1992-02-25

Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to table in the House today a petition from 1,055 people in my riding and surrounding areas who denounce the coup d'etat in Haiti, the military actions led by General Raoul Cedras and the destruction and pillage of institutions working for the development of that country ravaged by poverty, lack of free expression and carnage that has already claimed thousands of victims.
For these reasons, the petitioners ask Parliament and the government to demand that democracy be restored and human rights respected, not to recognize the present regime and to make the embargo ordered by the Organization of American States effective. They want Canada to put as much energy into freeing Haiti from the oppression of the military officers illegally in power as we put into freeing Kuwait from occupation.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, duty and privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition, certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It contains the signatures of Canadians living in the communities of St. Catharines, Hamilton, Stoney Creek, Grimsby, Guelph, Burlington and Etobicoke.
These petitioners join the tens of thousands of petitioners, in fact we have received over 100,000 signatures, requesting that Parliament recognize that crimes of
violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society. They ask that we amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and with some sadness that I table a petition signed by women from all across the country requesting that the Ministry of National Health and Welfare have an independent judicial inquiry into the testing and approval process for all medical devices. In particular, this petition is around the case of Meme breast implants and silicone breast implants.
The petitioners ask that the minister take the time to seek scientific evidence about the safety of these implants, as well as appoint an independent judicial inquiry to ensure that the manner in which medical devices are approved in this country is appropriate.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour this morning to table a petition signed by a group of people in the riding of Manicouagan, particularly individuals from Blanc-Sablon, Lourdes-de-Blanc-Sablon, Middle Bay, Bradore, Old Fort and Ri-viere-Saint-Paul. In this petition, the signers ask Parliament to eliminate the goods and services tax on women's sanitary products.
The petition has been certified correct as to form and content.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present two petitions from people right across Prince Edward Island, including employees of the federal government, whether active now or retired, who are very concerned about the government's intention to de index pensions.

Government Orders
These people come from Traveller's Rest, Wellington, Summerside, Miscouche and all across the province of Prince Edward Island. They are very fearful that if the government brings in legislation to de index pensions, their lifetime work will be unprotected and they will be very open to the vagaries of the future.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to present a petition to this House.
The petition is signed by a number of residents in my constituency, especially from around the Dunnville area, who are really upset with this government when it put a tax on water, namely the GST.
The petitioners call on this government to remove that tax and to make water zero rated status under the GST.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, this is just one of hundreds of petitions that I presented on this issue.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to present to this House petitions that I have received from constituents of Broadview-Greenwood.
These petitions continue to call upon the government to develop a fairer, more simplified tax system, and they want the GST abolished.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, the petitioners continue to remind the government that the commitment it made in September 1988 to begin reclaiming the Great Lakes, specifically reclaiming the Don River, has not begun. They would like the government to please honour that commitment.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and area. Some of the signatures are from Napanee and Harrowsmith in the riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and ask that the Criminal Code of
Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972 and the Parole Act, be amended to reflect the seriousness of those kinds of offences.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Shall the questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. McKnight that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, it is with some chagrin that I rise to discuss the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act at a time when the farmers in this country are mightily concerned that marketing boards are going to go the way of the dodo bird because of this country's failure to represent Canada's interest at the GATT.
The government has failed so far to persuade the other 107 members of GATT to strengthen and clarify the supply management provisions contained in article XI of the GATT. Our concern is that the government, through its attachment to the American way of doing business, is falling into line with the American philosophy at the GATT and leaving Canadian farmers high and dry.
February 25, 1992

Particularly after the massive demonstration last Friday of farmers from all over Canada-some estimate that over 40,000 farmers came to Ottawa-it is well known that farmers are very concerned about the outcome of this round of negotiations at GATT. Somebody asked me how can these farmers, who are so hard pressed, and we are talking about being concerned about farmers going under, afford to come to Ottawa to demonstrate on Parliament Hill.
The week before last, I met with the farmers in my riding in anticipation of the demonstration on the Hill. I met with dairy farmers in Pitt Meadows. They were so worried and so anxious about getting the message to this government that they were willing to pay what it took to come to Ottawa to get that message across.
They were willing because it is not just their livelihood, it is their homes, homes where some of them were born, grew up and are working toward passing on to their children. There are farms in my riding, maybe not as old as farming in eastern Canada, but there are third and fourth generation farmers who are willing to make the sacrifice to come to Ottawa to get the message across to the minister on how important they feel the presentation of Canada and the success of Canada at the GATT talks is.
We have to think about what is at stake. We are not just talking about farms. What is at stake if Canada's supply management boards are considered trade distorting measures by the GATT? One hundred thousand Canadian jobs are at stake, added to the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are already lost in Canada by buying in and linking ourselves closely to American economics. These 100,000 Canadian jobs include 38,000 farmers. That is not speaking of their families.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member but we are on Bill C-54 which deals with check-off legislation. I have not heard it mentioned once yet.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I introduced my remarks by saying that it is a sad day when we are introducing such legislation and I even used the title of the bill. I pointed out that this is the reason why this piece of legislation just might be a tiny bit suspect. I am laying the groundwork for why I think this legislation might be a tiny bit suspect.
One of the hon. members says that I am making it a political debate. Amazing but this is politics. This is the House of Commons. Five parties are seated here. We do
Government Orders
not really want to talk politics or talk about the reality of large or small p politics in this country. That is the very kind of response that alarms farmers about this kind of legislation.
This bill covers 38,000 farmers and their families, 22,900 employees of those farmers and 36,000 processing jobs. That comes to a total of lost farm production of $4.7 billion to this country and $5.5 billion in processing, for a total loss of over $100 billion to the Canadian economy.
I think that is very relevant to this bill because we are talking here about farm products marketing agencies while we have our negotiators going to GATT. We are not sure that they will be taking our best interests or the best interests of farmers to GATT. It seems rather intriguing that this bill is before the House just prior to that discussion at GATT.
The loss of our supply management system through the GATT will do to rural Canada what the free trade agreement has done to urban Canada. That is devastating. Not only the farmers in my riding are going to be devastated by a failure of protection of supply management in Canada. The people in my riding, the spinoff industries such as Buckerfield's, the suppliers, the wholesaler and the people who deliver milk, are all going to be affected by the failure of this government to uphold Canada's position at the GATT.
The minister has said that our position has remained unchanged and that they will continue to argue for protection of supply management. He has also continued to note that Canada is but one of 107 countries at GATT. If we go in figuring we are going to lose, chances are we will lose. If we go in believing in our system, believing in supply management, believing in marketing agencies, then I think it is fair and safe to say that we will in fact do a good job on behalf of our farmers.
I would urge that people take farmers veiy seriously and consider what would happen if we lose our ability in this country to produce our food, to feed our citizens. There are those who say: "Well, get rid of these marketing boards. Get rid of that whole process because the Americans will feed us cheaper". They might feed us cheaper for the first couple of years, till they make sure all of our farms have gone under, and then we had better believe that the ante will go up. If we lose our ability to feed our citizens then I think we very much risk losing our sovereignty.

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
This issue is not related to a very narrow definition of Bill C-54. This issue goes far beyond this bill. That is why I am very concerned we are debating this kind of thing at this time and yet leaving farmers from all across Canada feeling at total risk that we are not taking them seriously and that we will not be serving their interests at the GATT.
I would ask that the government direct its attention to how we can best protect our farmers. Whilst the hon. parliamentary secretary feels that I have not addressed this bill, I think the whole question is inextricably intertwined. I would ask the parliamentary secretary and the government to renew their efforts to ensure that a bill like this makes sense by ensuring that we continue to have marketing boards and supply management in this country.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member from British Columbia. It reminded me of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture meeting yesterday in Vancouver. The umbrella organization for the entire country was holding its meeting. Outside that meeting at just about exactly this time 24 hours ago Vancouver time some 450 dairy, poultry and egg producers rallied to protest the lack of progress by this government.
Clearly that is tied into the legislation before the House today. This is the umbrella legislation, the National Farm Products Marketing Act, which provides for the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, the National Broiler Meat Agency, and other agencies. These producers were protesting the fact that the government has been negotiating for five and one-half years and has really accomplished very little in those GATT negotiations for an industry that involves some $10 million of economic activity for this country. It involves almost
100,000	jobs and 38,000 farmers. Yet in spite of the economic impact, let alone the fact that much of that impact is resolved into rural communities across the country, the government has made so little progress in those negotiations that Arthur Dunkel in his report of December 20 never even mentioned as a negotiating option the idea of a strengthened and clarified article XI.
Those producers are angry and frustrated that the government has failed to make any progress in those negotiations. In fact there are only five countries around
the world, some of them very important in trade terms, some less important, that are supporting Canada's position. They are calling on the Prime Minister, and I had the opportunity to speak to that rally yesterday in Vancouver, to rally the support of those five countries that support our position-the Prime Minister of Japan, the Prime Minister of Israel, South Korea and the other countries-to get a joint declaration and put to the President of the United States and to the European community countries that our bottom line is to maintain, strengthen and clarify article XI.
I believe that is what those protesters in Vancouver were saying yesterday. They want to see results, not just sweet words from the government, on this very important issue facing the entire rural Canada but especially the dairy, egg and poultry producers of this country.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. The rally in Vancouver was the first of a number of activities that will be happening on the west coast. I will be attending on Thursday morning a massive rally in the Fraser Valley, on the south side of the Fraser. For those hon. members who happen to represent that area, I would suggest they might want to attend as well. I would also suggest that the Prime Minister, or certainly at the very least the Minister of Agriculture, may wish to attend. I would challenge the Minister of Agriculture to attend that rally.
We are talking about a very serious business. I think it is absolutely critical that this government get its act together, get busy and protect Canadian farmers' interests at the GATT. It is not good enough to say: "Well, we are one of 107". It is not good enough to be satisfied that only five countries are supporting us. This government claims to know how to manage the economy. This government claims to know how to organize. I would suggest it is time for it to organize and manage the economy when it comes to the farmers of this country.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the rhetoric of the members of the opposition parties since the discussion commenced regarding the very important GATT negotiations. The first question I have in my mind is the following: Does the opposition think that Canada is alone in the process? We are saying, and we believe in this, that marketing agencies and the protection we want for farmers are as important for us as they are for them.
February 25, 1992

I want to ask the member for Mission-Coquitlam: instead of speaking, talking and saying it is so important and it is so damaging, what has she done? What has the New Democratic Party done in the international community with the Government of Canada to try to resolve this, to convince other parties? She must have contacts in her party in Europe. I am sure she does. Did she call them? Did she explain to those parties in Europe like the Green Party how important it is? I am asking her to tell me what they have done to help us and to help the farmers instead of just talking about it.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, the member from the government side thinks that talking about protecting farmers is rhetoric. I really appreciate that kind of attitude.
What have we done? First of all the job is that of the government. When one is elected to govern-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Joy Langan: Let me finish. When one is elected to govern one has a duty and a responsibility to lead, which this government has not done.
In terms of what we have done, we have certainly worked with our farmers. My colleague, the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap, if the hon. member were interested in listening, did in fact represent the case for Canadian farmers in Belgium on an inter-parliamentary tour. He spoke very strongly and very supportively toward expanding the parameters of article XI and met with a number of people there to try to influence that.
We as a party have talked to our colleagues in Socialist International as well. The government can stand here, be high and mighty, and ask opposition members: "What have you done?" But my question is: "What have they done for fanners in Canada?"


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, coming back to the legislation that we are dealing with today, Bill C-54, does the hon. member support legislation that would allow organized marketing agencies to collect a levy against imported products coming into this country?


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I am really delighted that questions and comments have gone on so long. I have
Government Orders
noted that when I want to get up and answer questions and comments, it is over like that.
I think our party has made its position absolutely clear on that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed the latest exchange. To hear the New Democratic Party say it has no responsibility to do anything because it is not elected to government indicates its total lack of expectation that it will ever be elected to government.
We in this party take our responsibility seriously and have tried to assist in the situation of the Canadian farmer. We regard the situation in which they find themselves as very serious and one about which members of Parliament have an obligation to try to do something. We have striven to do that in the limited ways available to us as members of the opposition.
We have been warning about the problems with this arrangement for some time, but our pleas seem to have fallen on deaf ears. We have taken the view that the government has not been assiduous in promoting the interests of Canadian farmers in these talks. Frankly I think what happened is that the government finally woke up to the fact that it got itself into serious trouble and is now trying to salvage the situation by making it look as though every action is being taken to save our farmers. I hope it is successful. I think every member of this House shares that optimism.
In talking about Bill C-54 today, I want to indicate what I think my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex indicated in his speech the other day. We have been saying all along that while there is nothing in this bill that we find objectionable per se, we are concerned as to what is the real purpose of this legislation.
We are concerned that what the government is trying to do by this bill is to change the rules in relation to Canadian agriculture so that if the GATT talks are successful in leading to a collapse of Canadian agriculture as we now know it, there will be this mechanism in place to do what little good it can do in the circumstances. In other words, this bill will pick up the pieces and try to make it appear that these marketing boards still exist when they are unable to do anything about price.

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
That is the thrust of our concern about the bill. I submit, on the evidence, the facts and the statements by the ministers who have been involved so far in the discussion, that there is every reason for Canadians and Canadian farmers to be concerned about what is going on.
I understand the situation to be that the current proposals at GATT appear to be the final position. Of course they have not been completely finalized at this moment. They would lead to a tariffication of the barriers that basically prohibit the entry of American dairy and poultry products into Canada. That prohibition is what allows our marketing boards to operate within Canada to ensure a reasonable price to the consumer and a fair return to the Canadian agriculture industry. The system has been remarkably successful from all the accounts I have read and from all of the farm groups I have met with, as small as they are in my riding, but significant.
I have every reason to believe that the system has worked extremely well for Canada and for Canadians. It has guaranteed us a fully adequate supply at a reasonable price. We have in Canada top quality products manufactured by very efficient producers who are becoming increasingly efficient and a safe and dependable supply at all times.
The Canadian supply of these products is the envy of the world. There are few other countries that are able to match the Canadian experience in terms of the factors I mentioned: availability, dependability and quality of supply. All of those have been provided by our farmers under the existing marketing boards.
I understand that the current GATT proposal to allow for these organizations is a change whereby the protection they have against foreign imports would be tariffied. Significant tariffs would be increased which under the GATT agreement would be reduced by a fixed percentage over a five or six year period.
Then the problem arises, as I understand it, with the free trade agreement. The government has not stressed this, of course, in its discussions. It has not really told Canadians what will happen if the current GATT negotiation proceeds to completion in accordance with the existing proposal. I can understand its reluctance because, of course, what it has do is shoot a few holes in the much vaunted free trade agreement. It has to somehow convince Canadians and Canadian farmers that it is not
just the GATT negotiations that will have put the boot to the marketing boards in Canada. It is also a fact of the free trade agreement.
As I understand the way it works, the tariffs will have to be eliminated over a period of time under that agreement. They are not just reduced, they are eliminated. I have read this in some of the newspaper accounts describing the GATT round. If that is incorrect, I would like to hear about it from the government. I would like to hear some statements on this because we have had no explanation as to how this will work.
The indication I have from the material I have read on this is that some special deal will have to be worked out with the United States government as part of the free trade deal to avoid the phase out of those tariffs completely. Of course, it is that phase out that would destroy completely the marketing boards as we now know them.
The tariffication would be difficult. The reduction in tariffs would be more difficult. The elimination of the tariffs with the United States would be a disaster for our farm community and they are understandably upset and concerned.
That takes me back to the free trade deal. As Your Honour will recall, we in this House in 1988 stood and opposed the government's free trade agreement. We said it was a bad deal for Canada. Indeed, the deal that was negotiated was, in our view, and I have certainly expressed this view in the election and I still say today, a sell-out of Canadian interests. It was a disaster for this country. It was badly negotiated.
If Canadian fanners are apprehensive about the possible ramifications of the GATT deal which this government has been negotiating, think how they will feel if they realize that there is an important negotiation now to take place with the United States to protect the Canadian marketing boards from this detariffication process that should follow under the free trade deal.
The Canadian farmers in particular know the bargaining record of this government. It has been rotten, just a disgrace. This government goes into negotiations with no aims or objectives. It goes in with the sole aim of making a deal, a deal at any price. We know what happened in the free trade negotiations. We remember how Simon Reisman, the government's great negotiator, went off to Washington and came back to Ottawa a few days before
February 25, 1992

the deadline and said: "There is no deal". We can only speculate as to why he said that. But I would be willing to wager that the reason was that he was given a set of parameters. The government said: "You cannot give away this, this or this". He came back to Ottawa and said: "Unless I give away some of these things, there is no deal. My mandate is exhausted. I have bargained everything I could bargain. You told me I couldn't give up on this, this and this, so I can't make a deal. The talks are off".
We know what happened. Then we had this minister, the wonderful Minister of Finance at the time, and one of his colleagues-I think she was Minister of Employment and Immigration who is now Secretary of State for External Affairs-go to Washington and make a deal.
We can only speculate that they gave away some of the things on Simon's list that he was not supposed to give away in order to buy the Americans off and make a deal. I will bet they gave away everything on the list because the Americans must have realized that this government was desperate for a deal.
It had invested all kinds of political value into a free trade deal and it could not really back out at this stage. Off they went and made a deal.
You would think, Mr. Speaker, that the chief negotiator, having been given a list of no-nos would then quit. Having the floor cut out from underneath him, having said: "No, I can't give you this," and then to have ministers come into the talks at the last minute and say: "Yes, you're getting all this," a chief negotiator worth his salt, with any sense of respectability would have quit, but he did not. He stayed on. Then he went on the campaign trail for the government to sell the free trade deal.
I recall in the months leading up to the election how Simon came to Kingston. He had a large public meeting at the Ambassador Hotel. He made a speech at this meeting. In the course of the speech he praised the then member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands, who was a minister in the Conservative government, who had been giving him the instructions in these talks. He said what a great job she had done. He made speeches about how the critics of this deal were wrong. He listed all their
Government Orders
criticisms and refuted the criticisms by reading chapter and verse from his deal. He said that these critics were all wrong.
What were some of the criticisms that the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra used to put out? I remember he said that there was insufficient protection for Canada under this deal. Here we have a perfect example of it. Here we are in GATT talks where there may be a deal that is thoroughly undermined by the free trade agreement.
In other words, whatever deal is made at GATT will be damaging for Canadian farmers, but not half so damaging as the effects of the free trade agreement on that deal, unless a special exemption is arranged with the United States. In other words, we have to go back to the table asking for more because of Simon and this government's failure to defend Canada's interest in the original talks.
Yet, and this is the most shocking thing, this man who was presumably a public servant at the time-he was certainly working for the government as some kind of ambassador for the free trade deal, I think he had that status-went about the country in the course of an election campaign making statements about the Leader of the Opposition.
I have here some quotations of things that he said. In The Toronto Star, November 16,1988, five days before the election, it states: "Former free trade negotiator Simon Reisman has accused Liberal Leader John Turner of being a traitor to his country for attacking the proposed deal". Imagine, he said, and this is a direct quote from him in the same article: "These are lies that debase longstanding public traditions in this country, lies that are designed to frighten and confuse Canadian voters".
One of the longstanding traditions in this country is that public servants do not meddle in political matters. Mr. Reisman had no trouble dispensing with that particular principle when he got talking about his free trade deal. He said, and I quote from The Globe and Mail on November 17, four days before the election:
"I think the man who is selling out Canada is John Timer", Mr. Reisman said on a Toronto CBC news show, "because he's reckless, he's betraying the country and he's playing with the future of our children and our grandchilden. And I challenge him, I accuse him of being a traitor to Canada for saying the things he is saying".

