operations in international affairs. Canada has played a role in international affairs far beyond our size and, I suppose, importance as a nation but it has been done. Only if we are strong here at home and have a unified nation in the future, only then can we continue to be a great influence on other nations of the world.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
In order to put this country on a solid footing, accountability on the part of government is extremely important. We had a recent example in this House, and it was raised again today, and I was very much interested in that subject when it was raised in the House today because I had it in my notes to mention it here this afternoon. We had a recent example where the government actually referred the Supplementary Estimates which contained the estimates for the Spicer commission to a parliamentary committee that had not had a chairperson since last September. As you know, this led to a great confrontation in this House.
It also had implications for the public accounts committee, which I have the privilege of chairing because, as you recall, some members in this House wanted to refer the matter to the public accounts committee. That could not happen because I had to reply to a letter that I received requesting this, and I know it was brought to the Prime Minister's attention as well. I must point out that there are serious procedural limitations contained in the mandate of the public accounts committee to carry out such an inquiry in this House at that time. Standing Order 108(3) defines the mandate of the public accounts committees as follows:
The mandate of the Standing Committee on
(e) Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada, which shall be severally deemed, permanently referred to the Committee immediately they are laid upon the Table;
and any other matter which the House shall from time to time refer to the standing committee.
The term "among other matters" refers to an order of reference from the House of Commons.
The most recent public accounts tabled in October 1990, before the establishment of the Spicer commission, are a comprehensive record of government expenditures for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1990. Expenditures after that date would not be shown in the 1989-90 public accounts and, therefore, we had no estimates from the Spicer commission.
Similarly, the last report of the Auditor General of Canada covers the period ended March 31, 1990. The Spicer commission was brought in after that, so it was not included in that report either.
I regretfully had to say that our existing mandate of the public accounts committee does not permit us to carry out the relevant enquiry. The committee would need an order of reference from this House. However, it is important to note that all commissions of inquiry are accountable to Parliament for the expenditure of public funds. Treasury Board policies govern these expenditures, including the guidance given to all departments and agencies in matters of financial administration by the Office of the Comptroller General.
In addition, financial controls are exercised by the Receiver General's department in the disbursement of moneys. Of course, these expenditures are subject to audit by Parliament's auditor, the Auditor General of Canada.
As members are aware, Supplementary Estimates C, 1990-91, relating to the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, have been referred to the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations. Because this committee does not have a chairperson, it has not been meeting. Failure to take steps to appoint a chairperson and activate the committee in question will simply indicate a lack of will on the part of Parliament to control the public purse effectively and credibly.
I am glad to see today that Parliament is grappling with that question and I hope it will soon be settled.
The other item I wanted to bring to the attention of the House is a letter that was written to me by the President of the Treasury Board, and it gives me great concern. It does deal very specifically with public accountability.
He said:
In response to the concerns expressed in your previous letter
about the participation of my officials at a meeting that was held on
November 28, and in the future I would like to make my position
clear.
We had requested certain officials to be there to reply and that did not occur. There were officials there, but they were sitting back against the wall.
March 20, 1991

It is my view that officials of the secretariat should, in general, testify as witnesses before the committee in two circumstances.
The rules of this House point out very clearly the powers of committees, and a minister of the Crown should not be telling a parliamentary committee, and particularly the public accounts committee, that on two specific occasions would his officials appear.
The first he said is, and I quote:
-when the Auditor General has specifically directed recommendations or observations to the Treasury Board.
The second is:
-when, in certain instances, it is useful for the committee to have officials of the secretariat available to respond to general questions on specific Teasury Board policies. Beyond these two instances, however, I feel that it is generally inappropriate for secretariat officials to testify as witnesses on matters that relate primarily to the operations of other departments.
The problem here is that Treasury Board is supposed to be the controller of the purse, and lays down guidelines for government departments and their expenditures.
We have taken it, and it has been a tradition, that officials from Treasury Board can appear when the Auditor General is there or appear when people are there from other departments.
Going on with the minister's letter, he says:
The accountability of other departments to the Public Accounts committee would not, in my view, ordinarily be served by such participation. These criteria govern the arrangements that were explicitly made with members of your staff regarding participation of the secretariat at the committee meeting of November 28, 1990 which was addressing the project to modernize the CCGS Louis Saint-Laurent, the icebreaker.
There are differences of opinion on that discussion as well. He goes on:
Pursuant to discussions with senior officials of the secretariat, your staff agreed that my officials would only observe at the meeting.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that was not my understanding at all.
It was also agreed that any issues raised by the committee touching on the role of Treasury Board would be promptly followed up on thereafter.
With regard to "thereafter", the purpose of holding committee meetings, particularly those on accountability, of an accountability role, is to have these people there to answer questions, and put those answers on the
Government Orders
records of the committee meeting at the time. A person who was there did not come up to the table at the time when we asked for a person from Treasury Board. Another person did, but apparently nobody was really designated to do it.
The minister went on to say:
With respect to the meeting of your committee on December 18, 1990 on the subject of the Louis Saint-Laurent icebreaker, please be advised that either Mr. David McEachran, deputy secretary of the Administrative Policy Branch, or Mr. Richard Paton, Assistant Secretary in the same branch, will be attending in order to respond to questions of the committee on Teasury Board's policies touching on the management of projects.
They came to that meeting. There is no sense in senior officials advising ministers that they do not have a role to play at committee meetings in the House of Commons. I totally disagree with the suggestion that Treasury Board should not be present at meetings when they are asked to be there in relation to other departments. I want to make that very clear.
It is spelled out clearly in Beauchesne that a parliamentary committee can send for persons, papers, et cetera, and can invite people to appear before the committee. If those people do not want to attend, the committee can order them to attend. You are well aware of that, Mr. Speaker.
I want to send a message to senior people in Treasury Board that they, too, are accountable to the Parliament of Canada.
I hope that Parliament will come to grips with picking a chairman for the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations so that that issue can be heard and decided upon.
I want to touch briefly on Public Service 2000, which is a very important part of government policy in the management of its employees. Our public accounts committee recommended that a special committee be set up to hear the Public Service 2000 issues. We felt that this would have to be an in-depth study. We certainly did not have time to do it, even though it was in the Auditor General's report. We had about six meetings on it and we submitted our report to the House. The President of the Treasury Board said that he would like to have a special committee study Public Service 2000. He also went on to say that he was going to consult with other people in the Public Service and with unions.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
There was a time at a news conference when I was a bit concerned because the President of Treasury Board had indicated that there was no agreement for a special committee on this, and he blamed my own House leader at the time as one who did not agree with it. That was certainly not true. Our own House leader did agree with it.
I hope that the President of Treasury Board will continue to agree, as he did in a recent letter to me a second time, saying that he will refer the matter for a special hearing. There are certain things about which Treasury Board has the full right, as the government of the day, to make regulations. However, as we continue here, we should have some in-depth hearings on this because these people are the backbone of government in doing the work and providing a service to Canadians.
Budget matters are closely related to the bill before us today because the borrowing bill supplements what the budget does not provide for. There are many things here that are really very important to Canadians. Again, it is a matter of getting our house in order.
The government of the day is simply passing the responsibility for a larger share of medicare and post-secondary education over to the provinces. This is coming right down to the municipal level in the provinces because the provinces have to transfer more money into providing these other services and they have fewer grants to offer to municipalities. Therefore, the addition has to be made up in the taxation of the local municipality.
The government now admits that it will need amendments to the Canada Health Act to protect Canadians. It will have to use a big stick in the provinces, forcing them to provide proper services to Canadians because the federal government is refusing to give the provinces the cash.
Then we go on to unemployment, where the Minister of Finance in his budget predicted greater unemployment. We are certainly seeing it across the country and we are certainly seeing it in my own region of eastern Ontario.
We forecast that the government would have to raise unemployment insurance premiums to cover the cost of unemployment insurance changes contained in Bill C-21.
The government promised gradual increases. Its interpretation of gradual increases was the 24 per cent increase that it brought in, in the budget, to cover UIC changes. That has hurt small business and it is certainly taken from the people's paycheques.
Training and education have both been hit by the budget. A new study on transfer payments is supposed to come out this spring. I have said before, and I will say it again, that the day is not far off when there will have to be a royal commission once again into the study of the dividing up of the financial pie in this country between the federal government and the provinces. Otherwise, the whole thing is going to be out of whack again.
I am talking about a commission similar to the Rowell-Sirois commission of 1937, which has served us well over the years but which is now being torn apart.
Regional development was not really mentioned. It is going to come later, and we can expect that it will be all bad news. In eastern Ontario we have lost VIA Rail service from Ottawa to North Bay. The forest industry is down. Large numbers have been laid off in that industry. Agriculture is certainly not witnessing very pleasant days in many respects. Industries have closed. Nobody seems to be listening. We do not have any regional development plans for eastern Ontario.
I do not want to burden the Minister of Employment and Immigration any more. I hate to see her disturbed because she is such a nice individual to talk to. She is approachable as a minister, but I know she has been rather upset by some of my comments on that terrible UI legislation.
I want to close by making a tribute to the Auditor General of Canada. I can well recall some of the governments which I supported over the years; we did not always like what the Auditor General said. This government is no different. As parliamentarians, and the Auditor General being a servant of Parliament, there is not a member of the House who should not support the Office of the Auditor General very firmly.
I think Kenneth Dye has served this nation well. I have had the privilege of working very closely with him over the last two years plus, as have other members of the committee. We have found him to be very candid, open, up-front and well informed on his subjects.
March 20, 1991

He comes out with his reports and we see in this House where they become a great foofaraw for a couple of days. Then it dies down, and it is left to the public accounts committee to do the work for days thereafter. It is a pleasure to do that. We who serve on the public accounts committee have enjoyed it. It is a very broad perspective on government.
Kenneth Dye is a dedicated man. He has done his utmost to serve Canadians and this Parliament well. He is also served well by a very capable staff, people who are in place to do a job for him, to do his research. Also, in his important role to Canadians, he is seen as the defender of the purse.
I said to him the other day that during his term in office he learned the approach of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to have his little fireside chats. He would turn on the American nation, get them over to his side, and then Congress would have to vote along with him or the pressure came from the American public. We have known Kenneth Dye to be an outspoken person who had no hesitation to raise issues publicly. When the Canadian people heard him speak, they respected him and brought that to the attention of parliamentarians. This is an office, Mr. Speaker, that reports to Parliament through you. The Auditor General is a servant of Parliament. We thank Ken Dye and his people for the service they have provided to the House, to the Parliament of Canada in general and to the people of Canada.
We wish our new Auditor General every success. It is not an easy job dealing with politicians from time to time, but they all come into it knowing full well what their role is. I hope the new Auditor General will have the support of this House as he takes on his new duties.
There are other things about which I would like to speak, but I am going to stop here because I am sure there are other people who want to comment. Besides that, I am losing my voice, so it may not be by voluntary consent. I want to thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank the members of the House for their patience.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Under Standing Order 43, the hon. member did have unlimited time with no questions or comments.
We will now proceed to the next speaker who will have 20 minutes plus 10 minutes of questions and comments.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speakers, I have first to congratulate my predecessor on a marathon session which has covered a great deal of ground. As usual he has made some very important points reflecting his experience in the public accounts committee.
We have in front of us a very large amount of money which this government is asking this Parliament to grant it. This bill, if it passes the House, will authorize the government of this country to borrow as much as $26.4 billion.
That is such a large amount of money that it is almost inconceivable to the average person in this country. It is not the kind of thing which is easy to think about. If we think of it in terms of this country of 26 million, each of us is permitting the government to borrow $1,000 on our behalf. Each and every person across this country is giving authorization to this government to borrow $1,000.
We have to ask the question: Is this a government which has earned the right to do that kind of massive borrowing on behalf of the people of Canada? Since it came before Parliament and last asked for authority to borrow from the people of Canada, does its record in the past year show a sensitivity to the concerns of the people of Canada? Does its record show that it has financially organized its affairs well? Does its record show that its economic leadership in particular gives reason for confidence to those 26 million Canadians?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Absolutely.


Steven W. Langdon: The minister says: "Absolutely". I have to say absolutely not.
I am sure when the minister has had a chance to work her way through the large amounts of correspondence with which she has to deal and looks at some of the fresh statistics which have emerged today, she will realize how devastating they are with respect to this government's record. I am sure that she cannot be pleased to see that the number of bankruptcies in this country are up by 68

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
per cent in the past year. Bankruptcies, especially in the province of Ontario, are more than double what they were.


Barbara Jean McDougall: There is an NDP government there.


Steven W. Langdon: She mentions that there is an NDP government there. The reason for that is that the Liberal government in Ontario, as well as this government, did such a poor job that on September 6, 1990 it was swept out of power, just as this government will be hopefully swept out of power in the very near future. I hope the minister survives because the minister is somebody I look forward to facing when she is in opposition.
A total of 430,000 jobs have been lost in this country in the last year. This government used to boast about how it would have created 200,000 jobs a year. I think at one stage it even got up to 300,000 jobs a year. Whereas in one year it has lost 430,000 permanent jobs. That comes directly out of Statistics Canada's own figures, in case the minister is searching for the source.
The impact has been especially difficult in the manufacturing sector. Employment in manufacturing has declined by 11.7 per cent in the past year. That means that out of every 10 jobs in manufacturing a year ago, 1.2 of those jobs has disappeared. Can you conceive that there has been such a destruction of jobs in manufacturing, Mr. Speaker? If you think that is bad, you just have to look at construction where the result has been a decrease of 12.1 per cent in the past year.
Part-time employment, it is true, has increased. Parttime employment has gone up by 98,000. That is not because people want part-time jobs. It is because that is all they can get. However, 430,000 of those permanent jobs that they would prefer have disappeared.
It is not just bankruptcy statistics and unemployment statistics. It is the international trade statistics that came out today that we should also look at. What the government said to us was that we in this country were going to thrive because of free trade. Free trade was going to be the solution. The minister's business friends went across the country spending millions of dollars to buy the last election for this government on the promise that there would be hundreds of thousands of new jobs thanks to trade.
What has happened? Let's look at the statistics.
The statistics tell us that for January exports actually decreased by $352 million and that instead of imports decreasing too, imports increased by $244 million.
That means in fact that the surplus which existed in January of this year was just $166 million. That compares with a surplus of a billion dollars in the month previous. In fact, if we look at the trend, it has been downward in that surplus. Instead of the free trade deal giving us benefits, it has been costing us exports and leading to new imports into this country.
That is why we see the jobs disappearing across Canada. That is why the 430,000 jobs that have been lost, disappeared in this last year. Of course it has to do with things like the high interest rates this government has followed. It has to do with the fact that the value of the Canadian dollar, which they have kept, is far too high.
A former cabinet minister from this government suggested that this was part of the free trade deal arrangement, that the dollar had to be kept high, to keep the United States interested in signing the free trade deal. The 430,000 jobs lost as a result of that high dollar and the high interest rates are probably related to the free trade deal too.
I can tell you that in my constituency, and in the constituencies of many of the people that are around me today in the House, there has been a devastating loss of jobs directly, because of free trade.
In my constituency, 40 plants shut last year, 40 factories that were providing work with people. In many cases they not only shut down, they transferred their operations to the United States or to Mexico. The government, with its immense wisdom, looking at this trend, has decided to make it even easier for companies to transfer to Mexico. Instead of trying to do something about the loss of jobs and the loss of factories, they have entered into trade negotiations with Mexico, to try to make it possible to shift even more jobs to the low wage parts of Mexico. Sheer insanity.
If this was just a set of statistics, if it was just a set of bad numbers, if it was just something one could point to as signs that the government had not given us what it promised, that would be one thing. What we have seen is terrible, terrible human consequences across this country as a result of what has taken place. These consequences are obvious when you talk about hundreds of thousands of jobs being lost.
March 20, 1991

What is even worse is that many of those people who in the past would have been able to get unemployment insurance so that they could support themselves and help the rest of the economy through the support they were getting, have as a result of this government's deliberate policy been cut off unemployment insurance.
The consequence has been contrary to anything that the minister of employment ever predicted would happen. We have thousands and thousands of people, in her own home city, who are having to go on welfare; skilled workers, people who are anxious to find training, people who go to unemployment insurance offices and ask for training. They ask for the chance to be part of training programs, and you know what they are told, Mr. Speaker?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You're on your own.


