1992-11-30

Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent) moved: that Bill C-301, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (financial administration), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise this morning to lead off Private Members' Business hour. We are here to discuss Bill C-301, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act. It is a bill that I thought would never see the light of day, just like many other very worth-while private members' bills that have great merit but did not get the luck of the draw.
I am very proud of this bill. I am in this House as an elected member of Parliament to duly represent the great people of Kent. It is their views, opinions, ideas and concerns that Bill C-301 expresses as legislation. This bill is in direct response to the concerns of my constituents. That is my job. I listen to the grassroots, and this bill is a concrete example.
A consistent theme in most every piece of correspondence I get is that people are tired of government spending that gives no thought whatsoever to the average taxpayer. They are fed up with paying taxes, while the deficit goes up and the debt soars. These letters from my riding are not from one certain income group, job category or particular area of the riding.
The notion of big government not managing our money properly is coming from farmers, factory workers,
students, housewives, small business owners, teachers and the list goes on. I hear it in my riding and I hear it from other members of Parliament on both sides of the House. This bill will go a long way toward restoring accountability to federal programs. It is what the people of Kent are telling me. I believe it is what the Canadian people want. On top of that, it is what the Auditor General suggested last week after issuing his annual report to Parliament.
If we ensure a strict monitoring of funds spent by federal departments it will help recover and regain some of the lost respect for this institution of Parliament and for individuals members of Parliament. Therefore, it is in that light that I present this bill here today.
I believe I am merely reflecting the views of average Canadians who are dismayed and disheartened with lack of accounting for how taxpayer dollars are spent. I will not necessarily get into a debate on the merits of the current government's handling of our finances. There are spending horror stories from every party, whoever governed this country.
This bill does not debate the past, but concentrates instead on the future to make every department fully and completely accountable to Parliament and thus to the Canadian people.
I have called Bill C-301 the common sense bill. It is a votable bill. While it may not be perfect, I hope the government side will look at it carefully before rejecting it out of hand. When .we think about it, the bill makes sense just about every way we look at it. It is what the taxpayers want and deserve.
How does the bill work? Quite simply. All government programs and expenditures would have to be costed out fully and completely before they are implemented. As well, any cost overruns would need special authorization. It requires long-term planning by cabinet ministers; they would be forced to present to Parliament a detailed report showing any program's cost and its effects on the economy, environment, employment and social programs to the extent that it is possible.

November 30, 1992
Private Members' Business
This would be done several months before any program is approved to ensure that taxpayers get value for their money. Furthermore, a minister would be required to report any spending above the budget estimate and the reasons for such overspending. All detailed financial statements to Parliament would be automatically referred to the Auditor General and the public accounts committee for close inspection. This would eliminate hiding the true costs, since we all have to pay taxes. Let us make sure the money is not wasted.
I believe that by forcing federal departments and projects to stay within their budgets or to be forced to deal with specific questions on their failure to do so, taxpayers will get more value for their money.
There is no question that if those spending the money know they are being watched closely and will have to answer questions concerning their actions, they will spend money more wisely. At the present time there is not that concern.
I know of a recent federal project which was budgeted at $30 million, and later came in at approximately $200 million. We need to know why there was such a cost overrun, but under the present accounting system it takes special effort.
If this bill had been in effect such checks would be done as a matter of course. There would be no need to go to great lengths to get the answers and no bureaucratic red tape hiding the facts. The bill would prevent the bureaucratic shell game. We would know exactly how much is being spent, barring any unforeseen circumstances like an emergency or something, with greater scrutiny of excess costs.
Currently I believe there is an inherent attitude in the federal system which encourages overspending and waste. Right now if a program was allocated $100 million, and by fiscal year end has actually cost only $80 million, the administrators of the program look for ways to spend the remainder so that the next year they will not have their allocation cut. We should be rewarding those people who bring in programs under budget effectively and efficiently. With no real check on how money is
spent, we are in fact telling them to spend every penny, needed or not, if they want more next year.
I will now get more specific with regard to this bill. It provides Parliament with better historical and long-term information on financial planning. Subsection 30(3) of the Financial Administration Act would be repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Every warrant issued under the section shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it is issued, and a statement showing all warrants issued under the section, the amounts of those warrants, and a detailed statement of the purposes to which the payment was supplied and the reason for the urgency shall be laid by the President of the Treasury Board before the House of Commons within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session of Parliament.
The only change from the current wording is the sentence on the detailed statement. The purpose of this amendment is to give Parliament more information on the special warrants passed.
The Financial Administration Act is further amended by adding, immediately after section 42 thereof, the following heading and sections:
Part 3 is "long-term planning". Section 42.1 involves the creation of a new program.
It states:
Where a new program is to be established requiring the expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the minister responsible shall, prior to the commencement of the fiscal year in which the program is to be continued or established, lay before Parliament a statement showing:
The objectives of the program;
The estimated total cost of the program over its proposed life, and the method by which the cost has been estimated;
the estimated funds that will be required over the first five years;
the anticipated effects of the program on the economy, environment, employment, and social programs;
the appropriation out of which the programs will be funded.
A new section 42.2 deals with excess cost. If the minister is informed that the cost of a program will be more than planned, he or she may lay before Parliament a statement showing the amount and reasons for the excess cost for the year, and all the alternatives that were considered before concluding that the excess was unavoidable.
November 30, 1992

A new section 42.3 would deal with the Auditor General. Judging from his recommendations last week, I think he would be very pleased with this section. It states: "Every statement shall be automatically referred to the Auditor General who shall submit to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts a report on the statement and the program".
As well, a new section 42.4 would require that when a minister submits his spending estimates to Parliament for a fiscal year, information must be included on how much was spent the two previous years and how much he will expect to spend in the next four fiscal years. This would prevent government spending boondoggles like the green plan. Here was a project costing $3 billion but we do not know how much is being spent along the way. It is as if the Tories were saving up for an election.
Money for a project is announced, great publicity is generated but nothing gets done. A project should start at zero, needs are determined, and then come up with a figure.
I mentioned before about how this bill could help the Auditor General in his efforts as the watchdog of the Canadian taxpayer. He said in his news conference last week that it was time average Canadians got the straight goods on our financial problems and that public servants and politicians had better start delivering. I have been hearing that message from my riding and that is why this bill was presented for first reading on September 24, 1991.
After tabling his second report on government operations, Denis Desautels said he was pushing for truth in budgeting. I quote:
Too often Parliament is asked for spending approval in advance with no idea what the final tab will be. Things are done on a two-step basis: a little bit now, a little bit later. We want to get away from that.
I could not agree with him more. I believe Bill C-301 will make great strides in the direction that our non-partisan, independent, neutral Auditor General suggests. He has sharply criticized the Public Service and MPs for misleading Canadians about how their tax dollars are being spent. He said that the Canadian taxpayer is the victim of continuing bureaucratic waste and department sleight-of-hand, while serious cracks are developing in the essential services Canadians depend on.
I was very pleased to see that the Auditor General put his grievances into three categories: taxpayers' money
Private Members' Business
that has been wasted with no justification; taxpayers' money potentially at risk because controls are not in place to do a proper accounting; and, finally, money misspent through bad planning.
I have said time and again that the people of Kent in southwestern Ontario and indeed people all across Canada want to know that their hard earned tax dollars are being put to good use. Bill C-301 is a step in the right direction.
The Auditor General said last week that some departments continue to ignore the rules by not properly tendering government contracts. Industry, science and technology was raked over the coals for awarding $3.3 million in contracts without bids in competition. The prosperity initiative entered into 22 deals without competitive bids for contracts of up to $1 million. No statement was laid before Parliament showing how much money was needed and why. It takes the Auditor General to tell us in an annual report all these things.
We as parliamentarians and as watch-dogs of the public purse should be told these things here in Parliament before the Canadian people. By not doing so and by adding to the examples the Auditor General has given us only adds to the cynicism and mistrust Canadians have for all politicians in general. By working together, we can change all that.
The Auditor General stated: "There is a general widespread breakdown of management controls, including fundamental parliamentary controls. Canadians are very worried about the impact of the annual deficit and the accumulated national debt on their standard of living. We must tackle this issue head on".
In conclusion, playing the game properly and bringing in projects under budget in the private sector means good news and added profits. In government it means next year's budget is reduced. I believe that most Canadians would not object so strongly to carrying a heavy tax burden if they were convinced the money was being properly spent.
I hope everyone can see this bill as a breath of fresh air. I know that many MPs are so-called ordinary Canadians when they are elected to office, but something strange seems to happen when they get to Ottawa. They seem to forget about being ordinary Canadians and instead become politicians.

November 30, 1992
Private Members' Business
I had the opportunity of being a councillor and the head of a municipality for many years before entering federal politics. To many members of Parliament, this level of government is known as the minor leagues, but whether it is industry, sports or politics one must have a solid foundation on which to build.
As a leader of our municipality, we would strive for a balanced budget so the ratepayers knew where we stood. Our plans were done five years in advance and updated every year. Whether it is federal, provincial, regional, county or municipal government the money comes from just one source, you and I, the taxpayers.
This is what Bill C-301 is all about. At the beginning of the year our budget was addressed and we kept it throughout the year. Many members will say yes, but what happens in an emergency? The budget would fail. This does not have to be the case. You have to adjust, whether it is municipal or federal.
We had three emergencies during my tenure as head of the municipality of Dover township. There were three floods, two of which were very severe, causing millions of dollars in damage. Nearly one-third of the township was below lake level. We were spending nearly $500,000 a year on repairing interior dikes and drainage ditches which were filled with sediment after every flood.
To solve this problem, under the initiative of council we built the largest drainage pumping works in Canada to service the area at a cost of approximately $1 million. Now there are no repairs needed to the interior dikes for drainage ditches. This pumping scheme was originally slated to be built six years earlier when the ARDA dike was built around the township at a cost of $17 million to the federal, provincial and municipal levels. The upper tiers of government disallowed the pumping works because of the great cost. It was about $450,000 at that time. We were able to prove a saving of approximately $300,000-plus a year with it in place.
Bill C-301 is designed to plan projects properly so that this does not happen in the future to other areas of Canada. I could quote many other government projects in our area of southwestern Ontario where funding was wasted by the millions of dollars.
I urge all members to support this bill. A vote for Bill C-301 shows support for the average taxpayer. A vote in favour shows support for the independent and non-partisan Auditor General of Canada. A vote for this bill is a vote for common sense for a change. This bill is a result of listening. I want to thank my constituents for enabling me to represent some of their views by way of this private members' bill.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-301, proposed by the hon. member for Kent.
The bill seeks to amend the Financial Administration Act in three areas: special Governor General warrants, long-term planning and the tabling of public accounts. Each of these amendments seeks greater accountability of the government to this House. Each requires that the government provide further information in order for this House to deliberate where the taxpayers' money is being spent effectively.
At first glance, most hon. members from both sides of the House would be inclined to agree that adequate information and accountability are absolutely essential in the democratic government of the House to fully exercise its responsibilities. The intentions are worthy. The hon. member has given careful thought to the manner in which the Financial Administration Act might be amended to enable this House to keep closer watch on how money has been spent and how it will be spent in the future.
When we take a closer look at what the hon. member proposes, we will want to consider whether the proposed amendments are in the best interests of this House.
While this House might welcome new responsibilities and powers to oversee government spending, I do not think that we would want to invoke requirements that inhibit the ability of the government to govern effectively. Least of all, do we want to impose a regime that would inhibit the ability of the government to provide accurate and quality information to this House? These are issues that we must address in the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Kent.
November 30, 1992