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
I could go on quoting all these sorts of things from Mr. Reisman, but I think I do not need to because we now have Mr. Reisman singing a different tune. He has finally wakened up to the fact that he sold Canada down the drain. In The Ottawa Citizen on January 18 of this year, we have Mr. Reisman calling the Americans "thugs". The free trade negotiator who spent months in bed with the Americans in Washington selling our country out now refers to his former friends as thugs. When I say he was in Washington with these people, he had the full connivance and support of the Tory cabinet because they were down there doing the same thing.
He says, and I am quoting from the article now: "Punitive trade actions against Canada are dangerously close to outright violations of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement say the two top Canadian negotiators of the deal".
I do not like to use this kind of language but he said: "The Americans are bastards; they are behaving like real thugs these days and protecting their interests". This is a quote from Mr. Reisman. His language seems to be intemperate.
The right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra in 1988 was a traitor because he criticized the deal. Now Mr. Reisman says that the Americans are thugs and calls them other unpleasant names because they are taking full advantage, full advantage I may say, of all the rights they acquired under the deal, rights that Mr. Reisman and the Tory cabinet sold out, Canadians rights they sold away. They were warned that the free trade deal was a bad deal, that there was a lack of protection for Canada in it, by the Leader of the Opposition at the time and by members of this caucus who spoke against this deal across this country. Now they are finally realizing that maybe the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra was right. Maybe he was not the liar. Maybe it was somebody else. Maybe he was not the traitor. Maybe it was somebody else. What is shocking is that there has been no public apology for those shocking statements. Mr. Reisman was not the only one who called the Leader of the Opposition a liar.
Then there was the Minister of Finance who referred to him as a liar. The hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood remembers that well because he is a Toronto area member, as is the then Minister of Finance. He made statements accusing the right hon. member for
Vancouver Quadra of being a liar. We know that there was a concerted effort by the Conservative Party to discredit the then Leader of the Opposition in the course of the free trade debate. It was felt that if he could be discredited then his arguments on free trade would carry less weight and the Conservative government could get re-elected.
They set out on a deliberate smear campaign to destroy the credibility of the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, led by the then Minister of Finance in one of the most shocking episodes in recent Canadian political history and supported fully by a public servant.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Don't forget the full-page ads.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. members says: "Don't forget the full-page ads". I quite agree.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Three or four million dollars.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member from Algoma says: " It is $3 million or $4 million". It was much more than that. The studies indicate that it was at least $15 million if not $20 million. It was a fabulous sum of money, all raised by Conservative government supporters who paid good money to run advertisements in the newspapers of Canada to hoodwink Canadians into thinking that the free trade deal that our friend Simon negotiated was a good deal for Canada.
Everyone knows that it was a very bad deal for Canada. It is the reason why Canadian farmers are concerned to the point of distraction today. They know that if the government does not sell them out in GATT, it will sell them out under the free trade deal that it has negotiated. They are very apprehensive that the people who will do the negotiating to save the Canadian government's position under the free trade deal when such negotiations are under way are the people sitting on the other side of this House who have a proven record of incompetence, inability to negotiate anything worth while and who are a disgrace to this country and should get out so that we can have Canadians elect a new government and get on with the business of this country in a proper and efficient way.
We cannot have this government back to the negotiating table. It does not know what it is doing at the negotiating table. It will give anything away to make a deal and to please its friends, the Americans. We have to remember that the Americans are our best friends and
February 25, 1992

they are our closest neighbours. But our leader says: "Business is business".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I may remind the hon. member that we are still discussing Bill C-54. The Chair is trying to be as flexible as possible, but perhaps the hon. member would bear in mind that we are still on Bill C-54.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I realize that. As I said at the beginning of my speech, my comments on free trade are relevant because the proposed legislation alters the obligations of marketing boards.

I tied it directly into that because these marketing boards are under attack because of free trade. I have gone off the track slightly to talk about free trade because it is very important to the future success of these marketing boards.
I have tried to point out in the clearest possible terms that the marketing boards will fail unless an amendment is made under the free trade deal to protect them. The current GATT talks are going to result in a tariffication of the protection that is built in for these marketing boards. They will be diminished and eliminated under the free trade deal unless arrangements are made.
That is why it ties in. These boards will become empty shells unless some other arrangement is made. The government should be under the gun and apprehensive but we do not see any sign of that. The Minister of Finance went out to speak to the crowd last week. His assurances that he was fighting his best for their interests were great. Unfortunately it appears that his fight was taken up rather late in the game.
We on this side of the House have condemned the government for its actions. We wished it had acted with greater alacrity from the outset to protect Canadian farm interests. We regret that its inability to negotiate has resulted in a bad deal at GATT. It has resulted in a bad deal under the free trade agreement and I am sure I could list other negotiations that have been very badly handled. The Public Service strike that resulted from their botched negotiations last year comes to mind.
Government Orders
I am sorry that Canada is saddled with a government as weak and ineffective as this one. I wish that today, before the budget comes down, the Prime Minister would go to Rideau Hall and advise the Governor General it is time the country got a chance to pass its judgment on these people in an election.


Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the hon. member not to count on it.
In respect to Bill C-54, the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, it was very heart warming to hear the member mention that he supported the bill in principle. I would be very disappointed if I was a producer in this country listening to the comments being made. Many producers of products across this country believe this legislation will help them in the promotion of their product and for the use of Canadian products. Very little is being said in respect to what this legislation is.
The government has been asked for this legislation since 1984 and perhaps before that. We are the first government that has offered to bring something forward for the marketing agencies, not just the supply management agencies. They have their certain ways of collecting funds, but we have many other agencies that do an exceptional job in the promotion of farm products across this country. They have not been able to charge checkoffs on imported goods coming into this country. They believe, as we do, it is very essential that we make these amendments to this act.
If the member wishes to have a debate on GATT, let us use an allotted day and have a full-fledged discussion where all people can participate. Let us stick to the legislation we are dealing with right now.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, it would take half an hour or more to refute the litany of misconceptions advanced by the member for Kingston and the Islands on the subject of the farm products marketing agencies. Let me deal with one of two. It appears to me this is a city lawyer's view of agriculture in Canada.
He spoke about Simon Reisman. These remarks were explained fully in an interview with Peter Gzowski on Canada's national broadcasting system, CBC radio. He indicated very clearly that he was talking about U.S. traders in relation to Canadian traders. He was not talking about government officials. He was not talking about the U.S. officials and the Canadian officials that negotiated the free trade agreement. It was the lack of

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
goodwill on behalf of the traders. We can expect that sort of thing in trading wars as the member should know.
Let me deal with another point he made about marketing boards and the free trade agreement. During the free trade agreement debate the agriculture community raised the concern that they were threatened in relation to marketing boards by the provisions of the free trade agreement. We said there was no threat and they would be protected.
Three years have elapsed since the signing of the free trade agreement and marketing boards are flourishing in Canada. Indeed we saw 30,000 beneficiaries of that very system on Parliament Hill. What are they afraid of? They are not afraid of the free trade agreement but the GATT negotiations. It was the Liberals who stood in this House of Commons and said to scrap free trade and rely on GATT, GATT will bring us everything we need in the international field. Now they are coming back and saying GATT cannot be trusted and we have to get rid of GATT. They want to get rid of free trade, get rid of GATT, get rid of everything and isolate Canada. It will not matter about marketing boards because there will be nobody to buy anything.
I just want the member for Kingston and the Islands to answer one simple question. I know there are Liberal business people across this country who want to hear his answer, Liberal Party supporters who trade internationally. If article XI is not changed in the manner he directed and if the wishes he presented to this House today are not granted in the GATT negotiations, does the member recommend to the Government of Canada that it withdraw from GATT?
The Liberal Party members who support the member want to hear his answer. Does he recommend withdrawal from GATT?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the hon. member. I will not recommend that Canada withdraw from GATT unless additional information comes to light that we do not have now.
Knowing this government's secret deals, it will not release the documents that it should be giving to this House, as has happened in the United States. We are not privy to those documents. We do not know what the deal
is. Until we see it my answer can only be taken for what it is worth.
I want to say something else to the hon. member. He has become an apologist for Simon Reisman. Like Mr. Reisman, he gets misquoted once in a while so now he is trying to justify Simon's bad language and intemperate remarks. Well we did not hear him trying to do that during the election campaign in 1988 when Mr. Reisman was calling the member for Vancouver Quadra a traitor and a liar. That is when he should have been on his feet saying that Mr. Reisman, as a public servant, had no business making any such statement whether he thought it or not. Mr. Reisman had an obligation to stay silent on those issues and exercise the proper discipline that applies to public servants.
I would have loved to have come into government in 1988 because if I had been Mr. Reisman's minister he would have got the boot so fast he would not have know what happened to him. Public servants have no business making statements like that, especially in the course of an election campaign. Mr. Reisman went way beyond the bounds of propriety in his comments about the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.
The second point the hon. member raised is that somehow the free trade deal has had no effect on Canadian farmers. He clearly has an ever so selective memory because, although I do not understand or pretend to understand the full ramifications of it, I am fully aware there was an ice-cream and yoghurt decision made which was seriously jeopardized from Canada's point of view, by reason of the free trade deal. Canadian farmers have suffered terrible losses because of that decision as I understand it. My colleague from Algoma can explain the situation better, but as I understand it Canadian farmers would have done much better had that decision not been made. Yet the free trade deal had a very direct bearing on the outcome of the case dealing with ice-cream and yoghurt.
The hon. member obviously is the one who is speaking from a city lawyer perspective. I would suggest he get his facts straight, cast his mind back even a year or two and remember that Canada got shafted because of the free trade deal. Canadian farmers are paying because of this free trade deal. On the evidence that is before us, uncontradicted by the parliamentary secretary or any-
February 25, 1992

body else, Canadian farmers could pay a good deal more because of the free trade deal.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in this House today to debate Bill C-54 which is an act to amend the Farm Product Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
I think it is an important debate because it deals specifically with issues that this country is now dealing with in the international arena.
I know that many Canadians believe they do not really understand what this debate is all about. They really do not understand what supply management means. They do not really understand these GATT negotiations or what GATT means and how these negotiations could affect their everyday lives. I would like to change this indifference and misunderstanding about supply management which seems to abound not only in the seats across the way but in editorial boards across this nation. I believe strongly in the message coming from a number of Canadians, especially in the farming sectors of rural Canada. That is, without a viable Canadian farming sector there can be no food security for Canadians. We all know what the consequences of no food security for Canadians means.
Because of the public indifference and the real ignorance out there on this issue, I would like to urge every member on the other side of the House, Canadians from urban areas, heads of editorial boards and newspapers to listen to what members of Parliament, especially on this side of the House, are saying about this issue. It is a very important issue for Canada.
Many of them may not fully understand the issue at hand and may not really understand why we are supporting this thing called supply management. Hopefully the government will actually be able to convince people in the international community and all Canadians of the reasons why Canada needs article XI of the GATT. That is why our debate today is so important. I am concerned about the misinformation out there, and what it is doing to Canadian producers. I am concerned when I read in
Government Orders
the newspaper that our Canadian supply managed producers are inefficient. This came from an article by Mr. Leblanc in The Financial Post yesterday, where he ended by saying "Canadian farmers of supply managed commodities are inefficient". Editorial writers like him and editorial writers across the country do not really understand the importance of a national food security system for Canada.
I know we have not had a very long history as a country. We have not had the wars Europe has had which tore countries apart and forced people into near starvation. But I think if these people understood how important food is to the sovereignty of a country, they might think differently about what they are saying about supply management.
I am concerned also that these theoretical economic arguments really make no practical sense when it comes down to the day-to-day lives of Canadians. They make no practical sense when this government talks in terms of esoteric economics, saying that we have to join world economic blocs. Well that means very little to the farmers in my area. It means very little to the workers across Canada who want jobs, and the farmers across Canada who want livelihoods they can turn over to their children.
Supply management is really not too hard to understand. It ensures that the supply of any given product does not exceed the demand for it. Agricultural sectors that are supply-managed do not contribute to world surpluses. As a result they do not contribute to artificially low prices that we are seeing around the world today. Ultimately supply management does not distort international trade, and that is why GATT is there. GATT is there to stop distortion of international trade.
That is why Canadians have to work really hard, whether they are in cities or rural areas, whether they are on newspaper editorial boards, whether they are farmers. We have to come together to explain to the world why a system like supply management is so important.
As a result of not distorting trade, Canadian supply management is not a burden on the Canadian taxpayer. In fact I would argue that without supply management, Canadian taxpayers would be paying much more for their food and many more taxes, to help boost the livelihoods of Canadians in rural areas. Instead, prices and quotas of supply managed products are based on the cost of

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
production. In other words, poultry and dairy farmers receive a fair price for what they produce.
Consumer groups have spent a lot of time and a lot of energy. In fact, they have received a lot of the money for this time and energy from the government across the way, from the Minister of Agriculture, to do studies on supply management. As a result of these studies they claim to tell Canadians that they would be better off without supply management.
Unfortunately I have found in most cases, when reading their studies, when reading what they say, that they have a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding of what the issue is all about. They really ignore some of the most important realities.
Sure, in the short term if we move away from supply management, it would probably look good for consumers. We would have open markets, cheap food and that is the argument.


Mr. Parker:: About six months.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Yes, for about six months, if that.
The notion of this cheap food is a fraud. It is a fraud brought upon most Canadians by a group paid for by this government.
People, in their short-sightedness, have forgotten the simple economic theories of supply and demand. In times of surpluses we would be a dumping ground for surpluses of foodstuffs. But in times of food shortages, which is always a real threat in this world, we would always be the second best market.
In either scenario our producers could not survive and it is not because they are inefficient. The fact is true competition can only take place when producers compete on a level playing field.
The highly subsidized farmers in the United States and Europe are hardly fair competitors. They are highly subsidized. This so-called world price that members across the floor on the other side like to talk about so often is not a real price. It is a magical price brought out of the air because of our friends to the south, who really are the only ones we need to convince on this issue.
We sent a group of farmers and a group of politicians over to Europe last week to talk to the Europeans when we all know that there really is only one person in this
world who we have to convince. That is the Prime Minister's friend, Mr. Bush.
Those of us who have studied GATT, those of us who have studied international trade for a number of years, now know how it is controlled. We know the only country in the world that really wants these markets of ours is the United States.
Europe is not going to ship over a whole bunch of milk to Canada to go into our markets. Sure, they want a bit of our cheese market maybe, but that is it.
It is the American president to the south, congressmen and senators who are telling their farmers: "Now hold off. Just wait. Don't worry. I know things are rough now, but you have a market to the north coming real soon because we have been given a guarantee that you will get that".
For all Canadians, the issue is an issue of national security. If a country cannot supply its own foodstuff, it will not be an independent country for very long.
The draft GATT agreement calls for all internal and external subsidy, border restrictions and trade barriers to be converted into tariffs which are to be reduced over a period of time. This would have major implications for supply management and we could no longer control the quantity or the quality of the food that we produce in this country and that we allow into this country.
With tariffication and once tariffs are reduced, American multinationals can invade our markets with cheap food because they can set prices below the cost of production. They can do this because the American government subsidizes their farmers at rates much higher than those in Canada.
We do not hear this very often from across the floor, but the cost of production is 25 per cent cheaper than in Canada. How can we compete as Canadians? How can our farmers compete on a so-called level playing field that the government talks about when our cost of production is 25 per cent more? For this reason they can also survive longer in low markets.
In an attempt to force competitors, namely Canadian farmers, out of the market, of course for the ill-informed consumer out there, this means initially cheaper food. But what happens in the long run once all our farmers have been displaced by three or four major American

corporations? We will simply be at the mercy of other countries and totally dependent on them for our foodstuff.
So much for nationalism and so much for sovereignty. Then we will pay for our short-sighted policies of the 1990s. Canadians pay a fair price for their food. In fact, we pay the second lowest price in the world for it.
On the other hand, as has been so eloquently outlined by my friend, the member for Lambton-Middlesex, many Canadians out there know his name; they have seen the work he has done in "Compare the Share". He points out that Canadian farmers have not been getting their fair share of the Canadian food dollar.
If this goes through there will not be any Canadian farmers out there to get any share of the food dollar.
In many instances for example in 1980, the price spread between the farm gate price of milk in a kilogram of cheddar cheese and the retail price for that same Cheddar cheese was $3.13.
By 1988 the price spread had more than doubled to $6.94. This kind of discrepancy between farm gate and retail prices is also true for beef, poultry, pork, corn and wheat, many of our farm products.
As politicians it is our responsibility to get the message out to the rest of Canada as to the importance of Canadian food security.
For rural Canada, our problems are twofold because when our farms go, so do our infrastructures. The whole rural infrastructure disappears. We are feeling the pressure of that today throughout southwestern Ontario where I come from, especially in my riding of Haldi-mand-Norfolk.
This argument just is not about cheap food and it is not just about farmers being displaced. It is about the ability of the nation to produce its own food and to secure its food for the present and for the future.
We must not sacrifice our ability to produce food in Canada. We must not sacrifice that. To have to rely on another country for the supply of our domestic market is a real threatening thought. We can see, today, why the Europeans for instance are bargaining so hard. They have had to do that in the past.
At least in our current system of supply management we can guarantee consumers access to high quality food
Government Orders
at very reasonable prices. Ultimately we must also recognize that sovereignty is linked to the ability of a country to feed its people.
We have been given assurances by the government that it stands by its promise to strengthen article XI at GATT. Yet we know the importance it places on reaching an agreement at the GATT.
We have heard from farm groups that tell us that if we move to a system of tariffication, our agricultural industry will disappear because farmers will be thrown out of work and rural infrastructures will close down.
We have not heard the most convincing argument. As a result, we are missing this real important point. Surely if all Canadians understood what was at stake here, the future of our food supply and indeed the future of our country, they would be less indifferent to the dilemma now being faced by our Canadian farmers.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend's remarks and I must say that I totally concur with the support he provides for our supply management system in Canada.
Of course all members of this House are gravely concerned about the potential impact of the GATT negotiations on our dairy, poultry, egg and turkey marketing systems in Canada. We hope that our government and our farm leaders who are involved in the negotiations are successful in getting the Europeans, and particularly the Americans, to recognize that the security of food supply in Canada is a very legitimate concern on the part of Canadian farmers as well as all Canadians.
Nevertheless we may be faced with the prospect that a deal may be reached in GATT that does not provide for the maintenance of supply management, for the maintenance and clarification of article XI, as is the position of this government, as is the wish of literally thousands of farmers across Canada.
I would ask my hon. friend if he would tell us what the position of his party is and what his position is, should an agreement be reached at the GATT that does not provide for the maintenance and clarification of article XI. Is it his recommendation, is it the position of the Liberal party, that the agreement should not be signed by this government?