Steven W. Langdon: They are told: "Well, we'll put your name on the list, but we have a two-year waiting list".


Barbara Jean McDougall: That is because you held up the legislation.


Steven W. Langdon: They are told that there is a massive waiting list. They are told that this government which promised people training has instead cut $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
For instance, if they happen to be refugees they are told-as a group who spoke with us on Monday night, the Ontario Coalition of Agencies Serving Immigrants, a group which later met with the minister's department- that there simply is not enough money.
Every time the minister comes back into the House she gets straightened out. I am sorry about that.
The reality is that her extra money which she talks about for language training has led to groups telling us on Monday night, for instance groups from her own home city, who are part of this Ontario Coalition of Agencies Serving Immigrants, that they had only 75 places to be able to offer and over 3,000 people were asking for the chance to get help, for the chance to have an ability to learn languages, to be able to work in this countiy. I am sorry she has been scared out again.
Government Orders
The reality is, as somebody from Peel told us, that they have pages of waiting lists of people who need help and who are not able to get that help.
The reality is that people across this country are being severely damaged. Refugees, of course, but also millions of Canadian families who have seen people within their family face unemployment, have not been able to get unemployment insurance and have had to go on welfare. They have seen their dignity, their pride in their ability to provide for their families destroyed.
What does this government do in its budget, having cut back unemployment insurance already? It takes the next step and it cuts back its support to welfare payments.
This is a shameful government. It is a government which has shown on issue after issue, case after case, that it does not care about people. It has shown that it is incompetent as well.


An hon. member:: But cares about some people.


Steven W. Langdon: As my colleague from Edmonton suggests, it cares about those people to whom it extended the 21-year trust agreements. It did not have to do that, but for those large family foundations, those family fortunes which were tied up in trust, that were supposed to run out this year, yes it had something for them. It has had something for the large corporations that wanted to maintain their memberships in golf courses and their special boxes in the Sky Dome, and their special boxes for Edmonton Oilers games. Oh yes, it permitted

And also for the Quebec Nordiques!
It permitted those companies to continue to deduct 80 per cent of the cost of those entertainment expenditures from the taxes that people across this country pay. It ends up, Mr. Speaker, and I know you feel as strongly about this as I do, that you and I and the 26 million Canadians across this country have to pay more taxes to support these freebies for corporate executives and their friends who get to go to sporting events.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
Now you and I, Mr. Speaker, both like to go to sporting events, but we are prepared to pay the cost, as people across this country pay the cost, unless the giant corporations in this country get the chance to buy in to special privileges and deduct it from taxes that you and I have to make up.
Lest you think that this is just a New Democrat raving in the wilderness, let me quote from another judgment on the budget from the Toronto Dominion Bank. I think you would agree-even the minister of defence would agree-the Toronto Dominion Bank is not usually an ally of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. McKnight:: The Toronto Dominion Bank is a friend of the socialists.


Steven W. Langdon: See, he agrees, it is not usually an ally of the New Democratic Party. Therefore, let me quote from the Toronto Dominion Bank's analysis of this budget. I could quote a great deal from this, but let me just quote perhaps the most devastating comment: "This 1991 budget is probably the most economically inept and destructive budget since the 1930s." That is not us speaking, that is the Toronto Dominion Bank.
What we have got is a set of judgments from across the country from the people whom we represent that tell us this government has lost its compassion, if indeed it ever had it. It has lost its ability to listen to Canadians. It has lost its ability to care about Canadians and, most important, it has lost its ability to lead Canadians. Canadians no longer trust this government. That is why we will be voting against letting this government borrow over $26 billion from the Canadian people.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member of the NDP, who said earlier that members on this side of the House work only for Canadians who are well off. Perhaps I may comment and I will also have a question a little later on that I have three riding offices. In those offices, I have assistants who are working with me on cases involving disabled persons. We even work on cases involving the province, unemployment cases, welfare cases, cases of economic hardship, and we certainly do not work exclusively for families that are well off. We also work for the middle class, including miners.
He referred earlier to freebies for big corporations. Perhaps we should also talk about isolated post allowances for people who live in Abitibi and in northern Quebec, and I am referring to the designation of isolated posts for the purposes of Northern benefits, something we have finally been able to obtain for our workers, our union members, miners, forestry workers and nurses. Everybody-low-income people, the middle class and the upper class-will be on the same footing. They will all get these isolation allowances from the federal government. This is important in the north and in Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Matagami and Joutel. The same applies to Chapais and Chibougamau. In Chibougamau, they were never able to get these allowances but they are now getting 50 per cent. This is wonderful, and we won thanks to the work done by ministers like Benoit Bouchard who represents the riding of Roberval an excellent minister.
I also have a question for the hon. member. He often refers to newspaper articles. In today's papers, Mr. Speaker, and more specifically in La Presse, on the business page there is a reference to something he didn't mention in his speech, and I am talking about mortgage rates. He didn't mention those at all. However, it's all here in the papers. But I know why he didn't mention this, because when he read the papers this morning, while he was having breakfast, he must have felt he couldn't mention this in his speech because the news was much too good.
I have here an article by Nicole France Bernier which says: "Outlook for mortgage customers brighter than in 1982. The number of people in arrears on their residential mortgages has increased substantially over the past few months, but the situation is certainly not alarming, according to financial institutions contacted by La Presse. In fact, it compares favourably with the situation during the last recession". The article goes on to say, Mr. Speaker: "At the Confederation des caisses populates et d'economie Desjardins, which has about 40 per cent of the residential mortgage market in Quebec, Mr. Gaston Sirois, vice-president, financial credit, said that in his opinion, the recession in the early 80s had been much harder on residential mortgage holders, because interest rates were much higher, which made things much harder for people who had to renew their mortgages."
March 20, 1991

So I would like to say to the hon. member that the situation is better than in Ontario, because in September 1981, mortgage rates were as high 21.5 per cent, compared with 11.5 or 11.75 per cent today.
My question is: Why didn't he mention mortgage rates in his speech?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to say that Conservatives and Liberals are different. It is not for me to say that the Conservatives kept interest rates lower than the Liberals did during the previous recession. That may be true, but the important question for ordinary people, for all Quebeckers, is this: With the Conservatives or the Liberals can we expect to have an economic policy which would be a promising approach for ordinary people?
I for one cannot see that. I see very high interest rates with the Conservatives, and I saw very high interest rates with the Liberals. I saw the Conservatives offer a number of tax concessions to the major corporations, just as I saw the Liberals do the same thing. There is no difference. Here is the important message getting through to the people of Quebec, to the voters of Quebec. The important message is that there is another choice, there is an alternative, and that is the NDP which can change the situation for a good many Quebeckers. That is reality.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader on a point of order.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, there is consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding Standing Order 76(1), the House waive the usual 48 hour notice required to debate Bill C-98, an Act authorizing agreements between the Government of Canada and the provinces to provide for protection for the income of producers of agricultural products and to enable the Government of Canada to take additional measures for that purpose in the name of the Minister of Agriculture at report stage on Thursday, March 21, 1991.
Government Orders


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we concur.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for us to concur at this stage. This is the first I have heard of this. It is certainly something I will consult about with others who have responsibility for these matters in my party, but it is not something which I can immediately concur with.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, if the request is to drop the 48-hour requirement it is our understanding that that would in fact happen provided, of course, the amendments are permitted to be put in a shorter time as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paprpski):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-97, an act to provide borrowing authority, be read the third time and passed.
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on such an important piece of legislation affecting the Canadian economy.
Last February when the Minister of Finance presented his sixth budget, we in the Official Opposition said that it was a blueprint for a made-in-Canada recession.
As I rise to address the House today, we have a made-in-Canada recession and the blame for it lies squarely on the doorstep of the Minister of Finance and his boss, the Prime Minister of Canada.
We told the government and members of Parliament on that side, if they continued with their high interest rate, high dollar policy that thousands of Canadians would go bankrupt and hundreds of thousands would lose their jobs.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
Just today, the statistics for the month of February were released and we find that bankruptcies have increased significantly in this country, particularly in the province of Ontario, and we are seeing thousands upon thousands of Canadians losing their jobs on a monthly and regular basis.
We told the government of the Prime Minister that if it insisted on cutting payments to the provinces for things like health care and higher education, it would lead to cutbacks in service, higher tuition fees and higher provincial taxes. This has come to pass. We told the government at that time if it went ahead with the GST, it would push an economy on the brink of recession into full recession and add dangerously to inflation. It too, came to pass. But the government would not listen. It would not listen to the concerns of the opposition and, more important, it would not listen to the concerns of Canadians from coast to coast. It would not listen to the unemployed, to people struggling to pay their rent and to meet the mortgage. They are victims of its terrible, terrible economic planning. It would not listen to leading economists and business people, all of whom warned the government that it was on an economic collision course. The government, much to my chagrin and I am sure to that of many Canadians, still is not listening with regard to the Canadian economy.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you know that the Minister of Finance did not even have the common decency to stay in the House of Commons to listen to the budget response of the Liberal finance critic, the hon. member from Windsor. In fact, there was only one government minister in the House, the Minister of unemployment and immigration and she was so wrapped up in what she was reading that she didn't seem to hear a word of what our finance critic was saying on behalf of thousands of Canadians across this country.
We now have an economy in serious recession. Unemployment is at 10.2 per cent nationally-and I want to come back to that, Mr. Speaker-10.2 per cent nationally. It is more than 11 per cent in Nova Scotia, and in my constituency in the Cape Breton region, it is a shameful 18.5 per cent.
The figures in parts of Newfoundland are equally high. Parts of northern Ontario and other communities throughout the country, even in the city of Montreal, unemployment is at a shameful high.
It all adds up to close to a million and a half unemployed people in this country, every one of them a tragedy in economic terms and, more important, in human terms.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is there anything in this budget for those people that would help them find jobs or learn the skills necessary for good jobs?
The answer, unfortunately, is no.
All the government has done for the unemployed in this country is to take off $100 million under the Canada Jobs Strategy program. All the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, and of course his senior political minister in my province of Nova Scotia are saying to the unemployed, those thousands of individuals in my small province, is that "you're on your own; the federal government will not be there to assist you in any way".
In this very budget the Minister of Finance is predicting double digit unemployment right across the country for the rest of this year. He is predicting not much better for the year following, 9.8 per cent right across this country. Shameful predictions, and I think it indicates quite clearly that the government and this Minister of Finance and this Prime Minister have lost control of the economic agenda in this country.
What he is saying is, in effect: "We don't care what the cost is in economic and human terms. Stay the course and, before you know it, this cut and slash approach will lead us out of the recession". Ha, ha, ha; that is what Canadians say to the Minister of Finance. Or, better still; shame, shame, shame on the Minister of Finance of this country.
I see the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has entered the House. He knows only too well, coming from a province like Alberta, that they understand, particularly in his riding, what it means to be unemployed. I am sure that he shares with me wholeheartedly my sentiments as expressed toward the Minister of Finance.
Canadians have good reason to be sceptical about this government. Last year the Minister of Finance told Canadians that after a bit of a slow period in the spring and summer of 1990, we will be into a mini-boom by the fall. That is what he said-Ripley's "believe it or not".
March 20,1991

When his economic policies drove the country into a real recession, he was the last to admit it. No matter how hard he tried, he just could not get that "r" word, "recession", to roll off his tongue.
His boss, the right hon. Prime Minister, had an easier time. Not only did he acknowledge that the economy was going down the drain, he, in this House and outside the House, had the unmitigated gall to try to take credit for it.
When asked last October about the recession, the Prime Minister said:
We have induced a slowdown. Mr. Wilson said as much in his last
budget. Look at the budget. It is as clear as spring water. Mr. Wilson
spelled it out.
That is what the Prime Minister said, and he and the Minister of Finance took credit for inducing the first ever made-in-Canada recession. I say again through you, Sir, that that is shameful behaviour coming from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of this country.
If the Prime Minister wishes to take credit for this made-in-Canada recession, he must also take credit for inducing a million and a half Canadians out of their jobs. That is no laughing matter. That is a serious indictment against any government and against any Minister of Finance. Now we are in a recession and the government has taken credit for it. What is it going to do? What are the ministers going to do to try to get us out of this recession? I wonder what the Minister of National Defence, who is in the Chamber, would do if he were the Minister of Finance. Does he have a plan? No, there is no meaningful plan.
When you pick up the plan for economic recovery, there is nothing in it. It is the government's so-called plan for economic recovery, over nine pages long and not even full-size pages at that. That is all that the thousands and thousands of economists, statisticians and analysts working for the Minister of Finance could come up with for the million and a half unemployed people in this country. I would have thought that the Minister of Finance, who is from one of the wealthiest areas in the country, could have found within his budget a small sum of money to enter into a contract with numerous consultants to come up with some better economic plan than nine short pages for the million and a half Canadians that are unemployed because of this government's first ever made-in-Canada recession.
Government Orders
The Minister of Finance ought to be, must be, ashamed of himself and of the policies that he has been putting forward for quite some time.
We know it is not in the budget. There is no meaningful and complete plan to get us out of the recession created by the Minister of Finance. There is nothing to help the unemployed. The victims of the government's made-in-Canada recession accept the $100 million cut, as members on this side have alluded to on numerous occasions. But what is in the budget? The Minister of Finance would say that there are no new income taxes in the budget. That is what he said in response to my colleague, the deputy leader, the hon. member for Hamilton East, and to the finance critic for our party.
What he will not admit, Mr. Speaker-and I know you find this somewhat misleading; I would not want to say that it is unparliamentary-is that there are things in the budget that will be quite taxing to people's incomes, like the 25 per cent increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
Let's picture for a moment the Minister of Finance saying "no new taxes". A small businessperson running a small store, a retail outlet, a small manufacturing plant, a consulting business, now has to pay higher premiums for the unemployment that he will give to those individuals that he will have to lay off because of the minister's made-in-Canada recession, which he took credit for. The employees will also pay higher premiums for the unemployment insurance that they will get eventually because of lay-off notices.
That is going to take a bite out of the pay cheque of every working man and woman in this country. The Minister of Finance will not come clean with Canadians and call it a tax.