In the case of special Governor General warrants, the amendments would require added information to be tabled in the House by the President of the Treasury Board and would change the time frame in which warrants can be issued.
I would remind the House that special Governor General warrants can be issued to provide the government with funds only when three conditions have been met. Those conditions are carefully spelled out in the Financial Administration Act.
First of all, Parliament must not be in session because it is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned. Second, there are payments to be made which are urgently required for the public good. Finally, there is no appropriation in which the payment may be charged.
The use of special Governor General warrants are restricted to situations in which all three of these conditions are met. The Financial Administration Act limits their use to these conditions in order to strike a balance.
On one hand, the government must not be left without recourse to funding when conditions spelled out in the act are in place; Parliament is not in session, the government urgently needs the funding or has no other means in raising available revenues. On the other hand, however, is the power invested in Parliament to vote supply. The rule that public expenditures require the authority of Parliament is the bedrock of our democracy. It means that government must call Parliament into session. It is similar in importance to the convention that the government cannot levy taxes without the authority of Parliament.
Some members of this House are concerned that irresponsible use of special warrants would detract from the ability of Parliament to hold the government to account. Special warrants have been used in different circumstances for over 100 years. The most recent examples involved the use of four warrants in 1989. This House will recall that prior to the 1988 election, the second session of the 33rd Parliament had met continuously for almost 24 months. Following the election, Parliament was convened for a mere three weeks in order to pass the free trade agreement legislation.
Parliament then recessed but not before the government had informed the House of the need for further supply in the 1988-89 fiscal year. It tabled supplementary estimates B on December 16, 1988. Later the House
Private Members' Business
adjourned and subsequently prorogued and the government requested the Governor General to approve special warrants. The President of the Treasury Board tabled documents pertaining to the warrants after Parliament reconvened in 1989.
The use of those special warrants was consistent with the nine other instances that special warrants were used since the Financial Administration Act was passed in 1951. The system has not been abused. The government has acted responsibly within the parameters of the Financial Administration Act.
The bill before us today of the hon. member for Kent would have the President of the Treasury Board report to Parliament 15 days after resumption. The president would explain the rationale behind the issuance of special warrants, including the purpose for the expenditures and why the matter was so urgent that Parliament could not be reconvened to settle the matter in a supply motion.
This House will recall that in the resumption of the first session in April 1989 two such statements on warrants were issued. In the winter of 1989 they were tabled by the President of the Treasury Board and prepared in the general format of supply or of supplementary estimates. They provided an explanation for the requirement of the additional appropriation. However, they did not address why the need for supply was considered urgent.
Under the Financial Administration Act the appropriate minister determines the urgency. The President of the Treasury Board can attest to this urgency in his report to the Governor in Council before a warrant is submitted to the Governor General. The president is not required to include information regarding the urgency of the warrants in his report to Parliament.
This House might consider whether such a statement might improve the ability of Parliament to monitor government expenditures. The amendment would place additional pressure on the government to justify the use of special warrants. We might ask ourselves whether additional measures are needed as outlined in Bill C-301, but I would emphasize that any decision to amend the Financial Administration Act should not restrict the government's ability to issue warrants under conditions now specified in the act.

November 30, 1992
Private Members' Business
The government will continue to require access to supply at times when Parliament is not in session, when there is an urgent need and when no other source of appropriation is available. That is where I believe this bill may go too far.
The hon. member for Kent wants us to redefine the period that Parliament is deemed to be not in session when it adjourns. The current period is 15 days. The member for Kent would like to see this extended to 90 days.
I can think of many instances where Parliament might adjourn for up to 90 days for reasons that would receive the full support of this House. The recent referendum campaign is a case in point. Under the amendments before us this House would have had to reconvene in the middle of the referendum debate had the government run out of funds. This would not have served the interest of the nation.
Hon. members from all parties worked hard in the referendum campaign. It was important to us to work in our constituencies to explain the provisions of the Charlottetown accord. There are times when our duty to our constituents and our country is better served through our presence in the ridings. These are times when the government will need to use special warrants in periods where Parliament is not in session for two or three months.
I believe it would be a mistake to give away the possibility of using special warrants at any time that Parliament is not in session. It would be preferable to retain the current provision so that the government would not be constrained under any eventuality by supply provisions.
The second issue covered by the hon. member's bill concerns long-term planning. The question at hand is whether the government has the responsibility to prepare strategic plans or whether the plans should be submitted to Parliament for approval. The hon. member for Kent proposes that when a new program is established the government table information concerning a number of long-term considerations. He wants the government to outline the long-term cost profile and
any changes to that profile. He also wants to give the Auditor General an opportunity to review and comment on the information.
This is a proposal that flies in the face of parliamentary tradition. It represents a significant shift in the balance between the government and Parliament. It would threaten the ability of governments to plan strategically. Worst of all, it could compromise the quality of information that governments now use to assess various longterm options.
The member's proposals means that specific decisions of the Treasury Board which are confidences of the Queen's Privy Council would be tabled in Parliament. The proposal requires that the Auditor General would rule on the validity of methods employed to estimate the cost of a program and to give an opinion on whether or not a proposal is reasonable.
The Auditor General serves this House very effectively by assessing whether value for money has been provided. I do not think that we should cloud this service by making the Auditor General a commentator before the fact on the government's long-term objectives. That is not a matter for accounting; it is a matter for political decision making.
The hon. member for Kent also proposes that a seven-year expenditure profile be provided for each vote in the estimates. This would be given information on two previous years, the estimate year and the four future years.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the main estimates-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. member's time has now expired.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it seems particularly suitable that this bill come before the House shortly after the Auditor General's report because its aim is to start a process to control better cabinet money spending opportunities.
Back a few years ago a committee of finance called the Cooper committee after its chairman gave an opening statement entitled "The Proposal for Improvement". It read:
November 30, 1992

The present budgetary process of developing and enacting tax and fiscal measures is inadequate. It fosters uncertainty, discourages efficiency, obstructs progress and hampers the proper functioning of government. It is time to get on with the job of bringing much needed improvement to the process.
The process of financial control of government is the concern of all Canadian citizens. As a member of this House who is a layman relative to finance, I share the concern and the responsibility the member for Kent shows and I share the responsibility to do something about it.
First, we as members have an obligation to the people of Canada in regard to the use of public funds. Second, we as members therefore have a responsibility to scrutinize how the money is spent. Third, we have a responsibility to do something about it if we believe that it is not spent well. The third responsibility is where the process breaks down. Bill C-301 is a modest attempt to start doing something about parliamentary control of cabinet power.
Our present structure does nothing about sharing cabinet authority with Parliament. At present Parliament is asked to sign the cheque but not to question cabinet authority to spend it as it pleases.
Successive Auditors General have made statements which are really variations of Macdonell's statement that government spending was out of control. They have all given many examples to prove that statement. The most telling proof I suppose is the continuing and growing deficit of this particular government.
We could spend a lot of time discussing the reasons for the deficit but it is obvious that this government, as did the previous one, is finding it impossible to keep the spending under control and is forced to settle in most years for trying to limit the rate of increase of the deficit. This obviously is not enough.
The reason we have a budget is to lay down the strategy for revenue and spending. The budget does not have a life of its own. The budget is part of a continuum which includes planning, which is legislation, budgeting, estimates, expenditures and public accounts. As part of that continuum the budget should be a management tool which is used to implement the planning which has manifested itself in the legislation which Parliament has passed in each case.
Private Members' Business
This bill suggests that the budget and estimates should be linked in the planning process so that Parliament will have some knowledge of what items are being suggested and how much they will cost. It attempts to make the planning and costing process automatic in its reporting to Parliament.
At present the estimates seem to have a life of their own with no particular relationship to the budget. Nor do they have any relation to public accounts. In fact I would challenge anyone to follow through the three processes-budget, estimates and public accounts-and explain to any logical, sane person what is the relationship of the numbers in the three programs.
To follow through on the continuum, estimates are in no way reflected in public accounts. There are reasons for this. Most of them are taken from successive reports of Auditors General. They are things like supplementary estimates which keep coming down at almost any off time, $1 votes, revolving funds, net voting which is not inconsistent with the requirements of the particular project, vote transfers, the envelope system, acts which define accounting procedures such as UI and pensions, formula spending and statutory votes, spending changes started without parliamentary authority, one recommendation made by the Auditor General in his last report, and budget changes brought about after estimates are passed.
These items show two things. They show a lack of the continuum and a lack of any responsibility between spending and parliamentary authority. All those points I mentioned above contribute the government's spending being out of control.
Government and Parliament need to take a global look at the financial operations. The present piecemeal approach is incongruous and contributes to the out of control spending. Besides attempting to force the government to look at the costs of its actions ahead of time, a lesson it should have learned back in 1982-83 when the research tax credit scandal was in place, and restricting spending by cabinet without parliamentary approval, we should suggest more restrictive actions than there are in this particular bill, restrictive actions such as no supplementary estimates, restrictive actions such as no $1 votes and restrictive actions such as having all increases to statutory votes require enabling legislation.

November 30, 1992
Private Members' Business
Back in November 1982 the hon. Ron Huntington, MP, and the hon. Claude-Andre Lachance, MP, jointly produced a paper entitled Accountability-Closing the Loop. I recommend this paper to all members of Parliament.
This bill should be supported. It is one small step in an attempt to control all phases of finance. It is an attempt for Parliament to see what is going on so that the loop can be closed and that every phase of every department and agency fits into the continuum somewhere and can be scrutinized for its adherence to the plan and the spending within that plan. It suggests that departmental estimates be subject to the paper, Closing the Loop, that departments be subject to committee's veto if they have not spent the money well in the past. Without such action we are bound to have further Auditors General tell us that spending is out of control. That is his polite way of telling us that we do not know what we are doing.
Without action we are doomed to more deficits and more puzzlement on the part of the people of Canada about whether or not the government really has any control over its finances.
Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for Science): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in the debate on Bill C-301.