Government Orders


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I was going to thank the hon. member for taking a non-political view on this but I guess I will not.
I will tell him what I would do. I really wish we on this side were in government because we would not have put ourselves in the position this government is in.
If I was a negotiator and I wanted to put forward the best argument I had to support my country, I sure as heck would not go before Canadians and say: "Look, we are going to sign this agreement anyway. But we are fighting as hard as we can on your behalf, but I want you to know, Mr. Bush down there, we are still going to sign this".
I want to ask the hon. member, why is it that George Bush has not said he is going to sign it? Has the head of the European Community said he is not going to sign it? Why is it that our Prime Minister is the only person in the world to come forward and say: "We are going to sign it anyway". What kind of negotiating position is that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I will remind all members that the discussion is on Bill C-54.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk who has once again demonstrated a very strong working knowledge of the issues which most affect his constituents. His constituents can be proud of the fact that they have a representative who is such a strong voice for them here in the highest court of the land.
While it is true that supply management is a most complex issue which most affects the producers of Canadian agricultural products, I would like to ask the hon. member this. This issue does not get the attention of people who were born and raised and spend most of their lives in the city. I wonder if the hon. member could explain to those who live in urban Canada that the issues of rural Canada affect them as well.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for those comments. He has hit the issue here. He really has hit the point that all of us on this side of the House, especially those from rural Canada, want to get across. We need to speak to those in the urban centres who are now listening to some newscasts on TV that are telling them that with supply management the prices are much
higher, that farmers are being subsidized. As the minister of fisheries said, they are being subsidized to the tune of $16 billion annually, that governments are paying a lot to their farmers and therefore they are inefficient.
It is not really a hard argument to get across because it is a question of national food security. I ask them in urban centres: Which would they rather have? Would they rather have a country that depends for its food on another country? Canada, because of the closeness of the U.S., would more than likely be dependent on the Americans if we open our borders. The Americans have many advantages over Canadian farmers, not only the cost of production, which I mentioned earlier is 25 per cent cheaper there, mostly because of these government tax increases that we have been seeing over the last few years, but also they have the larger market. They have these large-as our fisheries people say-almost factory ships. They have these huge, huge farms with hundreds of thousands of birds.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the quality of the meat that comes from these farms I would not even look at, let alone eat. We are talking not only cost, we are talking quality of food. The Canadian quality of food in a supply managed country and the efficiency of those farmers can be found nowhere else in the world.
Which would they rather have? Would they rather have a low quality food which in the beginning may be a little cheaper or would they rather have a country that has a farm sector which can feed itself? It is not too hard an argument to put forward.
I say to Canadians in urban centres that the importance of this question is one of self-sufficiency and national security for Canada. I thank my hon. friend for pointing that out to the House.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the member a question, based on his remarks of a few moments ago where he made derogatory statements about the Prime Minister with reference to whether or not Canada might sign the GATT. I would like to remind him that just a few days ago when the NDP was arguing that we should say we will not sign, his colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who presumably speaks on behalf of his party on external affairs and trade matters, or at least
February 25, 1992

has in the past, suggested that Canada would be crazy not to sign the GATT.
I am wondering how he reconciles his comments about the Prime Minister with the spokesman from his own party who has stated flatly we would be crazy not to sign the GATT at the end of the day.


Robert (Bob) Speller: I have to say to the hon. member that I too was disappointed in the NDP motion. I saw the press release that they put out, and I say this sincerely, that said they were really going to take a hard line on this and stand up for Canadian supply managed farmers. When the motion came forward to the House it never really said anything about whether or not we would sign a deal or not a sign a deal. It had really become watered down. That disappointed me.
In terms of whether or not-


An hon. member:: Why didn't you amend it?


Robert (Bob) Speller: Well, Mr. Speaker, we did amend it.
We as a party would never have put ourselves in this position. We as a party would never have signed the free trade deal. Do not forget our leader went down to Washington. He talked to President Bush and let him know exactly where we stand on this issue. We stand fully behind our Canadian farmers. We stand fully behind those Canadians who believe in a national food security policy for Canada. As much as we have tried to convince our friends in the other two parties to take the same stand, they refuse to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate, I point out that after the first five hours of debate speeches are limited to a 10-minute maximum, without questions and comments.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a few comments in regard to the bill that is before us.
Bill C-54, as the title suggests, is really a bill to establish a national farm products council and to authorize the establishment of agencies for farm products.
Government Orders
There are some good sections of this bill. There are also some recommendations in the bill that are going to cause some real difficulties.
The overriding concern I have is that this particular legislation is, at least at this point in time, almost irrelevant in terms of the larger debate that has been before the House and has been discussed at the ongoing negotiations in the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade. There is not much future in passing this bill if the decision from GATT comes down against the very future of marketing boards and marketing agencies in Canada.
That is why I say that the bill is essentially irrelevant in the context of the larger debate in which we are still immersed.
What really is at stake, when we look at the difficulties that Canadian farmers face, is the very future of marketing board structures in Canada and, I submit, the very future of the Canadian way of life. We have 100,000 Canadian jobs that are dependent upon our well-established system of supply management in Canada: 38,000 dairy, poultry and egg producers, almost 23,000 employees of these farmers and some 36,000 processing jobs that spin-off from these particular industries. That is $4.7 billion that could be lost in farm production if our marketing board systems, which this bill reflects upon, are in fact lost or unravelled, as well as $5.5 billion in processing. When you look at the over-all impact on the Canadian economy, some $100 billion in economic activity is generated by our agricultural community.
I want to go back and put a historical perspective in terms of why this government is between a rock and a hard place on this issue of the future of marketing boards in Canada today. First of all, let us reflect on last Friday when we had over 40,000 dairy, egg and poultry producers from across Canada rally on Parliament Hill in protest of what they conceive to be the possible loss of their livelihoods, the loss of supply management in Canada.
The government tried to spin the line that the 40,000 farmers out on the Hill on Friday had come in support of the government's position on marketing boards, but I want to make perfectly clear that those farmers were angry out there. They did not come in support of the government's position, they came to reinforce and to ensure that the government does not back down on their position with respect to article XI in GATT. If you can call snowballs and eggs a show of support then this

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
government has a rather twisted sense of reality. The farmers are very, very worried that this Prime Minister and this government are about deep-six marketing boards in Canada. They came to make their point perfectly clear to this government that they do not want to see that happen.
How did we get to this position where the future of our agricultural industry is in fact at risk? It is a very serious situation indeed. If you look back to 1987 in some of the opening rounds of the Uruguay round of negotiations at GATT, Canada at that time under this government, this Prime Minister, submitted a proposal to those negotiations, the initial proposal on the table. I read from the script here. It is entitled Proposal by Canada Regarding the Multilateral Trade Negotiations in Agriculture, and it is dated October 20, 1987, from the negotiating group on agriculture.
If I could just read a portion of that text I think the answer to my question becomes perfectly clear. Let me just quote.
Canada proposes the adoption of a comprehensive approach which
would result in the elimination of all subsidies which distort trade and
of all access barriers.
The United States has fingered Canada's marketing boards as being a trade barrier, an access barrier. It has identified the very system of our agricultural industry as being an unfair trade-distorting mechanism. Here is our government acknowledging "all access barriers and distortions of trade will, over a period to be negotiated as an initial phase of this process and consistent with the above goal, a major reduction in all these trade-distorting subsidies, a major improvement in secure and predictable access to be phased in over five years".
It goes on to say: "The use of a single measure"-Mr. Speaker, read my lips: "single measure" means tariff-"which converts all access barriers, administered price systems and trade-distorting subsidies shall be implemented".
What we are talking about here is very simple: We are talking about tariffication of agricultural products into Canada. And if you talk about tariffication, the consequence is ultimately the dismantling of our supply management systems, because supply management using
quotas cannot exist in parallel with the process of tariffication of the industry. It just cannot happen. That is where this government has been duplicitous in its arguments at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. What it has said over the past week is "we support article XI, we want a strengthened article XI, we support the concept of marketing boards in Canada-oh, yes, but we would also like to see tariffication".
As I said the other day, you cannot have it both ways, and this government has been trying to play two tunes on the same fiddle. We have the Prime Minister talking about the need for support of agricultural marketing boards. We have the Minister for International Trade in a private letter to all his government MPs basically trying to sell the concept of tariffication.
The question I asked last Friday stands: Does this government support marketing boards, or does it support tariffication? You cannot have it both ways.
What is the reason for this whole shemozzle that we now have before us? The reason is very simple: The United States wants to open up our trade barriers to gain access to the Canadian markets to sell their surplus production. And, boy, have they got surplus production. They could have virtually swamped the Canadian market in dairy, poultry and egg produce. That would completely eliminate agricultural life in Canada as we know it today.
The farmers understand that. They know that their future is at risk, they know that their investment is at risk. That is really what is before us today. That is why I say-and I know my time is limited, but if I can just summarize-that this particular bill, Bill C-54, that we have before the House is really irrelevant in the context of this larger debate. Bill C-54 has been presented at this time for the reasons of political optics: The government wants to be made to appear as supporting the concept of agricultural boards and supply management by introducing this piece of legislation. Well, it won't fly. The 40,000 farmers who were on the lawns of Parliament Hill on Friday understood that. Their message was clear: "Don't sell us down the drain with article XI. Don't sell us down the drain by tariffication. Support the future of marketing boards in this country". That is what this government has to do. In terms of the agreement, it may require us saying we are going to ignore those provisions of the agreement. Other countries have done it before. They
February 25, 1992

have ignored the recommendations of GATT. We may very well have to be placed into that position. We cannot sign away the future of agricultural life in Canada today. It is simply unacceptable.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to make a few remarks about Bill C-54, an act to amend the National Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts.
Before I get to the bill, I would like to make a few remarks about the tremendous effort made by the producers of Prince Edward Island last Friday in their participation in the great march on Parliament Hill. This had to be the largest but the most orderly march that ever occurred on Parliament Hill.
In Prince Edward Island we have approximately 600 dairy producers. We have a number in the chicken marketing board and the egg marketing board. Out of these total of say 650 farms, fully 200 of these people showed up at their own expense to demonstrate to this government their concern about the possibility of them losing their livelihoods.
On Thursday night after they finished their work in their bams, finished milking their cows and so on, they drove to Charlottetown where they rented two aeroplanes to fly them to Ottawa. They arrived in the middle of the night or very early in the morning, three or four o'clock Friday morning. They caught a few hours of sleep after they checked into their hotel. They showed up on Parliament Hill at 10, 10.30 Friday morning, demonstrated their concern to the government and to government officials and met government officials in the meantime for approximately four to four and a half hours. They then returned to their hotel, flew back in the late evening, arriving in Prince Edward Island at two o'clock in the morning, drove home to their various farms across the island and did their farm work that morning.
This is a tremendous and magnificent demonstration of concern and commitment to the supply marketing system in P.E.I. These farmers knew. They have been looking around for the last number of years, observing what has been happening to their neighbours in agriculture. They are seeing their neighbours who were in the hog industry having a very difficult time partially in regard to the countervailing duty and barriers that our friends to the south continue to put up.
Government Orders
They have noticed their friends who are in the potato industry and seen what they have gone through this last two years since the discovery of PVY-N in the potato crop there. If nothing else, it could scare producers and scare people who live in the rural areas. P.E.I. is basically a rural province. Without the farming and the fishing in Prince Edward Island, we really would have no reason to exist.
There are only four methods, four sources of real wealth in this whole world: farming, fishing, forestry and mining. All wealth derives from these four sources. Prince Edward Island is very fortunate in having two of those sources. They are basic to them to a great degree in farming and fishing and to a lesser extent, but still a very important extent, in forestry. We do not have any mines in Prince Edward Island.
To demonstrate their concern for the future, not only of themselves and their families and their way of life, but to demonstrate their concern for the future of their whole province, we had fully one-third of the producers marching on Parliament Hill to try as a last desperate effort to show this government what is actually going to be happening in Prince Edward Island if it fails in its GATT negotiations.
All is not lost. I do not want to be a harbinger of bad news all the time, but we do have some very powerful friends on the world stage. In this case, it is the Japanese on whom we are going to rely.
The Japanese are very concerned about their import restrictions on rice. They are a very powerful player on the world scene. I cannot see them letting their farmers down with regard to the supply of rice. If the Japanese get a special waiver under GATT to protect their farmers from the importation of rice, there is no reason in the world why this government, the Canadian government, cannot get a similar waiver to protect its farmers in the supply market commodities.
We know that the American farmers are not happy at all with the conclusions that Mr. Dunkel is coming to in order to sign an agreement on agriculture in GATT. The American farmers are not pleased at all. Sixty-some senators in the U.S. Senate have written to the President of the United States. These senators represent rural states. They are urging President Bush not to sign the

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
agreement if it is not changed as far as their producers are concerned.
We know there are a lot of European farmers who are not happy with the Dunkel recommendations, and we know that the Canadian farmers are certainly not in any kind of agreement at all, although it would help to a small extent at least the prairie grain farmers.
What are the chances of these governments signing an agreement, knowing very well that farmers in various countries, Canada, the United States, Japan and Europe are not at all happy. I really cannot see politicians overruling or overriding the concerns of their farmers.
It is strange that we are debating Bill C-54 here today. It is a bill that, if the government fails in protecting article XI and in strengthening article XI, will only be of use to farmers who are not in the supply marketing system. This bill that we are amending is called the National Farm Products Marketing Act.
This is the act that the Liberal government put through in 1970-72 with Senator Bud Olson and the friend of marketing boards whom all farmers know, Eugene Whelan. They fought to put that act through in those days. This is legislation under which they formed the dairy marketing board, the chicken marketing board, the turkey marketing board and so on.
This is the legislation they were created under. If the government fails and our supply marketing system goes to tariffication, the only people who are going to benefit by this act at all are those who are not in the supply marketing system.
The horticultural industry or the beef producers will be able to form agencies in order to collect check-offs which are funds that they will be using to promote and market their products. They will be the only farm groups able to use this particular legislation.
It is a very unusual thing. I do not know why the government chose to use this particular act to bring in this ability. I know this is going to be of great benefit to people in the horticultural industry, especially those who spend a lot of money promoting their products. We have a very short growing season here and they put great effort into promoting products such as strawberries. We
spend the rest of the year importing strawberries from the rest of the world, especially the United States. Now, we will be able to check off strawberries and other horticultural products coming into Canada which will be to the benefit of our farmers in this regard.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few moments to speak on Bill C-54. As my colleague from Egmont said, this bill only has limited use and really only applies to certain sectors of the agricultural community. The previous speaker from the New Democratic Party mentioned that this bill is more political optics. It is another diversionary bill from the Government of Canada.
I want to speak to this bill as an urban member. So often in agricultural issues members, especially urban members, do not fully comprehend the relationship of the needs of the rural community to our needs in an urban centre.
The relationship became very apparent to me about a year ago when I was visiting Moscow. While I was there speaking at an environmental summit I had the occasion to visit various parts of the city. I got up early in the morning to make these visits and day after day I saw people lining up at seven o'clock in the morning with brown cloth sacks waiting to get into the local food market. When I saw these lines I naturally thought: "Well, there must be some kind of a special on in these particular stores". However, upon further research I saw that the reason these people were lining up at seven o'clock in the morning was because there was just not enough supply. If they did not get there early in the morning they might not have any food for the day.
I went into a few of these stores and upon examining the situation even more closely I could see that it was not just that the quantity was so little but that the quality of the food was so poor. It is absolutely beyond one's imagination. You have to have been there and seen it to believe it. The way people in Moscow treasure their food supply is something that we in this country have no conception of.
When I returned I did my grocery shopping in the local Knob Hill Farms or Loblaws or some of the other stores in the Danforth area and I thought back to the experience I had in Moscow and Latvia, where most of the shelves were absolutely bare.
February 25, 1992

We in this country have no real appreciation for security of food supply. We have no idea of the importance of the contribution the farming community of this country makes toward our quality of life. You really must be without or see people living without in order to fully appreciate it.
We saw a situation last week when close to 40,000 farmers visited this city to try to communicate a message of concern. They were not just sending that message of concern for their own farms. They were sending a message of concern for all people in this country. We in this Chamber have to get our heads around this issue. We have to wake up and make sure that people in this country understand that the link between the rural economy and the urban economy is an inextricable one. As the rural economy goes so goes our urban economy. I have been saying in this House that the strength of this nation is proportional to our food supply.
We are a nation whose strength has always been measured by our ability not only to feed ourselves but feed other regions of the planet. We have one of the most progressive food supply programs anywhere in the world.
Yesterday, I referred to a paper written by my colleague from Lambton-Middlesex, Compare the Share. Today I would like to refer members to a paper written by a member from the government side, the member for Souris-Moose Mountain. In January 1992 he presented a paper called: Food: A Priority. It is a fabulous document. One of the national journalists in The Toronto Star, Carol Goar, covered this paper in late January. I refer it to everyone in this House.
What we are talking about here today in this bill is bringing attention not only to all members of this House but to all Canadians that our farming communities and our agricultural communities need help right now. They need to know that we, as national politicians, are behind them. We are behind them because that security of supply, that quality of supply, is something that has always been the envy of the world. The government over the past few years has tended to dismantle things, tended to retreat from governance rather than charging ahead.
Government Orders
Rather than leading this government tends to wait and see, to hive off, to decentralize.
I am so nervous. With the budget coming out today, with the constitutional document before us, with this tremendous problem we are having with the most precious resource we have in this country, our agricultural community is being shaken to the core. I am so nervous that if this government continues on its current strategy of devolution of powers and dismantling our farmers may be caught in the cross-fire.
The Prime Minister said last week that he would do his best to maintain the marketing boards of this country. I hope, not only for rural Canada but for all of Canada and also for the world, that he is able to achieve that because the greatest strength this country has is not only the ability to feed ourselves but to feed those who are most disadvantaged in the rest of the world.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof.
Grain growers, poultry producers, dairy farmers are all fighting together. The government has moved away from the position it took on GATT originally but is also trying to bolster the position it claims to have now.
I want to concentrate on one industry and a letter dated February 12, 1992 on the impact of tariffication on Canadian chicken producers. What they argue could come about is really devastating. The Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency has analysed the impact of the Dun-kel proposals on Canadian producers. The conclusion of the CCMA analysis is that within three years, 86 per cent of Canadian producers would be out of business and only 330 out of Canada's 2,411 producers would remain. Within two years production of chicken would have ceased in Atlantic Canada. It is unlikely that many processing plants would survive the first several years. Within six years the industry would have all but disappeared, only 39 producers would be left.
I and many Canadians are concerned, especially the
40,000	farmers and agriculture producers who were here last week, about Canada's food self-sufficiency if the government fails to protect our marketing boards and fails to strengthen or keep the provisions of article XI of the GATT

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
They do not trust this government. It is obvious they do not trust this government to protect the needs of the Canadian people and the workers involved with producing our agricultural foods across Canada.
It is much broader than that. We must alert the Canadian people that it is much broader than that. Where I come from the people in our transportation industry, in the railway industry depend very heavily on the transportation of grain across Canada. If we start to lose those markets it will affect everyone, every Canadian. Every Canadian must stand up to protect the very efficient system we have at the present time.
There is another area of concern which we have not identified. If we start to get into the really competitive market in which things begin to concentrate in one area and we start to try to be efficient and produce on a large scale, if we have large-scale processing of agricultural goods, such as the poultry industry or the turkey industry, and they start to concentrate in one area our environment is going to be very heavily affected because we are going to have a concentration of these large groups of processing plants trying to be efficient. We have a very efficient area spread across various parts of Canada. It is important to identify the environmental aspects of what we may be looking at here.
These are the kinds of discussions that took place earlier with regard to free trade. It shows very clearly that when we were dealing with the Americans regarding the free trade agreement we should have been looking at each sector of our economy, and at how to trade and be self-sufficient in our own country. We have not done that. We are starting to feel the ramifications of a trade agreement that does not recognize the self-sufficiency of our own country. If this is to proceed we will allow the basic fundamental agricultural programs essential to self-sufficiency in Canada to go down the drain. I do not think the Canadian people are ready to accept that. Our critic for agriculture has worked extensively with this. He has brought delegations to our caucus and talked it over. We have discussed it with the turkey producers, the grain producers, the poultry producers and the egg marketing boards. The people who protested in front of this building simply do not trust the Mulroney government to protect the agricultural base in this country.
Unless we as the opposition on this side of the House and the people of Canada start to stand up and really put the pressure on this government to bring about the protection that is required, I think we will be faced with the very dim results of not being able to sustain our own agricultural base in our own country.
I do not think there is a country anywhere in the world that would allow its agricultural base and its very basic foods that average Canadian people accept every day to be delivered from another country.
I know I am not prepared as a member of Parliament. I get faxes coming from grain producers in my part of southeastern British Columbia and from the dairy and poultry industries. They are small industries but are very important to every part of our country. We must protect these boards. If we do not we are going find, as the chicken industry has indicated, that the industry will have all but disappeared within six years.
That is what we are faced with. If this government does not get away from its idea of trying to support tariffication, and at the same time telling the marketing boards and the people involved that it is there to fight for their rights, I do not think we are going to get the results we are hoping for.
I would urge all Canadians to get on the wire, contact this government and tell it that we are not going to accept anything but a strengthening of Article XI of the GATT.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak today, following probably the biggest rally this nation has ever known last Friday on the lawn of Parliament Hill.
If you had the opportunity as I had over the weekend to go back and mingle with a few practising farmers who spend their time in the stable regularly, you would find there is great agonizing going on out there. There is real pain and real hurt in the dairy industry.
We speak of the dairy industry in particular, but it would equally apply of course to the poultry industry. Farmers can always be so practical in their examples of things that really hit home. I heard one poultry farmer say that when an American chicken arrives at the border to come into Canada, remember it has not been fed on Canadian grain. That is quite a message. They do not need any Canadian grain. They have enough grain in the
February 25, 1992