An hon. member:: He does not care.


David Charles Dingwall: That is right. A colleague of mine has referred to the fact that he does not care. I think that is a very appropriate statement with regard to the Minister of Finance.
Do not forget either that this is the same minister who, in 1985, hit Canadians with an income tax surtax which he said was only temporary. In 1986, he made it permanent, and in 1989 he increased it from 3 per cent to 5 per cent on the income of every working person in this country. He does not talk about these income taxes in his budget, even though they are still going on. No new taxes. What do you call that? There is also a three cent per cigarette tax. At least the minister is honest about that particular tax.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
The most staggering tax in Canadian history, the GST, just took effect this past January. I suggest to my colleague from Newfoundland, that the Minister of Finance would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind, to suggest that this has not hit hard on the pocket-books of Canadians. It is absolutely, unequivocally ridiculous for the Minister of Finance to allude that the GST is not a tax and it is not part of his particular budget. Does he say that in the budget? Of course not. What does he say about the GST? I will tell you. Here is what he says: "The Prime Minister has given a commitment that any above-projected revenues from the GST will make a contribution to deficit reduction".
The Minister of Finance wants to use the GST to reduce the deficit. This is about the most cynical thing I have seen from this government in recent time.
The GST and the implications that it has for average Canadians is absolutely devastating. The member opposite is shaking his head in agreement. I know that the hon. member is an honourable individual. I know it was difficult for him to vote in favour of this government's policies. And I know that if the occasion were to arise again, he would want to stand in his place and say to his colleagues in the government: "Scrap the GST, let us move on to real tax reform; let us not aggravate and exacerbate this first ever made-in-Canada recession by the Minister of Finance".
The Minister of Finance in implementing this particular tax led us to believe it was going to be revenue neutral. Well, that is supposed to mean that when you bring in a so-called replacement tax, it will not bring in any more money for the government than the tax is supposed to replace.
We in the Official Opposition said all along that the GST was much more than just a replacement tax. We said the government was just using the replacement tax concept as a smoke-screen to raise revenues by picking the pockets of ordinary Canadians. But when we raised these points, the Minister of Finance said things like this: "Canadians will not pay one penny of additional tax as a result of the GST." Now, it would be very, very unparliamentary for me to stand in this Chamber and question the honesty and the integrity of the Minister of Finance.
But if I may, in candour, share with the Speaker and with my colleagues in the Chamber as to what my constituents say; I am their representative. I have to listen to what they say about the Minister of Finance.


An hon. member:: What do they say?


An hon. member:: Can you print it?


David Charles Dingwall: They question his honesty and they have used the l word, Mr. Speaker. Not the r word, but the l word. And they even use the l word for the Prime Minister. I tell members opposite that they do not mean loving when they use the l word. I want hon. members to know that.
There are many things about the economic policies of this government that ought to be addressed in full debate. In view of the fact that I have limited time, some five or six minutes remaining, I want to say that there are two other items which have a profound effect on the economy in Atlantic Canada. One is the continual slashing of the Established Programs Financing Act.
I wish the minister of health were in the House today because we could get involved in a really good debate. He is saying to the people of my province: "We are going to cut your budget". However, he is not saying to the health worker, the janitors in the hospitals, the nurses in the hospitals and all other individuals who are employed in the health care system that there are going to be lay-offs because the economic pie is becoming smaller and smaller and smaller.
Those provincial governments that cannot afford it are going to have to do something as drastic as they did in Newfoundland because of the federal government's policies. It was a shameful act by a shameful government, but Canadians have come to learn and to expect the worst of this lot across the way. That is with regard to health care.
On education, it is equally so. I happen to represent a poorer province in this country. We are going to be further restricted with regard to education and providing opportunities for our young people in our province. The government's answer is: "I am sorry. You are out of luck. You are on your own".
March 20, 1991

The third and final point is that in my region, in my constituency, this government has done nothing to assist the unemployed other than to exacerbate their situation.
I would hope hon. members opposite, who I know agree with the substance that I have put forward, would see their way clear to raise these integral, important matters in their caucuses; to have the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who has become a complete and utter joke as far as Canadians are concerned with regard to health care in this country, reverse these policy initiatives; and to have them come before Parliament and the Canadian people with an economic plan which will address the high unemployment regions of this country, our health care system, our educational system, as well as our monetary and fiscal policies, as opposed to taking us into the first ever-imagine, Mr. Speaker-made-in-Canada recession.
I say shame on the Prime Minister, shame on the Minister of Finance. Let us get rid of this lot once and for all and put a Liberal government on that side of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That this House continues to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of the third reading stage of government Bill C-97, an act to provide borrowing authority.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

["It being eight o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1)."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Abitibi, the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is unable to move his motion during Private Members' Hour on Thursday, March 21, 1991.
It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in order of precedence, pursuant to Standing
Government Orders
Order 94. Accordingly, I am directing the table officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence.
Private Members' Hour will thus be cancelled and, pursuant to Standing Order 94, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-97, an act to provide borrowing authority, be read the third time and passed.
Guy St-Julien: I should like to make a comment, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member asked if there was anything in the budget for us northern residents or for the people of Quebec. I want to tell him that the budget of Minister Michael Wilson does contain something for us. There is something for the people of Quebec and, for the first time, there is a project to build a $15 million research centre or laboratory. Never did we get that under the Liberals, and he is a good Liberal. Never did we get anything from Ottawa that was transferred to Quebec. If this has been transferred to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, it is precisely due to the Conservative caucus, to the members from Quebec who helped us get these $15 million for Abitibi and for Quebec.
I have another comment. The hon. member suggested there is nothing on the economy. We have just learned that a project has been launched this month where 500 people will have jobs. This is a new mine, a new resource and one of my friends is on the board of directors. These 500 new jobs are important. Unemployment declined this month. And there is something else I want to say by way of comment, Mr. Speaker. In the budget we did get something for northern residents, for unionized mine workers, for union members working in forestry, in pulp and paper mills, in sawmills and in hospitals, and this is not to mention northern benefits for people in isolated regions north of the 49th parallel. We got that project after 14 months of constant representations. The workers were mad at the time, but they are in a better mood today.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
True enough, Mr. Speaker, we are experiencing difficult times. We are in the midst of a recession, I agree. One thing I want to say is that my staff and I have three offices in my riding. I spend weekends there and when I have an opportunity to visit my constituents I listen to what they have to say. Quite a few of them are getting mad, but they are not bad people. We work together to find solutions. That is what I wanted to say. I hope they will listen to us. There is one topic which the hon. member would rather not deal with, and I refer to mortgage rates. These rates stood at 20, 22 and 23 per cent during the 1981-82 recession when the former Liberal government was in office, but today they are way down around 10 or 11.75 per cent. He did not say anything about mortgage rates in his remarks. I would like to hear what he has to say about that.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to respond to my colleague opposite who I know has a more than average work ethic when it comes to representing his constituents. I understand and realize that he attempts at all times to be very effective on their behalf. I would be remiss if I did not congratulate him on his efforts.
The hon. member opposite must understand that we are not just dealing with his particular constituency and/or a particular portion of his constituency. That is important. I concur.
We are asking the Government of Canada to put before the people of Canada an economic plan which has some semblance of strong pillars that will provide Canadians, not only in a small portion of his riding but also in British Columbia, in Nova Scotia, in Ontario, other parts of Quebec and the western provinces, with meaningful opportunities so that they too can raise their families and enjoy a lifestyle and a quality of living.
However the government has not produced that economic plan. It has been remiss. In fact, there are some Canadians in various quarters who would say that the government, the Minister of National Defence who is there and his cabinet colleagues have been grossly negligent in terms of managing the economy.
My colleague has lobbed a reference to the 1981-82 recession across the aisle. No one has ever said that that was a first ever made-in-Canada recession. It was part of
a world-wide recession. What we have today, by the admission of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and others, is that this is the first ever made-in-Canada recession.
I do not know if the Minister of National Defence is shaking his head saying yes or he is just nodding to get something off his forehead. He knows that this government has caused havoc for Canadians across this country, whether it be in regard to the EPF, health care, post-secondary education, or whatever it might be. It has so frustrated, so exacerbated the economic plight of Canadians that it is playing havoc with the national unity of the country.
I will give one example to the hon. member who posed a question. Workers in my riding have been fighting for five years to become part and parcel of the Older Workers Adjustment Program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hon. member should know better than to bring another person into the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I did not know whether you were speaking to me. I know there are numerous members opposite who would want to come over to this side of the House after the interventions we have made, but I say to the hon. member that they have been working for fives years to become part and parcel of the Older Workers Adjustment Program. To date, they have not been successful. These are Canadians 54 to 57 or 58 years of age who have no hope of meaningful employment. This government has denied them not only a program but also the benefits of the existing program that they have in order to make their lot in life more successful. That to me is a prime example of a budget void of any substance to address some of the more important, fundamental and human issues that this country faces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre brought a person from the outside into the House, and I just want to correct what I said.
No member should be bringing individuals into the Chamber. I am sorry about the outburst, but hon. members should know better than to do that.
March 20, 1991


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche -Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in this important debate. It is a very clear message emanating from the Budget which the Conservative government tabled a few weeks ago. It is definitely a disaster for ordinary Canadians. How not to reach this conclusion, when we realize that this Budget will seriously damage the social fabric of our country with its tax increases and spending cuts.
Clearly, Canadians will wonder what they did to deserve such a government. The economic situation now is far from brilliant: 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed because of the government's economic policies. Last year, the number of bankrupticies reached 55,000. One out of every six Canadian children goes to bed every night on an empty stomach.
When faced with such a serious situation, what does the government do? Well, Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you. It shirks its commitments. Not only is it responsible for the economic mess everywhere in this country, but its policies are only making a bad situation worse. As a matter of fact, the government has withdrawn nearly $1 billion from its programs for the needy and increased by 24 per cent the unemployment insurance premiums and this, right in the middle of an economic recession.
For that matter, Canadians were looking forward to a Budget which would ease to a certain extent the devastating impact of the recession and would help promote national unity. Unfortunately, they were offered a Budget which slashes in the job creation programs, attacks health care, education and the unions, and continues the Prime Minister's policy which is to transfer to the provinces the burden of its federal deficit.
What is really unbelievable about the deficit is that the Tories have the gall to tell Canadians they must tighten their collective belt to reduce it.
Whoever looks at table 3 on page 91 of the document entitled "the Budget", published by the Minister of Finance, realizes that the government is playing an interesting little game. The government has increased personal income tax by 8.7 per cent, while reducing corporate income tax by 3.5 per cent.
Moreover, according to the government's budgetary document, personal income tax will have increased by 22.5 per cent in the fiscal year 1990-91 and 1991-92,
Government Orders
while corporate income tax will have decreased by 15.9 per cent. It is unbelievable!
On the basis of these facts, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government is not really serious about debt and deficit reduction. In fact, since coming to power in 1984, it has more than doubled the national debt.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Tory government is only using the debt as an excuse for slashing social programs.
[English)
The aim of this government is to dismantle Canada's social programs by cutting back in transfer payments to which the provinces have a constitutional right. It is in the Constitution that the Government of Canada has to help out with regional disparities and has to try to equalize. It is those very equalization payments that the government is cutting back. It is cutting back on payments that will serve to go toward health care and post-secondary education.
In the projections of this government from 1986 to 1996 it expects to cut $40 billion on these transfer payments to the provinces. In my province of New Brunswick alone, it expects to cut over a billion dollars in these transfer payments. These transfer payments are for education. They are for health care. Certainly this is a direct attack on medicare.
Speaking of medicare, last evening we had occasion to witness the government in full bloom, so to speak. We had a motion in the House concerning medicare and saying that this House now supports medicare, wants to support it, and wants to continue it. We know how that vote came about and what the results were. Again it is a demonstration that this government has no commitment to medicare. It is a direct attack on medicare. It is just a matter of time with the cuts to these transfer payments that medicare will be a thing of the past.
Looking at the money that this government wants to borrow to institute its budgetary plan, we must look at the state of the economy and see what part of the economy is suffering and what type of plan this government is putting in place to help these people who are suffering.
There are, as I mentioned previously, a million and a half people out of work. The projections the finance minister has given us so far have stated they are going to be in double-digit numbers for the next year or so, and he has accepted that. It is one thing to accept it, but it is another thing not to do anything about it.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
The high unemployment rate is a direct link, a direct cause, to the high interest rate and high dollar policies of this government. There is no doubt about it. It has cost businesses jobs. It has cost industry jobs. There is no doubt about it. There is a direct link.
As many members mentioned today on the same topic, the high interest rate and high dollar policy has affected our export ability and has created this first made-in-Ca-nada recession.
What has the government done to help the unemployed? If we look at the budget documents, we find that in the Canadian Jobs Strategy, the area where it is supposed to be helping the unemployed, it has cut $100 million.
If we tiy to figure out what that will mean to each province, we would have to play a guessing game based on past traditions. In New Brunswick alone, this would mean a cutback of $6.5 million. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are many places in New Brunswick that suffer from high unemployment.
I come from such a region, and I want to point out some of the figures that exist in my region. In February, the unemployment rate in my riding was 16.3 per cent. The average rate for Canada in February was 10.2 per cent. What has the minister done? He has cut these programs to help these people get back to work.

Mr. Speaker, there is no relief for the fishermen in my riding. There is no relief for the farmers in my riding. There is no relief for the workers in the mining and forest industries in my riding.