Mr. Mills:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am just seeking clarification from the Chair. Does the rotation not come back to our side of the House after the NDP?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Yes. The rotation is between the two sides of the House.
I think you are right. It is Private Members' Business and I will give the floor to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Mr. Domm:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. By way of clarification, it is my understanding that they will then have had three members speak from that side of the House and we will only have had one.
If I am not allowed to speak because of some standing order I will respect that. However, I thought it was two speakers from that side and then back to our side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This is a Private Member's bill, and since the mover is a member of the
opposition I think it is not unreasonable, after recognizing a member with a different view, to recognize the opposition again and then immediately afterward, a member on the government side. In these matters the Chair always tries to encourage a balanced debate, and I think that considering the time we have left, we will have a chance to hear a range of views on this question.
I will recognize the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood and immediately afterward, the hon. member for Peterborough.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, through you to the government side of the House, when my time has expired government members obviously will have another opportunity to put their point of view forward.
I probably would have been a little bit more generous in giving up the time to the government had I thought that it was going to support the motion. In fact I was shocked when I listened to the member this morning, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, basically opposing the motion.
For the last eight years this government has been talking about this kind of accountability or control on reviewing and monitoring expenditures in trying to make sure that any waste or possible mistakes in the use of taxpayers' money are under a more rigid surveillance.
When my colleague, the member for Kent, approached me to speak on this bill, I said to him that I would not be surprised if there happened to be unanimous consent to pass this particular bill. As we were chatting about this this morning, I said: "This sounds to me like a motion that the government would put forward". Therefore, I was shocked. That is why I have to stick to my position here and support my colleague.
Speaking about him for a minute, the hon. member for Kent has been consistent on this point for the last four years, not only in this House but also in committee and in his community. I had the pleasure of working with him in his riding and speaking at one of his functions in Chatham just a couple of years ago. At that time he was talking about this kind of accountability in government. He has been consistent and unwaivering on this. This is the kind of thing the people of Canada want to see.
November 30, 1992

If the government had lived up to its campaign promises made in 1983 and 1984 before it came to power, that it was going to put the brakes on government expenditures and was going to streamline the government system, then perhaps there would be no need for a a bill like this. Government members said: "Listen, bring us to power and we will put control on government expenditure and we will look after the deficit and debt of this nation".
In 1984 when we left power there was a deficit of $180 billion. It must be remembered that half of that deficit was accumulated during the recession period of 1981 and 1982 and part of 1983. Is it not interesting that eight years later we are sitting with a debt that is probably close to $460 billion by now. I am not saying that it is not a difficult job to get a handle on the deficit and debt of this nation, but a creative idea has been put forward by someone on our side of the House.
The government is always challenging us to put forward new ideas and my colleague, the member for Kent, has pul forward a constructive and creative idea that would be normal practice in a business environment or in any household. When a price has been given for building a new porch, for redoing a roof or for a paint or plumbing job, a bill for twice or three times the budgeted amount cannot be handed in after the job is completed.
We have had situations in this system, in the bureaucracy of government, time and time again where the budgeted amount has gone right out the window. The final amount is sometimes six or seven times the original budgeted amount. To think that there is no process for accountability on that until sometimes one or two years later is wrong.
My colleague's bill is very constructive. Once again, when we challenge the government to act on its words, it walks away.
I want to refer to a specific clause in Bill C-301. The opening sentence of paragraph 42(l)(d) reads:
Where a new programme is to be established requiring the
expenditure of money appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue
Fund, the Minister who is to be responsible for the administration of
Private Members' Business
the programme shall, prior to the commencement of the fiscal year
in which the programme is to be continued or established, lay before
Parliament a statement showing:
I want to go to part (d):
(d) The anticipated effects of the programme on the economy,
environment, employment and social programmes in Canada.
My colleague has come up with something Canadians would really expect. Why would we not be satisfied in approving a motion that would justify taxpayers' money being used in relation to factors such as the environment, employment opportunities and social programs, especially in the area of employment?
If Canadians saw that government was adding additional funds to programs directly linked to helping people get back to work, all sides of this House would be receptive to approving something like that. We could justify that action to our constituents. What is difficult to understand is when these increases to budgets happen with no rationale and no clear explanation. That is when we get blind-sided by our constituents.
The hon. member for Kent has put forward a reasonable and logical bill. I cannot believe the government is walking away from a form of accountability that it has been talking about for many years. In fact, this is the kind of bill expected from a Conservative member. My colleague from Kent is showing some of his honest, conservative leanings. Obviously, this is a good thing. I support it.
I am totally disappointed that the government cannot in its thought process get behind it. The Minister of Finance stood in this House a few days ago and said: "We are waiting for it. We are looking for ideas from the opposition on how we can improve the efficiency of government and how we can make it a better system of accountability".
Bill C-301 is an opportunity put forward by the hon. member for Kent and the government walks away from it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I will now recognize the hon. member for Peterborough, and I thank him for his courtesy and co-operation.

November 30,1992
Private Members' Business


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot do very much in one minute and 40 seconds, but I would like to use the time in the interest of all private members in the House on a point of order.
When I originally stood and my friend stood up and said that it was his turn and not mine, I understood the reason was that do we not usually go from side to side on a private member's bill. Then the Speaker stood up-if my memory serves me correctly and I would like to check the "blues"-and said that yes, it is the tradition to go from side to side during Private Members' Business.
I would just like to point out that is not what we did today. What we did is we started on that side with the Liberal member who presented the bill and that is perfectly in order. I am not questioning that. Then we moved over to our side to present another view. Then we moved back to that side for a view from the NDP and then we moved down to the other side for a view on an interjection by a Liberal member that it was really his turn and not mine.
I think there is a mistake there. I would like the opportunity to review the "blues". Then I would like the Speaker to perhaps have another look at the decision, which I believe was right, that we go from side to side on Private Members' Business. It is not three to one, three on one side and one on the other.
I think my time is up. If I am to fill another minute, the hon. member will never know whether I am for or against the bill. When he stood up his opening remark was that he assumed I was against it. I am in the government and I am a parliamentary secretary. I have not given my view that I was for or against it nor could I give and substantiate my view in the 33 seconds I have left.
I would appreciate it if the Speaker would again think about that three to one, three on one side and one on the other. Perhaps he could advise the House at this time if that is his understanding of the Standing Orders.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that I was not debating your decision. I was seeking clarification before I spoke because had I sensed from the government side that there was any support for the bill I obviously would have taken a pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Perhaps I may offer some additional clarification. Our parliamentary practice dictates that the Chair recognizes, in turn, the three main parties in this House on any motion that is presented in the House. Usually the government speaks first as the mover of the motion. Subsequently I recognize a spokesperson for the Official Opposition and a spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, and we then go back to the mover of the motion.
However, this is Private Members' Business, and the motion was presented by a member of the opposition. We recognized the three main parties, in turn, and it seemed reasonable to go back to the party of the member who moved the motion, especially since the motion will be debated on two more occasions and there will be plenty of time for members to express their views.
I think that in this kind of debate, whether there was sufficient opportunity for expressing all sides of the question, it should be assessed at the end of the three sittings during which the subject is debated. It sometimes happens that during the first session one side of the question receives more attention than the other, but I think we should judge the debate in its entirety. The Chair intends to see to it that there is a balanced expression of views during the debate in the House.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
November 30, 1992



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday November 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today to Bill C-76, a responsibility of the Department of Finance, which contains amendments to the Canada Student Loans Program. It is a fact-and I do not think this is news to hon. members and our listeners-that raising the level of education of our young people means increasing their chances of having a better income and a better quality of life. I would also say that better educated youth means a better future for this country.
The Canada Student Loans Program goes back to 1964, and since then more than two million Canadians have benefited under the program. Since 1964 the federal government has guaranteed $7.6 billion in loans. We have some idea of how the system works: the Canadian government guarantees loans made to students by financial institutions for post-secondary education. The government pays the interest on the loan while the student is at university and for six months after the course is finished.
The provinces-we must remember that education is in provincial jurisdiction-have the right to withdraw from this federal program and receive full compensation. At this time Quebec and the Northwest Territories have withdrawn from the federal program and receive financial compensation.
As for the other provinces, they receive the students' requests and decide how much to lend them. The students have nine and a half years to repay the loan
Government Orders
when they complete their studies. Furthermore, they are entitled to an 18-month period after their studies in which they do not have to repay if they are unemployed for any reason.
We see that these are very attractive conditions and the problem which has been raised many times is that the federal and provincial governments, the financial institutions which lend the money and just about everyone are trying to help young people get a better education. We also see that the costs of those who do not repay are rising very rapidly.
In one of his reports the Auditor General said that the law was rather silent on the definition of "satisfactory academic performance", for example, because the assumption is that we will pay the interest and continue to cover the loan if the student's academic performance is satisfactory. That seems somewhat theoretical and left to the discretion of the student rather than the financial institution or the provincial or federal government.
It is probably a good idea-and this is what Bill C-76 sets out to do-to make three changes that will put the program on a financially sounder footing and at the same time help increase the amounts available for needy students. We must remember that the program is intended for students who would otherwise not be able to afford a post-secondary education.
The bill contains three changes which affect this program. It terminates the six-month post-graduation criterion. In other words, the student graduates, starts working and no longer has six months grace before starting to pay interest. I think everyone realizes the federal government and the provinces have substantial financial burdens, and if we endorse a loan and pay the interest on the loan to the financial institution for two, three or four years, and the borrower, in this case the student, has nine years to pay back, I think we can expect the student to start paying the interest as soon as he graduates, which means as soon as he has finished using the loan program.
We also want to have more clear-cut arrangements with the provinces that operate under the program and those that have opted out to ensure better co-ordination, better management of taxpayers' money, both

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
nationally and with respect to the assistance our students will receive under this program.
Finally, and I think I speak for the entire government, we would like to simplify the program's administration. At the same time there is perhaps a desire to review the way financial institutions manage this program. When a borrower defaults, they call the federal government and say: "Pay up". Perhaps the program could be streamlined to make the financial institutions a little more, I wouldn't say responsible but perhaps more involved in student loans, because it is easy for a financial institution when the provincial government says that Mr. X and Ms. Y is accepted as a student who is entitled to a loan. Mr. X or Ms. Y goes to a financial institution and arranges for a loan. The institution knows the loan is 100 per cent guaranteed by the federal government and the government will pay all the interest for the duration of the courses taken by Mr. X or Ms. Y.
For the financial institution the risk is minimal. If the former student does not pay the interest or the principal according to the terms and conditions for one reason or another when his or her studies are over, the government pays anyway.
There may be a way to simplify and update this program's approach without cutting funds and reducing a student's opportunity to get an education by establishing a better, sounder administrative framework.
In 1985 the program cost $286 million; in 1991, $453 million. It has almost doubled in five years. I think that it was right and fitting for the Minister of Finance to say in the budget and in Bill C-76 that is before us today that this program will be better managed in a way that does not penalize students.
This also means a better agreement on this program between the federal government and the provinces because educating students is the provincial governments' responsibility. The federal government is there only to help. We must help, but I think that we must do so at a reasonable cost.
This is the thinking behind Bill C-76 that has been tabled and I know that the Department of the Secretary of State has already started to work with the financial institutions and with the various stakeholders. A document on student loans is being discussed with the provinces and they are being consulted on it. Federal and provincial officials have been working together on a new approach and better administration of the system so that again taxpayers' money will be spent to the best advantage and young Canadians will receive higher education which they could not afford alone or even with their families' help.
I ask the House to pass Bill C-76 as soon as possible so that everything will be in place in accordance with the provisions of the budget speech and the Canadian government will save money at the same time as it helps our young Canadians get an education.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on Bill C-76. I would like to focus on the subject of the Canada Student Loans Act in particular.
The reason I wish to speak on this particular segment is because of the importance of the student population to Canada as a whole and to the future of not only our country but the whole world.
At the time the Minister of Finance was introducing his budget, a very progressive initiative was announced by the federal government which was called "Learning Well Living Well". In it are a variety of interesting objectives and statistics which I would like to share with my colleagues and with the public at large.
One point struck me at the time. I was quite impressed by an objective of the "Learning Well Living Well" proposals. The major purpose of that particular paper was to deal with the ongoing problems in our educational system, with the productivity within our society and with a variety of other issues that deal with the question of education.
For example, I am not sure what happened to one objective at the time, whether it is still on the books or has been put on the shelf. A 10-year goal was spelled out which included cutting adult literacy rates in half, having 90 per cent of Canadians attain high school diplomas or the equivalent by the age of 25, quadrupling the amount of learning that employers provide to students through structured work experience as well as quadrupling the
November 30, 1992