United States to feed the chickens. How are we supposed to have any money to buy the chickens?
I do not think most people realize that. They are not just talking about bringing a few articles across the border and putting a tariff on them. If they had been fed Canadian grain, that is one thing. But would you expect that American chicken to ever be fed on Canadian grain? You can see the ramifications that would have for the grain distributors, the grain dealers and everyone else down through the cycle. That is the kind of practical experience I have had in my association with these dairy farmers as they try to relate where their industry would now go with this new thinking.
We must remember too that we are still recognized as northern people. This city we are in right now has the coldest average climate I think of any capital in the world. We must not forget that. Are we going to throw our markets open to free market forces when that is one thing we have to contend with? We cannot do much about that but it has a great impact on the livelihood. Do we think we can become competitive by just throwing our basic food supplies open to market forces and going toe to toe with the Americans? If we take the example of the dairy industry, all you have to do is go down into North and South Carolina and a little bit farther south and look at the herds of dairy cattle they have there. They do not have bams, they have milking parlours. They are very, very sophisticated. They milk three times a day. The cow is just a machine they push feed through.
The farmer in Grenville County, a few miles away, may have an excellent herd of 60 or 70 cows and make a decent living. Perhaps he is able to pay for his tractor, make his payments at the bank, meet the guy who comes around from the Farm Credit Corporation and keep him happy. How can he compete with what you see going on down south in the Carolinas with those huge herds? Bams are not a great problem down there. They have some protection for their cattle, naturally, but most of the cattle stay outside. They can afford to do that because they do not have the inclement weather we have up here. Anyone who can describe how they can carry on an industry up here and compete with that I think should go out and talk to some farmers. They will explain it in a sensible way as they are so capable of doing.
Government Orders
I can remember those years before we had a managed marketing system. I can remember when you had 13 or 14 cows and you managed because you sold your milk to the cheese factory down the road and you had a regular pay cheque coming in. No farmer would admit that is where we should be today. They are entrepreneurs. They will move with the times. They are willing to go out and borrow money and expand their operations, and a lot of them did. They borrowed more because they were told this was the way to go. They borrowed from the banks and any other source they could get relief from, and now they find themselves in a big dilemma.
Some would accuse the farmer of always whining. That is not the real experience. Go out and talk to these people. They are going through a lot of agony right now. In most cases they are operating with borrowed money. They thought they were doing the right thing.
The farmers appreciated the changes. There is no question about that. The farmer is no different than any other businessman. In order for him to survive he realized he had to go out and acquire three, four or five former farms and he was willing to do that. When you expand your acreage like that a lot of other things have to happen. If you are going to have a viable and competitive operation, everything else along the line has to be expanded. They borrowed lots of money and bought bigger equipment, bigger tractors and advanced farm machinery. They were willing to do that, but with the uncertainty that is out there today they wonder if they should have bothered. They are probably thinking they should not have bothered.
Farmers like to think their contribution is recognized in this country, but then you see 30,000 to 40,000 assembled out here, leaving their farms, getting on buses all day and all night, spending two hours out here and the Prime Minister of this country does not even have the decency to show up. For the Prime Minister to not even make an appearance on the Hill hurt the farmers and it hurt them terribly. I can tell you farmers have long memories. Maybe while they are milking those cows or spending time in their bams they will have a little more time for this kind of practical remembrance. They will remember that, I can guarantee you, ladies and gentlemen. That will not be forgotten.

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
The farmers are not finished yet. This was just an initial response to their concern about their industry. Last Friday it was announced that further demonstrations are being planned. I hope that at some point the Prime Minister will come out of hiding and go and meet those people who are out there trying to make a contribution to our Canadian way of life. The big problem with the dairy industry prior to the milk marketing board was the great inconsistencies. The amount of product put out on the market was up and down. If you are going to go out and invest a lot of money in something, you cannot live with that kind of uncertainty. The marketing board was endeavouring to provide some kind of consistency. The banks would not lend you any money to start with if they could not have some assurance you were going to be able to pay it back. The way to pay it back is to guarantee there will be some consistency. The price of the product then was based on a formula and this changed in what we called the marketing system. They took into account the cost of the man's production, the cost of his seed, the cost of his fertilizer, and all the other factors that you would put into that formula. They saw there had to be a margin of profit, of course, and they arrived at a figure. How much is this man then entitled to put out on the market?
With that kind of thinking behind it, he could be assured that he was going to get a pay cheque. He knew roughly how much it was going to be, and he was going to be able to meet his commitments.
Farmers are just asking to have that system recognized. Could you imagine if the marketing boards were prevalent in the United States? George Bush is going out and promoting this movement away from marketing boards. The farmers in the States-and they were out here last Friday too in great numbers-would love to have the system we have here. But because of political reasons Mr. Bush cannot visualize giving them this system. It is an election year in the United States. Canadian dairy and poultry farmers are paying the price for a weak voice on the part of this Canadian industry down in the United States.
I think the Canadian farmers deserve a better hearing than that. I think the Prime Minister should at least stand up and apologize to Canadian farmers for not being present at the biggest rally we have ever witnessed. He should tell them when he is going to meet with Canadian farmers in this country, because they deserve better treatment than that, and they will remember.


Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-54 and to have the opportunity to say a few words on the crisis facing our Canadian farmers, particularly those farmers who live in eastern Canada.
The debate today concerns the amendments to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, in order to implement the enabling legislation for a check-off for imports into Canada. That is the immediate purpose of the legislation. But the legislation will become irrelevant to many in Canada if our agriculture industry is decimated. Certainly that is the feeling among many farmers, particularly those who operate under supply management, if the current proposals that are being debated at the GATT are allowed to go through and the strengthened article XI which the Canadian agricultural industry has been urging this government to defend and which the Liberal party implemented to its great credit some 20 years ago is allowed to go by the wayside.
I have farmers in my constituency. I have dairy farmers, poultry farmers, turkey farmers and mixed farmers in my constituency, and I can tell you they are very worried.
They are very worried that the value of their farms will plummet, their life savings will disappear, and they will find themselves forced to abandon their farms. We will find, in Atlantic Canada as well as in other parts of Canada, the lands which are now productively tilled, which not only enhance our food security but our environment, allowed to grow covered with weeds and deteriorate. As a consequence, in Atlantic Canada we will lose our farms and our farmers, that segment of the population which is not only of large economic value to Canada but of large social and cultural value and is part of our security as a country. The issue is bigger than simply the amendments to the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.
February 25, 1992

I want to say a few words on behalf of our supply managed fanners, particularly the ones in my constituency. I had an opportunity just a week ago to speak with a couple who have been farming in the region of Mabou in Inverness County. They are dairy farmers who purchased a farm some eight years ago. They are young, articulate spokespersons for the farm industry and honest, hardworking citizens of the community. They are making that dairy farm work. It is an excellent operation, very efficient. They have worked on that farm for the last 18 months without a holiday. They actually came to the rally last week. That was the first opportunity they had to leave the farm. They took the train to Ottawa to participate in the rally and show their concern on behalf of dairy farmers in Nova Scotia about the consequences if supply management is allowed to be negotiated away in the GATT negotiations.
They are very distrustful of this government. They do not believe this government's protestations that it supports supply management. They see double talk and duplicity in the words of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister for International Trade and the Prime Minister when they talk about supporting supply management. They see that the government's words are hollow and that it is unwilling to stand up for the farmers and other Canadians whose interests are being compromised in international bodies.
We have a government that is unwilling to go toe to toe with other governments, particularly the Government of the United States, and defend our interests. It is necessary that the government be willing to take measures that will hurt the Government of the United States and hurt the interests of the United States to demonstrate that we defend our own interests. That is what this government has been unwilling to do for a whole series of interests, not only the free trade agreement and the interests that have been attacked since the free trade agreement was put in place.
It has also shown how spineless it is with respect to defending Canadian sovereignty beyond the 200-mile limit in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks where we have watched the plundering of fish stocks by the Spanish and the Portuguese fleets for five years. This government continues to say: "Well, we are negotiating.
Government Orders
We are exercising diplomacy. We are having a public relations campaign". All the while our fish stocks are being plundered.


Peter L. McCreath: What are you suggesting?


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: We
are very clear on the issue.


Peter L. McCreath: Send out the gun boats. Is that your position?


Francis G. LeBlanc: Unilateral declaration of that area as a management zone for Canadians.


An hon. member:: What is the basis for that?


Francis G. LeBlanc: There is basis in international law. I am sure that is what we will have to do eventually. However, the problem is that we will be too late. There will be no fish left.
In any case, I am deviating from the point at hand which is the agricultural sector. What is really affecting farmers at the moment is what is taking place in those GATT negotiations.
The member for South Shore knows full well that if article XI is allowed to disappear, if we replace the supply management system the Liberal Party put in place with a system of tariffication all the farmers in his part of Nova Scotia will be destroyed in a very short while.
The farms will disappear, and I am sure he will bear the consequences of that electorally. Worse than that, farmers will see the values they have built up over generations decimated at the hands of international negotiations and a government unwilling to defend its interests when push comes to shove.
Push has come to shove. Push is coming to shove at the GATT negotiations with the Americans, and with the Spanish and the Portuguese fleets off the 200-mile limit in the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It is time that this government defend our interests on the world stage, which is what it has been consistently unwilling to do.
We are finding our sovereignty eroded in so many vital areas that touch our economic interest. That is the point of this debate. That is what is at issue here, far beyond the immediate question of this legislation which on the face of it is necessary legislation because it at least

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
provides the enabling legislation to allow this government to take some steps in defence of our agricultural sector.
It will be too little too late if we lose article XI at the GATT.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this bill today. This bill causes me some concern and I know it causes concern to the farming community across this country.
Today there is a tremendous farm crisis in Canada. It is not only in western Canada, where I come from, but right across this nation.
Certainly the one area of farming that has been truly successful in the past few years has been marketing boards and those areas under supply management. They have taken farm products, dairy, milk or whatever, and structured an economy around them so producers in that area know they will have a solid income and that they will be able to survive and progress as a farm family.
This whole area of supply management is now coming under review. It is in question and in jeopardy of being lost forever. I really wish that the government, instead of focusing on this particular bill today which is not going to help marketing boards in the end, would focus its attention on other areas.
This bill will provide a check-off or an opportunity to pick farmers' pockets in a fashion that is completely unnecessary.
This government should be focusing some attention on the area of farm finance and farm debt. The areas of farming really in desperate straits are those farmers who have incurred huge debts, are paying huge interest rates, have a shortfall of income and are struggling.
This is the government that, back in 1989, introduced its Growing Together paper with a huge fanfare. As a result of that a number of task forces were set up to look at a whole host of areas including farm debt and farm finance.
There can be nothing more important than managing farm finances. These days you borrow a lot of money. It is nothing to have a $200,000 or $250,000 debt. That is not unusual. If a farmer borrows sums of money of that magnitude at 10 or 12 per cent, which happened in the
1970s, and suddenly a few years later is faced with 18, 20, 21 and 22 per cent and higher interest rates, it is very hard to manage that operation. Many farmers have found themselves with problems not because they mismanaged their farms but because of high interest rates and low prices. The complement to farm finance is farm income.
This government has failed to bring in any substantial legislation to deal with farm finances. It has thrown out money here and there in a haphazard fashion. In particular the grain sector of agriculture has really suffered.
The government is providing lip service to supporting supply management. In actual fact I believe-and most farmers believe it as well-the government is simply going to say: "Look, we did our best. We have tried for you but we have to let supply management go". There will go the prize. The most successful aspect of agriculture under supply management will be a thing of the past. It will disappear.
Every region of the country in rural areas depends on a particular source of the economy, a primary source of the economy. In areas where supply management and farming are factors it is a tragedy to think of losing those farms. If we look at areas of Quebec and Ontario where supply management is very prominent, there are literally tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who will be affected. In rural areas of Quebec there are regions that depend on supply management. When these farmers disappear that whole region-and many regions are suffering economically now-is going to be extremely depressed.
This government, although it undoubtedly has to be aware of it and I know there are many members from Quebec who very concerned about it, seems to be unwilling. In fact the government seems to have been steered in that general direction over the last number of years to the point of saying: "I am sorry, we have done what we could".
Unless there is a commitment to supply management, unless that commitment is strong and is going to maintain itself, there is going to be devastation in many regions of this country. To see the supply managed sector disappear is a heart break for all farmers.
February 25, 1992

The other aspect of this bill and this attitude of the government toward supply management and agriculture in general has been to split the farm community. The farm community is a diverse lot, to begin with. These are independent people who have pride in their farm, pride in their land, and are individuals. That is to be applauded. When we talk to various agricultural groups we find many different positions depending on which group we speak with. Western Canadian wheat growers certainly have a different position from that of National Farmers Union.
What is more fundamental is that a split is now being perpetrated, I would suggest, by this government between the supply managed sector and the grain sector. We had this GATT proposal sitting in front of us which tells the grain producers that there will be lower subsidies in European and American grain. Hopefully this will mean a somewhat higher price in grain. On the other hand it is saying we have to do that at the expense of the supply manage sector. A grain producer on the prairies who is in debt up to his eyeballs and is looking for anything to survive is in some ways faced with an option he cannot refuse. The effect has been to split the two groups, and that is a tragedy because farm families are all in the same boat. They simply want to have their land and produce their product whatever it might be, whether it is grain or cattle or poultry or dairy. They want to have an income and they simply want to live their lives. These people contribute a tremendous amount to the economy.
The sad part is that in rural regions across this country, whether we are talking about farming or looking at fishing communities in Atlantic Canada, there is a tremendous amount of financial and emotional stress. Until the government, until we as a Parliament say to the people of this country that we think rural Canada is important and that we are going to pay special attention to rural Canada, this problem is going to continue. Unfortunately over the last 40 years we have had successive governments with an urbanization mentality and much of the legislation passed has been passed without the consideration of rural Canada.
I find it very frustrating and sad that we seem to go on ad nauseam ignoring rural Canada. We pay lip service to it. We talk in glowing terms of living on the farm, the rural way of life and so on. Yet we do very little about it.
Government Orders
Instead of debating bills such as this one which is simply going to hurt supply management, or is certainly not going to help it, we should be focusing our attention on areas in rural Canada that will help rural Canadians to maintain a viable rural infrastructure for all of rural Canada and focusing a commitment on those farm families and on those rural communities. It is an issue that is long overdue. It needs attention. It is about time that we in this Parliament started paying attention to some of the needs of rural Canada because if we do not do it and if we do not do it soon there will be nothing left to say.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the motion of the Minister of Agriculture.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-2, an act to implement conventions between Canada and Finland, Canada and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Canada and the United Mexican States for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax and the prevention of fiscal evasion and a convention between Canada and the United Mexican States for the exchange of information with respect to taxes, as reported (without amendment) from Legislative Committee F.
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization) moved: that the bill be
concurred in.

February 25, 1992
Government Orders


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few comments about the bill on the record.
This bill seeks to implement tax conventions between Canada and Finland, Canada and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Canada and the United Mexican States, and a convention between Canada and the United Mexican States for the exchange of tax related information.
Tax treaties promote international trade and investment. They provide stability for investors by offering certainty regarding the method and rates of taxation of income flowing between countries. Ihx treaties also seek to alleviate double taxation of income from international transactions.
The three tax treaties under review follow the general pattern of treaties previously approved by Parliament. Indeed Canada has over 50 some treaties in existence at the present time all based on an OECD model. Important administrative benefits are provided for taxpayers. The requirement to pay tax on business profits in the country where the profits originated is eliminated unless the taxpayers have a permanent establishment in that country.
As well, treaties provide a mechanism to settle various problems encountered by taxpayers in the interpretation and application of treaties. One of the most important aspects of tax treaties is the alleviation of double taxation where the same income is taxed in the hands of the same person by two different countries. Tax treaties eliminate double taxation in these situations by either providing
one of the states with the exclusive right to tax or by ensuring that taxes paid in one state can be used to offset taxes payable in the other state.
I would now like to indicate briefly the main elements of the three tax treaties currently before the House. I will deal with the fourth item, the exchange of information, later on in my remarks. These treaties provide generally that dividends may be taxed in the source country at a maximum rate of 15 per cent. A 10 per cent rate will apply to dividends paid to a company that holds an equity interest of at least 10 per cent, except that it is 25 per cent in the case of Mexico, of the voting power in the company paying the dividends.
In the case of interest paid by a resident of one country to a resident of the other country, a general rate of 10 per cent, except that it is 15 in the case of Mexico, will apply. There are however a number of exceptions which I discussed in my remarks during second reading.
With respect to royalties the conventions provide for a general rate of 10 per cent, 15 per cent in the case of Mexico, in the source country. Copyright royalties from cultural or artistic works are generally exempt from withholding tax under the three treaties if the recipient pays tax on the royalties.
Some of the other matters dealt with in these tax treaties include capital gains, discriminatory treatment of foreign nationals and pensions. The treaty provisions dealing with capital gains reflect the standard Canadian position enabling the source country to tax gains arising on the sale of real property, business assets and shares in real estate companies. Under the treaties discrimination on the basis of nationality is prohibited, thereby ensuring nationals of a country equal treatment with nationals of the other country in the same circumstances. However, this does not prevent a country from providing fiscal incentives, for example the small business deduction, to resident taxpayers.
I would also like to point out that Canada has preserved its right to tax pensions and annuities paid to residents of the three countries involved in these treaties.
The final item I want to discuss is the exchange of information convention with Mexico. It was signed before the signature of the comprehensive double taxation convention I have just described and complements the comprehensive treaty. The exchange of information
February 25, 1992

convention will assist the revenue authorities in combating tax evasion.
I might say that the convention with Mexico is the result of 15 years of negotiations. The Mexicans had declined to have tax treaties before that and Canada is one of the first countries to achieve such a thing. I should also say for the record that notwithstanding the fact that many of my hon. colleagues from the NDP availed themselves of the second reading to get up and have a debate on Canada-U.S.-Mexico or North American trade, which may well be fair ball if that is their perspective.
I want to point out for the benefit of this House that this tax treaty with Mexico has absolutely nothing to do with trade negotiations between Canada, Mexico and the United States or Canada and any other country. This is a straightforward procedure, one that is common between countries and one in which Canada already has 50 treaties with other countries of the world.
Let me conclude by saying that these tax conventions provide equitable solutions to the various problems of double taxation existing between Canada and these countries. The three countries which have signed these agreements all hope to implement the conventions as soon as possible. Consequently I commend this bill to the most favourable consideration of this House.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege like the hon. member of rising to speak at second reading of this bill. I rose on behalf of my colleague, the learned member for Windsor West. He was unable to be present at the time of second reading debate and asked me to assist him by making a brief submission to the House in respect of this bill. I am pleased to do so again at third reading.
As I indicated at the time of second reading, we were concerned that the bill should go before a committee so that a committee could review in detail the negotiated tax treaties between the three countries involved. I believe that the committee has now completed that work, that a report has been submitted to the House, and that it has recommended the bill without amendment. Apparently the committee was satisfied that the bill
Government Orders
complied in all respects with the usual form of these kinds of treaties and accordingly recommended them to the House for consideration.
Generally tax treaties between Canada and other countries are beneficial and avoid the incidence of double taxation on income earned by Canadians who reside in those countries or who carry on business there. In that respect we think this is a very positive step.
I want to say that the parliamentary secretary in his remarks made comments about the Mexican free trade deal and the fact that it had been dragged into the debate by the New Democratic Party during the debate at second reading. Frankly I think it was a move by the NDP to kill time. There is not really much that is controversial in this particular bill. I agree the tax treaty with Mexico has nothing to do with any free trade agreement that the government might negotiate with that country.
I suspect members of the New Democratic Party were reflecting a view which we share, that this government is not a good negotiator. Any of the negotiations it carries on are liable to result in a disaster for Canada. We have had lots of evidence of that. I suspect that is why they have raised the issue on this particular bill. I must say I share their concern fully. We have expressed the concern on many occasions. I expressed it again earlier this morning in a speech on another bill, and I am not going to repeat my remarks which I know Your Honour felt were irrelevant to that particular bill.
Having said all that, I want to say that we are delighted the committee has reviewed this bill. I am not an expert in this field and I defer to others who are more knowledgeable about the technicalities of tax treaties, as very complicated as they are.
We are prepared to allow the bill to pass at this stage. I am pleased to give our support to it in light of all the things that have transpired to date.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, these days with all the news of taxation concerns, finances, and all the bad news that is coming out, it is nice once in a while to have some good news. I would like to start my remarks by complimenting a particular individual who resides in the city of Moose Jaw.