I have to say it is not getting much better. I do not want to seem a pessimist, because I am noted for being a person who likes to move ahead and talk about positive things.
Just this week alone, I received a call giving me some very sad information. Two major industries in my riding; one, a kraft mill-we know what type of employment it has-has been put up for sale because of poor markets and because it is not competitive. It exports, and we
know what the high dollar has done to exports. Hopefully a buyer will be found and the mill will continue.
Even sadder, in Kedgwick which is a small community with very high unemployment, the sawmill is up for sale and must be sold by the end of June. If not, the present owner plans on closing. The unemployment rate in that area is probably much higher than most other areas in my riding, well above 20 per cent. That impacts on about 100 full-time jobs and well over 200 seasonal jobs. It is a small community of roughly 2,500 people.
I may as well make the pitch now and hope that the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Labour will look upon this area as a special area, that they will try to apply some of the adjustment programs that now exist into this area and that they will use a little more flexibility.
Speaking about flexibility, I should also say that my region has been hit by a number of strikes in the past year. One is still ongoing from July 1990 where approximately 1,500 employees have been out on strike. I have written to the minister asking for more flexibility in applying UIC regulations. I would again hope that for the sake of the families of men, women and children involved, with the suffering that they are going through that the government would show more flexibility in that regard. I would also hope that the government would try to convince both sides to get back to the bargaining table and resolve those labour disputes as quickly as possible without, rightly so, interfering in the process. I know it is private sector.
I would also like to talk a little bit about income tax because the government is saying there have been no increases in taxes. The government is telling us how it has closed loopholes on corporations. I want to refer to this government document entitled "The Budget". I think many of us are familiar with it. On page 91 of the budget, Table 3 sets out budgetary revenues. I guess the government needs money to operate and that is what we are debating tonight. We are looking at where that money is going. When we look at where it is getting that money from, there is a table on page 91 that is very interesting. It is a breakdown of where it gets its money in relation to personal income and corporate income.
March 20,1991

We find on that table that in 1990-91, the government would be getting 13.8 per cent more revenue from personal income than the year before. This is an increase. It is getting more revenue from individuals. If you look at the same table for corporate income tax you will see a decrease of 12.4 per cent from 1990 to 1991. What this table is telling us is that individuals are paying more and corporations are paying less.
If we look at the table a little further and in more depth, we will find that from 1991 to 1992, which are only projections but the minister lives by those projections, we will find that the individual personal income tax revenue for the government will increase by 8.7 per cent and the corporate income tax will decrease by 3.5 per cent. If you add up the totals for both years, you will find that the revenue from income tax for individuals will be increased to 23.7 per cent while, in fact, for the corporations it will decrease to 15.6 per cent. Again, individuals are paying more and corporations are paying less. I think it is veiy important that that point was made this evening.
In conclusion, because I know my time is limited and I do not want to go on too long, I just want to make the point that the government seems to have, as my hon. House leader mentioned a while ago, more or less embarked on a policy of telling Canadians: "You are on your own". We have talked about transfer payments, medicare: "You are on your own, provinces." We talk about post-secondary education for students: "You are on your own."
I was speaking to a student just the other day who was at the ceremony for Rev. Sean O'Sullivan, and I asked him when he was home last. He was from Cape Breton and a former page of the House. He said it had been quite some time. I said: "You did not go home last summer?" He said: "No, I didn't. There was no work back home, unfortunately." He said: "I had to work all summer. I am working now part-time. You know, even with all that work, I still do not have enough money to pay for my post-secondary education."
It is getting worse. There is a tax on the administration of student loans now. What is coming to is that post-secondary education is going to be for the rich, unfortunately, very unfortunately.
Government Orders
This budget and this bill are both linked. Bill C-97 is linked to the budget because it will provide the money for the budget to operate. This is a disastrous budget; it is simply disastrous. It is an attack on the regions, it is an attack on the poor, it is an attack on students, it is an attack on national unity. You may ask, why national unity? We all know the crisis situation that Canada is in, we know that when people are unhappy they like to look at other options. So it is quite obvious what this budget has done.
It is an attack on rural Canada, it is an attack on the fabric of Canada, it is an attack on medicare. I would hope that the government would come back to a compassionate type of system, a system which I think is necessary to solve and to resolve the problems that Canadians are being faced with, not only on a national level but on a regional level as well.


David Charles Dingwall: First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member on an excellent intervention on a very important subject affecting the country. However, I have an observation, Mr. Speaker, and then a question to my colleague.
My colleague has shared with me on a previous occasion, and indeed with members of our party, his concern with regard to Canadians who live in rural communities and the lack of services provided to them.
I ask the hon. member if he would care to comment on whether or not the present fiscal policies of the government-borrowing, build, budget, the various cutbacks- are addressing any of the concerns of rural life?
The hon. member will know there has been a large number of post offices closed in rural communities throughout Canada. He is fully aware, as I am, that VIA Rail, which has been an integral part of our transportation system in many parts of the country, has been terminated. He is fully aware that the fishery which impacts on small rural communities has been gutted by the policies of the government opposite. He is also fully aware that privatization has had an exceptionally negative impact on our rural life, I think of Air Canada, for instance, and what it does in providing services to Canadians.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
I ask my colleague whether he believes that these policies of the government have been addressed in any way in the budgetary programs of the Minister of Finance, and whether he believes, as I believe, that rural revitalization ought to be a major component of any economic plan that any government would put before the people of Canada.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. House leader for the question.
I think, in all honesty, if we were to look at what has happened to rural Canada in the last number of years, we will find that, yes, the budget does address rural Canada, but in a negative way unfortunately.
I don't know whether there is a misunderstanding in cabinet, in government, but it claims that: "Oh, we have the programs, if you can't find a job in rural Canada we are going to move you, you can apply for a little grant and we will move you and you can find a job in Toronto or in Montreal". Well, we know what has happened in Montreal and we know what is going to happen in Toronto and Vancouver.
Its little plan is to take rural Canada and practically dismantle it. That is quite obvious. It is a plan that has been there all along.
We look at the cutbacks to VIA Rail. We look at the cutbacks in the CBC. It didn't worry about the regions. It just said: "Let us cut" and that is it. We look at lay-offs in Marine Atlantic; we look at the GST. Rural Canada is what gave Canada its uniqueness and it is a necessary item. To any government in office it is necessary. It is necessary that the government take care of rural Canada. It is a must.
We look at what is happening in the fisheries on the east coast. We have heard a lot about the east coast, but look at what is happening on the west coast as well. There are problems with the fisheries on the west coast.
What is wrong in agriculture? There are no family farms any more. People are getting out of farming. Why? We have to preserve those traditions. That is what Canada is all about. That is what will keep us united, our uniqueness. There is nothing wrong with being different. But what is happening is that there is a malaise out there. People in rural Canada feel they have been forgotten.
Maybe the service has not changed in the rural post offices. I am not going to debate that point with the government, because they have their point of view and I have mine. Individuals want to go down to the local post office, meet their friends and have a little chat. They want to go by and see a Canadian flag here and there in their community. For many people in rural Canada there are no Canadian flags flying any more because Canada Post does not exist in their community any more. Canada Post, even if they do exist, are flying a corporate flag now. What is wrong with the Canadian flag?
We are facing an identity crisis. We are facing a crisis in our nation and we are refusing to step up front and say that we are proud to be Canadians. I think to be proud to be a Canadian we would have to go back and look at what has made us Canadians in the true sense. We have to go back and look at our roots. We have to go back and look at rural Canada and say: "We are falling apart here. Let us put it back together. Let us put the programs back in to help rural Canada", not necessarily just throw money at the problem. There is a structural problem and we have to handle it.
I suppose some people would have different ways of doing it, but it is important that we sit down someday and decide how we are going to help rural Canada prosper, how to revitalize it because at the present moment there is a serious problem and we are not handling it very well.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled at this point to note for the benefit of those who may be watching these proceedings on television tonight, that we are actually debating something concrete. What we are debating is a request from the government, in the form of a bill, to borrow $26 billion to keep the machinery of government running over the next fiscal year. That is the amount the government estimates it will need to make up the difference between what it proposes to spend and what it assumes it will receive by way of taxation and other revenues.
The question before us tonight is the third reading of the bill that will authorize the borrowing of that $26 billion. I would like just very briefly to note why I, as the member for Edmonton East, cannot support that request and thus cannot vote for the bill.
March 20, 1991

I would like to start by reminding members that for better than a year and half, in fact, in some instances a lot longer than a year and half, members of the New Democratic Party caucus have been advising the government: "You have to reduce interest rates". The high interest rate policy maintained by the Governor of the Bank of Canada with the delighted acquiescence of the government ministry was crippling the Canadian economy. If those high interest rates were not reduced, unquestionably a recession would be induced and quite possibly it could be a very deep, severe and harmful recession.
That is precisely what has occurred. However, we are now treated with the remarkable spectacle of the finance minister, among others, saying-now that the collapse of the economy has by itself completely destroyed the market for money and thus allowed interest rates to fall, the Minister of Finance and other members of the government are saying- "Well, there you are. We have reduced interest rates".
It is rather like watching the fire truck pull up to the burning house after it has burned to the ground. It is nice to know the fire truck is there, but it is a little late.
If I may extend this little metaphor, what is required now is for the carpenters and the electricians and the roofers and the plasterers to be hired to rebuild the house. We can send the fire truck back to the fire hall. The period of need has passed. What we need now, to make the metaphor plain, is government programs aimed at rebuilding the economy.
That means two things. It means stimulating consumption and it means encouraging new business investment. The budget does neither. The budget discourages consumption by all save the very rich, and has absolutely nothing to encourage business investment in product, plant and equipment.
We are left asking ourselves why the heck then do we need to borrow $26 billion, $1,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country? I regret to say, the answer is what makes it impossible for me to support this bill.
The answer as to why we need to borrow that money is precisely to continue to let the good times roll for Tom d'Aquino's Business Council on National Issues, for
Government Orders
whom the ministry and its supporters opposite constitute so effective a fan club.
For several weeks now, members of my party in this House, most notably the member for Winnipeg-Trans-cona, have been pointing out to the Minister of Finance and other members of the government that, in a budget that is virtually an assault on the wallets, well-being and standard of living of the Canadian people, there is one group that has got off scot free. There is one group that has not been called upon-in the heroic words of the finance minister-to share the burden. It is that small group of Canadians sufficiently wealthy to take advantage of the tax breaks that are there for the rich and the super-rich and the corporations they hold.
In the last couple of weeks, the member for Winnipeg-Transcona has identified five such key loopholes. They are the capital gains lifetime exemption and preferred rates, which will cost the treasury $2.8 billion all by itself. That is enough to exempt the entire population of Alberta from that $1,000 a head required by the borrowing bill.
The business and entertainment tax deduction-the famous three-martini lunch, the box seats for the favoured of the corporate elite that the member for Essex-Windsor was speaking of earlier-that accounts for $1.1 billion a year. The dividend tax credit is another $1 billion a year. The manufacturing and processing tax credit, that gift to the corporate sector which was otherwise so grievously inconvenienced by the manufacturers' sales tax-that is what we were told during the period when the GST was being hawked-that remains, and it is worth another billion dollars a year to those corporations. The interest deductibility rule is all by itself worth $800 million to the wealthy in this country.
Those five considerations alone add up to $6.7 billion. That is better than one-quarter of the entire borrowing requirement identified in the bill. If those loopholes were closed-and closing them would not hurt ordinary Canadians, would not hurt the overwhelming majority of constituents of Edmonton East whom I represent, or the overwhelming majority of constituents of Edmonton North whom you, Mr. Speaker, represent-that borrowing bill could be cut by at least one-quarter. That is real money we are talking about here. There is more.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
In its unfettered pursuit of good times for the rich, the continued program of tax reform that this government has pursued has made more inequitable, more uneven, more unfair what was already an unfair income tax system bequeathed to it by previous Liberal governments.
If I may offer a little aside, I was astonished to hear the hon. member for Restigouche a few moments earlier berate the government for making more inequitable the relative shares paid by the corporate sector through the income tax levied on it as opposed to individual Canadians and the income tax levied on them. It is mostly successive Liberal, but as well Conservative, governments since the 1950s that have taken what was a 50-50 share of income taxes paid-and it is virtually a straight line progression-to what is now 90 per cent collected from individuals and 10 per cent collected from corporations.
It is grossly inequitable. For a member of the Liberal caucus to get up and complain about it strikes me as hubris of a truly Homeric scope.
Just to make this point clear, I note that the most recent book of stats we have on personal income tax was published last fall covering the taxation year 1988, which you will recall, Mr. Speaker, is the first year of the much heralded income tax reform. It was when the finance minister's changes to the income tax system were supposed to take effect and make things a whole lot fairer for all Canadians. This book now lets us see what actually happened.
Do you know what happened? What happened-to the surprise of some, I suppose; to the surprise of none in my caucus-was that the income tax system became more unfair. In fact, the average tax paid by Canadians making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year-of those who paid tax-from 1987 to 1988 dropped by 15 per cent. It dropped $20,597. The average tax paid by those earning a quarter of a million dollars a year or more went down.
What happened on the other end? The average tax paid by those making 15 grand a year or less, from 1987 to the first year of tax reform in 1988, went up by 13 per cent, or $71. By any dispassionate measure, that is grossly unfair.
Just to rub salt in the wound, the same year the number of those Canadians earning a quarter of a
million dollars or more who paid no tax went up by 40 per cent from the previous year. In 1988 we had 140 Canadians who made a quarter of a million dollars a year or more and did not pay a penny on it, not one red cent. Those earning 50 grand a year or more who paid no tax went up 87 per cent, to 5,430. That is one whale of a tax reform. That is one heck of an example of fairness.
I would suggest that no Canadian who has been paying attention is going to be surprised by these numbers. It is just a continuation of the policy of ever greater unfairness in the taxation system that has been pursued by successive Liberal and Conservative governments since the end of the Second World War.
It is my constituents in Edmonton East, the folk who work at the chemical plants, the folk who work at Gainers, the folk who work in the public sector in the schools and in the federal government offices, who are being made to pay more and more so that the rich can pay less and less.
That is why I, on their behalf, cannot support this borrowing bill.


Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, with this bill, the government is asking the House the authority to borrow $26 billion, $400 million of which for the 1991-1992 financial year. This request, made necessary by this government's policies over the past few years, must be set in the context of the projections contained in the last budget.
Obviously, the government failed to reduce the deficit after promising to do it. Now, it is presenting a budget that goes against the role traditionally played by the federal government during a recession.
Of course, we are aware of the phenomenal size of the accumulated national debt and the deficit which is remaining high in spite of the repeated promises of the Minister of Finance. We knew that there was little leeway and that not much could be expected from the last budget. Still, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance managed to disappoint us on three grounds. First, the Minister of Finance took no responsibility for the present situation. Second, the measures announced in this budget will deepen the recession and prevent the economy from making a strong recovery. Third, chances of finding effective long-term solutions are very slim.
March 20, 1991