Government Orders
amount of training employers provide to their regular employees, doubling community college standards and university post-graduates in science, engineering and technology, becoming a world leader in mathematics and science achievement at all levels of the school system, and finally having a system of life-long learning that would be among the world's best at setting standards of performance in accessing achievement.
One would ask why the government at the time was talking about those proposals. We on the opposition side know why there is need for some immediate action when it comes to the question of education and the question of literacy in Canada. At the present time on an annual basis we have in excess of 100,000 students who drop out before they finish high school. By doing so they are creating a growing number of functional illiterates who are largely untrainable and are increasingly an unemployable group of citizens.
Also in Canada now about 38 per cent of the Canadian population has difficulty reading or writing. That is cause for alarm. One would ask: "How can society move one step forward with these difficulties and these impediments?"
Even if we were to ignore those figures for a moment and look at what has happened in Canada from 1966 to the present, in 1966 about 25 per cent of the work force in Canada were youths. As we moved toward the 1970s and 1990s the percentage of youths in the work force began to shrink. By the year 2000, the percentage of youths in our work force will again decrease to approximately 17 per cent.
The number of students entering the work force is shrinking on a daily basis. One would say: "If that is the case something must be done". Even with these percentages approximately 30 per cent of youth are dropping out and not finishing their high school and 40 per cent of the population is functionally illiterate.
This is a very urgent matter and as we move toward the year 2000 the vast majority of jobs in Canada will demand at least 16 years of education. According to the 1990 statistics of Employment and Immigration Canada, 40 per cent of all new jobs in Canada will require more than 16 years of education. If we were to compare that with the jobs that require less than grade 12 education, about 35 per cent of the jobs would require less than grade 12 education.
In other words, unless one has a university degree by the year 2000 one's chances of finding a job in the labour force are going to be extremely slim. That is what I thought was the whole focus of "Learning Well Living Well" two years ago when the government came up with those initiatives, that something drastic had to be done.
We have seen very little in the budget to address not only the question of accessibility to post-secondary education but also the question of the quality of education we are providing to our students, as well as the kinds of accessory things the government is doing in order to make sure students are coming out of the educational system with the degree they need and are finding the jobs they require.
It is no surprise to me that the budget did not deal with that issue. In fact, if we look at the past four or five years, every time we had a federal budget one of the areas we saw being cut was that of transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education.
As such, if we were to look at the trend by the year 2004 there will be no transfer payments to the provinces from the federal government. To that extent one would only question the viability of the government proposal to address the question of education when in fact the federal government is cutting transfer payments to the provinces. By doing so it is minimizing the amount of flexibility that existed in the past in trying to pressure the provincial government to put more money toward education and to invest more in the area of education.
Student assistance in particular is a very urgent matter. As you know, Mr. Speaker, as a former student, as well as many of my colleagues in the House of Commons, many students who go to university to finish then-degrees live to a large extent below the poverty line, and we are talking about way below the poverty line.
I recall from my student days-and I am sure the student population who is watching the parliamentary channel will share this point-that students live on very little money during the year as well as while they are taking their courses. In many cases they are eating food that is not nutritional enough. Perhaps it is really affecting their health to a large extent. As it is, we are not really investing enough in education. I was quite surprised to see the provincial government was cutting the grant to the student population altogether when the provincial Government of Ontario, the NDP government, had promised to increase funding to the student population.

November 30,1992
Government Orders
I look at the federal government in this whole scene with all these alarming statistics and I think if this happened in any other G-7 country we probably would have seen an educational revolution of a very large proportion. However in Canada we seem to be content talking about it a little around budget time and talking about it whenever we have an opportunity to speak to a large group of people. In fact we are doing very little to deal with it and to address it in a tangible and effective way.
The government is not doing a lot in this area. In fact governments at the federal and provincial levels do not seem to consider it a priority. It is looking at it as a way to cut the deficit. It is looking at cutting assistance to students, cutting transfer payments to the universities and the post-secondary institutions and cutting the amount of money put into research and development. It is hoping to deal with the deficit but it is cutting off its own nose. There is no way we can deal with the question of the deficit unless we are investing in the most important sectors of our society: the educational sector and the research and development sector. Not only is the government not doing enough, the private sector does not seem to be doing a heck of a lot either.
According to information obtained in 1987, statistically only one-third of employers in the private sector have provided any kind of training to their employees when it came to education on the job. That is an extremely small percentage when it is compared with what is happening in Sweden, Japan and elsewhere.
One would wonder what is really going on in our society. We do not seem to be doing the things we should be doing to move forward and to continue providing the quality service we have provided our people over the years.
One would suggest that the federal government should try to address the fundamental problems we are faced with in terms of the educational system, in terms of research and development in industry and in terms of what the provinces are doing to address the problem.
I have seen nothing in the budget that addresses the question of transfer payments. In other words, in the past the federal government would give the money to the provinces hoping the provincial governments would use
that money to invest in education. What we have seen in the past is the provinces taking the money and spending it pretty well on anything but education.
There is nothing in the budget. I have seen nothing over the past four years being done by the government to address this particular subject. As well, I have not seen anything from the government side to try to address the objectives or the promises made to the Canadian population and to the House of Commons two years ago when we talked about dealing with the questions of literacy, drop-outs and so on.
I would like to see the government moving veiy quickly on a number of fronts. First, the government should deplore the action of the provincial government that is in the process of cutting grants to the student population. Second, the federal government should look at the promises it has made over the past two years. In fact over the last eight years we have been talking about the questions of education, literacy and research and development, and we have not seen a lot taking place. The federal government has to go back and look at those promises and bring forth something tangible now.
The government should reinstate the level of transfer payments to a level that is accessible and consistent with the needs of the student population. Somehow the federal government has to look at the whole notion of financing post-secondary education.
On a number of occasions student federations have put forward some very good proposals to the federal government addressing the question of post-secondary education, the question of accessibility and the question of assistance to students while they are finishing their education. We on the opposition side, my colleague and I, have been calling on the government on a regular basis to take tangible steps to deal with the question.
For the information of members of the House and the public, I would like to mention that over and over again institutions in the private sector, and in many cases some provinces, have been moving toward the notion of establishing a national education standard. A national education standard is the only way for us as a government, as a society and as a people to move forward with a healthy, productive society in a healthy, productive country.
November 30, 1992

Without a national education standard we will continue to have 12 different educational systems in 10 provinces and 2 territories, 12 different ways when it comes to dealing with assistance to our student population, 12 different ways of studying Canadian history, 12 different ways of dealing with the curriculum and 12 different ways of trying to deal with any question that might be facing the nation not only today but in the future. The government is equipped now more than ever before with the tools it needs to address this question and this deficiency.
A national education standard, as it was proposed by myself in 1991 in a private member's bill, Bill C-318, will help the government to address this issue. I would like to share some of the suggestions in this private members' bill.
For instance, the national standard for education stated that every person who is interested in obtaining an education would be able to obtain one regardless of his or her age, level of income or background.
It deals with the question of improved standards in mathematics and science. It addresses the question of apprenticeship programs and partnerships with the private sector in co-operative programs. It addresses the question of a national strategy to deal with the recruitment and training of the people who are in the work force, as well as those who are educating the students to be out in the work force.
The bill also addresses the question of work-load and the question of the curriculum as a whole. It calls more than anything for a partnership among all of the different levels of the government, the students, industry and the different partners such as families, special interest groups and so on.
These are some of the things the government should be doing and has not done at all in its budgets. Nor has the government addressed it in any way, with the exception of saying it wanted to deal with the question of fiscal responsibility and with cutting the deficit and this is how it can deal with it. However, we have a problem now and the government says it will deal with it at a later date. We have been waiting for that strategy for quite awhile.
Government Orders
Another issue the government has to look at is the question of summer employment for students. Since 1985 the federal government has been cutting the summer employment budget on a regular basis. In fact, in excess of 50 per cent of the total government budget for summer employment has been eliminated.
Other issues include the continuing cuts of $3.2 billion over the past five years from the federal transfer payments to the provinces. The government is taxing books and that should be eliminated.
On a final note, the government could look at the accessibility of post-secondary education to women, aboriginal students, students with disabilities and students of different backgrounds in particular.
I can see my time is running out. These are some of the reasons we have concerns with this budget as it was proposed by the minister.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened, as I usually do, to my hon. colleague in debate on this particular bill.
I have a couple of items I would like to put to him for his own views in the form of a question. The government seems to be pursuing a goal of prescribing fees in many areas. Most of them I guess are for cost recovery.
There have been areas where I have seen errors made by the government in assessing what the costs actually were. Most of the time it does get it right and I think we are heading in the right direction.
I am wondering whether my colleague believes that the government is adequately sensitive to whether the fees being charged and the structures being placed for government services, in this case in relation to the Lobbyists Registration Act, will structurally impair what we have always taken for granted in our society: that citizens can freely communicate with their government through MPs. Does the fee structure that is contemplated here, irrespective of the amount, impair the ability of citizens to adequately consult with their government through their MPs?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is referring to another section of the bill which deals with the Lobbyists Registration Act. I would like to thank him very much for his question on that particular segment of Bill C-76.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
I would suggest to my colleague that any action taken to limit the accessibility of the public to their member of Parliament would be quite unfortunate because, in fact, we were elected to do just that, to talk with the people who have elected us. Groups, institutions, organizations such as the Red Cross or some of the distinguished national organizations that on a regular basis have to deal with their members of Parliament, need access to their members of Parliament.
I would suggest that if we were to impose fees on those types of organizations we would be making it extremely difficult for them to communicate with us in an effective manner.
To that extent, this particular amendment to the Lobbyists Registration Act would hinder the flexibility of these non-profit organizations to have access to their member of Parliament and to that extent I do not like that particular point.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, today in Canada, indeed all around the world, governments are being asked to think in different terms. Just as Canadians are themselves thinking about their own budget planning in different terms, they are demanding that government adopt a new approach to fiscal planning.
Such demands to think and act differently are very strong when it comes to matters of money, particularly in times such as these. Canadians want their governments to be stewards of public money, of their money, and not spend as though from a bottomless purse. Canadians want stewardship because they know, as do hon. members of this House, that responsible, prudent, financial management of the public accounts is vital to the health of the economy of this country.
In 1984 our government's aim was and continues to be just that: prudent financial management and responsible stewardship of our financial resources. This government has been pursuing the goal of sound financial management through deficit reduction. This government is working to bring the public debt under control and is reducing inflation through its monetary policies and budgetary measures.
One such budgetary measure is before us today for consideration, Bill C-76. Bill C-76 will empower the government to use another tool with which to control the deficit. It will allow us to address head-on a matter that must be of concern to any reasonable government, indeed to any enterprise, be it private or public. The concern is the cost of doing business and of providing service to the public, or should I say recovering those costs. Cost recovery is fiscal policy that is practical and fair. It is an important tool for a government working to provide service to the public without adding to the deficit.
Three years ago we decided that the legitimate profession of lobbying should be made transparent to the public and therefore we asked lobbyists to register their activities with the government.
This bill is a priority of the government because it will allow it to recover costs now being shouldered by the taxpaying public for services that are very focused and very sector specific. I am speaking of course of the services provided by the Lobbyists Registration Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
While the beneficiary of such a specialized service is society as a whole, the cost of administering this service should be a cost of doing business as a lobbyist. I want to clear up any possible confusion that may exist about cost recovery as it pertains to lobbyists registration and the pending review of the Lobbyists Registration Act.
As hon. members will recall, when this House adopted the Lobbyists Registration Act three years ago we required that the act be reviewed after three years. What we are discussing here today, namely the recovery of costs for the registration of lobbyists, is on a completely separate track from the review of the Lobbyists Registration Act and it must be on a faster track.
Fiscal responsibility and cost recovery require prompt and separate attention. Accordingly my remarks today are focused on how best to contribute to achieving the government's economic goals as set out in the February budget and to fulfil the demands of Canadian taxpayers that their money be spent wisely and responsibly.
November 30, 1992