February 25, 1992
Government Orders
Every year we have the Saskatchewan Telemiracle. Local radio station CHAB does its own 36-hour Telemiracle. Last week one of the announcers, Mike Hardy, did a 36-hour telethon and raised over $7,200 for the people of Saskatchewan. As Mike Hardy would say, that is good news.
With respect to some bad news, I like most Canadians have some real concerns about what this government is doing with respect to taxation and budgetary matters. There is some real concern with respect to the directions this government has taken over the last number of years in its financial affairs. Certainly as a party, the New Democrats have gone on record, and very forcefully, that we are opposed to legislation such as the goods and services tax which we see as an unfair and regressive tax and have called for its elimination.
Often we get the comment that it is very fine for the New Democrats to call for the elimination of the GST, but what would you do in the alternative? Where are you going to raise the funds and what are you going to do?
We have put forth a lot of alternatives and certainly one of our economic critics from Winnipeg has done an awful lot of work leading the party in developing alternatives. The member for Essex-Windsor has also done similar work. Over the last few years, we have developed a real economic alternative. It had originally been suggested that the GST would cause a 1.25 per cent increase in consumer prices. In fact consumer prices have risen by over 2.6 per cent. Retail sales have declined by 5.3 per cent in volume. Exports have declined by 2.9 per cent and imports have increased by 5 per cent.
There has been an increase in the number of people cross-border shopping and I suggest it is for legitimate reasons in a sense that there are a lot of economic factors.


Peter L. McCreath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, while I find my hon. friend's remarks most interesting, telethons in his riding have nothing to do with the bill before the House. I would suggest if the NDP had been seriously interested, at least one of them might have shown up at at
least one of the meetings of the legislative committee that considered this bill. None of them did.


Rodney Edward Laporte: I do not think the New Democratic Party has to apologize to the hon. member or anyone else for the approach we have taken in this country with taxation. This party has been very effective and has put forth all kinds of alternatives and suggestions as to how this government can improve the financial state of most Canadians in this country.
There are provinces in this country that have New Democratic governments in place. Saskatchewan's government is being responsible and putting forth budgetary restraints contrary to the last government which was a Tory government. Supposedly the Tories have a history of being financial experts and economic managers but they have done a tremendous job of creating problems in Saskatchewan and are on the way to affecting this entire country.
The hon. member's comments are totally unjustified and I think made in a purely partisan manner which does not benefit this House or anybody in this country. I am very disappointed with those comments.
I just want to point out, with respect to the goods and services tax and other regressive taxes in this country, the New Democrats have put forth many, many alternatives. We have called for changes in corporate tax rates which are essential if the average Canadian is going to survive in this country. According to the Public Accounts of Canada, budgetary revenue from corporations has decreased from 20.1 per cent in the early 1960s to 16 per cent in the 1970s. It is down to about 9 per cent today.
If we are going to have fair taxation in this country it is important, in developing legislation, that we focus on fair taxation for corporations. It is something we have not done, it is something we have been moving away from. I would suggest that an initial move should be to make changes to corporate tax rates.
We would also suggest that there should be a change to progressive tax rates in this country. Changes to the Income Thx Act could result in a situation in which there is no difference between the rate paid by those who earn $50,000 a year and those who earn $250,000 a year. The middle class is being taxed the same as the upper class, and that is not fair, that is not just. Our income tax system must be made more progressive, and those at the
February 25, 1992

top of the income scale must be asked to contribute more than they are now. That is only fair.
The Reform Party recently talked about a flat tax, which is a most preposterous notion. Certainly the Reform Party focuses on simplicity and that is a proposition that does not bear scrutiny. With a flat tax, under the proposal they have made, the only people to pay higher taxes would be the poor and those with low incomes. That is certainly going in the opposite direction of fair and proper taxation.
The government argues that higher income taxes drive people to move to the U.S. This may be true of a few people for whom Canada is nothing more than a place to make money. However, for the majority of Canadians, professional or otherwise, Canada will continue to be the country of their choice, particularly if their taxes are used to build a society that benefits all Canadians and not just a few.
Those are alternatives. We need to implement a green tax in this country. The environment in this country and world-wide is in dire straits. As a result, such a direction is extremely important if this country is to progress and develop.
The approach the New Democrats have taken in this country toward taxation has been both reasoned and logical, and it is certainly an approach that will benefit all people.
I want to make one more comment relating to regional taxation. There has been a lack of interest or a lack of direction in taxation in this country with respect to the regions of this country. If we are to maintain regional development we must have a new approach to taxation.
The best example is Atlantic Canada. Billions and billions and billions of dollars have been pumped into that area. Are they any less dependent? No, they are not. In fact they are more dependent. About 15 years ago I talked to one official who got quite discouraged with Ottawa politics. He said he had a deputy minister responsible for DREE who indicated that he wished we could simply take all the maritimes and turn it into a park so we could all go visit there once a year. That is very well for someone outside that region of the country.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I remind the hon. member that debate is on Bill S-2. I appreciate the words of the hon. member were relevant.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks today. I think these are very important issues for all Canadians and should be raised on a constant and continuing basis.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, I will try to direct my comments to the bill. The problem we have here is that we would like to see agreements reached under which Canadians would receive fair taxation. This bill identifies Finland and Mexico. The problem I and my party have, especially our trade critic, is that the free trade agreement and the negotiations taking place with Mexico have not even been presented before this House. Yet, here we have a bill being presented with regard to taxation with Mexico. It could have serious ramifications for the trade talks going on with the Mexican government.
That bothers me a great deal. Our member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca on numerous occasions has urged this government to bring forward the proposals it is discussing and trying to bring about in the discussions with Mexico. Yet, we have a bill being introduced by the government to reach a tax agreement with Mexico. Is it not fair ball that we should know about the discussions taking place with regard to the free trade discussions with Mexico? Should we not know about the discussions taking place if we are going to decide whether this bill should be considered appropriate for those discussions? I think we should know. I think the Liberals would agree with us.
We have urged this government to present the arguments and the proposals. Evidently the Mexicans have had the privilege of being able to debate and discuss the free trade agreement. The Americans have had open discussions. Yet, we as parliamentarians have not even had the courtesy of having the proposals brought forward to the House. TLen the government has the gall to bring in a bill concerning taxation with Mexico and Finland.
I am not so sure, but we may agree that legislation is required. However, should we not know the ground rules we are playing with? Should we not know about the discussions taking place between this government, on behalf of Canada, and the Mexicans? I think we are entitled to that. If this government had a sense of fair play our members of Parliament could hear the discussions and examine the proposals it is trying to present to the Mexicans concerning free trade with Mexico, then

February 25, 1992
we would be in a much better position to understand the rationale of this piece of legislation before us.
This government cannot be trusted. The Canadian people do not trust this government. The New Democratic Party certainly does not trust this government. The Canadian people have very clearly shown their distrust in the polls, in which the Conservatives are at somewhere around 11 per cent as a result of the policies it is bringing in.
To bring a piece of legislation before this House with regard to taxation, especially with Mexico, at a time when we are in the middle of trying to bring some rationale to what this government is doing-and goodness' knows we have enough problems with the free trade agreement and its effects in Canada.
The government wants to introduce a bill that will set up a taxation agreement with Mexico and we do not even know what negotiations are taking place with the Mexican government concerning free trade. I do not think it does either. It is incompetent. It is showing its incompetence by bringing in a piece of legislation such as this before we even know the terms of the agreement and what we are going to be discussing with regard to free trade.


Peter L. McCreath: Have you read the bill?


Sidney James Parker: I want to say that they tie together. If anyone tries to convince me that the taxation and free trade agreements do not tie together they are sadly mistaken because they cannot convince me of that and they cannot convince our party of that.
We have asked this government to put the proposals before Parliament so that we can see what they are.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Sidney James Parker: I see that the member is worried about the time. I am not a bit worried about the time. I have 20 minutes to speak on this bill and I am prepared to speak for 20 minutes.


An hon. member:: On the bill?


Sidney James Parker: Yes, I am speaking on the bill. I am speaking on a taxation policy this government is trying to arrange with Finland and Mexico through this bill.
It ties directly to the free trade agreement with Mexico. We have not even seen the documentation or the proposals this government has put forward with regard to free trade with Mexico. It has a responsibility to bring those proposals before us so that we can see and scrutinize those documents.
Until the government does that, it cannot expect us, as parliamentarians, to be able to address the provisions of this bill. How could it?


An hon. member:: That has nothing to do with it.


Sidney James Parker: It does have something to do with it.
The Liberals say that it has nothing to do with this. They might be prepared to accept this kind of legislation before they know what kind of trade is going to take place with Mexico but we have a different view of this question.
It is important that we fully understand what is going on between these Countries before we allow the government to introduce a piece of legislation of which we do not know the background.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being one o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, despite the doom and gloom constantly repeated, repeated and repeated by the parties opposite, Canada's trade numbers with the United States continue to prove our policies are right and those of the opposition are wrong.
Buried in a 20-page government document of merchant trade statistics released by the U.S. commerce department yesterday is undisputed evidence of Canada's strong performance as a trading nation.
February 25, 1992

Sales of Canadian goods to the U.S., despite our so-called high dollar, remain steady at $91.1 billion. Yes, the trade surplus between the two countries was tilted in our favour to the tune of $6 billion.
Our policies are working and I repeat, repeat, repeat that we are going to hold the course because it is the right thing to do.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, the XVI Winter Olympics are over and Canadians can be proud of the way our athletes represented Canada in Albertville.
Canada's showing at the games equalled our previous record of seven medals which was set at the 1932 Olympics in Lake Placid. Canadian athletes also obtained gold, silver and bronze medals in three demonstration sports.
In terms of individual performance, 21 of our athletes placed in the top eight of their sport, while Canada finished eighth out of 64 countries competing at the Albertville games.
The dedication and hard work of all our athletes have achieved results which the Canadian amateur sport community can build on for 1994, when our athletes will again take to the hills and arenas at Lillehammer, Norway for the XVII Winter Olympics.
To all our Olympians who represented their country in the true spirit of international sportsmanship and friendship, our congratulations on a job well done.


MEMBERS' EXPENSES
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, at its meeting on February 12, 1992, the Board of Internal Economy decided it would be appropriate for members of the House of Commons to take steps in line with the government's initiative-in other words, to apply the spending freeze for February and March to their own budgets.
The House of Commons expects to reduce spending by about $2.2 million. The Board of Internal Economy should also consider measures similar to what I have
been advocating for several months, such as restricting the number of members, senators and officials in parliamentary delegations abroad and asking them to file individual accounts of their trips, as I suggested at the February 4 meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


YOUTH CRIME
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House of Commons and especially to the Minister of Justice a number of community forums on youth crime and gang activity which were held recently in the riding I represent.
One was at the Sir Frederick Banting Junior Secondary School in Coquitlam, British Columbia. Parents in the community are concerned with the increase in youth crime and gang violence in Canada, with many victims and witnesses too intimidated to come forward and report crimes.
They demand that the Minister of Justice address the rise in youth crime immediately. They demand action on youth gangs before Canada starts to have the same kind of problems that are manifest in the United States.
They want protection for victims and witnesses of youth gang crimes. They want public education on youth crime and gang activity in Canadian communities. They want stiffer penalties for young offenders within the juvenile system. They want even better control of guns. Finally, they want a further review of the Young Offenders Act with the goal to having good resources to catch juveniles when they are juveniles.
These are good suggestions, Mr. Speaker. I hope the Minister of Justice is listening.


B.C. ECONOMY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, although these are difficult times for all Canadians, the recent fiscal news in British Columbia continues to improve. The Investment Dealers Association of Canada said that B.C. experienced one-half of the gross domestic product decline that the rest of Canada experienced in 1991 and applauded British Columbia's 1.2 per cent increase in employment for 1991.

February 25, 1992
It predicts a 3 per cent increase in the British Columbia gross domestic product for 1992 and that B.C. will show the strongest recovery in Canada for the next decade.
It credited the promising outlook to the easier access to U.S. markets due to the free trade agreement, the business sector's improved productivity, the diversification of export markets in the Pacific Rim and also the entrepreneurial drive of new immigrants.
It is not a coincidence that all of these factors are fiscal goals and nation-wide objectives which this government has worked diligently to attain.
Today, on budget day, the British Columbia economy waits in anticipation for continued positive fiscal direction from this government.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON NEW REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert):: Mr. Speaker, we learned that the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies has given two research contracts to Burson-Marsteller, a public relations firm that works for the pharmaceutical industry in particular.
Not only is this a public relations and not a research firm but it has several drug companies among its clients. The first contract for $21,000 is to identify the issues to be dealt with in the second contract for $45,000,. One purpose of this research is to counter criticism of drug companies' involvement in developing reproductive technologies.
This Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies has serious problems and it is high time to look into them.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, this government claims to fight on behalf of women's equality. If that is the case, I want today to throw out a challenge to them.
There are 24 judges in the general division of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. Only one of those 24 is a woman. That is a disgrace. It is also very embarrassing. Worse still, two vacancies which existed last year were filled by men.
The government has an opportunity to make up for its mistakes. Currently there is one vacancy in the court and four more vacancies are expected over the next year. Here is the government's chance to stand up for women's equality. There are several outstanding women practising law in Manitoba, some of them are leaders in the women's movement. They would make excellent judges and they would also bring a much-needed woman's perspective to the judicial process.
I urge the government to do the right thing. Rest assured all Manitobans, especially women, will be watching.


LIBRARIES
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of the hearings held by the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture last fall, we were made sharply aware by Canadian writers and publishers of the fundamental importance of the printed word, both in expressing the cultural diversity of our country and in developing a common sense of citizenship within it.
Never has the power of words been so crucial to the future of Canada and never has the freedom to read them been more valuable to us as citizens.
I share the view of the Canadian Library Association that it is the responsibility of libraries throughout Canada to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those which some elements of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable.
The libraries of this country, including our own Library of Parliament, have a special obligation to help guarantee the right of free thought and expression through the presentation of the written word. When reading materials are suppressed, democratic freedom comes under attack. Once started, such suppression quickly spreads to all forms of communication.
February 25, 1992

The freedom to read is basic to democracy. This special week reminds us to cherish and preserve it.


THE DISABLED
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, there was good news for disabled Canadians recently from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A commission tribunal has ruled that Elections Canada has the responsibility to improve access for disabled voters at polling stations.
I am sure all members of this House would agree that the right to vote is one of the most important rights in a democratic society. There are many Canadians who cannot exercise that right without proper access to a polling station.
This a legal precedent of considerable importance, a precedent that has far-reaching implications regarding access. Canadians with disabilities are waiting for the government to confirm that it accepts and will respect this important ruling.


MR. DOUG PETERS
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, during my three years on the finance committee, it has become fashionable within the Canadian business community to target the Bank of Canada.
One particular economist has had a long litany of complaints about the current monetary policies. I have always believed that policies should be assessed in light of what has happened. What have been the results? Today inflation stands at 1.6 per cent, interest rates are at a 20-year low, consumer confidence is but two and one-half hours away. Our anti-inflation policy met the test.
Economists who believe that inflation is relatively harmless should go back to school. High inflation causes high unemployment and recession. If it is true we learn from our mistakes, then Doug Peters should turn down a Liberal desire to get into politics because based on his latest miscalculations, he could become the best economist ever.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the former MP for Broadview-Greenwood pioneered non-smoking legislation to promote health. Now New Democrats welcome the government's adoption of our proposal for an export tax on cigarettes as a measure that is pro-health, pro-small business and anti-smuggling. However, tobacco companies have reacted with threats.
First, Imperial Tobacco threatened to move cigarette production from Canada. Now, RJR-Macdonald's says it will not purchase Canadian tobacco from the 1992 crop because of the export tax. This is simply economic blackmail, using Canadian farmers as pawns. Part of the government's response must be more assistance for Canadian farmers to diversify to crops other than tobacco.
We must say yes to the health of Canadians and no to those who use blackmail to try to change public policy.


MR. DOUG PETERS
Mr. David  Bjomson@Selkirk-Red River: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to question the motives of media critics of the financial policy of the government. I would think a prime example of this concern is Mr. Doug Peters of the Toronto-Dominion Bank. As the chief economist for the bank, I would think he plays an integral part in the direction of bank policy.
Here is the concern which I have. Is Mr. Peters' philosophy of an economic policy toward higher inflation meant to benefit Canadians or is it so that he may look good in front of the eyes of his employers?


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, Canadians applying for unemployment insurance often wait up to 12 weeks before receiving a cheque. To carry them over, many apply for welfare assistance. In the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, welfare payments made to individuals waiting for UI exceeds $10 million a year. When the UI cheque finally arrives, it covers the period they were on welfare.

February 25, 1992
The regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth has asked that this overlap of welfare be reassigned to the region from the federal government. Cabinet members from my region, including the minister from Lincoln, told the region that they would press their cabinet colleagues to get the processing time for UI cheques down to just a couple of weeks. The member for Lincoln told the region she would report back to them on her progress.
There has been no progress. It has been months and overlap payments persist. Hamilton-Wentworth is asking the federal government to use the region, Hamilton, as a pilot project for reassigning retro UI payments to them. The plan will save the region and the federal government millions of dollars a year.
I invite other municipalities to write the minister of unemployment.


SMALL BUSINESS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, prior to February 1990, small businesses had no problem getting a bank loan. If they needed money, the bank said "how much".
However, between February 1990 and the beginning of 1991, when the Bank of Canada was severely restricting credit, the chartered banks did so as well. It hurt. In many cases, it resulted in otherwise unnecessary bankruptcies and unemployment, but the banks were being squeezed by the Bank of Canada. What else could they do?
Since the beginning of 1991, the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks have been steadily lowering their interest rates, but the banks still have the credit squeeze on, no loans for inventory, no lines of credit. It is asset based secured loans only. Unfortunately the policies of our lender of last resort, the Federal Business Development Bank, are no different from those of the chartered banks. If we are ever going to get the economy going again, and the banks will not help, then the FBDB must lighten up its lending policies.


PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, just over 76 years ago a fire broke out on Parliament Hill in which seven people lost their lives. This morning my offices in Centre Block were virtually destroyed by fire and, like the tragic fire of 1916, there is no suspicion of incendiarism. It does bring to immediate concern the most significant symbolic infrastructure of our country, our Parliament Buildings.
It is known that renovations valued at $226 million are required to safeguard further deterioration of these buildings. I cite from a Public Works report a host of deficiencies present in the parliamentary precinct: removal of asbestos, dangerous masonry, inefficient elevators, inadequate and outdated electrical installations, obsolete and inefficient heating and ventilating systems. These are required to address these health and safety situations. Perhaps the government should revisit its decision to decrease building maintenance by 30 per cent over the last six years.
As the now illegible words read on the west face of the Peace Tower: "Where there is no vision the people perish".