What responsibility does this government have in the current national finance crisis? For seven years now, the Minister of Finance has been posing as the brave white knight trying to improve a disastrous situation inherited from the Liberals. I have no qualms about condemning the Liberal mismanagement but, as the years go by, the minister must come to realize that his government also made major mistakes that contributed to a large extent to the deterioration of our national finances.
Let me give a few examples of mistakes that were later corrected. There was the $500,000 lifetime capital gains exemption introduced by the Conservatives, not the Liberals. This exemption even applied to capital gains made on rental properties, which brought speculative pressure to bear on those properties without attracting productives investment. The government has to backtrack and reduce the exemption to $100,000.
Another example is VIA Rail. While the Liberal government had the courage to propose the required streamlining plan, this government, when it came to power, was only too eager to cancel it and reallocate hundreds of thousands of dollars to a recovery plan that failed. But they finally carried out the streamlining planned by the Liberals. What was ironic was to see the former minister, the hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, become the major advocate of this government which was carrying out his plan five years too late.
There are many other examples, but I am more concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the mistakes that were not recognized. Think of the Hibernia project for instance. More than $2 billion in federal government funds were pumped into a venture that will never be profitable and which will require more enormous capital outlays to be kept afloat in the years to come. In addition to not being viable, the project's potential for damage to the environment is far greater than in the case of hydroelectric projects.
Actually, the Lower Churchill project, which is marking time as a result of the Newfoundland government's stubborn position, would have created more jobs than the Hibernia project, without government subsidies and with minimal risk to the environment.
Government Orders
How are we supposed to make sense of a decision, that includes the construction of a new shipyard in Newfoundland, at a time when Canadian shipyards are losing money and the industry has been subject to costly restructuring during the past ten years? The present problems at Versatile in Vancouver are just one more episode in the restructuring process we already experienced in Quebec. In fact, Davie Shipbuilding in Levis, which is technically bankrupt, is still waiting for the federal government's decision, which keeps being postponed, to give the green light so it can continue work on its defence contracts.
The shipyards under construction in Newfoundland will never be viable. How can the Minister of Finance defend such wasteful policies? Is this a sensible way to manage the country's finances? I may add that the Liberals' support for getting the necessary legislation through the House of Commons and the Senate is certainly no guarantee for good management. This is electioneering at public expense.
After seven years, the Minister of Finance can no longer deny his responsibility for the deplorable state of the nation's finances. He must take the responsibility for his government's decisions.
And now, what about the future first of all, the immediate future. What is the government doing to get us out of the recession? Nothing. In fact, it is increasing pressure on wage earners. The most intolerable measure in this entire budget is probably the 24.5 per cent increase in unemployment insurance premiums. This is a clear incentive to increase lay-offs and unemployment. This comes at a time when the minister says one of the major problems in our economy is that our labour costs are higher than those of our competitors. So why increase them in the middle of a recession? I found only one explanation, in the speech made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration when she introduced this bill. She said that if premiums had not been increased this year, and I quote: "The expected deficit in the UI account would have required large premium increases in 1993". Economically speaking, this alternative would have been entirely acceptable, since in 1993, we should be in the middle of an economic recovery. So why not wait until then? Probably for political reasons.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
In spite of the polls and the desertions, the government hopes to stretch its mandate up to 1993. Election logic has clearly won over economic logic.
Another cut, that of $70 million in the subsidies to non-profit organizations dedicated to help the needy, is also unacceptable in the present context. In fact, we were not expecting miracles from the Minister of Finance. We are aware of the difficulties involved in public finances. On the other hand, when election logic prevails over a minimum of compassion for the unemployed and the poor in the present situation, it must be denounced Mr. Speaker. But let us look further.
Are there in this budget directions which would indicate that the government will seriously deal with the basic reasons behind the chronic deficit as well as the very ineffectiveness of the federal system. Unfortunately, the answer is no. The government is making cuts everywhere, but maintains its determination to meddle in all aspects of the lives of the people and the provinces. We are back to the era of liberal centralization which built a political and bureaucratic structure which is forever creating deficits, unless the provinces and the people demand a quick change in policy.
Remember the Tory government which preached both decentralization and consultation! Where are we now? By systematically cutting in transfer payments to the provinces, the Tory government decentralized the accounts payable, while maintaining and even increasing its control over the taxation areas. Now that it is no longer able to pay, does the federal government intend to return to the provinces their areas of jurisdiction? No at all; quite the contrary. It intends to introduce new legislation, especially in the health care area, to increase its powers. It intends to give itself the powers it needs to compel others to spend while imposing its own national standards.
Is that the only area, Mr. Speaker? Not at all. Read again the speech which the Minister of Employment and Immigration made when she introduced her bill on March 5 last. She explained her manpower enhancement strategy by saying and I quote: "Our strategy is based on the idea of partnerships; partnerships with employers, with labour, with education and with provinces and territories."
After reminding the House of the announcement concerning the new Canadain Labour Force Development Board, she exclaimed, and I quote: "What a breakthrough for Canada, to be able to build the kind of partnership that is going to be needed in the decade ahead". What breakthrough is the minister talking about?
She talks about a fresh initiative, a new intrusion on the part of the federal government which, no longer financially strong enough to maintain its presence in the vocational training field, chose to grab the unemployment insurance funds and re-affirm its intention to continue with the kind of jurisdiction duplications that led to the wanton resource wastes of which we are all aware. In Quebec, all groups representing management, labour and teachers have refused to sit on this board. They are all in favour of the Government of Quebec repatriating all powers in the field of vocational training. What success is the minister referring to? It is in fact a failure, a new confrontation, yet another example of federal arrogance.
Whatever happened to the willingness of the Conservative government to decentralize? After a few years we have to admit that the willingness has disappeared and been replaced by the old Liberal arrogance. The speeches of the Prime Minister increasingly attest to that fact. Should we be surprised? Who have been his closest advisers in recent months? The likes of Tellier, Dicemey, Gagne and Tasse, the best soldiers Trudeau had to send to the front lines in the referendum battle, a team that is quite prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain an outdated vision of the way to govern this country, a team whose sole aim is to hang on to the power of the federal government's bureaucratic and political machine, not to give this country the political and economic institutions that would meet the aspirations of the Canadian public.
The economic failure of the federal government cannot hide the political failure. The political reality of this country is that it is made up of two nations, two peoples that must quickly undertake an in-depth review of their political and economic institutions. Of course, when the Conservative government came into office, we were hoping for progress in that direction.
March 20, 1991

But with the Meech Lake failure, confrontation is the order of the day. Quite clearly, the Prime Minister and his government are doing exactly what the Liberal Party did in the past. I am utterly convinced, Mr. Speaker, that that is not what Canadians and Quebeckers are wishing for. Bureaucracy and the federal government's policy have become the main obstacles preventing Quebeckers and Canadians from reaching an agreement. And we will be working relentlessly in the next few months to reach such agreements.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I listened well to the Hon. Member for Rosemont. He referred earlier to VIA Rail. When talking either about engines or workers,-I come from a distant area-when talking about the railway line between Senneterre and Montreal and back Montreal-Senneterre-Cochrane and Shawi-nigan, the way my good friend the Hon. Member for Shawinigan, Denis Pronovost, pronounces it, something must be said. We are reaping what the Liberals have sown. After investigation, the House will remember that the line from Senneterre-Cochrane provides $60,000 in revenues, while it costs a million dollar a year to adminster VIA Rail from Senneterre-Cochrane. Yet, there is something strange. As Members of the Opposition, whether within the Liberal Party or the NDP-and even you who are part of the Bloc Quebecois, although you were elected under the Conservative banner-you accepted a number of things when you were elected. Mr. Speaker, one thing must be said: The VIA Rail passenger train often arrives in Senneterre. But the administrators of this Crown Corporation do not have even the teams they need to drive the train to Amos, La Sarre and Cochrane- Often, however, VIA management doesn't even have a crew to run the locomotive, to go to Amos, La Sarre and Cochrane. I never saw anything like it. That's VIA management for you. It's not the government's fault. This is a Crown corporation.
You mentioned Meech and the fact that we lost everything. I, for one, hope that Quebeckers are pleased with the Canada-Quebec agreement referred to in Meech, the agreement that has just been signed by the federal government and the Government of Quebec, the Canada-Quebec agreement on immigration. The people in our area are pleased with this agreement.
Government Orders
You also referred to the Minister of Finance and his Budget, when you said we had lost everything. Thanks to the Conservative members from Quebec, thanks to the Quebec caucus, Quebec was able to patriate a number of things that were here in Ottawa, including a research laboratory we got in Abitibi. This had never been done before. The Liberals never did it. The NDP never supported us in this respect, and the Bloc Quebecois certainly never gave us their support when it came to patriating research and development.
There is another item I would like to mention in my comments, and that is the matter of isolated post allowances. This was a very positive development for workers, for union members, for all the workers in Matagami, Joutel, Lebel-sur-Quevillon, Chapais Chi-bougamau. Now they have isolation benefits. That is an important development.
I noticed recently Mr. Speaker, that members of the Bloc Quebecois keep saying they are defending the rights of Quebeckers. I just made a speech on March 7 on the subject of the precautionary withdrawal from work for pregnant women in federally regulated businesses. Well, there are a lot of women in Quebec who work for unions like the FTQ, the CSN, the Metal Workers, but in this debate on the defence of pregnant women, in the federally regulated businesses, the Bloc Quebecois was nowhere to be seen. They never defended us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the hon. member kindly put his question?


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question or comment can last ten, twenty minutes, according to Beau-chesne and to Mrs Sauve. Mrs Sauve has always said that we could speak for ten minutes, make a good speech, and put our question after. We have ten minutes to speak, and that's the truth. Remember what Mrs Sauve said in the House when she was in the chair, that we had ten minutes to speak before putting a question.
However, there is one thing I wish to say, Mr. Speaker. I hear the member talking over there, she is trying to cut me off-

March 20, 1991
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are hon. members who would like to ask a question or make a comment, so I would appreciate it if the hon. member would put his question.


Guy St-Julien: Perfect. My question is thus as follows, Mr. Speaker. It follows from an article in today's La Presse which said that the mortgage rates of today are hurting us less than in 1982, according to the Mouvement des caisses populates Desjardins. Does the hon. member for Rosemont agree that the mortgage rates are better today than they were in 1982?


Mr.   Benoit@: I will give a quick answer, Mr. Speaker.
You know, I do not blame this government for the cuts they made in VIA Rail. We find that they did it five years after having spent hundreds of millions of dollars. So this is the thrust of my remark. They have to take the responsibility; they cannot blame it only on the past.
Why not have waited until 1993 to increase the unemployment insurance premiums? Because the Conservatives hope that 1993 will be an election year. That is why. This is where electoral considerations took precedence over economic considerations. That is the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions and comments period is now over. On debate. The hon. member for Nepean.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I too am delighted to have the opportunity to speak during consideration of this stage of Bill C-97, an act to provide borrowing authority. Billions of dollars are to be borrowed to feed an insatiable appetite of a government that knows not what it is doing.
My colleagues on this side of the House have done an admirable job of pointing out the inadequacies of this budget and of laying bare the very twisted ideology which drives this government to deliver blows time and again to the people of this country. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to add my voice to this debate at this time.
As for the defence of workers, you know, the hon. member for Abitibi is a very sympathetic and hard-working member, whom I respect, but if he really takes to heart the workers' interests, I wonder how the Conservative members from Quebec could vote against the antiscab legislation put forward by the Bloc Quebecois-


Guy St-Julien: I voted for it.


Mr. TVemblay:: Yes, I know you voted for it yourself, but your colleagues voted against it. That is why it was defeated.
I agree with you totally that mortgage rates are much better than they were in 1982. It was an absolute disaster in 1982! I agree that, because of the very tight management by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we now have relatively stable long-term rates. Putting the brakes suddenly is what threw us in a much deeper recession- the Governor of the Bank himself admitted it. I am not blaming it all on him. It was indeed hard to predict, but the Governor did decide to apply the brakes even though everyone was anticipating a recession. Today, he admits that he should have changed course earlier, but we are already in a deep recession.
I would be the first person in this House to say that we need fiscal accountability and responsibility in government; there is no doubt about it. I would be the first to say that we must all do our share to rid our country of the deficit so that future generations are not saddled with paying for the government's impetuous spending habits.
However, let us begin by looking at the situation in the manufacturing sector and how the policies of this government in its repeated budgetary fiascos has snuffed out the fires in the so-called "engine of Canada's economy-the province of Ontario".
It would come as no surprise to many Canadians outside Ontario that it is actually this province that is feeling the greatest pinch during these difficult economic times. According to the findings of a Liberal task force, Ontario accounts for four out of every ten lost Canadian jobs. Ontario is now feeling the greatest impact with respect to plant closures, bankruptcies, unemployment and the general economic slowdown.
The issues which are consistently cited as reasons for the dramatic downturn in the economy are: high interest rates, Canada's artificially high dollar, high rate of taxation compounded by the GST, the negative effects of the free trade agreement, and the government's mismanagement of the federal debt.

March 20, 1991

Here in the national capital region, which my riding of Nepean and my constituents are a part of, we were once known for economic stability. We in the nation's capital are not immune any more to the effects of this government's economic policies, as a shrinking and demoralized Public Service, bankruptcies and rising unemployment in the region all add up to a greater reliance on already strained social service agencies.
In essence, we in the nation's capital are suffering from the trickle down effect, at a time of increasing dependence on social assistance programs brought on by this government's policies. We are watching those programs dry up due to a lack of funding by this government.
In straight economic terms, this budget and this government are costing Canadians dearly, but it is the human cost that is most tragic. The real tragedy is that this government conveniently glosses over the hardships which it has inflicted on Canadians. Middle-class Canadians are taxed to death. They are generally unable to enjoy the same tax loopholes which rich friends of this government enjoy.
Women continue to struggle toward true equality in our society. The government causes further setbacks by cutting funding and programs which might assist women in their cause. In some ways the plight of women has grown worse, not better, under this administration.
It is a well documented fact that the incidence of family violence and family breakdown increases as financial pressures mount. We can be sure that every Canadian family is feeling the bite of the hard economic times brought on by the policies of the government. It is almost always women who are at the receiving end of family violence.
Even then I suspect that a solution would involve a glitzy public relations campaign designed to gloss over the problems of increasing family breakdown and violence against women.
Next in the line of this government's fire are the children. There are approximately 100 million children today living in poverty in Canada and close to 200,000 of them must rely on food banks for their daily bread. That is unconscionable.
Government Orders
I ask: What kind of future will these children have if all they ever know is poverty, hunger and hopelessness? Undernourished, they find it difficult to learn. Many of them will end up by dropping out of school or certainly not doing as well as they could if given better circumstances in which to grow and learn. They will become part of a vicious perpetual cycle of poverty. They will know nothing else. They will grow up with a deeply rooted sense of cynicism and mistrust.
The government which claims to despise the so-called welfare state mentality is actually creating a much greater malaise. Once entrenched, there will be no social safety net to prevent the fall of all of the people who will be in its grip.
This all comes at a time when an international agreement to which 30-some countries throughout the world agreed was signed last May: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We may recall that the Prime Minister of Canada went to Washington and chaired, I believe, that committee. We were all so enthused and pleased that Canada was going to be involved.
To this date, Canada has not signed the agreement. What a farce: travelling to Washington, all this hoop-la, chair the committee, and then he does not sign the agreement. It outlines minimum standards for children, among other things, in health care and education. It encourages the development of different forms of secondary education systems both general and vocational. It ensures appropriate health care, family planning and education. This should be available and accessible to all children. The list goes on and on. I could cite many examples.
Does this government expect that the provinces are going to submit happily to spending even more money in the areas of health care and education at a time when the federal government is cutting them off?
I was delighted when Canada agreed to be part of this convention. I do not know what has gone wrong. I would encourage all members on the opposite side of the House to put pressure on their cabinet, on the people who have the power to issue a signature in Washington on the rights of the child.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
The public servants of this country have also been singled out for punishment in the budget. Not since this government attempted to deindex old age pensions have I seen a more direct and cynical attack on a specific sector of society. This government believes that Canadians feel their public servants are nothing more than overpaid and underproductive bureaucrats.
The government, by its actions, is telling every employer in Canada that it is acceptable to throw away the right to bargain and it is acceptable to hold over the heads of the workers the threats of job losses and contracting out. Women in the Public Service have also been hurt.
Another sector which is carrying more than its share of this country's economic burden is small business. Any small business that has managed to survive the recession, which this government has created and now ignores, deserve a medal of valour for they have survived a war that has been waged against them by their own government. They are now required, along with the employee, to pay all the unemployment insurance bills. The federal government is no longer paying part of that program. Eighty per cent of new jobs in this country are created by small business and yet this government will turn around and stick a knife in its back.
I had a call from a plumber recently with regards to the FST. He said: "I thought when GST was implemented that I would no longer have to pay the FST." His supplier was charging him for both. He said: "I cannot afford it. What do I do?" I phoned Revenue Canada, and what did it tell me: "The marketplace will sort all this out." In the meantime, there is a plumber who cannot pay for his supplies because someone had refused to remove the FST. It is a paperwork jungle for the small business person. The GST has created horrendous problems.
The finance minister and the Prime Minister are being less than truthful when they say this is a budget aimed at deficit elimination.
Actually they are passing the buck to the provinces, the municipalities and, through the back door route, to the taxpayers of this country. We are already overtaxed; programs to help women, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, have been slashed. Now this government in this budget has furthered its vicious assault on our health
care and education programs. It has pitted workers against each other, and it has left the provinces and municipalities holding the bag.
Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Commission released its 1990 annual report. It has made recommendations in several areas which require action, not cuts; aboriginal issues; in issues affecting the disabled; with respect to women, immigrants, visible minorities. Many of the recommendations in the report have been on the books for five years or longer. In other words, every year, the Human Rights Commission is recommending these things and the government is doing nothing about it.
The report calls for the acknowledgement of the government of debts owed to aboriginal people. Some 41 per cent of unattached women 65 years of age and older continue to remain below the poverty line, despite a recommendation contained in the 20 year old report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada. When will these women get their due?
The commission report calls for measures to foster improved race relations, yet the pieces of pie for all groups and programs working toward this end, get smaller and smaller.
This government has further proven that it, and its policies, are incapable of saving, let alone building, this nation. This government should try to use some creativity and imagination in attempting to solve our nation's problems. Let us provide, not cut, training and education to get people back to work.
One of the things I have been doing recently in my riding, and I started about six weeks ago, is meeting with the business community. Appointments are set and I meet people from the business community on an average of three businesses a week for an hour, sometimes up to two hours in the morning. I have met with companies as large as Northern Telecom, which employs 3,000 people in the city of Nepean and I have also met smaller businesses that employ maybe only 10 people.
Without fail, the business community is saying to me that this government is destroying business in this country. They cannot compete because of the policies of this government. Some 90 per cent of their business is now outside of the country because they cannot compete within their own country.
March 20, 1991