Bill C-76, which was introduced in this House in May, is one means of accomplishing that end. It will allow the government to establish a cost recovery structure and cost recovery levels under the Lobbyists Registration Act. Until now the cost of registration and the cost of the other services provided by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have been absorbed by the government. Given the government's priority to reducing the deficit, this clearly cannot be continued.
The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is now considering the options for the structure and level of the fees. Until this system is devised I cannot say what the charges might be or how they will be applied. What I can say however is that public consultations will be an integral part of the development of the registration fee structure and level.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, second reading is to debate the principle of the proposed legislative amendments, the principle of cost recovery and fiscal responsibility. If the House approves, hon. members and invited witnesses will have ample opportunity to offer their input and advice before the legislative committee. I can assure this House that we will give serious consideration to suggestions made at that time. In addition, the proposed regulations will as required be pre-published in The Canada Gazette, providing all Canadians an opportunity to comment.
In conclusion, I would like to tell the House that the registration fees must not be viewed as an attempt to regulate the lobbying industry, which plays an important role in the democratic process in our country and in the way it is governed. The fees in this bill should be seen instead as a cost recovery measure, nothing more, and certainly nothing less.
Registration fees will become a cost of doing business like any other business, as is the business of lobbyists. More important, the Canadian government and the Canadian taxpayer will recover the cost of ensuring that those who attempt to influence its decisions do so in the full light of day. Registration fees are not regulation. They are not a hindrance to access to government. They are integral to responsible fiscal policy: cost recovery for the benefit of every Canadian.
Government Orders


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of the New Democratic Party to open debate from our side on Bill C-76. For the benefit of the voters who are watching this debate, it is a bill which does four things. It increases the limits on business improvement loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act. It reduces the salaries of ministers of the government, including the Prime Minister. It requires that lobbyists pay a registration fee and, finally, the bill provides for certain changes in the Canada Student Loans Program.
It is on the latter that I intend to spend most of my time this morning. However, to call to the attention of the viewers what is involved and its significance, it should be pointed out that the Small Businesses Loans Act amendments would provide for an increase in the loan limits from $100,000 to $200,000, which is a change that my party certainly finds unobjectionable. The question really is whether it is of any great utility, considering the difficulties that small businesses have, even with the provisions of the Small Businesses Loans Act, in getting bank loans for the furtherance of their businesses.
This is an area of considerable concern. In fact the number of small businesses getting loans guaranteed by the federal government has decreased over the last few years as a result of the economic situation. Yet, the economic situation is somewhat dictated for a significant number of them by their inability to get loans.
Second, given what Canadians consider to be the proficiency of the ministers of the federal cabinet, for the benefit that has accrued to the populace from their activities, I do not think that this bill will be seen as enough. I think the average Canadian would prefer to see the salaries of the ministers cancelled. The only way in which one can do that is to have an election.
With respect to the registration fee for lobbyists, it makes good sense to us that services to which lobbyists have access be paid for. However, we have concerns, which have been expressed by others about the costs that might be imposed upon non-profit organizations for whom access to parliamentarians should be as free as possible. These are the people who are powerless and cannot afford to pay significant fees simply for the purpose of coming before Parliament or its committees. Talking to parliamentarians is difficult enough.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
The significant issue in my mind is the portion of the bill that changes the Canada Student Loans Program. Part of it seems to be relatively trivial. It changes the conditions under which provinces that opt out of the federal student loans program will function. This does not seem to provide for any significant impact on the capacity of those provinces opting out to carry out the administration of this program.
The second part of the changes to the Canada Student Loans Program provides for the elimination of the presently existing six-month interest-free period that students have right after graduation. There was a six-month forgiveness period in advance of which the students did not have to start repaying their loans. This must be considered in the context of a number of changes which considered together are quite significant.
What is happening here must be viewed within the over-all context of what is now being said by just about everybody, which is that if Canada is to be successful in the global economy it must adapt to the nature of that economy. If there is one thing that is clear about the so-called new global economy it is the intense involvement and significance of knowledge in the new high value-added economies which are growing in the industrial world: in Europe, Japan and elsewhere. Any observer of the Canadian scene recognizes that if there is anything fundamental that Canada must do to compete in the new knowledge-intensive, global economy it is to provide that every citizen can attain the level of education, training and skills development that they can achieve.
It therefore follows relatively clearly that if we are to achieve this it must be by making it possible for everyone to have access to the kind of training or education which is most appropriate to their aspirations and aptitudes.
We should be talking about increasing training and retraining, and improving education at both the secondary and elementary levels, as well as the post-secondary level. The post-secondary level is very important to us. Our colleges and universities are of fundamental significance. They are a focus of a knowledge based economy.
We should be increasing the quality of post-secondary institutions and we should be looking for any way by which we can possibly increase accessibility to those institutions. However, what has happened? What has
happened even as this government utters the rhetoric that education and training are so important? With respect to post-secondary institutions the government has cut back the EPF payments to the provinces so that there will be a total of about $11 billion in cutbacks over a decade to the post-secondary institutions. Commensurate with that there has been a marginal increase in research funds.
Meanwhile, these transfers have had an effect on what the provinces do. In Ontario just last week there was a tragic decision by that government to eliminate grants to students, grants which make it possible for low income university and college students to gain access to universities. Grants are important to students with low incomes because for students who come from the lower socioeconomic strata of society the notion that they will have a huge debt when they exit from university or college is a considerable deterrent.
This series of decisions taken at the federal and provincial levels have led to changes which have made it more difficult rather than easier for students to gain access to universities.
With respect to the Canada Student Loans Program, just last year this government introduced a 3 per cent surcharge on the loans that students negotiate with banks. The ordinary voter out there should understand that the federal government guarantees loans to students which are negotiated with the banks and administered at the provincial level. All the qualifications are administered at that level.
Qualification by students for the loans is determined through their colleges or universities according to a set of criteria, one of which is that students must save 60 per cent of what they earned during the summer in order to qualify. There are also certain provisions for information on parental income and so on and the like. It has become more and more difficult for students to earn enough money just to keep themselves in food and clothing during the summer much less to contribute 60 per cent.
On top of these difficulties, this government is collecting $18 million from students who have negotiated a loan. A student who has borrowed $2,000 is going to have to pay out $60 right off the bat, and that is a hit. It is money out of the student's pocket. It is another deterrent to students, particularly to low income students who want to go to college.
November 30, 1992

With this bill the government will heap on top of that 3 per cent surcharge on loans an elimination of the six-month interest subsidy period during which it was understood that students were looking for jobs and would not be able during that period to begin immediate payment on that loan, in all probability.
The additional interest charges that will be taken from students will be $18 million a year. If it is true that education and training are so important to us and so important to our economy, even from the perspective of this government, then when will it stop doing things that are so negative in terms of those objectives?
There have been a number of recommendations to change the administration of the Canada Student Loans Program. The Canadian Federation of Students wants a movement toward tuition-free, grant-based access to post-secondary education.
My party would prefer to see a post-secondary educational environment in which students would not have to pay tuition. We know that economic circumstances at this present time make that almost impossible, but there are alternatives such as an income contingent student loan repayment program that could be looked at as a means of broadening access rather than restricting it as we are now.
Right now we have a situation in which practically every government, with the leadership and because of the actions of the federal government, is making it more and more difficult. How can that be consistent with building Canada into a nation that can, as the government would have us do, compete in the new global economy?
Mind you, the government did promise to eliminate the 3 per cent surcharge. If it is going to eliminate that 3 per cent surcharge why could it not at least have done that along with the elimination of the six-month grace period which is at issue in this bill?
We will oppose this element of the bill, as it should be opposed. We would ask that this government, rather than finding ways of taking more money out of the pockets of students, to find more ways of ensuring there will be more students, and that more students will have access to college, post-secondary education, training and retraining.
Government Orders
Indeed we should be looking at more and more ways to ensure that every Canadian has access to information, to the means by which we can learn. Why do we continually have this attack on those whom we are going to need most and who need us most, those who are trying by going to college or university to further their education and make themselves citizens who will contribute more to Canada than they could without their college or university education?
It is an abomination that this government continues to peck away at accessibility as it does with this bill. It certainly will peck away at accessibility. Students already accumulate an average loan debt per annum of $2,000. Many students will owe $15,000. With the promised increase in the limits on student loans students could be leaving university with $20,000 and $25,000 debts, which are going to be added to by the action of this government in Bill C-76.
This is unconscionable and unacceptable. I would say that this government, along with the provincial governments, should get together now to ensure that there are no more changes of the sort we have here, that there will be no more surcharges, no more actions to make student loans more difficult to get and more difficult to pay back and that there will be no more actions as there were in Ontario last week of eliminating grants that would allow poor students to get to post-secondary institutions.
We should not be looking at narrowing and restricting accessibility in terms of full or part-time as this government wants to do. We should ensure that even part-time people who want to go back to university and need the money to do so will be able to negotiate loans as well. What we need is a coherent program involving the federal and provincial governments to put a stop to this inconsistency and stupidity and engage in the co-operation necessary to ensure that universities are going to be properly funded and that students will have the financial means to get to university. We should make universities and colleges more accessible rather than less accessible. That is not going to be done by legislation of this sort. Therefore, we will oppose it and I hope all hon. members in this House will oppose it.