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this year, Canada's senior citizens received a measly 75-cent increase in old age security.
The government is ignoring the reality of Canada's senior citizens. There are 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 who live in poverty; 50 per cent of seniors have incomes so low they qualify for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.
Ever since the government's first budget in 1985, it has been attacking the programs seniors depend on. It tried to deindex pensions and then it started the clawback. Now the government has given the seniors another slap on the fact with a 75-cent increase.
The last time seniors' pensions were increased above the rate of inflation was in 1984 in the last Liberal government budget. The Liberal Party has a proven record on seniors' issues and we will continue our good work after the next election.
February 25, 1992



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Strong evidence based upon the Convention of the Law of the Sea suggests that Canada has the right to go beyond the 200-mile limit to prevent the depletion of cod fishing stocks in the Atlantic. Yet all we have is the fishing minister standing by, winking and nodding, while individual fishermen put their lives at risk trying to stop foreign overfishing. Is this not a hypocritical and negligent response?


An hon. member:: It is.


Lloyd Axworthy: Why has the
minister refused to exercise Canada's right to extend its environmental control of fishing stocks to the entire Grand Banks?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we recognize the significance of the Law of the Sea. There have been some considerable difficulties as it has been developed. It provides for a comprehensive regime, regulating the world's oceans, but it is not going to be effective if it is not accepted by a large number of member nations.
There are some obstacles to its acceptance. Canada is working very hard to ensure that the provisions, particularly concerning marine resources, are put into place. We are trying to do that unilaterally as well as working to make sure the provisions go into the Law of the Sea.
It is only one of the efforts we are making. We are also putting this forward as a very important priority at UNCED in June, but it does depend on multilateral co-operation.
[Translation)


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, from that answer, it is clear that this government has no plan, no strategy, no political will.
I have a two-part question for the minister: Will she sign the Law of the Sea Convention and affirm Canada's
Oral Questions
right to protect our fishing banks and, secondly, will the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs visit the major countries to obtain a firm commitment for a new marine conservation regime?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, results are what counts, not the efforts made or signatures collected, but results and of course political will also. We have that political will.
Yes, I discussed the situation related to the major fisheries problem with all the leaders and all foreign affairs ministers of Europe and of other countries as well.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let us see if we can get the minister to try another response.
In 1990 the U.S. Congress enacted a law to eliminate drift-net fishing off its Pacific coast by imposing selective but tough economic sanctions against Mexico.
I want to ask the minister this: Is this not an example of a country exercising its right to protect the environment? Will the government, in its meeting this week with the European ambassadors, clearly indicate that Canada will take similar action in order to give true meaning to its support for sustainable marine environment off the eastern coast of Canada?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly delighted to hear the hon. member make a favourable reference to the United States. It is the first time I have ever heard him do so.
Let me say this: We have made a number of representations. We will continue to do that. We have not only a strategy, but we have a very effective plan of action that we are putting into place regarding EC ambassadors and regarding trips to Europe by our ambassador, by the Minister of Fisheries and potentially by myself. We have had discussions with the President of the European Community. These are the efforts that are ultimately going to succeed, not some hysterical reaction on the part of the hon. member from Winnipeg.

February 25, 1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who yesterday put on his citizen Crosbie hat to support the fishermen who are going to take on the international fishing pirates. He is wise to do that because every red-blooded Newfoundlander supports him and so do, I believe, most Canadians, but the minister's support must not be selective and cute.
Does the minister not know that Canadian enforcement ships have arrested foreign fishing boats for violations only to be instructed by Ottawa to let them go without laying charges?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, this is a startling revelation. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give us more information.
I do know that we have arrested many foreign fishing vessels for offences within the 200-mile economic limit. As a matter of fact, within the last month a Portuguese captain was prosecuted in St. John's and convicted because of an incident two or three years earlier. He was arrested when he came back within the 200-mile economic zone because they were fishing within the 200-mile economic zone two or three years ago. He was fined several hundred thousand dollars.
There may have been some incident in the past which the hon. member is referring to that occurred, but it is certainly not the common practice and there would have been a very good reason for it if it did occur.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to give the minister chapter and verse on some of those incidents.
Since Spanish and Portuguese fishing vessels were banned from Canadian ports back in 1986, they routinely use St. Pierre for servicing and supplies. The catch is, of course, to get to St. Pierre they have got to enter Canadian waters. This government is aiding and abetting their illegal fishing by allowing them to do so.
I want to ask the Minister of Fisheries: Is the government now prepared to take immediate steps to ban completely their use of Canadian waters and is the government prepared to enforce that ban?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is an entirely new suggestion.
What we have off Canada's coast, as we have elsewhere in the world recognized by other countries, is a 200-mile economic zone which gives the coastal state certain rights with respect to management of the resources within the 200-mile economic zone, including the fish that are within the 200-mile economic zone.
The international law does not recognize any right in a coastal state to interfere with the free navigation of other countries' vessels across the high seas or within the 200-mile economic zone when they are not fishing or otherwise interfering with the resources within the zone.
The hon. gentleman knows he is speaking through his hat, as he is doing most of the time.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as well.
Yesterday he is quoted as having said that we are prepared to use imagination and seamanship. My question to him is this. Does this constitute an encouragement on the part of our frustrated fishermen to engage in high seas vigilante activity or was he saying that this minister will hold his course, go to NAFO and tell them to stop overfishing Canadian fish or we are prepared to be as tough as little Iceland was in the early 1970s. Tell them to stop overfishing or we will cut their nets. Is the minister prepared to do that?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I was appearing before the European Community at Brussels and at NAFO long before the hon. gentleman knew what NAFO was.
With respect to vigilante-ism, where was the hon. gentleman when Greenpeace were out vigilante-ing around the ocean as they have done so often on both thbe east coast and the west coast? The hon. gentleman never rose in this House to denounce vigilante-ism when it was Greenpeace's vigilante-ism. But when it is Newfoundland vigilante-ism, when it is fishermen vigilante-ism, the hon. gentleman is up to decry it and to deny it and to attack it. Shame on the hon. gentleman.
February 25, 1992


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you recognize, as do all members on this side of the House, how utterly bizarre was that response. I did not condemn the fishers, I condemned this minister for forcing them out there to do that. We want him to act.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Since I cannot get a sensible answer out of the Minister of Fisheries, I will turn my attention to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
Yesterday 2,300 GM workers lost their jobs. My question to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology is what action is this government prepared to take in defence of the other 38,000 GM workers in fear of their jobs as GM prepares further layoffs under political pressure on the American side that the damage be done in Canada rather than the United States?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Thade):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to see a connection between the first question and the second question.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, one of the best things that the government can do is to create the right atmosphere for new investment in this country, investment that will create jobs that will replace the jobs that will be disappearing as a result of the GM decision.
This has been the essence of the policies that we have been following to get inflation down, get interest rates down to provide that incentive for new investment. That new investment could go into new equipment, new technology, new plants, new research and development. That is the way that a dynamic market based economy will deal with companies that are laying off people and at the same time create the new investment that will provide the jobs for the people who have been laid off.
Oral Questions


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is this. I wonder if the kind of investment he is talking about is the kind of $20 million interest free investment made to Boeing of Winnipeg which the minister of energy said, and I quote: "would ensure job security for the current work force". Yet, 180 people were laid off last weekend, permanently. Is that the kind of help that the GM workers can expect?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have in place a number of programs that help companies create jobs, that help companies bring in new technologies, that help companies deal with the ever changing global environment we are dealing with in the world today, not just in Canada. That together with the policies I have talked about in my first response is what will help companies create jobs.
I think what my hon. friend is looking for is the Government of Canada to create a new factory, drop it down beside General Motors in St. Catharines and say: "There, 2,300 workers. There is a new plant".
I think my hon. friend understands that is not the way the economy works.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology said that he has instructed Canada's trade negotiators to insist on safeguards for Canadian automotive jobs.
Does this mean that if the auto pact safeguards for Canadian jobs are not met, the minister will reinstate tariff penalties that were wiped out by the free trade deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what our negotiators, working with the Americans and the Mexicans, have been instructed to do is to try and find an arrangement and an environment for

February 25, 1992
Oral Questions
the automotive industry that can make that industry as competitive internationally as possible.
Governments cannot do everything to make companies internationally competitive. Companies, workers and management have to be part of that over-all objective.
What we will be trying to do in the free trade negotiations with the Americans and the Mexicans is to create that environment whereby we can take the best advantage of the three countries and create the strongest possible automotive industry for the three countries.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister has refused to honour his commitment of yesterday to insist on safeguards for Canadian auto jobs.
Allow me as a supplementary to say this. Yesterday, the industry minister said in this Elouse that the auto pact safeguards for Canadian auto jobs: "Are not affected at all in the free trade agreement". Yet because of the free trade agreement the big three can pull all their jobs and production out of Canada and export cars back into Canada duty free.
How can Canadians trust this minister to negotiate a trade-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I am sure the hon. member can put the question in such a way that it is less offensive.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: How can Canadians have faith that this minister can negotiate a good trade deal with the United States and Mexico when the minister does not even know what the U.S. free trade deal has done to Canada's auto sector?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me quote if I could from the president of the Chamber of Commerce in St. Catharines who was commenting on the decision yesterday and the causes for the decision.
He said: "I certainly don't see free trade as an issue in this thing at all. There was free trade by the auto pact in the first place. I don't see the auto pact as being affected by free trade whatsoever and I would not put any blame on this on free trade".


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, as the previous questioners have mentioned, the industrial heartland of Ontario is truly being devastated with these lay-offs, especially yesterday with the 2,300 jobs lost in St. Catharines which is in my riding.
My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Will the minister advise how funds promised in Bill C-21 will be used to retrain the workers of the GM plants in St. Catharines after these lay-offs? Will the minister advise what immediate programs and how much money he will make available to retraining of these auto workers?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, concerning that specific location, the consultant from industrial adjustment services has met with local plant management and local representatives of the CAW to discuss the establishment of an IAS committee.
This proposed committee will assist in the development of an adjustment plan for the affected workers. The department will offer its full range of programs and services to all affected workers.
We trust that the programs in place under the umbrella of this IAS committee will serve the interests of the affected workers.
I am not in a position to give an amount of money because this work is taking place as we speak. When the time comes, if the hon. member wants to know these figures, I will provide them.


Gilbert Parent: I thank the minister for his response and I look forward to his answer as to the specifics of the money.
Mr. Speaker, I address my next question to the Minister of Supply and Services and in his absence to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to a communique released on February 13 for federal contracts recently awarded in Ontario.
In light of the serious blow suffered at the GM plants in my riding, will the Acting Prime Minister tell us why the Department of Supply and Services placed an order of nearly $1 million for new cars for the RCMP, albeit
February 25, 1992

General Motors cars, but cars that were totally assembled in the United States?
Surely there could be some direction from this department to give some consideration to our Canadian manufacturers and suppliers. I wonder if the minister could address himself to that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would caution my hon. friend in putting questions like that because Canadian automotive production represents 17 per cent of North American production.
If we are going to get to a position where individual governments only place orders for Canadian assembled cars we are going to be the losers.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
Yesterday I asked the minister about Grolier publishing company and the book publishing policy of the government.
The minister announced that he was pumping $20 million a year into the publishing industry. He of course did not mention the $185 million per year that this government is sucking out of the book publishing industry with the introduction of the GST and the elimination of the postal subsidies.
Since the minister announced his new policy, Grolier is closing its library and school division, it is moving its inventory, equipment, furniture and records to the United States and is leaving nothing but a shell.
Again I would like to ask the minister: What specific action is he and the government going to take to prevent book publishing companies like Grolier and others from leaving the country? Obviously his new policy is not working.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit premature for the hon. member to say
Oral Questions
a policy that was announced about three weeks ago is not working.
As he is well aware, the Grolier acquisition took place some years ago and what they are doing is consistent with the actions which they took some years ago.
What we are doing is to try to ensure that a Canadian-owned book publishing industry can prosper in this country. What we are doing is putting new money into the industry.
What we are doing as well is changing the foreign ownership provisions in order to ensure that it is possible for Canadian companies to be able to purchase foreign companies, first of all because they will be healthier; and second, in order to ensure that we are able to require that undertakings be given by foreign companies operating in Canada if they intend to take over operations.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, that is what is called a one-ply answer. Of course, the takeover of Grolier occurred under the Baie Comeau policy which was not enforced.
My question to the Minister of National Revenue is this. When Grolier closed its direct mail book division and moved it to the United States it was a loss of 100 jobs.
Now the mail order division in the United States is packing the books in the United States, metering them, addressing them and bringing them in bulk across the border and distributing them through the Canadian postal system. In that way, the intention of the Minister of National Revenue to charge a $5 special tax on the mail order is avoided.
Is Grolier going to be able to get away with this? What is the minister going to do to prevent this type of circumvention of his own regulations?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, that question was filled with nonsense because anyone that would move south of the border to try to evade the $5 processing charge would realize that they would have to pay applicable duties, applicable taxes including the GST, freight and postage once returning to Canada. It would cost them a great deal more to try to move into the United States to try to circumvent the new system that we just applied.

February 25, 1992
Oral Questions
In fact, the new system that we just applied is going to increase the productivity in this country by some 3.5 per cent within that industry. This will result in the creation of some 2,000 to 3,000 jobs for Canadians.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, on December 12, the Minister of Justice tabled legislation to ensure that a rape victim's past sexual history could not be used to prove consent. It sent a strong message that no means no.
Yesterday, the minister told the Canadian Bar Association that she was willing to revise the bill "in the interests of fairness".
In the absence of the Minister of Justice, I ask the Solicitor General: Is the government backing off? Why is it backing off? Will no still mean no?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice was attending the Canadian Bar Association winter meeting and was engaged in a dialogue with the association.
During the course of her remarks, she indicated as we all indicate as ministers, that she is always interested in improvements to the bill.
She is not backing down in any way from the legislation which she tabled. She made the standard offer that if it can be improved by the bar who work with it all the time, or by members of the Opposition, she would look at and entertain any amendments.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, the legislation clearly stipulates a definition of consent.
The words "revise the bill" related to that very definition of consent. After a meeting with the Canadian Bar Association, the minister seems to have changed her mind.
Will the Solicitor General commit the government to a strong definition of consent, or will he tell us what other kinds of safeguards will be available to the victim if precise definitions of consent are removed?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend has an interest in this legislation. She was very complimentary to the legislation when it was brought in.
The government stands fully in favour of what the government said in the bill, but this government has never said that we cannot improve on things.
We brought forward legislation that women across the country, including members of this House, welcome. We intend to stand behind it.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Canada's representatives at GATT have not been able to convince members of the European Community of the importance to Canada of maintaining GATT article XI.
Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the Minister for International Trade that the United States is the key to success or failure as far as obtaining clarification of GATT article XI is concerned?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it is useful to identify those who are opposed to clarification.
I think most countries currently negotiating at GATT are in favour of an agreement, and Canada is one of those countries. Canada's position has remained the same-to support and strengthen article XI-and we have repeated this to the Europeans. They listened very carefully to what we told them. I would even say they made it quite clear that they supported article XI. However, it is not their main concern. They would like to have tariffication first and keep article XI as a safeguard. That is not Canada's position.
We are continuing our discussions with the Europeans to try to bring them around so that we will have an agreement that will allow Canada to support these marketing boards, and I believe the hon. member also supports that position. We will continue to defend our position. We will continue our discussions with our allies, wherever they may be, in Europe or elsewhere.
February 25, 1992


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, my question was quite simple. The Minister for International Trade said the United States is the key.
Could the minister explain very briefly, why the Prime Minister has not approached the president himself about a matter that is so important to Canada's farmers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks whether the government agrees with the Minister for International Trade. I would have to say that the government does.
The Prime Minister has engaged himself in this issue. He has spoken to a number of the leaders in Europe. He has indicated that he is seeking to make arrangements to either speak to or meet with President Bush in order to put the full influence of the Prime Minister behind the interests, in support of the interests of the farmers, in order to seek a clarification and strengthening of article XI.
That is the position of the government, and that is the position that the Prime Minister is seeking to ensure through his own activities and involvement in this issue.


PARLIAMENTARY REFORM
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.
Last year in the throne speech the government promised to make the agenda of Canadians the agenda of Parliament, in other words to empower private members. This promise of parliamentary reform was reiterated in the unity document Shaping Canada's Future Together.
Does the government still have the will to come forward with a comprehensive set of proposals to empower private members? When will it table its proposals?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, certainly that remains the commitment of the government.
Oral Questions
As the hon. member knows, in 1984 with the McGrath commission many changes were introduced which added considerably to the ability of individual members to exercise influence on public policy. That continues to be our program.
These kinds of things, of course, can only be done with the full co-operation of members on both sides of the House. For that reason, the management committee of this House, on which both sides of the House are represented, is currently looking at a package of proposals. I am looking forward to its recommendations. I hope we will have an opportunity to implement them as soon as possible.


BREAST IMPLANTS
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Following the U.S. Food and Drug Administration hearings last week on the safety of silicone breast implants, Dr. Cornelia Baines referred to women who testified as squeaky wheels and said that they were more interested in lawsuits than in factual information.
She also stated that there are many products on the market, from penicillin to peanut butter, that can cause severe reactions in some people, but this is not a reason to discontinue their use.
I ask the minister if he will remove Dr. Baines from his review panel because it is obvious by her biased and misleading pre-emptive statements that she is neither impartial nor credible to bring forward recommendations on women's health.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member that I spoke to Dr. Baines last night about what was reported in the press.
She told me that those remarks were made at the commission by people who were witnesses before the panel. She did not say that herself. She was reporting words that were said by people at the panel.
Dr. Baines is a well-known epidemiologist in Canada and is very highly respected in the Toronto area. There is no reason for me not to believe what Dr. Baines said to me. Moreover, she works with three other members and the other members did not confirm what the hon. member said.

February 25, 1992
Oral Questions


Joy Langan: Perhaps the minister would consider playing back Canada AM on the morning that the FDA made its report.
Mr. Speaker, the minister is proceeding with a plan to fast-track the approval process for new medication by privatizing the process. This is a recipe for disaster.
As we have witnessed with silicone implants, the health protection branch simply cuts and pastes. Companies supply research with no real mechanism to identify problems or verify test results presented by manufacturers.
Will the minister tell this House when he is going to take his responsibility for the health of Canadians seriously and stop being merely a rubber stamp for the manufacturers?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it would be good if this member would call me instead of looking to the newspapers for her information. I would give her the truth. The review process, at the first phase, could be made by the private sector, but all drugs are reviewed a second time by the Department of National Health and Welfare. It is done in all countries in Europe, in Australia, in the United States and in Canada.
Once again, instead of taking this information anywhere, Canada AM or The Toronto Star and so on, maybe she can call me. I will give her the real information that she needs.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, the interpretation of significant demand with regard to the official languages regulations will be implemented on January 1, 1993.
My question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Other than providing notification through The Gazette, what other measures have been taken to ensure Canadians have access to this significant information?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for her question.
To begin with, we have ensured that federal institutions are well aware of the regulations and the circumstances under which they have to provide these bilingual services. We have a list of bilingual offices across Canada and this list will be made available. Furthermore, we have been meeting with official language communities and they will receive, as soon as it is available, the copy of the updated bilingual offices' directory.
All Canadians, as you know, can readily identify the federal offices providing bilingual services because there is an official language symbol available in those offices.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Today we learned that over 10,000 bogus 2051 forms were used to obtain illegal immigration visas. It appears that the department officials and other immigration consultants were accomplices in the sale of those forms to desperate immigrants for as much as $10,000 a visa.
What assurance can the minister give that this matter is being cleaned up and has he called in the police to investigate this issue?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, thanks to The Toronto Star, the member knows about current issues. This was raised in June of last year. I understand there was coverage in the papers but he may not have read it. In fact, we instituted a new document at that time and more secure procedures last June concerning this.
As for the 10,000 figure, all I can say is that the RCMP has been called in and they are investigating it. We are co-operating with them and we await the results of that investigation.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
February 25, 1992

Immigration consultants and officials may have profited by signing visas allowing illegal immigrants to enter Canada. This is truly tragic today when so many Canadians are looking for jobs themselves and so many legitimate would-be immigrants are seeking entry legitimately into Canada.
Will the minister revoke those illegal visas immediately? Will he see that all of the alleged wrongdoers involved in that process on the 2051 claims, whether they are within government or outside of the government, will be punished?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, instead of following the advice of the Liberal Party, I will not indict anyone until after the RCMP has completed its investigation. Once the RCMP has dealt with it we shall follow the law.