A company I visited yesterday has computer systems in the House of Representatives and the Congress in Washington. Do you think he can get something into the Parliament of Canada or in the House of Commons? Not on your life. He told me of the paperwork, the bureaucratic red tape. This gentleman said to me: "I could ciy when I see what this government is doing to business in Canada".
Let us provide adequate health care so that people can feel secure and get on with living. Let us reform our system of taxation to a more fair and level playing field, so that the average Canadian does not feel cynical and over-burdened. Let us create a fair justice system so that people do not feel persecuted and resentful.
I say to the government, I say to the Prime Minister, and I say to the Minister of Finance: let us invest in people, and they will give us back much more. We will have a better country. They can spend their time and energy just getting on with living, rather than spending their time and energy resenting the government and each other for their difficult predicament.
This approach, in addition to solving the economic woes of this country, would go a long way toward promoting national unity. The two major issues that I see in the country today are national unity and the economic problems we are faced with. In many ways they probably go hand in hand. With a positive outlook, and with a hand-in-glove approach to the people of Canada, I think we can succeed. We are a great nation. We have a wonderful future, and I think we have to be sympathetic. We have to get to the grass roots and find out what people are hearing, find out what they are saying, find out what they are feeling, and continue to build this great nation.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Nepean for her contribution to the debate this evening.
I point out that when she commenced her discussion, she indicated she would advocate that this government face up to its deficit, that the people of this country do have to pay for the benefits they have received while living here. But then she proceeded for the next 15 minutes to discuss item after item after item in which the government would have to pay out more money, not less, that would be adding more to the burden, not only to the
Government Orders
taxpayers we have now, but more burden to the taxpayers we are going to have in the future, the young people, the people who are truly our future in Canada.
I would like to ask the hon. member to contemplate that situation. Could she go back to her opening statement and indicate to the House and to the people who are watching, how she would propose to achieve all of the things she mentioned, and yet still be responsible to the country, to the taxpayers today and the young people who are going to inherit the debt that we do not pay.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.
I would like to go back to the years 1984 to 1988. Canada had, in those four years, the largest unprecedented growth in its history. In other words, the growth over the anticipated revenue was so large and so massive that it never before happened in the history of this country. That was during the first term this government held office in Canada. Did it reduce one dollar of the deficit? Not on your life. And do you think I can find out what it did with all that money during that time? No, sir, I cannot, because the books are closed to me as an opposition member. This government had billions and billions of dollars, I believe it was something like $100 billion, in excess revenue over anticipated revenue in those four years and it doubled the debt in that time.
What do I say to the member sitting opposite me? If he cannot manage the economy in the good times, and here we are in the tight times and he wants to impose a GST when everybody is already in a tight situation. He wants to increase taxes. In other words, hit a guy when he is down. Oh, sure, hit a guy when he is down and see what it is like. Why did you not hit them when they were up, when we were up those four years. You are poor managers. You do not know how to manage the economy.
For instance, money should be poured into research and the education system. Every one of those businesses I have been attending mentioned this. Northern Telecom used to hire the top ten percentile from the University of Waterloo. They are not staying in this country any more, they are going to the States. Do you know why? Because we are over-taxed in this country. They will not stay here. They can earn $50,000 in the United States and it is worth $100,000 here in Canada. We cannot compete. We are losing our students to the American sector.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
Another thing that was mentioned was to hire an American engineer and bring him to Canada. In order for that same engineer who might be making $40,000 in the States, to bring him to Canada to work for a company like Northern Telecom, they have to pay him $75,000. They cannot afford it any more.
Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the gentleman's question to me, I find it absolutely incredulous that here are people who are unemployed, their incomes have been cut and we are wanting to hit them even harder with the high interest rates, with the GST, with all of the other cutbacks in the programs.
I just say to him that this is not the year to do it. You should have done it between 1984 and 1988.1 would still like to know what you did with those billions of dollars. If you ever find time to slip it across the aisle, I would love to have it.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the estimates and the budget. The finance minister's budget is a continuation of this government's destructive economic policies. As is the case in all regions of Canada, those living in the Hamilton area are suffering from the made-in-Canada recession.
On January 23 and 24, as chairman of the Hamilton-Niagara caucus, I conducted hearings on the economy and the recession. The participation of the hon. members from Hamilton East, Hamilton West, Haldimand- Norfolk, Etobicoke North, Welland-St. Catharines-Thorold, and London East in the task force on the economy and the recession contributed a great deal toward its success.
We heard from 25 groups and individuals representing a cross section of the community: social service groups, labour unions, food banks, hospitals, small businesses, Mohawk College and McMaster University, low cost housing organizations, the construction industry, and the steel industry, among others. The presentations that we heard put a human face on the cold statistics that we hear in this House day after day.
The citizens of the Hamilton area painted a grim picture of how the region is suffering as a result of this government's policies. It was amazing that witness after witness, representing interests from across the spectrum, all expressed deep concern about the direction this government is leading us. In this time of great national division, the one unifying factor may be the Canadian public's rejection of this government's economic policies.
The shocking thing is that there is nothing accidental about what the government has done, nor is the current recession the result of global factors. This is the Prime Minister's one truly Canadian effort: a made-in-Canada recession. The Prime Minister even bragged last fall about engineering an economic slowdown. Despite his many other failed initiatives, I must admit that on this one the Prime Minister has really outdone himself.
This recession is the result of very deliberate actions by this government. The government's high interest rate policy, for example, is hitting all sectors of the Hamilton economy. Traditionally, Canadian interest rates have been 1 to 2 per cent over their American counterparts. Over the last year, Canadian interest rates have been 4 to 5 per cent higher than those of the United States. This has prevented young families from buying homes, has forced companies to lay off workers, and has prevented small businesses from expanding.
If the government is not prepared to go out and hear what Canadians have to say about their economic policies, then let me make it easier for them by repeating what my colleagues and I were told by witnesses at the task force in Hamilton.
Family Services of Hamilton-Wentworth described at the hearings what high interest rates are doing to young families:
This stage of the family life cycle is marked by high rates of borrowing and low rates of saving, due to the demands of household formation. As a result, young families are affected by the higher costs of borrowing but receive few of the benefits of the high rates of return on saving.
Alderman Don Ross, chairman of the Hamilton-Wentworth Economic Development Committee, offered the following overview of the problem.
For improved economy we need the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates to a level that will enable people, industry, and commerce to feel comfortable enough to re-invest in major capital projects; whether that be a new car, plant or merchandise.
March 20, 1991

Bob Crockford, chairman of the Hamilton branch of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, raised further concerns with respect to the manufacturers' spending on capital investment.
- the loss of manufacturing investment may be the single greatest
cost of the government's high interest rate policy.
Cameron Nolan of the Hamilton Construction Association described the effects of high interest rates on the construction industry.
The result has been slower growth and resulting unemployment - Our industry urges the federal government -to amend its interest rate policy to one which calls for reducing interest rates. A reduction will bring us out of the recession.
The Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce in their presentation focused on the high Canadian dollar:
The high cost of the Canadian dollar is impeding the country's ability to sustain its export capabilities in world markets.
The introduction of the goods and services tax in the middle of a recession has only served to make a bad situation worse for those in the Hamilton area. By pulling dollars out of an already depressed economy, the GST has dealt a severe blow to the Hamilton area.
Scott Jacks, owner of a small Hamilton natural food store described what the goods and services tax will do to small business:
Many small businesses find cash flow to be a difficult challenge at the best of times. I must point out that the GST could have a devastating effect on cash flow, even to the point of putting someone out of business.
The wonderful prosperity the Prime Minister predicted under free trade has unfortunately not been apparent anywhere north of the 49th parallel. Since the signing of the free trade agreement there has been a flight of Canadian jobs to the United States. Stelco in its presentation at our hearings noted the increased difficulties in doing business as more and more of its customers are closing their doors and moving production to the United States.
Ed Herchuk, president of the Ontario Council of Labour, told us that under the free trade agreement American construction workers are enjoying far greater rights in cross border work than Canadian labourers and as a result "they daily take jobs away from Canadian construction workers".
Government Orders
The deliberate policies of the federal government have all contributed to the deindustrialization of Ontario, the heartland of Canadian industry. The effects are as clear as they are shocking.
In the last year unemployment has doubled in the Hamilton area. Today there are 30,000 Hamiltonians out of work. For the Prime Minister's benefit, that is more people than live in his home town of Baie Comeau.
Consumer bankruptcies in Hamilton shot up to 1,062 in 1990, an 80 per cent increase over 1989. Business bankruptcies went up 30 per cent during the same period.
Food banks in Hamilton now report approximately 20,000 people using their services each month. Social service agencies report a 67 per cent increase in the case load in the Hamilton-Wentworth region. Line-ups for social assistance housing continue to rise.
And how, Mr. Speaker, in this budget has this government addressed the concerns so eloquently expressed by the witnesses at the Hamilton task force hearings? Obviously, it is not concerned. For example, under this year's budget job retraining funds were cut by $100 million. It is small wonder unemployment has risen 10.2 per cent, just as the Minister of Finance predicted. Hamiltonians only wish he could have been as accurate with his predictions of economic prosperity in the last election.
Another example of the government's lack of concern is with consumers and businesses already struggling due to the GST and high interest rates, the finance minister has decided to hike unemployment insurance premiums by 24 per cent. Funds for social assistance housing have been slashed.
This budget will not only worsen the current economic recession in Hamilton, but it will also prevent Hamiltonians and all Canadians from improving their situation in the long run. Cuts in transfer payments to post-secondary education will hurt our universities and colleges and make it even more difficult for us to compete in the global market.
This government has declared war on Canadians with high inflation, high interest rates and general misman-

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
agement, a war in which unfortunately the average Canadian now has little defence except the next election.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have a chance to speak in opposition to Bill C-97 by which the government intends to borrow $26.4 billion from the Canadian people and of course, saddle them with still more taxes to pay the interest to those rich Canadians who lend the government the money.
This $26.4 billion is something in the range of $1,500 per year for every Canadian family. The government does it very lightly. This government is not listening to the Canadian people. We can see that by the way the Canadian people rate the government at the bottom of the polls.
It has been cutting taxes on the rich. It has been raising taxes on the poor. It has been cutting the unemployment insurance benefits at a time when it knows that unemployment is going to rise. It has been giving Canadian jobs away to the United States and other countries through the free trade agreement, giving jobs away to corporations that take them to the United States as they took 600 jobs away from the Inglis washing machine plant in Trinity-Spadina within a year of the free trade agreement by lowering the tariffs, or to U.S. based companies for the most part that contract those jobs out to very low wage countries of the Third World.
It has not been listening to the Canadian people about its war spending during 1990 and 1991. It has not been listening to the Canadian people about the many, many millions of dollars that it spent oppressing the native people with the Canadian army around the Oka dispute.
We have all read in our public and high school history about how the English people three and a half centuries ago decided it was time to tell the king and the other rich landed gentry that they did not have the right to raise taxes on the king's whim and to spend the money on the king's whim. They argued that the king did not have the right. He said he did, he had the divine right, that he was made king by the decision of God. Therefore whatever he did had the authority of God. The people did not believe him and under Cromwell they were willing to fight to tell the king that he not only did not have the right, but that he did not have the power. To prove their point, they cut off his head.
Then for a while England became governed more by democratic means through the parliamentary system. But in the last couple of decades this Parliament has been losing even the limited power that it has had. That is to say, the people who are elected to this Parliament as members, constituency by constituency, have less and less control over what this government does. This government makes wildly false promises during election time that it clearly does not intend to keep.
While I was in Mexico last week, I found it interesting to hear the President of Mexico, through the media, solemnly promising that he would not give up one iota of Mexico's control over its natural oil and resources, solemnly promising that he would not make any trade deals that would bring contracts or jobs into Mexico that would damage the environment and so on. It all sounds dismally familiar on the basis of what we heard three years ago from this government. We heard, in 1984 when this government was seeking election, it promise solemnly that it would have nothing to do with a trade deal with the United States because it would be a marriage of the elephant and the mouse and when the elephant roles over, the now Prime Minister said it would be the finish of the mouse.
They deceived the voters at election time and then when representatives elected here to Parliament complained about what the government was doing and used this forum to explain to the people how the government has deceived people, the government used a gag. It has gagged this Parliament more times in the last six years than all governments did before it. It even has the nerve to spend millions and millions of tax dollars, further deceiving the people, as it tried to deceive the people about Bill C-55, the anti-refugee law it introduced three and a half years ago, with misleading, quite false interpretations of it, as it did last year, putting out millions of dollars to mislead people about the goods and services tax which was thoroughly unpopular.
My point is that Canadians have been losing control of their government. We still have the right to vote at election time. They did in Samosa's Nicaragua. They do in the ARENA parties in El Salvador. They can come and vote, but those people under Samosa in Nicaragua and under the ARENA party now in El Salvador do not control their government through that vote.
March 20,1991