November 30,1992
Government Orders


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question. The member may want to expand a little further on the decision by the Ontario NDP government to abolish grants to university students, those who need help the most.
Second, he is an educator and I believe he taught in university as a professor. He might comment on information I have received from universities that feel many of the provinces do not pass on the funds they receive from the federal government for post-secondary education but rather channel those funds to other needs within the jurisdiction of the province. This has been mentioned to me by university presidents I have met. He might want to comment on that, either to reinforce that statement or come up with opposing views.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, if it was not clear to the hon. member, let me make it clear that I regard the changes, the elimination of grants to students in Ontario, as fundamentally inconsistent with what I consider to be the appropriate social democratic view of how we approach the new world economy.
If there is anything that is clear about the new world economy it is that it is an economy in which we have to vest as much investment in people as we possibly can. We must ensure that everyone has access to education and training commensurate with their ability and their need absolutely, and that there should be no financial barriers to that. That is clear to me, as it should be clear to everyone.
I am very much disturbed by the elimination of those grants. However, I understand the reason. Part of the reason is that this government has taken money out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Ontario at a critical time, contributed to its deficit and contributed to the economic catastrophe in which we presently find ourselves which has meant a demolition of revenue and an extraordinary growth in expenditures for the benefit of those people who have suffered because of the economic catastrophe this government brought about.
The hon. parliamentary secretary asked me about the issue of the provinces receiving funding for post-secondary education which in many cases was not actually spent on post-secondary education. This hon. parliamentary secretary knows that practically every day since I have been here I have raised the issue about the necessity of this government sitting down with the
provincial governments to get an agreement on assured levels of funding which would recognize the responsibility of the federal government and the provincial government to fund post-secondary education at a level that would allow post-secondary institutions to function.
Of course, part of the problem originated back in 1975 when the then Liberal government unhooked the EPF from university expenditures. After that the money came in but it was not accountable in terms of the money going to post-secondary institutions. In many instances it has not.
The EPF funding consists of post-secondary and health funding. Health costs have escalated and unfortunately we in Parliament, not those who are otherwise concerned, have raised the level of the popular consciousness to the fundamental importance of what has been happening with the funding of post-secondary institutions which has led to the kinds of catastrophes that we see all across this country, not only in terms of the elimination of grants in Ontario, but the absence of adequate operational funding for universities even to keep their books in their libraries and lights on in their classrooms.
This is the responsibility that is shared at the federal and provincial levels. The federal government has not done a thing to undertake those initiatives that would have changed things. It is a lack of leadership as is demonstrated in this bill.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member for Essex-Windsor for being so forthright in disagreeing with his counterparts in the province of Ontario on the cancelling of grants to students.
The NDP pretends it to be its tradition to constantly knock governments. No one would have ever thought that when it came to government it would have had the gall to cancel those grants. It now has to deal with the reality of government.
As the hon. member was throwing some criticism at the government's side of the House, he should as a member from Ontario mention that one of the reasons why we are having so much difficulty in raising revenue from our business sector in the province of Ontario is the fact that the small and medium sized business sector has such little confidence. There seems to be a feeling that the New Democratic Party is not really as supportive of small and medium sized businesses as it should be.
November 30, 1992

If there were a way that the NDP could instil some confidence in business in the province of Ontario, it might cause a possibility where we could generate some more revenue to address this problem of student loans. I wonder if he could address that a little bit.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that some significant elements of the small business community in Ontario share the same kind of irrational hysteria about the prospects of New Democratic Party actions over the next three additional years as this hon. member has displayed.
That is what it is. If there is a problem that small business has it is the horrible state of the Ontario economy. I do not understand why small business is running around hysterically blaming the New Democratic government for its problems while the federal GST, while the federal high value for the dollar, while the federal FTA generated recession and all of those things which have led to business bankruptcies at nearly the same level before the NDP ever came to government are largely responsible for its problems.


Dennis Joseph Mills: That is not how you instil confidence.
Mr. McCurdy Do you know the best way to instil confidence in Ontario? Everybody knows it. The hon. member down there knows it. It is to get this government out.


An hon. member:: All right.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is to get rid of the free trade agreement and keep the dollar down to 78 cents for another three or four years. This would allow us to bring about the industrial adjustment we should have had a long time ago.
Get rid of therFTA, hold back on NAFTA and make the investment in business, education and infrastructure that we need to make and you will be amazed at how much confidence will suddenly appear in Ontario, and even, I am sure, in the hon. member's mind as his hysteria, ill thought and ill gained hysteria, gradually mollifies.


An hon. member:: I would have loved to be in your last university class.
Government Orders


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words on this legislation. I was noticing that no other member was seeking the floor.
The bill before the House is a bill that deals with student loans, the lobbyists in Canada and the Small Businesses Loans Act. The Canada Student Loans Act, in the changes made here in this legislation, certainly does not address the major problem of Canada student loans in that they do not give students enough money to live on. Students, in order to go to university today in Canada, must either have money coming from relatives or the family or they must be working because the Canada Student Loans Act does not cover all of their living expenses.
Some students make do and lose a lot of weight during the year. Some of them do without adequate accommodations adequate food and this sort of thing. It is very difficult for anybody-impossible for anybody-to exist.
We now have the Government of Canada coming along, changing the law and making it worse than before by charging fees. Then we come to the section that deals with the lobbyists in Canada. I do not know why this section has been brought in requiring a fee to be paid. What we should be requiring is more information concerning the activity of these lobbyists.
Then there are changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Here we are in Canada, with our fisheries in eastern Canada in disarray with substantial cutbacks in quotas, and the closing of fishing areas all along the east coast. There is a bill now before the House of Commons to change loans that are granted under the Small Businesses Loans Act through a bank and guaranteed by the Government of Canada and also loans that have been granted for fisheries improvements by the banks guaranteed by the Government of Canada.
What would you say would be the subject of an amendment brought today? Here we are coming up to Christmas with quotas just announced, substantial cuts all along the east coast of Canada, a moratorium on northern cod and fishermen are told they are not allowed to go fishing and are going to get $406 a week to sit at home. They have all of these bills to pay. They owe the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act of the Government of Canada substantial amounts of money on loans that they obtained for equipment in the form of nets, gear, boats, pick-up trucks and whatever, as long as it

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
applied to the fishing operation. What does the Government of Canada do today in this House of Commons? It has changed the sections of the Small Businesses Loans Act and changed it all to $200,000 for both of the loans.
The government has not done anything for the fisherman who is having his home or his property seized and sold under this Fisheries Improvement Loans Act because the Government of Canada refuses to honour its commitment to the bank. No, it is not doing anything about that.
When a third party attachment is put on the man's other income or an attachment is put on his property by the bank, because the Government of Canada says it is not going to fulfil a guarantee under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act because it is out of money for this year, is the Government of Canada saying today: "We are going to forgive the interest on those loans or forgive the principal of those loans"? No, it is not. It is not doing that at all in this legislation.
The government makes sure that in two sections of the amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act it points out with regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, with loans previously made to a borrower who is also getting a loan through the Small Businesses Loans Act, that the limit of those loans will be $200,000.
It is not the person who took out the loan under this section of the act who is at fault. It is not his fault that there are no fish in the ocean and he cannot make the payments. It is not his fault at all. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the Government of Canada. Why is it the fault of the Government of Canada? It is the fault of the Government of Canada because it mismanaged the resource for which he was given a loan, the fishery.
It was the Government of Canada that gave licences year after year and even this year to allow foreign nations to fish the spawning grounds of everything that is in the Atlantic Ocean. Today, when I checked on the telephone, I discovered that there are 14 Japanese ships fishing inside our 200-mile zone with licences from the Government of Canada. That represents a 100 per cent increase in the numbers of their licences compared to last year.


John Horton McDermid: What are they fishing for?


George Baker: The hon. member wants to know what they are fishing for. The hon. member is a member of the cabinet. He should know. It is the Government of Canada that issued the licences to the Japanese last week. I will tell the House what they are fishing for, since the hon. member asked. Right now on their licences it says: "Unlimited fishing of tuna", and then it specifies bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore.
The minister asked me what is on their licences. I am going to tell him. It gets down to the very valuable fish that is in the ocean. In fact, if we had one of them we could get $20,000 for one fish. Can you imagine getting $20,000 for a fish? Today we can. That fish is called the bluefin tuna. The average size off the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia coasts today is valued at $20,000.
The minister just asked what is in the licences and what they are fishing for. I am going to tell the House what they are fishing for. The 14 Japanese ships have as a by-catch in that licence 180 tonnes of bluefin tuna inside our 200-mile zone.
The minister just asked me: "What are they fishing for?" I am going to tell him what they are fishing for: five times the quota of Quebeckers, five times the quota of Newfoundlanders, five times the quota of Nova Scotians, five times the quota of New Brunswickers.
The minister asked me what they were fishing for. I am going to tell him. Five times the quota of Prince Edward Islanders.
We get 35 tonnes. It was the minister who asked this question and I am answering him. We get 35 tonnes in our quota. They get 180 tonnes this year. The Government of Japan was notified through External Affairs, through the Canadian embassy in Japan three weeks ago, in a diplomatic note: "You can have unlimited quotas". It says shark, swordfish, and incidental species to albacore, bigeye, yellowfin, skipjack and all these other different types of fish, unlimited quotas with no limit. Today there are 14 ships, 300 feet long, with helicopters on the front. Compare that.
November 30, 1992