CHILD CARE
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A recent Globe and Mail story told us of a stressed 12 year old boy spending four hours a day caring for his younger brother and sister while his parents work to support the family. Is this the type of child care program the government envisions for this country?
Canadians want a national child care program. I ask the minister: where is the program this government promised Canadian families in 1984, in 1988 and again in the last Speech from the Throne?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I can say to my colleague is that the Government of Canada took a step in December with children and the family issue with the convention for children. We are very close to taking another step which will not be the child care network. We believe that Canadians have other priorities today. It does not mean that the government is not involved. We put more than $1 billion a year into child care services in Canada through the Canada Assistance Plan.
I can assure my colleague that the government will move and soon on the question of the family and children in a perspective that I hope my colleague will support.
Oral Questions


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, we just heard this government confirm to the House that it has breached its promise to Canadian families on the child care program.
Like the parents of this 12-year old boy, middle class families have been hardest hit by the Tory tax squeeze. Statistics Canada recently reported that from 1986 to 1990 personal taxes rose while personal incomes fell.
Will the minister explain why his government's economic policies have discriminated against the middle class and bled them dry at tax time.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it is quite likely that the Minister of Finance will give some answers this afternoon. I expect that will be the fact.
I want to say to the member that when we look at the heritage we had before 1984, it was not just the middle class you strike. You strike everybody in the country.


WOLVERINE TUBE COMPANY
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The ongoing issue of the Wolverine Thbe Company plant closure has been a very serious one for my riding of Delta. In the most recent development a number of Korean workers have been brought in to dismantle the plant.
Through what process did these Korean workers gain admission to Canada and further, why are they performing a task that Canadian workers should be employed to do?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in this instance the company in question sold its equipment to KCC Transport Systems in Korea.
Officials of the department met with officers of that company last week to explain the requirements of our immigration legislation. The company has decided to hire a minimum of 20 Canadians to dismantle the equipment in question, although some Korean workers will be involved.
The reason is that the equipment was built in 1958 and the blueprints are no longer available. It may be necessary for Canadian workers to train the Koreans in order for them to be capable of reassembling the equipment in Korea.

Oral Questions
Everything was done according to the law and the regulations of the act.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, ray question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns two women in Yukon, Andrea Underwood and Anna Carrott, who have lived together as a family with Anna's two children for eight years, the last two running Morley Lodge in Yukon.
Anna, a British citizen, has been ordered to leave Canada with her children by next week because our immigration laws do not recognize lesbian or gay relationships, unlike those of other countries. In view of the tremendous community support this family has received, will the minister undertake to review this case and will he agree to extend Anna's visa and not tear this family apart, at least until the courts have had an opportunity to rule on the legality of this cruel and discriminatory policy?


Bernard Valcourt: For the very reason the hon. member just mentioned, this is before the courts. I do not think it would be proper for me to comment since it is before the courts.
Furthermore, the hon. member must know that the Privacy Act, which is meant to protect people, prevents the release of information on individual cases like this and their names. I do not think we serve their interests well.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The two women themselves have publicly pleaded with the minister to recognize their plight. So the Privacy Act clearly does not apply.
I want to ask a supplementary question of the same minister. It relates to another imminent deportation, that of Mr. Mahmoud Abu Shandi, a Palestinian refugee in Canada. I want to ask the minister whether he will agree to allow Abu Shandi direct access to the normal refugee application process, access which he has been denied under the national security provisions of the act.
Will the minister agree to a full and comprehensive parliamentary inquiry into the nature of the relationship between CSIS and Mossad, particularly as it applies to immigration in Canada?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, for security reasons, I cannot comment on this case.


COMMUNITY TALKS PROGRAM
Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology-
Last fall, the minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration commenced as part 1 of the prosperity initiative a program called Community Talks.
While visiting these towns, I am sure the facilitators have heard individuals bring forward a wide range of constructive comments including the development of partnerships, the need for more co-operative education and training tailored to the workplace.
My question is: Have there been too few participants? Are they being listened to and will they be part of the solution?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have had over 150 of these meetings, I believe it is, and propose to have some 200 meetings across the country.
They have been exceptionally good meetings. They have brought together people from varied backgrounds, talking about a range of issues under the general umbrella of the prosperity initiative on science and technology, education, learning, investment, the competitiveness of our domestic market and international business.
In response to the particular question as to whether they are being listened to and will their suggestions be acted upon, the answer is a very solid yes. We are listening very closely and we are developing proposals right now as to how we might respond to what I would say are some very good suggestions that have been brought out in these meetings.
February 25, 1992


EAST TIMOR
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: My question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, the minister said that Canada may soon lift the suspension of $30 million in proposed aid projects to the Indonesian government for its inquiry into the massacre at Dili. The minister has clearly bought the glib, smooth, PR lines of the Indonesian foreign minister.
Will the minister issue a directive immediately to the Canadian delegation in Geneva that Canada supports the European Community's resolution on East Timor which is now before the United Nations Human Rights Commission.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, what I suggested yesterday was that I was encouraged by the statement of the foreign minister of Indonesia regarding actions that his government was prepared to take.
There are a number of draft resolutions. As I understand it, no final resolution has been determined to go before the human rights commission in Geneva. We would certainly support one that we think is worded in a way that meets with Canada's principles on this matter.
I would like to point out to the hon. member that no member of the European Community, however strong the resolution, has cut off aid to Indonesia.
Canada is the only country in the industrialized world, the only country in the world, that has cut its program of aid to Indonesia and still has that cut in effect. That is the strongest possible action.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. McDermid that Bill S-2, an act to implement
Government Order
conventions between Canada and Finland, Canada and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Canada and the United Mexican States for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax and the prevention of fiscal evasion and a convention between Canada and the United Mexican States for the exchange of information with respect to taxes, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Angus:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if I could clarify with the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader that in the event the debate on the bill you have just called is completed prior to the time of the budget later this afternoon, that the House will suspend until such time as the Minister of Finance is prepared to rise.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I would like to confirm to the hon. member and other members of the House that once this legislation is dealt with, we will then suspend to the call of the chair at 4.30 p.m. for the budget. We have no intentions of calling any further bills after this.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Deblois):: As indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the sitting of the House will be suspended until 4.30 p.m.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.07 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: It being 4.30 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), the House will now proceed to Ways and Means Motion No. 11, the budget statement.

February 25, 1992
The Budget


THE BUDGET
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government.
He said: I am honoured to present my first budget as Minister of Finance. I want to thank the Prime Minister for the confidence he has placed in me and for his wise counsel and support, and particularly his help during the period leading up to the budget.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank the pople of my constituency, the Vegreville federal constituency, who have supported me over the years and have given me the benefit of their good advice, and also for their understanding, particularly in recent days, because I have not been back to the riding for at least four weeks. I do appreciate very much their support.
I also want to thank my colleagues for their advice and good counsel and their help but mostly for their co-operation during the course of the time leading up to the budget. Above all, I want to thank all of those who have sent me their good wishes over the past couple of days. I can assure them that it has been most appreciated.
When I began work on this budget a few months ago, I wanted to ensure that it would be built from the ground up, with the help of Canadians in all parts of the country.
I wanted a budget that would deliver a strong bottom line: one that supports the well-being of Canadians and their families; one that promotes the success of our business people in expanding and creating jobs; one that contributes to a strong and more united Canada. And that's the bottom line of the budget I am delivering today.
In preparing the budget, my colleagues and I listened carefully to Canadians in business, labour, the voluntary and social sectors; to workers, students, managers, farmers, investors, and Canada's youth.
I received hundreds of letters from individual Canadians. We heard from members of Parliament and from provincial governments. Almost every day, I can tell you,
Sir, that I received calls from right across the country, giving me some of their thoughts and some suggested solutions to the problems that we face.
During the past two months the Prime Minister met twice with the provincial premiers and they will meet again soon. I met with provincial finance ministers in December and January.
During these consultations we talked of the challenges we face, of the hardship of economic slowdown in Canada, the United States and the other major industrial countrie; of the reality of global industrial restructuring to which, we must all adjust.
Throughout the process I was struck by the sincerity, the understanding and the realism reflected in the advice of Canadians on how best to tackle our economic problems.
Listening and leading
This budget reflects the good advice we received.
It also provides the leadership and direction that Canadians want to help meet the economic challenges that confront us.
It will keep Canada firmly on course for better times ahead, for renewed and sustainable growth, for job creation and for deficit reduction.
The direction we are setting will not appeal to those who believe there are shortcuts to economic success, the same quick fixes that were tried by others in the past and failed. That's not the direction that a majority of Canadians want to take.
Growth and job creation
Canadians want realistic, lasting solutions to our economic problems, not quick fixes that lead to longterm breakdowns or further burdens for the taxpayer.
They are ready to work together to help Canada compete and win in a tough, uncertain economic world. They know that when Canada wins, Canadians win.
Canadians want to cut the deficit.
They do not believe that governments can borrow us out of the trouble that governments borrowed us into. They know that higher debt means higher taxes, and they want an end to rising taxes.

Canadians want government streamlined and made less wasteful to meet the changes and demands of the 1990s.
They want government to adjust to the same budget realities that households and businesses must face every day.
They want the burden of government reduced. They want less regulation, less overlap and duplication.
They want less government and better service.
Canadians want to ensure better development of Canada's most valuable resource-our people.
They want better opportunities for people to improve their skills, and to use their initiative and talent to build a better future for their families, their community and their country.
Canadians are concerned about the growing costs of health care and about the social safety net. They want steps taken to ensure that our social programs meet the basic needs of Canadians and remain a vital part of our Canadian identity.
Canadians know that good social policy and good economic policy go hand in hand-and that each supports the other.
Most of all, Canadians want a renewed basis for confidence -confidence that jobs will be created and jobs maintained.
Responding with action
In this budget we will respond. This budget will bolster recovery this year and strengthen growth and job creation in the years ahead.
We will substantially reduce the deficit.
Despite the economic slowdown, we will hold the deficit to $31.4 billion in the 1991-92 fiscal year. We will reduce it by almost $4 billion to $27.5 billion in 1992-93.
We will cut spending and we will cut taxes.
We will cut spending by $1 billion in 1992-93 and by $7 billion over five years. These savings will be used to cut taxes.
We will act to strengthen Canada's competitive position.
The Budget
We will reduce the tax burden for the manufacturing and processing sectors.
We will increase support for research and development and encourage productive investment.
We will provide measures to help small business.
We will simplify, streamline and substantially enrich our support for families and children.
We will assist Canadians with registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) to buy a home.
We will increase our support for Canadians with disabilities.
We will provide additional tax assistance to students.
We will reduce personal income taxes for all taxpayers.
We will restructure and streamline the operations of government to improve both efficiency and service to Canadians. Forty-six government organizations will be eliminated, deferred, merged with other operations or privatized.
This budget responds to the desire of Canadians to have a more expansive economy and a less expensive government. It will help ensure:
a stronger, more productive economy better able to create the jobs that Canadians need; and
a leaner, more efficient government better able to deliver the services Canadians need.
To help prepare Canada's economy for the 21st century, the government will also step up its effort to work with business, labour, the voluntary and social sectors, and other governments. We will seek to renew the national tradition of partnership on which this country has been built and sustained through many challenging times.
A strong foundation for recovery and sustained growth
The measures in this budget are economically, socially and fiscally responsible. They provide help where needed. They are paid for by reducing and reallocating expenditures, not by increasing the burden of borrowing and taxing.
In the same responsible way, year after year, the government has acted in response to need. Over the past few months:
We provided assistance to the agriculture, fisheries, transportation, housing and publishing sectors.

February 25, 1992
The Budget
We strengthened support for a more productive and competitive aerospace sector.
We increased worker training and adjustment funds under the unemployment insurance program.
We are enriching the equalization program to help the less wealthy provinces.
We introduced measures to give Canadian retailers a fairer chance to compete with their American counterparts.
We reaffirmed our commitment to a healthier environment by taking further action to implement Green Plan initiatives in priority areas such as global warming, air and water quality and sustainable forests.
All of us are learning lessons from the hardship of recession and global restructuring. One of the most important lessons is that government must never again allow itself to be financially crippled by debt:
Governments do not have the capacity to inject massive stimulus into the economy. To try to do so by further borrowing would hurt us down the road. We cannot get out of a hole by digging it deeper.
Restoring the balance, easing the burden
Reducing the deficit is essential for sustained economic growth and prosperity. It is also an essential foundation for the confidence, at home and abroad, that will ensure a strong recovery.
We have made substantial progress since 1984 by cutting the deficit-to-GDP ratio almost in half from 8.7 per cent to 4.6 per cent. Fiscal balance has been further supported by firm, consistent policies. These have enabled us to maintain tight control of program spending, to make faster-than-expected progress in reducing inflation and interest rates, and to respond quickly to contain upward deficit pressure over the past several months.
As a result, we are able in this budget to cut spending and direct the savings to tax cuts that will help individual Canadians and support economic growth.
The progress we have earned together will yield further dividends. As growth resumes and we make further progress toward price stability, the deficit will fall steadily and quickly.
Action to restrain expenditures
This budget implements a wide range of spending cuts.
We will broaden and deepen the Expenditure Control Plan which was introduced in the 1990 budget and extended by last year's budget. This will be done in a way that does not affect major transfers to provinces.
The defence review of last September and further measures taken with this budget yield a substantial peace dividend for Canadians. Since September 1991 the world has changed a great deal. This has allowed us to reduce our longstanding presence in Europe without lessening our commitment to NATO solidarity. The planned withdrawal of our troops from Europe can be advanced and a task force stationed in Europe is no longer necessary. Defence spending will be cut by a total of $2.2 billion over the next five years.
We will cut the non-wage operating budgets of departments by 3 per cent to save $150 million next year and $800 million over a five-year period. International travel will be reduced. First-class travel for members of Parliament, Senators and senior public servants will be eliminated.
We will save $75 million a year by reducing communications budgets. A no-frills publishing policy will substantially reduce the number of government publications.
The growth in spending by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) on social housing will be held to an average of 3 per cent per year.
Other program reductions will save $170 million next year.
As a result of government decisions taken last year, ministerial, parliamentary and public service pay is currently frozen. In addition, the Prime Minister and all ministers will take a 5 per cent cut in their ministerial salary beginning April 1.
We will strengthen cost recovery and improve the collection of outstanding tax liabilities.
We will continue to privatize Crown corporations where they no longer serve public policy objectives. We will dispose of surplus assets.
February 25, 1992

Our measures to streamline government will also contribute substantial savings over the next five years.
We are also taking action to manage future spending pressures in a fiscally responsible way. The government is prepared to act when necessary to counter the serious fiscal effects that may come from legal challenges to government programs. For example, while the government will continue to implement equal pay for work of equal value, it will not make any further retroactive payments for the period prior to November 1, 1990.
All these measures respond to a clear message from Canadians: difficult times are no excuse for governments to live beyond the taxpayers' means. It has not been business as usual for thousands of Canadian taxpayers, farmers, fishermen, business people, workers and families. It cannot be business as usual for any government that truly cares.
Working together for recovery
The economic recovery began with great promise in the second quarter of 1991, but subsequently weakened as conditions deteriorated in the economies of our major trading partners, particularly the United States.
Real output in the fourth quarter of 1991 was flat or may have declined. Available evidence suggests this weakness has carried over into early 1992.
Times are difficult. There are serious economic problems to solve. But there is no substitute for sound policies. That is the realistic perspective in which this budget was developed.
Neither I, the Prime Minister nor any other member of this government is going to tell Canadians that one budget can meet all our economic challenges.
But in times like this it is too easy to lose perspective, to allow pessimism to feed on itself, and to lose sight of the improving outlook for renewed growth.
We need to look beyond the gloom and give optimism a chance. I'm not talking about blue-sky, hope-for-the-best optimism. I'm talking about down-to-earth optimism based on a realistic assessment both of the proven character of Canada's people and of the improving prospects for our economy.
Time and again, Canadians have demonstrated their ability to overcome adversity, to adapt to change, and to
The Budget
succeed in maintaining this country as one of the best in the world.
We have done this by listening to each other, believing in each other, working with each other, and seeing things through. Many things have changed in Canada. But from listening to Canadians, I believe more than ever in the fundamental strength of our people and our ability to meet our economic challenges.
There are good reasons to look forward to an early resumption of solid economic growth. Some negative factors will soon turn positive.
The United States and other countries we export to are working to revitalize their economies. We will soon begin to benefit as they return to solid growth.
The impact of the measures in this budget should strengthen business and consumer confidence. Once confidence starts moving in the right direction it will reinforce itself as spending and investment decisions further strengthen economic activity.
But as the economy turns upward it will be powered by much more than this reversal of negative factors.
Strengthening the fundamentals
Our economy is poised for a sustained recovery on its own fundamental merits, a recovery that draws on the strength of a dramatic improvement in interest rates, inflation and production costs.
Inflation has come down dramatically over the past year. It is now running at an annualized rate of less than 2 per cent, its lowest level since the early 1970s. Inflation in Canada is about one percentage point lower than U.S. inflation.
Wage settlements also show how inflationary pressures have eased. For the last quarter of 1991, public sector settlements averaged 2.4 per cent, down from an average of 6.4 per cent in the first quarter of last year. Private sector settlements have fallen to 3.3 per cent, down from a first-quarter increase of 5.1 per cent.
Progress in reducing inflation and wage pressures has made it possible to ease monetary conditions. Interest rates have dropped sharply, down by about seven percentage points since the spring of 1990.
The one-year mortgage rate is now the lowest it has ever been. A family taking out a $75,000 mortgage today would save more than $300 a month in carrying costs compared to the spring of 1990.