In Canada it a little more subtle. By law, for example, Canadian people are prevented from acting, through the members of Parliament, to decide whether Canada goes to war. Last year this government sent ships, planes and troops to the Middle East without consulting the Canadian people through their elected representatives. For six weeks Canadians and members of Parliament asked the government to convene Parliament.
There was a little concern about 174 unarmed people with dark skins landing in Nova Scotia. The government declared it an emergency. It talked about an invasion. You would think we were being invaded by thousands of troops armed with machine guns and tanks-174 dark skinned people wading ashore in Nova Scotia was an emergency. Parliament was recalled. A law was passed authorizing the Canadian government to commit piracy on the high seas by seizing ships and turning them away in waters that Canada does not own.
But when the government is going to spend millions upon million upon millions of dollars on a war project in the Middle East, it is no emergency. The government did not use the emergences act which it passed. It sneaked around the comers instead and in connivance, not with the premiers, but with the business interests who profit by war, it simply sent the ships and then later recalled Parliament, not really to give permission, but only to give loyal support, which the government majority gave.
In the same way, it never asked Parliament for permission to send the troops against Oka, a dispute which could have been settled any time in the last 200 years by fair negotiation with the people who lived here before we Europeans came.
Later, after it was all finished, it asked Parliament and its tame majority to pass a resolution approving it. But there was a long, long struggle for months before there was any willingness to have a parliamentary committee open up the facts.
Again in 1991, when President Bush pressured the United Nations Security Council-not the United Nations General Assembly, the only really democratic body of the United Nations, but the Security Council, controlled by a few holdovers from the power system 45 years ago -to pass an ambiguous resolution which President Bush interpreted as authorization for war, it scrapped the sanctions, which were working, because President Bush wanted war. This government delayed recalling Parliament. The American Congress came back
Government Orders
to debate it before the bombing began. This Parliament was not allowed to begin debate until the bombing was already upon us.
It made a mockery of this Parliament in that debate. It made a mockery of the speaking and made a mockery of voting.
In Cromwell's time, England was ruled by the rich nobility and the king. It was the merchants, the working classes in London and many of the peasants in the countryside who provided the strength of Cromwell's army which ended that rule.
Canada is now ruled by the Business Council on National Issues, the chief executives of 150 of the largest corporations in Canada. They called for three things: they called for a trade deal, they got it; they called for cuts in the social programs and they are getting it; they called for a boost in the arms budget and they are getting it. Those are the ones who call the tune in this country, not the Canadian people.
It is wider than this. It is not just a matter of Canada alone. Canada has its allies, that is to say this government has its allies. When the Prime Minister was elected the first time, practically the first act he did was to go to the White House to take his orders from President Reagan. Now he does the same with President Bush and the American arms manufacturers and their junior partners in Canada.
Another of the allies of Canada is the landed oligarchy and the army that control El Salvador, not that Canada gives direct aid there except for a few million dollars that it gives indirectly through a so-called aid project, but because Canada keeps silent. Canada keeps silent about the crimes committed by the government of El Salvador and by the army of El Salvador which is armed to the tune of more than a million dollars a day by the government of the United States.
Canada refuses to criticize the U.S. as Canada refused, with one minor exception, to criticize the U.S. proxy war against Nicaragua. Canada refuses to criticize the allies of the United States which maintain corrupt and oppressive regimes, such as the corrupt and wealthy rulers of some of the states in Arabia: the feudal lords and so-called kings in the Middle East who control those oil resources on behalf of the United States and literally for many years past got away with murder.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
Now this government is asking Parliament to agree to lend it $26.4 billion. There will be no control over how it is spent because there is no control either over how it is raised. As my colleagues have pointed out before, one-quarter of that amount, one-quarter of that $26.4 billion could have been saved if the government had closed five of the major loopholes. The capital gains lifetime exemption fuels a great deal of the speculation that raises housing prices in Toronto beyond the reach of ability to pay, but the government gives a tax break of $2.8 billion, nearly $3 billion.
The business entertainment tax deduction, over $1 billion to the people who need it least. They claim they have to compete with others. Jones has to have this subsidy to entertain customers, to take them away from Smith, who has to have the same subsidy to entertain customers to take them away from Jones. They all benefit, all these top business people. But the Canadian working people have to pay extra taxes to feed them in luxury.
The dividend tax credit cushions the taxation that might be levied against the people who live partly off the dividends of corporations.
The manufacturing the processing tax credit amounts to another billion dollars. This was supposed to be done away with by the goods and services tax, but the government played a little bit of a shill game there and just slipped it through anyway.
The interest deductibility rule is another welfare scheme for land speculators. Nearly a billion dollars. The total of this is $6.7 billion, one-quarter of what the government wants to borrow.
Another way of putting it is that two or three years ago, in 1988, the average tax paid by Canadians making more than $225,000 a year went down by over $20,000. Twenty thousand dollars is a lot more than some people make by working for a year in Canada. But these people had $20,000 taken off their taxes, about 15 per cent of their income. At the same time, taxes paid by Canadians earning $15,000 or less rose by $71 which is a hike of 13 per cent.
This is the policy of this government. It could have saved one-quarter of this loan by a fair tax system, but it refused to do it, although this question was raised time and time again in Parliament by our party.
It can save another one-quarter of this loan money, if not right away at least soon, by taking our troops out of Europe. Whatever may have been the argument for putting the troops into Europe 30 and 40 years ago, it is agreed now that there is no threat of the Russian tanks rolling into Berlin and Paris. In fact, they are going the other way. But the government insists on spending over $6 billion to keep those troops there, the direct and indirect costs. It could take that money out. Those people could be more appropriately applied back home in Canada or, if necessary, in peacekeeping operations elsewhere.
As I say, if it could not be done all in one year, it could be begun this year.
Instead, this government has shown that it will get this money by cutting the programs for native people, which are a miserable small part of the obligation that we owe them for the land we took from them; by cutting programs that would benefit women who are still earning no more than two-thirds of what men earn in this country; cutting programs for higher education, pressuring institutions such as the University of Toronto to refuse to bargain in good faith with the men and women who keep that physical plant running; cutting programs on health; and, cutting programs on housing.
While I will be voting with my caucus against this borrowing bill, the issue is much larger. What Canada needs is a new Constitution, not just a new back-room division of powers between a Prime Minister and a bunch of premiers, but a Constitution in which the people of Canada participate and build up strong public pressure so that the people of Canada can regain control of the government by regaining parliamentary control of the cabinet.
I see you are signalling that my time is up. I hope that there will be more occasions when these same points can be raised in this House before the government decides to gag all debate.
March 20,1991


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong objections on behalf of my constituents in Haldimand-Norfolk to the spending priorities of this government.
My riding has been hit hard by the government's six years of economic mismanagement. Hundreds of farmers have declared bankruptcy. Hundreds of plant workers have lost their jobs. Hundreds of stores and small businesses have shut their doors. People are suffering. I say that to the member for Cariboo-Coquitlam, who is now not going to stay around to listen to this. After six years of taking money from the farmers, the storekeepers and the plant workers of Haldimand-Norfolk and giving nothing in return, frustration and anger is rampant. Cynicism with politicians is at an all time high. I feel it is incumbent upon this government to do something about that cynicism.
For six years, the people of my riding have seen this government cut their agricultural programs, cut their social programs, chop away at the mainstays of rural communities, the post offices, the railway stations and now, the community newspapers. Every year, while this government has chopped away, it has raised taxes. After six years of cutting valuable programs and raising taxes, the public debt has doubled. The deficit still continues to rise.
The government has brought our country into a recession. Canadians want to know where all the money has gone. They want to know why needy Canadians, middle-class Canadians, unemployed Canadians, farmers, fishermen, plant workers, and small entrepreneurs are always the first ones to be taxed and the last ones to be served by this government.
The Minister of Finance likes to paint himself as the sole, lone voice of fiscal sanity, a preacher of fiscal restraint. It is on the basis of these preachings that all criticisms are dismissed as irresponsible, fiscally naive. The problem is that these preachings are little more than self-serving and empty rhetoric, designed to obscure the fact that the government has fumbled its chance of bringing down the deficit and that it has made some major economic miscalculations, which have put many Canadians, including Canadians in my riding, in dire straits. Now the government is asking Canadians to bite a few more bullets.
Government Orders
The fact of the matter is that this government has squandered the public's trust. It has squandered Canadian tax dollars. The Canadian people do not believe the government any more. It is going to make it more difficult for us as politicians to come up with solutions to this fiscal mismanagement and this mess.
This government has very little credibility left. Last year, for instance, the Minister of Finance said that the deficit would fall below $28.5 billion in 1990. In fact it rose to $30.5 billion. Last year the Minister of Finance said that personal income taxes would rise by 9 per cent from the year earlier. Now he says that they will have to be raised by 15 per cent. Last year the Minister of Finance said that corporate income taxes would fall by 2 per cent. Do you know what they will fall by now, Mr. Speaker? It will be 10 per cent.
I do not think that is fair and I do not think Canadians believe that is fair. Unfortunately they do not feel they have a way of telling this government-or they do not have a way of making this government listen-that these things are not fair.
Last year again the Minister of Finance said the economy would grow by 3 per cent. He now says he thinks it will shrink by 1 per cent: 1, 2, 3 per cent. He is not sure. Last year he said employment would grow by 1.2 per cent. Now he says it will actually shrink by 1.5 per cent.
The facts speak for themselves. The Minister of Finance has no credibility. The things I have pointed out show that his credibility is seriously lacking not only in the House, not only with ordinary Canadians across the country, but also with the business community, those so-called people whom he represents, his Bay Street buddies.
This year's spending estimates signal to Canadians that this government has still not learned from its past errors. This government seems to be prepared to mismanage and fumble its way through yet another year and bring yet another year of unnecessary financial hardship all across this country, as each of us has heard in the House and in our constituency offices. On a weekly basis I heard from farmers who have lost their farms and from small businesses that have put enormous amounts of effort, time and money into providing a business and into trying to provide a future for their children. They come to my office in tears because they feel that they have been wronged by this government. They feel that had they just been left alone to their own avails they could have survived, they could have got through this recession.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
Because of this government's economic policies they feel they have just not been treated right.
Thming to tobacco farmers, once again this year they were hit hardest by this government's budget, by this government's taxation on tobacco products. This year's budget brought yet another massive tax increase on tobacco products so that an additional $1.5 billion could be pumped into the government's coffers.
It was a tax grab. The finance minister unfortunately knew that if he did not do it the Ontario NDP government would have done the same thing. Every year it seems to be a fight to see who can first put out their budget, who can first tax tobacco products and hurt the tobacco farmers who produce those products.
Not many people across this country realize that tobacco brings in close to $6 billion annually into the coffers of government. Where does that money come from? Unfortunately that is a question this government and the Minister of Finance are not prepared to even look at. He did not have the courtesy before he brought down this budget to have a meeting with the tobacco board, to have a meeting with tobacco farmers, or to have a meeting with the communities affected by tobacco, to see how such an increase in tobacco taxes would affect them.


An hon. member:: He doesn't care.


Robert (Bob) Speller: As the hon. member says, he doesn't care. It was just a tax grab. He needed the money and he was not prepared to look at the consequences of his taking that money.
That money comes out of my community. It comes out of the comer store that provides the tobacco farmers with their weekly needs. It comes out of the farm implement business, the small business person or entrepreneur there who provides them with the tools they need to farm the tobacco. It comes out of the students who work in the tobacco fields, who will not have a job this summer and who will not have any alternative to turn to because unfortunately the government has again cut money it is giving to youths for summer employment.
These are the Canadians, the people in my riding, who are affected by this government's budget. I wish the Minister of Finance would listen to these people when they say they only want the time to plan. They only want to know what their future holds. Why cannot this Minister of Finance tell these people for 10 years down the line what his plans are? Don't spring it on them one day so that they cannot plan. They need that time.
While the government now collects over $5.5 billion in tobacco taxes, how much is it planning to allocate to the program to help tobacco farmers get out of the business, what is known as the REDUX program?
There is nothing allocated this year. The AEI program, the alternative enterprise initiative, runs out this spring also. It was an initiative to help tobacco farmers, if the government truly wanted to get them out of the business, move into alternative crops. There is a major investment in these crops or in this business by these tobacco farmers, by these tobacco communities. What does the government do? It leaves them high and dry once again.
This government has not allocated one dime out of the $1.5 billion in taxes from tobacco back into the REDUX program.
This the same government whose Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture said just two years ago, to farmers in my riding: "Ottawa wants to send a stronger signal to the industry that we are here to support tobacco producers in their time of need and adjustment". That is exactly what he said. Unfortunately it was another broken promise. You have heard many, I know, Mr. Speaker; you have been in that chair a long time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Years.


Robert (Bob) Speller: This was a promise made by this government. The people of my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk have always felt that if a government makes a promise, or if a man makes a promise in rural Canada, it sticks by that promise no matter what the cost. Unfortunately this government has not stuck by its promise and is not prepared even to look at the issue to help these people out. It met with them but gave no commitment whatsoever on programs that it plans on bringing in to help out with the problem.
March 20, 1991

It is always after the case: knock it out from under their feet. There are 400 or 500 people wanting to get on REDUX. Probably that will triple within the next year or so because of this devastating impact.
This government is taxing a group of people right out of their livelihood. Yet, it does not provide the means for these people to leave their livelihoods with at least some sense of decency.
Members opposite seem unwilling to accept any responsibility for this. Members opposite can no longer expect Canadians to pay for their own mismanagement. Canadians have already paid too heavy a price. They have paid with their money. They have paid with their jobs and their businesses. They have paid with their homes. Thousands of Canadians have been put out of work in the last few years by this government, and yet this government has the audacity to pull its share of funding for unemployment insurance. In so doing, it has signalled that the federal government was no longer willing to accept even partial responsibility for Canada's unemployed.
I see you signalling, Mr. Speaker. I have seven minutes left; I stated at 7.20 p.m. When members opposite pushed Bill C-21 through the House, they promised Canadians that they would consider reintroducing government funding for UI if the fund ever ran into a deficit. They said that the money the government would normally have provided for UI funding would now be used for retraining. That was two years ago.
Today the government is singing another tune. The government is now asking ordinary-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member started at 7.18 p.m. He has five minutes left.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government is now asking ordinary Canadians who still have jobs to pay yet again for a growing number of unemployed. In the recent budget this government announced that employers and employees would face, combined, a 24 per cent increase in unemployment insurance premiums.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what that does to the small entrepreneur across Canada who was just weathering the storm of these sad economic times? He is on the borderline of either making it or not making it. Now he is forced to pay an increase of 24 per cent in unemployment insurance premiums. That is going to put a number of small entrepreneurs out of work and the people that they employ.
Government Orders
What about the money that the government promised to put into retraining when it pulled out of UI funding? That promise like so many before has also been broken. In fact, this budget cut $1 million from Canadian Jobs Strategy.
This government likes to talk about level playing fields and about this new competitive world. This government has thrown Canadians into open seas, but the they are not the level seas of fair and full competition. They are the seas rocked by waves of foreign export subsidies and non-tariff barriers. One would think that the government, seeing Canadians gasping for air, might throw a life preserver or two, such as an adjustment program. In fact an adjustment program was promised in the last election. Instead of throwing life preservers, this government is busy tying lead weights around drowning Canadians.
The government is burdening the economy with high interest rates, a high dollar, and it is cutting real spending on education, training, research and development, and unfortunately on science and technology. Canada has lost over 220,000 manufacturing jobs since January 1989. The biggest losses have been in steel, textile, clothing, furniture, food and beverage, and chemical industries.
My riding of Haldimand-Norfolk has had more than its share of these manufacturing job losses. In the last two months alone three plants have shut down in my riding, leaving close to 300 people without jobs. In a town like Simcoe with 14,000 people, 300 people out of work is a large number. It is tough on an economy that has also been hit by taxation on tobacco.
What hope has this government's budget brought them? Absolutely none; no help. Just more education and retraining cuts and more government abdication of its responsibility. Nor is there in the budget spending estimates any redress for the unfair tax burden that this government has given to middle-class Canadians. After 33 separate tax increases since 1984, the finance minister's tax reform has meant that the average Canadian family is paying more than $1,000 more for tax per year, and that is not including GST. By contrast, 640 of Canadians earning $100,000 or more paid no income tax at all; up from 580 Canadians from the year before. The additional burden placed on the average Canadian family from these increases in UI and tobacco products will be $217 per year.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
In the midst of our current recession, the budget estimates offer absolutely no relief to our 1.3 million unemployed or the 500,000 Canadians who must resort to food banks. It offers no relief from the increasing gap between Canadian manufacturing levels and those of the other G-7 countries. There are no measures to assist low income Canadians, women or aboriginal people, and no measures to improve Canada's ability to compete in the new global economy.
It is not a question of getting more money; it is a question of getting more from the money one has. Canadians want fairness, competence and a vision that works. Canadians want a change, and they want a change in government.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the borrowing bill as it gives me an opportunity to make my comments on the government's recent budget, not having had an opportunity to do so before the vote on the amendment. There are two days remaining in the budget debate, but given the attitude of the government it seems unlikely that we will have those for some period of time.
I can understand its reluctance to discuss this particular disaster.
When I was considering my remarks this evening, I had a look at some old magazines, and I pulled out the Maclean's magazine for January 7, 1985, which had this headline on its front cover: "A Confident Nation Speaks Up". The magazine ran a story about polls that had been conducted by some friends of the government, Decima Research.