Do you know what the largest ship in Canada is? The largest ship fishing today off the east coast of Canada is 170 feet long, with helicopters on the front, with unlimited quotas, with a by-catch of 180 tonnes; while Newfoundlanders have 35 tonnes and Nova Scotians have 35 tonnes.
How did that happen? I will tell the House how it happened.
The minister asked me the question so I am going to give him the answer as it relates to this bill, with regard to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in this legislation.
It happened because of a recent meeting called the International Tuna Commission, at which Canada sat down with representatives from Japan and the United States. They decided the quotas in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. The northwest Atlantic Ocean is off the Canadian coast. Oh, what negotiators we have representing Canada. Oh, boy, did they ever hang tough. They went in there and supported the U.S. proposal, which was 1,300 tonnes for the United States, 750 tonnes for Japan and 500 tonnes for Canada. That is for bluefin. That is not counting the unlimited species of all the other vessels.
This is at a time when our fishery is in serious trouble and when people cannot find the money to make the payments on their boats to satisfy the requirements of this bill under second reading and to be passed by this Parliament here today.
If the hon. minister wants to ask me any more questions, feel free to ask me anything.
The double standard in this Chamber and in the Parliament of Canada is glaring. The double standard I am referring to is that a student loan obtained by a student going to one of our universities, vocational schools or trade colleges is now subject to a fee under this legislation. There are substantial cuts everywhere.
Just compare that to this double standard. I received a letter Friday from the Minister of National Revenue in answer to a question I had asked. I wanted to know how many people, under this government, making in excess of $100,000 a year were getting the GST rebate? It is amazing. How do people get the GST rebate designed
Government Orders
for "low and modest income Canadians" if they are making $200,000 a year?
The minister answered in writing that there were 5,336 individuals with a total income exceeding $99,999 and 7,145 families with a total family income in excess of $99,999 who were entitled to receive the credit for this past year.
Just think of the double standard. Should somebody making $250,000 a year be getting something that was introduced by this Government of Canada, designed for and on the income tax form for modest and low income Canadians? The family allowance is to start on January 1. Should it be so designed by the Government of Canada that wealthy people can get the full benefit? No, it should not be. Not when it is cutting back on students, not when it is allowing drug prices to go sky high for our seniors, not when it is cutting back the provinces on health and education and not when it is forcing the hospitals to close beds. No. However, that is the double standard that has been recognized.
I wondered at what point in our history that programs designed for the low and modest income Canadians became payable to the wealthy in Canada. It is easy to find out because all income-tested programs in Canada are based on net income. In other words, you check to find out what is taken off your gross to arrive at your net on your income tax return and then you find out how these people are getting these payments and you discover certain changes have been made.
A change was made in 1988 in the Income Tax Act. A new line was put in. The line said exploration and development of mining, gas, and petroleum in foreign nations. For example, if people invest enough in Colombia or Myanmar, as Petro-Canada is doing, or in Vietnam in the Mekong Delta as a great many companies are doing, they can get their income down far enough to get the GST rebate.
Just think of the double standard between the rich and the poor and the double standard between people who are struggling to get an education as is pointed out under this bill, the Student Loans Act, and those people who are struggling to make an extra $250,000 a year and given preference by the Government of Canada.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
This bill before us today rather than including changes that say that the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act will be matched up with the Small Businesses Loans Act in instances where the borrower has money obtained under both acts and that there will be a new $200,000 limit should do what the provincial governments of Canada have had to do. Under their loan acts relating to fisheries improvement they have forgiven all the interest. They have said: "Forget about it, we are in a very difficult situation in Canada so we will not go after you for the interest. We are going to forgive all this interest''.
The Government of Canada is responsible for the state of our fisheries today, for the terrible condition of our fisheries today, and it makes no such offer.
I would suggest that before this bill goes any further the government should introduce an amendment to forgive all fisheries improvement loans of fisherpersons who are found in areas in which there have been substantial cuts in quotas and all fisherpersons who have loans under that act in areas that are currently under a fishing moratorium.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, as usual I am always impressed by my colleague's speaking abilities.
I want to inform the member that in Ontario not only is the NDP government not considering students but it actually has decided to cut out the grant portion of any loans going to students. This will mean that the poorest of the poor now will have to finance most of their education through loans. Not only is there no forgiveness of any interest but the interest starts to accrue to the student the day he graduates.
I will tell you that many students in my riding who have graduated and have many loans have been absolutely unable to get jobs. Some of them are now living on welfare. This great and wonderful government of ours has set the collection agencies after them.
I repeat my story of people on welfare who are being harassed for the total pay-back of the loans. I am wondering if there is some way that we could consider with this particular piece of legislation a way of ensuring that those who have no jobs yet are not harassed. If they do get a high paying job, if they are lucky enough to get one, they should start repaying their loans and they
should pay some interest. However, that is not the case in many homes. We have to start considering that.
We have to ask the government to consider that. Does the member think that perhaps he could give me an answer to that?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot for the life of me understand how a provincial government could take the unprecedented action of withdrawing its grant portion. I do not know of any other government in Canada that has done that.
British Columbia I suppose has done it as well. It is funny. What do Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have in common?
I was looking at the bond ratings the other day of Standard & Poor's, New York. They tell an interesting story. The credit rating for the Government of Canada for foreign paper, which does not account for very much in our economy or the business of the government really is not the foreign paper, went down. However, it also published the ratings and its projections for the future for provincial administrations. It was rather interesting that the province of Ontario today has a negative rating for the future.


Mr. Laporte:: What about Newfoundland?


George Baker: Newfoundland has a positive rating. It sure is not like Saskatchewan because Newfoundland has an A rating whereas Saskatchewan is triple B. Why does Saskatchewan have triple B?


Rodney Edward Laporte: Why?


George Baker: Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario. The Government of Canada is bad enough to have its rating drop and to lose an A, but it is another thing for the great province of Ontario, which we all have such faith in and hope for, the industrial centre of the nation, to have a negative credit rating by Standard Poor's.
It is interesting to examine how it sets those credit ratings.
It set the credit ratings by looking at the governments and what those governments are doing. That is why Newfoundland has a positive rating and we are very proud of that. It is in the As.
November 30, 1992

The other thing that the hon. member mentioned was collection agencies and this thing has really got to stop as far as student loans are concerned. This is really outrageous by the Government of Canada. This has got to stop. They are hounding students who just came out of universities, trade schools and vocational schools day after day. They are threatening them. They are threatening single mothers who just came out of school.
These collection agencies are hired by the Government of Canada. I would like to see the deal it has. It should have to put on the table of the House why it selected certain credit agencies and what the deal is for the collections and who gave the orders. It is a most outrageous thing.
Concerning Ontario, I cannot understand it. I am surprised to learn from the hon. member from British Columbia that the British Columbia government allows the same thing, not to have a grant portion in student loans. That is absolutely outrageous.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this debate today is an interesting one because it is on a bill that arises out of the government's last budget which we had hoped the government might have seen fit to replace with a new one.
I guess we are going to get what is called a mini budget or financial statement on Wednesday which I know everyone in Canada will be gripping their chairs for. I am sure their knuckles will be turning white as they look forward to the next instalment of this government's financial recovery plan.
I wanted to refer to some of the government's initial attempts at economic recovery in my speech today by reminding the House of what its Minister of Finance has said in years past. Like my friend from Broadview- Greenwood, I was first elected to this House in 1988, so our first opportunity to hear a budget speech occurred on April 27, 1989 when the now Minister of Industry, Science and Technology delivered his budget on television.
That was the leaky budget, as I recall. He delivered his budget on TV the night before, but on April 27 he went through the formalities of reading his speech. I thought
Government Orders
it would be useful to quote from the speech because a lot of the things he said were so important.
He intoned these words so piously at the time, as I recall, as only the minister can. Perhaps members would like to hear his words. He said: "When I became finance minister the $18 billion debt had risen to nearly $200 billion". It was under, and he said: "The annual deficit was more than $38 billion. By then Canada had built into its public finances a self-propelling force that threatened to undermine our valued reputation for fiscal prudence and responsibility".
"The sad reality of debt is that it feeds on itself. It places a nation on a treadmill. Each year, added effort is required from its citizens to produce new revenues that merely go to pay the interest on a growing debt. We must ask ourselves whether this enormous debt should be our legacy to future generations". I will not quote everything he said.
"We would be borrowing from our children but not paying our own bills. It is easy to borrow from future generations because they have no voice in this debate. They have no vote, yet it is they who must live with the consequences if we do not act". That is what the minister said in 1989, almost four years ago.
I hate to keep quoting because I know it must be embarrassing to my friends on the other side, but I would like to read some more. "We recognized the seriousness of the debt problem when we came to office", he said with a straight face. "We have been acting to get it under control", he said with an even straighter face, I have no doubt. "We have succeeded in reducing the growth of the debt from almost 24 per cent in 1984 to less than 10 per cent last year".
I think he was referring to the percentage of the gross national product when you consider that it was almost frozen and considering the debt was growing in percentage terms at a slower rate. That is not surprising. Once it gets so big the rate naturally slows down.
"Despite that progress the debt is continuing to grow more rapidly than our national income. On April 1, the debt was $320 billion". We know that it is over $420 billion now, thanks to the incompetence of the government opposite.

November 30,1992
Government Orders
He went on and this is a great line. I invite the Chair to listen to this with care. I am sure the Chair will remember hearing it on the occasion of his great budget speech:
"The budget measures will cut the annual deficit in half to $15 billion by 1993-94. Financial requirements will be down from $20 billion this year to $3 billion. As the deficit goes down, the debt will shrink as a proportion of our national income".
We have just been told that for 1991-92, instead of going down, for the fourth consecutive year the debt went up.


Mr. Harvard:: Of course, Tory economics.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They said it was going to $15 billion. It went up to $34 billion last year and it is projected to be higher this year, although we will learn more about that on Wednesday. This is Tory mismanagement on a very impressive scale.


An hon. member:: Tory economics.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Minister of Finance for Canada, with a battery of economists behind him, the whole group of economists of the Bank of Canada behind him, was uttering this utter rubbish in a budget speech in
1989.	We still get the same answers from the other side on this issue.
Let me quote from the budget speech of February 20,
1990,	the very next year. You would think that by this year the Conservatives might have figured out that perhaps things were not quite as rosy as they were pretending. They do talk about slower growth in the years ahead and so on. They did not tell us we were going into a depression.
The speech stated: "In today's world sovereignty is not threatened by military force or aggression. Our freedom and opportunity to realize our dreams for ourselves and our children rest on our response to the challenge of a more competitive world in the throes of economic change".
This is the kind of stuff that the minister spouts in his budget speeches, but at the same time he is unable to carry through on his predictions. This is what he said about his 1990 budget: "The decisive actions in this budget"-imagine talking about this budget being decisive-"bring us back to the fiscal track set out in the 1989 budget". In other words, he admitted they had gone off the rails in 1989. I will say they hit the ditch. He said: "We will cut the deficit to $28.5 billion in 1990-91". We know they did not get the deficit down quite that far in 1990-91. They have not got it down that far in 1991-92 and they are not going to get it down that far in 1992-93. It has gone up significantly ever since.
He continued: "This deficit includes the impact of the one-time transition cost of sales tax reform including prepayment of the GST credit, the transitional grant to small business and the rebate of federal sales tax on inventories". We know the minister was wrong in that speech as well. The Prime Minister then replaced him. He realized there was no use hanging on to a bad thing. You get rid of it.
The amazing this is that after all that incompetence you would think the government would have some ideas. However, it is clear that this tired old government has run out of ideas.


John Harvard: Right.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It has run out of time and it has run out of ideas. I see the minister is fleeing the House. I would urge him to listen to what the Prime Minister said the other day when he was asked a question.


John Horton McDermid: I am going to be sick to my stomach.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I can understand if the minister says he is about to be ill. Hearing the litany of complaints about this government should make almost any Canadian ill.
The Prime Minister was asked a very sensible question about the economy by the hon. Leader of the Opposition:
When will he realize that it is time to have a policy that makes
some sense and that will be conducive to creating growth in Canada
so that the Canadian people can work and have the dignity of
working?
That is what the Leader of the Official Opposition asked the Prime Minister in Question Period as reported on page 14103 of Hansard. What was the Prime Minister's answer? He said: "What would that policy be?" He had no idea. He had absolutely no idea and he is the Prime Minister of Canada. His Minister of Finance was sitting right beside him and might have whispered an answer to him to tell him what the policy might be, but he had no idea either.
November 30, 1992

Just to his other side sat the the former Minister of Finance, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. He might have whispered an answer. He is the one who was giving us all these great ideas in his budget speeches in 1989 and 1990.1 know he gave them for four years before that and put us into the pickle we were in in 1989 thanks to his incompetence. He did not whisper any ideas to the Prime Minister to give him some reasonable answer to this question.
It is clear that this government has run out of ideas. It is completely devoid of any sensible approach in any department, let alone the Department of Finance.


John Harvard: It is spent.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As my friend from Winnipeg-St. James says, it is spent. It has spent its time. It has wasted its time. It has ruined Canada financially. It is time for the government to resign and get out of office before it does any more damage to our economy.
I want to turn to the bill we are debating today. Of course when I read from that budget speech I quoted a few moments ago, one heard the former Minister of Finance intone in his very pious way about how those of Canada's younger generation were voiceless in this debate and it was unfair to saddle them with the debt and that they were going to have to pay. This bill is part of the evidence that they are going to have to pay for this government's economic mismanagement of our economy.
This government has increased the charges to students under the Canada Student Loans Act. Starting on August 1, 1993 the six month interest-free loan period will be cancelled on Canada student loans. Students who have borrowed money will start paying interest immediately upon graduation instead of six months later.
That would be bad enough if the economy were in the position where it was easy for these people to find jobs, but we are finding increasing numbers of students who graduated from Canadian universities and colleges are unable to obtain employment.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The national average is 18 per cent.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As my friend from Broadview-Greenwood says, the national average unemployment rate in that group is 18 per cent. Jobs are extremely difficult for these people to find. Yet at that time, the time when it is
Government Orders
most difficult for them to find employment, the interest-free period is taken away.
The purpose of it in good times was to allow some period for these students to find employment. Now there is no period to be allowed for that and jobs are harder to find now than they have ever been since the Canada Student Loans Program was implemented.
We have one group of men and women to thank for that situation and they sit right over there, when they are here. That is where they sit. They are the ones who are responsible for it. They should get out and allow an election to be held so they can be replaced.
The second thing the government is doing is getting in league with Premier Rae. Premier Bob Rae has decided he is going to go after the students as well and he is taking away the grant programs.