February 25, 1992
The Budget
The emerging new Canadian economy
In assessing Canada's economic prospects it is impossible to overstate the importance of this dramatic turnaround in the cost of living and doing business in Canada. This will have an increasingly positive effect on all families and all enterprises in Canada.
As an indication of just how much things have changed, consider these facts:
For a senior citizen on a fixed pension, inflation at 9 per cent -the average rate from 1974 to 1984-cuts that income in half in just eight years. At 2 per cent, it would take about 35 years.
For a worker, a wage increase of 2 to 3 per cent today provides more real purchasing power than an increase of 11 per cent 10 years ago. In fact, 11 per cent in 1982 was a real wage decrease because the rate of inflation was even higher than 11 per cent.
The benefits of low inflation are clear:
Higher inflation undermines our standard of living.
Lower inflation helps to raise living standards.
It restores confidence in the value of money.
It helps to protect people on fixed incomes.
It improves our cost competitiveness in the global economy.
It improves the climate for the long-term investment that will further expand the productive, job-creating capacity of our economy.
It paves the way for longer-term home mortgages at affordable fixed rates.
Just a reminder. Ten years ago today, in February 1982, the interest rate on a 5-year mortgage was 19 and a half per cent. Today it is 9 and three-quarters per cent.
As a more competitive and productive Canadian economy emerges, we will hear more and more about Canadians developing their skills and realizing their potential, Canadians innovating and investing in a more productive economy, Canadians achieving the excellence that consumers around the world are demanding in the goods and services they buy.
In support of excellence we will hear more and more about Canadian business, labour and government combining their talents, putting outdated adversarial relationships behind them in their own best interests.
Canadians know that this new economy won't just emerge by itself, just as lower inflation, lower interest rates and lower wage settlements didn't just happen. We made progress against inflation because clear inflation objectives were set, leadership in wage restraint was demonstrated and Canadians responded to the challenge.
Working together, Canadians will build our new, more successful economy by continuing to face up to fundamental economic challenges in a realistic and determined way.
Strong framework for growth
Step by step since 1984, the government has implemented a comprehensive program of economic renewal. We have carried out a wide range of fundamental reforms to improve the framework of government policies affecting the efficiency and the productivity of the economy.
Whether in the area of trade, training, tax reform, science and technology, privatization or deregulation, the approach underlying our reforms has been consistent and clear: the real source of growth, wealth creation and jobs is the initiative of people in the private sector. Governments must create a positive environment to allow this initiative to flourish.
The Canadian economy will soon respond to the positive conditions now in place for recovery.
Earlier this month, the Conference Board of Canada forecast that growth in Canada would be the highest among the G-7 countries this year. This view is also shared by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the International Monetary Fund.
We expect growth to pick up in the second quarter, averaging 2.7 per cent for the year as a whole and rising to 4.5 per cent for 1993. The recovery will be led by a strong increase in residential construction and consumer spending in response to lower interest rates.
Continuing progress toward price stability will allow for further easing in interest rates. The 90-day commercial paper rate is projected to average 6.9 per cent this year and 6.5 per cent in 1993.
More than 500,000 jobs will be created before the end of next year, with employment increasing by 3 per cent in
1993.	However, strong growth in the labour force will keep the unemployment rate this year at about current
February 25, 1992

levels. It will decline to 9.5 per cent by the end of next year.
From 1994 to 1997, we expect growth to average 4.4 per cent. Inflation will be in line with our inflation targets. More than one million jobs will be created and the unemployment rate will decline to 7 per cent.
There is good reason to be optimistic, but we must also be realistic. The world economy is changing. Barriers to the movement of goods, services, capital and information are coming down. Industry all around the world is restructuring to take advantage of new opportunities. In the process, the Canadian workplace is being transformed.
These events have repeatedly driven home the same message: no country, no government, no corporation and no worker is immune from the competitive forces that are reshaping the economic world.
Canadians will have to work together to build a more prosperous future. That's why the government launched its prosperity initiative last year as a broadly based consultation process. Our goal is to develop a national action plan to strengthen Canada's ability to adapt, to compete and to prosper.
At the recent First Ministers' meeting, many governments stressed the important contribution that adequate infrastructure makes to our competitive position. The Government of Canada agrees this is important. We are, for example, working with the private sector to develop airport infrastructure. And we are actively pursuing the building of a fixed link from the mainland to Prince Edward Island with private sector financing. We are prepared to work with the provinces to explore ways in which the national highway system might be upgraded in a fiscally responsible manner.
In the same spirit the government will work closely with the provinces to strengthen the framework that our economic union provides for future growth and job creation. Among our key objectives will be action to reduce interprovincial trade barriers, to cut overlap and duplication among government programs, to better harmonize our tax systems, and to co-ordinate our approaches to budgetary policies.
The provinces will be setting their own budgets in the near future. It is important that they pull in the same
The Budget
direction as this budget: toward better fiscal balance, lower deficits, greater spending restraint and control of the tax burden. There is only one taxpayer, and the taxpayer deserves a break.
Action for recovery and sustained growth
This budget builds on the foundation we have put in place.
Action to bolster recovery
We will help bolster the recovery by providing a welcome break for Canadian taxpayers and home buyers. The equation is simple: we are reducing spending in order to cut taxes.
Reducing the personal income surtax
Personal income taxes will be cut. The personal income surtax will drop from 5 per cent of basic tax to 4 per cent on July 1, 1992 and to 3 per cent on January 1,
1993.
This will increase Canadians' after-tax income by $500 million in 1992-93, and more than $1.2 billion per year thereafter. All 14.6 million taxpayers will benefit.
The Home Buyers' Plan
We will introduce the Home Buyers' Plan to allow Canadians to use existing funds in their registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs) to buy or build a principal residence. Individuals may withdraw up to $20,000 tax-free for this purpose and repay the amount over 15 years. This measure takes effect immediately and will apply until March 1, 1993.
Action for investment, initiative and jobs
We are taking a number of actions to encourage initiative and productive investment. These measures will assist Canadian industry to create jobs.
Manufacturing and processing
The manufacturing and processing sector is vital to Canada's economy. It accounts for almost one-fifth of Canada's economy and its jobs. It operates in international markets, with over 40 per cent of its output exported, and is highly exposed to international competition. This sector has been particularly hard hit as manufacturers in Canada and other countries have been forced to restructure their operations.
To help the Canadian manufacturing and processing sector meet the challenges of globalization:

February 25, 1992
The Budget
The manufacturing and processing tax rate will be reduced from 23 per cent to 22 per cent, effective January 1, 1993, with a further reduction to 21 per cent on January 1, 1994.
The capital cost allowance rate will be increased for manufacturing and processing machinery from 25 to 30 per cent, effective for acquisitions made after today.
New activity in all sectors will be encouraged by reducing the withholding tax rate on direct dividends to 5 per cent. The government is prepared, in tax treaty negotiations, to begin reducing the rate on January 1, 1993. This will help Canada compete for international direct investment. It is particularly important now as international businesses restructure their world-wide operations.
A number of other measures in this budget will assist in financing the growth of Canada's economy and in preserving and creating jobs.
Research and development
The government recognizes the importance of research and development. Canada's system of tax incentives to support research and development is already one of the most generous in the world.
This budget commits an additional $230 million over the next five years to improve these incentives by making them more easily accessible to users.
Lifetime capital gains exemption
Currently, taxpayers can receive tax-free capital gains up to a lifetime limit of $100,000. This limit will not be changed. However, the lifetime capital gains exemption will be targeted toward more productive investments.
Capital gains accrued on real estate after February 1992 will no longer qualify for this exemption. Gains accrued prior to March 1992 will continue to qualify. This restriction does not apply to real estate used in an active business. Nor does it affect the $500,000 exemption for small business and qualified farm property.
Principal residences will continue to be fully exempt from tax on capital gains.
Small business
Small businesses are key to the healthy growth of Canada's economy. The federal tax treatment of small
businesses is among the most favourable in the world. In these difficult times, however, many small businesses are experiencing serious cash-flow problems.
In response, the government is announcing two measures to help small business:
The Small Business Financing Program will help small businesses in financial difficulty, including farmers, to obtain loans at lower interest rates.
In addition, the ceiling for loans to individual small businesses under the Small Business Loans Act will be doubled from $100,000 to $200,000.
Venture capital
Venture capital makes an important contribution to innovation, wealth creation and job creation. The government provides tax assistance to encourage venture capital investments.
In May 1985 this government provided initial support to the creation of Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Funds. These funds are growing in importance and should prove to be a useful source of venture capital.
This budget will make it easier to establish such funds and will provide further tax assistance to them.
Ethanol and methanol fuels
This budget provides important measures regarding ethanol and methanol fuels. The government will encourage the development and use of ethanol and methanol fuels made from renewable feedstocks. Such fuels offer important environmental benefits, including low levels of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide emissions.
Effective April 1,1992, we will eliminate the excise tax on the ethanol and methanol portions of blended fuels that are mainly gasoline.
A social dividend
Building a healthy economy is good social policy and good social policy helps to build a healthy economy.
Spending restraint and progress toward fiscal balance will allow the government to increase assistance to Canadian families, consistent with the values and expectations of Canadians. This social dividend is financed by spending cuts in many areas, including savings in defence in response to the changing world order.
February 25, 1992

Enriching benefits for families with children
In May 1990, on behalf of the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Convention, which aims to protect the rights of children around the world, was one of the main agenda items at the World Summit for Children which the Prime Minister co-chaired later that year. On December 11, 1991, the Prime Minister announced that Canada has formally ratified the Convention.
My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has been consulting Canadians on how best to meet the needs of children in Canada. As part of a package of measures he is developing to strengthen support for children, he has recommended a major reform of the existing system of child benefits.
Under the current system $4.5 billion in financial assistance is provided to families with children through the family allowance and the tax system. This has evolved over the years into a patchwork of measures which is neither well-targeted nor easily understood.
Under the proposals outlined by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, child benefits will be completely restructured and substantially enriched.
There will be one monthly child benefit. Unlike the family allowance, it will not be subject to tax. Children under the age of 18 will be eligible.
The new benefit will include a new eamed-income supplement- of up to $500 per year for low-income working families with children.
The benefit will be as much as $144 per month for one child, for a total of $1,733 per year. Benefits will be targeted toward lower- and middle-income families.
The new system will increase total federal child benefits by $400 million per year.
The single monthly payment will make the system simpler and more responsive to family needs.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is releasing a White Paper that outlines details of this important proposal. The package that he has developed reflects this government's commitment to the family and to the well-being of children, a commitment vital to the Canadian way of life.
The Budget
This budget proposes two further measures affecting the taxation of families effective for the 1993 income tax year.
The maximum child care expense deduction will be increased by $1,000-to $5,000 for each child under age seven and to $3,000 for other eligible children. This will benefit 600,000 taxpayers, 75 per cent of whom are women in the work force.
In addition, common-law couples will be treated the same as married couples under the tax system. This will ensure consistent tax treatment of different types of families-a key element in improving the fairness of the tax system. Existing tax disadvantages to the traditional family unit will be eliminated.
Assisting Canadians with disabilities
Over the past several years, and in many of our budgets, this government has dramatically improved assistance for Canadians with disabilities. This past September, the Prime Minister announced a $158 million Strategy for the Integration of Persons With Disabilities. This budget builds on this record of action.
We will expand the definition of expenses eligible for the medical expenses tax credit. We will also broaden the range of expenses eligible for the tax deduction, introduced in the 1991 budget, for modifications by businesses to buildings and devices to assist Canadians with disabilities.
We will make the education tax credit available to disabled individuals who attend a post-secondary educational institution on a part-time basis.
We will recognize disability pensions under the Canada Pension Plan and Quebec Pension Plan as earned income for purposes of contributions to registered retirement savings plans.
More than 400,000 disabled persons currently benefit from assistance through the tax system. These changes reflect a constructive process of ongoing consultations with representatives of Canadians with disabilities. These consultations will continue and will focus, in particular, on how to alleviate work disincentives for persons with disabilities.
Increasing the education credit
The budget provides additional tax relief to students.

February 25, 1992
The Budget
The amount on which the education credit is calculated will be increased by one-third from $60 to $80 per month of full-time study.
The limit on the total amount of tuition fee and education credits which may be transferred to another taxpayer will be raised from $600 to $680.
These measures will assist all full-time post-secondary students.
In addition, my colleague, the Secretary of State, will be negotiating new arrangements for student loans with financial institutions. The expected savings will provide scope to improve the Canada Student Loans Program and to eliminate the 3-per-cent administration fee on student loans.
Retirement planning and savings
This budget provides greater flexibility in retirement planning by extending the payout period for registered retirement income funds over the lifetime of the holder.
We will also delay by one year the phase-in of higher contribution limits for registered pension plans and RRSPs.
Streamlining government and improving service
To streamline government, we will eliminate, consolidate, defer or privatize a total of 46 government agencies, boards, commissions, corporations and advisory bodies.
Among the agencies that we will eliminate are the following:
the Petroleum Monitoring Agency
the Pay Research Bureau
the Law Reform Commission
the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security
the Economic Council of Canada
the Science Council of Canada, and
the Demographic Review Secretariat.
We will consolidate the operations of several other agencies, to save overhead and focus resources. For example:
the Patent Appeal Board, the Trade Mark Opposition Board and the Copyright Board will be merged into a new Intellectual Property Tribunal;
the offices of the Privacy and Information Commissioners will be merged;
the mandate of the Canada Council will be expanded to include the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and international cultural programs now run by the Department of External Affairs.
As well, 13 advisory councils will be terminated.
As a result of these actions, there will be 160 fewer government appointments and 500 fewer employees. Savings will amount to $22 million per year on an ongoing basis.
The government will continue to privatize Crown corporations and will take a more aggressive approach to the disposal of assets. We will sell our interest in the Co-operative Energy Corporation. We will examine, on a priority basis, the feasibility of privatizing the Royal Canadian Mint, the Cape Breton Development Corporation and the Blainville Motor Vehicle Test Centre.
We will sell surplus lands at Downsview, Pickering and elsewhere in Canada. And we will sell properties abroad that are no longer needed-including properties in Paris, Bordeaux and Washington.
Improving service to Canadians
Canada benefits from one of the most highly regarded, professional and competent public services in the world. For some time now, as part of Public Service 2000, the government has been encouraging a process of revitalization and modernization -to ensure that Canadians continue to be well served by their federal public service.
An important part of this process is to free up the creativity and entrepreneurial spirit of public servants- to cut away the red tape and allow them to do their job of serving the public better. Consistent with this approach, this budget proposes a number of measures to allow public servants to better serve the public.
Federal departments and agencies offering related services to individuals and businesses will take all reasonable steps to bring their services together in one place.
Procedures for dealing with the federal government will be simplified. Currently, businesses may need up to six different registration numbers in their dealings with the federal government. We will move toward a single registration number. We will make greater use of simplified tax forms. We will develop standards of service to promote more accessible hours of service and faster response times.
February 25, 1992

We will implement a department-by-department review of existing regulations, beginning with Agriculture Canada, Transport Canada and Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Existing regulations that should be kept will have to be publicly rejustified. The government will ask the Standing Committee on Finance to assist in this process and report by September 30, 1992.
These actions are part of an ongoing process to streamline government organization and improve service to the public. The government will welcome suggestions for further action from any member of the House or from any Canadian who is watching.
Sustaining progress in the medium term
The measures in this budget will improve the economic and social well-being of Canadians. They are being implemented within a responsible and prudent fiscal plan. Reallocation to meet new priorities will not compromise deficit reduction.
Over the next five years, program spending will grow on average by only 3 per cent per year. Our spending will be within the limits of the proposed Spending Control Act.
The deficit will fall to $27.5 billion in the upcoming fiscal year, decline further to $22.5 billion in 1993-94 and decline continually thereafter.
Financial requirements will be eliminated in 1995-96. We will then begin to reduce our outstanding debt in the financial markets for the first time since 1969-70.
As we continue to make progress on the deficit and the debt, we will achieve a crucial objective for Canada: to increase our capacity to cut taxes further and make strategic investments in the economic and social development of our country and its people.
Our progress in restoring this flexibility will be measured by the steady reduction in the share of each tax dollar that will be required to pay for interest on the public debt. From more than 35 cents in 1990-91, it will drop to about 30 cents in 1992-93. By mid-decade it will fall further to about 25 cents.
The Budget
For all Canadians that has to be welcome news. This is a burden that has been sapping Canada's financial capacity to provide the services required from a strong central government. The reversal of this trend that I refer to today is one of fundamental importance to Canada's fiscal integrity and economic well-being.
I am tabling the budget documents including Notices of Ways and Means Motions. Details of the measures are included in the documents.
Pursuant to an order of this House, I will introduce today a bill seeking borrowing authority for the 1992-93 fiscal year.
I am asking that an order of the day be designated for consideration of those motions.
Conclusion
This budget is about listening to Canadians and responding to their views with leadership and action.
But it is not just about the initiatives that I have announced to take effect tonight and in the months ahead. This is about charting a course for the future.
It is a challenging, complex and far from certain future, but a future that is full of opportunity for Canada.
To meet the test of that future, our job as Canadians is to harness our skills, our knowledge, our initiative, our resources and our strength through partnership and co-operation.
In the consultations leading to the budget, I was inspired by the realism of Canadians and their willingness to contribute to the building of a stronger, more productive economy.
There are many different ways that we can contribute-as many ways as there are Canadians.
In the budget last year, the government introduced the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account. This Account receives the revenues from the GST and the proceeds of privatization of Crown corporations, and ensures that the money will not be used to fund new spending initiatives, but will be used to pay the servicing costs of the debt and eventually to pay down the debt. The fund has one other source of revenues -contributions from Canadians. During the first 10 months of the current fiscal year no less than $375,000 has come to the fund in this way. As Minister of Finance, I want to express my gratitude for these contributions to Canada.

February 25, 1992
Government Order
At the same time I would be remiss if I did not extend a sincere invitation to others who may wish to support the fight against the nation's debt in a similar way.
There is another kind of contribution to Canada that I hope all Canadians will make in the coming months. It is to reach a little deeper into the reservoir of tolerance and co-operation upon which this country has been built, and to work together to preserve and renew the unity of our country. In this way we will remove the single greatest obstacle to our future prosperity.
By working together on all our national challenges we can ensure that we will do what our parents did, and theirs before them: to build for their children an even better Canada than they inherited.
To meet this challenge we must renew our pride as Canadians: pride in producing goods and services that can compete with the best in the world, pride in being citizens of a country which is the envy of the rest of the world.
I am confident from listening to Canadians that we are ready to face this challenge and to win and, by winning, provide a more prosperous, more promising and more secure future for all Canadians.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. minister have unanimous consent to introduce the bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1992-93 MEASURE TO ENACT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing on April 1, 1992.


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


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, there is only one true test, only one real measure of this budget that counts for anything, and that is what this budget does for those 1.5 million Canadians without jobs and what it does to help our economy get moving again with strong and meaningful growth. By that measure this budget is nothing more than an abject failure.

In light of this test, this budget is a total failure. [English]
It is a failure because instead of a strong reduction in unemployment this year, and even after taking into account what the minister claims are measures to help Canadian families and businesses, this country will still have an unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent and an unemployment rate of about the same level next year. There is nothing in this budget to bring about the strong growth this country desperately needs.

There is nothing in this budget to create a really strong economic recovery for this country.

The Minister of Finance does not admit this failure. He does not mention it in his budget speech but it is there, it is set out, hidden in the budget papers. Look at page 41. Here are the government's own words and I quote:
Taken together, annual growth this year and next still remains well
below the 4.7 per cent average of growth in the 1983 and 1984
recovery period.
Also the Minister of Finance has the nerve, il a le toupet, to stand up in this House to boast about a tax cut for individual Canadians. There is no cut in the basic personal income tax rates. Instead it is a small cut, not the elimination of a special surtax imposed on all Canadians by this government since it took office.
Let us see what this supposedly generous Minister of Finance and government has done for Canadians. Let us look at the chart on page 135 of the budget papers. For a one-earner couple with two children earning an average income of $40,000, the minister is giving them a surtax cut of $27, after raising their taxes by more than $1,000 since 1984. For a one-earner couple with two children, earning $20,000 a year, he gives them a cut of $6.
February 25, 1992

Guess what Mr. Generosity, the Minister of Finance, is giving to a family earning $15,000. It is $2 a year-$2 from two-buck Maz. No wonder I say that even this Minister of Finance is not going to be able to sell Canadians a used budget like this one.
In other words, for the poorest of the poor in this country, the Minister of Finance is giving a tax cut of 50 cents this year for each member of a family of four with an income of only $20,000. You cannot say the Minister of Finance does not give a damn for poor Canadians. At least he is giving them 50 cents a year for each member of a family of four.
Government Order
This budget has no heart, no hope for Canadians without jobs il n'y a aucun espoir dans ce budget pour les Canadiens sans emploi. It is clear this budget is an abject and abysmal failure because it simply does not do what it has to do. It does not get Canada working again. That is why I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), the motion is deemed adopted. Consequently this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 26, 1992