An hon. member:: I didn't know we had any.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says:"I didn't know we had any". Well he does not have many left now, but this was in 1985. He may recall that in 1984 his party won a very substantial majority, to the great chagrin of Canadians today. The first paragraph of this article says:
Treading water is no longer our national sport. Instead of cringing before uncertain economic indicators, shaking fists at politicians or bowing to hidebound social restraints, most Canadians at mid-decade are confident about themselves and optimistic about their country.
That is what Peter C. Newman wrote in an essay based on the Decima poll conducted by Maclean's magazine in December 1984 and published in January 1985.
Then I took out the January 1, 1990 edition of Maclean's magazine, six years of Conservative government mismanagement. It said: "An Uncertain Nation, Canada at a Crossroads". That was on January 1.
On January 7, it said: "A Shaken Nation Bares its Anger." These are all based on the same poll done by Decima research obviously in late 1990. Six years of disastrous government have brought Canadians to their knees begging this government to get out so we can get a proper government that can administer the affairs of this country in a way that will give Canadians confidence in their future and optimism that the whole place is not falling apart as a result of the policies of this government.
Let me read the quote from the January 7 issue of Maclean's. This is describing the Decima poll:
The poll paints an unsettling portrait of a nation that has lost its way. English-Canadians have only grudging tolerance for continued negotiations over the status of Quebec. As they lose respect for their politicians, people are demanding more personal influence over critical decisions-with a significant 27 per cent flirting with the idea of eliminating government altogether. As well, large numbers of respondents, alienated by the size of their tax bills, want to restrict government's ability to spend. They are less optimistic than ever before in the history of the Maclean's!Decima poll about their own, and the country's, economic prospects. And on a personal level, many of them say that they feel unsafe on the streets of their communities-or even in their own homes. Said by veteran pollster, Allan Gregg, president of Toronto-based Decima Research Limited, which conducts the poll: "Certainly, in the seven years that we have been doing this research, we have never identified a blacker mood."
Allan Gregg is no friend of the Liberal Party. He is in on all the Conservative Party conferences. I am sure that all the hon. members opposite have seen him at meetings that their party has had. He is considered their principal adviser on polls. Here he is saying that Canadians are in the blackest mood they have ever found in the polling that they have done.
March 20, 1991

I say it is the direct result of the disastrous policies pursued by the hon. gentlemen opposite.
I would like to go back again in history to a budget speech delivered in this House on March 23, 1985. We know it was the present Minister of Finance who was finance minister in 1985 who did it. Let me read part of another wonderful quote from the hon. minister's speech of May 23, 1985:
I am implementing a clear and realistic medium-term plan to control our debt. That plan requires tough actions to be taken now. There will be expenditure reductions and tax increases. The impact of these actions, and those taken in November, will continue to grow. Our actions will directly reduce the annual deficit at the end of the decade by more than $20 billion. Between now and then, our actions will cut a total of $75 billion from the projected increase in the public debt.
I do not know where the Minister of Finance got his figures. I will bet it was from a crystal ball. It ceased to function, because the end of the decade was 1990. That was the end of the decade in which he was speaking, and the deficit in the financial year ended March 31, 1986 which was the year in which this budget was delivered was exactly the same as it is today. Exactly the same.
In other words, the minister defrauded Canadians in March 1985 with his statistics and his figures. He did not keep his promise to reduce government expenditure. He increased taxes. He has increased them 32 times since he took office, and a whole bunch of them were in this budget in 1985.
Government expenditure has continued to increase throughout the period, and the deficit has stayed at $30 billion. It has not gone down. It has gone up for the last three years. That is the record of financial incompetence on the part of the minister that has caused Canadians to lose confidence in their government and their governmental institutions in this country.
Mr. Speaker, in case you think I am being unfairly critical with the minister, let's look at the information that he gets. We all know that the Minister of Finance, in the course of preparation of his budget, consults with various groups across the country. He is sent free advice. He gets it from the Economic Council of Canada, from business and labour groups and, I presume, the minister listens to these groups in the course of his discussions.
Government Orders
I have here the pre-budget submission to the Minister of Finance prepared in December 1990 by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I apologize for the extensive quotations tonight, but I could not put the words better myself. I should say that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is not a particular friend of the Liberal Party. It has got, I am sure, more Conservatives than Liberals in it, but listen to what they say about the Minister of Finance and his inability to manage the affairs of this country. I will read from the introduction of their pre-budget submission.
The Canadian small and medium-sized business community is currently saddled with the greatest number of negative factors affecting their business that they have faced in some time. Even in the recession of 1981-82, the outlook was not as consistently negative as it is today.


Mr. Bjornson:: I dispute that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says he disputes it. He should have met with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and disputed it. This is the submission they gave to his minister and his minister knows that this is exactly correct.
It then goes on:
However, all Canadians are now having to pay for this government mismanagement.
There is no doubt that action on government overspending may soon be forthcoming, but it will be forced upon, as opposed to chosen by, a bankrupt government. Since the government squandered the opportunities available through the mid-to late-1980s to get its spending under control in an environment of economic expansion, it will now be forced to cut back at the worst possible time-in the middle of a serious recession. And even worse, the introduction of a major new tax, the Goods and Services Thx, will only exacerbate the problems for small and medium-sized companies. Although the GST as proposed is rife with structural and design flaws, perhaps its most daunting long-term implication is that with such a money machine in place, any incentive that may currently exist for government to contain its spending will be gone. For all of these reasons, the 1984 to 1990 period can truly be described as six wasted years.
I suggest to you that they were worse than wasted. The government has damaged Canadian confidence in themselves. It has weakened their confidence in their country. It has been more than a waste, it has been a disaster.
The other point that is made in this report, I could go on reading.
When the current federal government assumed power in 1984, the small and medium-sized business community was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the election platform promise of improved fiscal management, and believed that small firms would at least be given a fair hearing. It is now apparent to small business owners that they have been disappointed on both counts. As a result of fiscal and

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
monetary policies that have been at odds for several years, but notably over the past 18 months, small firms now face the deadly combination of very high interest rates and a burgeoning federal debt. Adding these unfortunate circumstances to an inevitable slowdown in an economy after seven years of economic expansion, and the result is a self-imposed recession, that will be deepened and prolonged by government policy.
For weeks and weeks in this House, we have been asserting this fact that the policy of the government has contributed to the recession and has deepened and made it worse for Canadians.
The one other point I think that is worth mentioning in this report, and I could go on at great length on this, unfortunately my time is limited, is the gap between Canadian and U.S. interest rates. The report says of them that although these rates did not widen in 1981-82 although rates in both countries rose, this gap has been persistently in excess of 4 percentage points for some time.
The devastating impact of such an interest rate differential, and its role in maintaining the Canadian dollar at an uncompetitively high level, has been demonstrated in the recent spate of layoffs, plant closings, bankruptcies, the migration of Canadian firms to more competitive environments in the U.S. and elsewhere, and in the increased competitive pressure Canadian firms are experiencing from foreign firms from their own domestic markets.
The hon. member for Etobicoke North has asked questions regularly in this House on this subject demanding to know why the Minister of Finance will not stop his crazy interest rate policy, why he will not tell the Bank of Canada Governor to stop paying himself and his employees substantial increases and get the interest rate down, take a penalty instead of a bonus for their incompetence in managing this aspect of our policy and see that we get the differential and the rates down between Canada and the United States to increase our competitive position.
Unfortunately his pleas fall on deaf ears. The Minister of Finance gives facile answers and we get nowhere.
The other aspect of the budget that I think is extremely important is the cuts that the government announced to the provinces in respect of medicare and education. Clearly, they have put our medical care system at risk. Clearly they have weakened the ability of our provinces to deliver in the education and medical field.
We keep hearing from the government, whenever this objection is raised, that: "No, no, we have no intention of dismantling medicare. Everything is safe and sound". Although it has not used this term recently, I suspect it is nervous, the sacred trust argument is something that medicare once was. We have not heard that expression lately, but I expect if we press the Prime Minister on it, he would say it is still a sacred trust.
Yet last night in the House we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister of Canada and every single member of the Conservative Party who was here rise in his place and vote against a motion that read as follows:
That this House reaffirm its commitment to medicare.
In other words, the Conservative Party disaffirmed its commitment to medicare last night in the House. The Conservative Party, through the government House leader, who squawked and yacked yesterday afternoon about this, said that it was not possible for him to vote for this motion because somehow it would bring the government down.
He has a very short memory. On November 24, 1989, in this House, and this government was sitting on those benches, I was sitting on this side, there was an opposition and there was a government, the same one, the government allowed to pass unanimously a motion on a supply day moved by the hon. member, as he then was, for Oshawa, Mr. Broadbent. The motion talked about aid for children, expressing its concern for children living in poverty. The government could vote for that and yet it could not support medicare. In other words, the Conservatives said: "We are prepared to write medicare off". They said it by their vote last night and we know perfectly well that their actions in the budget have purported to do exactly that.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: It is a secret agenda.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is a secret agenda, as the hon. member for Hamilton West says.
The government has no intention of assisting the provinces in this regard. It is saying to the provinces: "Raise your own money. If you can't afford the medicare system that can be afforded in Hamilton, or Toronto or in Kingston, that's too bad". Canadians are going to end up with different standards of care across this country. This government could not give two hoots about it. That is the attitude, that is the approach. I submit it is not a good approach.
March 20, 1991

I could go on about waste too. I am tempted to do so, but let me pass on to education. The minister also received advice in respect of education. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada in its pre-budget submission to the Minister of Finance in December 1990 among other recommendations recommended this:
That the government commit itself to a genuine reform of the Established Programs Financing arrangements.
That, until such time as the Established Programs Financing arrangements are reformed, the federal government honour its EPF funding commitments in support of postsecondary education as they stood prior to the introduction of Bill C-69.
Not only did the government not honour the commitments that existed prior to the introduction of that much opposed bill, but it also changed the rules to reduce the payments under EPF transfers to the provinces for a period following the restriction contained in Bill C-69. That is hardly the way to enhance and improve the quality of education in Canada. I of course having a very famous university in my riding, two in fact-Queen's University and the Royal Military College-I can only point out the disastrous consequences of these cuts.
While all of these events may not have happened at Queen's, they are happening at other universities across the country, in McMaster for example in the riding of Hamilton West and I could name others. Obviously there cannot be many in Conservative ridings or they would be more concerned about this. Members on the other side would be up condemning their government for cutting these transfers.
It is stated to me, and I have every reason to believe it to be so, that first and second year science students in Canada are denied a place in the laboratory to work. They are not allowed to work in a lab because there is not sufficient laboratory space in the universities for them to work in those labs. How can one maintain an interest in science if one is denied hands-on work in a laboratory as part of your educational experience until year three on a limited basis and then in year four.
Government Orders
Class sizes have increased enormously because there is not enough money to pay for professors to be hired in the universities to do the teaching. Equipment and facilities are deteriorating in universities because they cannot be maintained on the tight budgets they are operating on. They cannot be replaced on the tight budgets they are operating on and new purchases cannot be made because there is no funding available.
In the province of Ontario, my home province, the situation unfortunately, is probably going to get worse, because not only have we got a tight-fisted Conservative Government in Ottawa, but we are saddled with the New Democratic Party government in Toronto who has done nothing to show leadership and try to offset the disastrous consequences of federal government policies launched by this government on the other side.
Indeed, we have no expectation that the situation will improve in Ontario with the government there.


An hon. member:: Order over there.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Even my hon. friend from Edmonton East would acknowledge that the NDP government has been a terrible disappointment in the many months it has been in office.
At the end of my remarks I would like to say that we in the Liberal Party would have expected this year, certainly a continuation of the policy of restraint we supposedly have witnessed for six years. I say that we have not had that kind of expectation when there has been a serious recession put upon us by the government's own policies in the latter part of 1990.


David Bjornson: Spending your way out of a recession does not work. We found that out in 1981.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We expected the government to come up with some extra generosity. Loosen the purse strings to help Canadians who are finding themselves unemployed because of the hard-hearted policies of the government.


An hon. member:: Is there anything good about this government?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: At a time when the government is asking Canadians to restrain themselves, it goes on spending binges and wild extravagances on little things. But they add up.

March 20, 1991
Government Orders
I just got an answer the other day to a question on the Order Paper. I put a question on the Order Paper about royal commissions. We know about the Spicer Commission and its budget of $27 million.


David Bjornson: Is Spicer wasting money? Say it. Say national unity is a waste of money.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member asks if Spicer is a waste of money. I say the Spicer Commission is costing millions more than it should be costing if it were properly managed. He knows it. And if he does not know it, he should go to the consumer and corporate affairs committee and hear it.


David Bjornson: I was there last night and I listened.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Well listen again on Thursday.
I want to talk about the other royal commissions. I know the hon. member does not want to hear this. He is embarrassed by these facts and he should be. The Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation is projected to cost $23 million. The Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, $24.7 million and the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, $19.9 million. We have over $100 million committed to royal commissions in Canada, that this government has set up in order to generate business for a good number of its friends and keep the various
researchers and so on, working in Canada. I say this is not a wise or prudent expenditure of public funds. It is time the government acted the way it is preaching and tightened up the purse strings in reasonable areas, instead of cutting training programs for those who are unemployed. It is a hard-hearted way to run a government.


An hon. member:: Resign. Resign over there.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I suggest the Minister of Finance should be ashamed of his budget and withdraw it.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: It being eight o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 8 p.m..
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 21,1991