An hon. member:: It is like a two-headed monster.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As my friend says, it is like a two-headed monster. Two greedy, grasping governments putting a squeeze on the student population of Canada.
I do not know where Mr. Rae got those notions. When he was in this House he used to spout the old NDP line that there was always something for everybody and they would not think of cutting any payments to students let alone any other disadvantaged group, but boy, put them in office and they act just like the Tories.
I spoke about this before. I have said how NDP members act like Tories. Some people in my own riding thought perhaps I was talking through my hat. Perhaps they will not think that way any more after watching Premier Bob and his slash and cut proposals to try to control the profligate spending in which he has been engaging in the province of Ontario.
It was only a year ago when he announced his $10 billion deficit that he said it was fiscally prudent to do that. Now he has realized that it was very imprudent and the fact is that his government is driving business out of the province at record rates.
Instead of having a growing economy we have a shrinking economy. Thx revenues are going down and the government is finding itself under increasing financial pressure. What does the provincial government do? It turns to the disadvantaged who do not have much of a voice and takes away the rights they have, just as this government does.

November 30,1992
Government Orders
The Minister of Finance in his budget speech in 1989 said that these future generations had no voice because they are not voters. Now because they are not, he figures he can take away this privilege they have and there will not be much of an outcry about it among the majority of voters. That is exactly what he has done.
It is the same policy pursued by Premier Bob. My bet is during the constitutional discussions last year the Prime Minister took the premier of Ontario aside and explained to him the advantages of Tory financial practice. The premier being an NDPer swallowed the story hook, line and sinker.
There he is believing everything the Prime Minister says about how to organize the economy of Canada. He has followed the same advice in organizing the economy of Ontario to the detriment of Ontario students and frankly to the detriment of the long-range idea of funding education which was to provide a better educated work force for Canada which would make us internationally competitive.
We have the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology now that he is in that new portfolio talking about the great advantages of Canada's work force because it is so well educated and so capable. On the other hand, his colleague, the Minister of Finance, the new one, is having to pay for the mistakes he made when he was in that portfolio by slashing and cutting all over the place.
What did he do? He slashed and cut the grants to students through the Ontario scheme and cut the interest benefit to students under this scheme and thereby deprived Canada of the advantage it might have otherwise had by having a well educated work force.
Why would the government cut back the spending on education and research in Canada when it is the thing which creates the advantage Canada enjoys in world markets? The government keeps talking about world markets and how we are a global economy.
That is one of the favourite expressions of ministers on the opposite side. They talk about global competitiveness and world competitiveness and how important it is that Canada be able to compete. At the same time, they take away that advantage of competition we have through a
well educated work force when they trim the expenditures on education and that is where they have gone to do it.
The government also introduced the 3 per cent administrative fee on Canada student loans. We know how that works. If people in other businesses have to pay this kind of fee they always object to it quite vigorously. Students take it in the neck. The government charges 3 per cent when the student takes out a loan.


Diane Marleau: You have to pay it before you get the loan.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As my colleague from Sudbury says, a student has to pay that before getting the loan. It is charged as part of the debt too. It is added in. The student promises to pay for more than he or she actually got.


An hon. member:: A front end load.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is a front end load, as my colleague says. It is an unfair charge. It is gouging these people.
I suspect that the ultimate beneficiaries of all this are the banks. We of course have a case of record profits being made by the banks in Canada this year. That is not surprising given the bank charges and the height they are at which of course the government will not do anything about. It says: "Oh, no. That is private enterprise. We'll leave that alone. We won't touch that''.
The provinces are pressed in many cases. Because of that of course no taxes are paid. We have these large write-offs for some of the banks this year because of some investments which have gone sour. One suspects part of the reason the investments have gone sour is because of the policies pursued by the government opposite. There seems to be a vicious circle going on. I am sorry that is the case. The government and the banks seem to be in some kind of league in this regard. One benefits while the other does not, but at least they help each other out.
Let us turn to the second part of the amendments we are dealing with today. I think there are three parts, but I am going to speak on only two. The second part concerns the amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act to allow the government to charge the lobbyists for the cost of administering this act.
November 30, 1992


An hon. member:: It is a farce.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As my colleague says, this is a farce. The government brought in this act which is pretty weak. It forces registration on lobbyists. Big deal. These lobbyists have to file a little statement saying that they are lobbying for so and so. It is strictly cosmetic. It has no particular advantage. It does not require sufficient detail to enable the interested public to follow what is going on here.
This was a bow in the direction of reform of our institutions to ensure that people were not getting unfair advantage. It was a bow about that far, Mr. Speaker. You get my drift. It was not what you would call a humble bow in this direction.
The government introduced this Lobbyists Registration Act so that it would look as though it was doing something to correct what was perceived by the public at the time, and I suspect still is in some quarters, to be an abuse of the system, whereby these lobbyists charged thousands of dollars to arrange an appointment for a group to come and see the minister.
I see one of the ministers is in the House today. I do not know what lobbyists charge to arrange an appointment with her. It may be a high fee. Perhaps she could tell us in questions or comments on my speech. She could tell us what it costs to get to see her.


An hon. member:: What speech?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am making a speech now. If the hon. member would pay some attention he might notice that a speech is in progress. I am sorry I woke him up.
The fact is that this is what is going on. There is this charge being made in order to arrange an appointment with a minister of the Crown.
What the government decided to do was rather than have that revealed it would have a registration. It would sound good to the public if it was announced that all these lobbyists had to register. So register they do under this act.
Now the government has to pay money to public servants to administer the registration book. Somebody has to write the material into the book and I guess it is a little complicated. I suppose there is probably a comput-
Government Orders
er entry. Perhaps they do not do it in a book any more. Whatever it is, forms have to be designed, printed and sent out to the lobbyists, or the lobbyists pick them up at an office which has to be manned.
I do not know what is there. I have never been to the lobbyists registration office, not being a lobbyist myself. I do not know whether any of my colleagues have been. I do not know how many people work there. Whatever it is, it is costing the government some money and the government has decided to recoup the cost. How is that done? By charging the lobbyists.
I can imagine the Governor in Council when this regulation is passed will make sure that the fees are lowest for the big firms that employ the fat-cat Tories. The fees will be highest for the small firms that have relatively independent lobbyists running and working for them.
I can only guess that the power being requested in this bill will be abused, as has been the trust of the Canadian people by this government for the last eight and a half years.
It is time for the government to face reality. It must allow the people to pass judgment on the medicine it has been doling out to the Canadian public on the kind of legislation it introduces in this House that the Canadian public is sick and tired of. It should call an election and let Canadians express their views as to whether this government's record and its proposals are worthy of any support at all.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about a money bill, I would like to remind the House and the hon. member in particular that a lot of money is being wasted by the federal government because of duplication by federal and provincial departments. For instance, the federal government is again getting involved in manpower training and the education of our young people.
In Quebec we have a department of education that is particularly well represented and well organized. I keep wondering why the federal government wants to interfere with manpower training and with our secondary and post-secondary education.

November 30, 1992
We need colleges, especially in the technology sector, which meet the needs of Quebec small business, instead of letting the federal government interfere with education in Quebec.
It seems Ontario has decided not to do anything about education-remember, this is an NDP government-but I do not agree with its philosophy. In any case, in Quebec we have a responsible government and have had one for many years. If we really want to save money because the federal government has a cumulative debt of about $450 billion, it seems to me the first thing the government should do is to withdraw completely from this sector and let the provinces manage education. I am convinced the provinces would be able to operate more satisfactorily and be better able to meet the needs of small business. As a result we could increase productivity and meet the challenge of international competition.
I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about this.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that the federal government should drop its programs in the field of education. I disagree. I think the federal government has a role to play in educating Canadians. I believe the federal government should set a minimum standard for educational requirements. We need national standards because the provinces differ in this particular area. Of course that is good, but we must find another way to set these national standards for everyone in Quebec and in the other provinces which have different standards, as I was saying.
I would like to continue but my time has expired. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, with due apologies to our colleagues from Manitoba, I am sure that all other members will join me in congratulating the 1992 Grey Cup champions, the Calgary Stampeders.
Doug Flutie was simply outstanding on Sunday, as he was the previous week. His teammates deserve the respect of all of us, as do the Winnipeg Blue Bombers.
This was the first championship for the Stampeders in 21 years. The team has provided fans with some of the most memorable football action we have seen in decades and certainly earned the honour.
I am glad to see there were many westerners on hand at the SkyDome to cheer on two western teams playing for the championship this year.
Among the real winners were the CFL fans. Despite the financial burdens many teams have been faced with, the players, coaches, managers and spectators of all eight teams have continued to enjoy quality football all season long.
There must be many more seasons for the league and many more memorable moments to be seen by CFL fans from coast to coast to coast. Most important, there is next year's Grey Cup game which I am predicting the Edmonton Eskimos will win.


WORLD AIDS DAY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, there is no cure for AIDS. Each day it afflicts new victims across the world, across income groups, across sexes and now even across generations.
We as a society need to be doing much more to raise awareness, raise money and conduct much more research and development in the cure for this disease.
AIDS is a tragedy that cannot be allowed to spread and flourish in Canada or in any country of the world. Tomorrow is World AIDS Day.
November 30, 1992

I ask each member of this House, each of my constituents and every Canadian to take a few moments to reflect on the magnitude of the task that confronts us.
AIDS is a disease which can be stopped and must be stopped.


DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, we hear again that the pressure from multinational drug companies is driving Bill C-91 through Parliament by closure and by abridgement of the democratic rights of Canadians to be heard on legislation that affects them.
Now we read in today's The Globe and Mail that the Liberal opposition has also been toned down. First the drug companies were on the line to the Liberal consumer affairs critic to tell him to support the bill. Then the Liberal science and technology critic advised his caucus colleagues that he supported the provisions of Bill C-91. Now the Liberal leader has leaned on his consumer critic to tone down the criticism.
Just where do the Liberals stand on this important matter? Is it with the consumer affairs critic in the committee or with the Liberal leadership in the back room where the campaign funds are raised and deals are cut?
As with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and so many other issues, the corporate elite in this country demand and get in one way or another subservience from both the Tories and the Liberals.


BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY ACT
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia - Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of a new era for businesses and individuals experiencing financial difficulties. Today the new Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act comes into force.
This is the first time in 43 years after six failed attempts between 1975 and 1984 that such important and crucial amendments have been made to the bankruptcy legislation.
These amendments will help Canadian businesses, big, medium and small, to be more competitive and to
preserve jobs. Businesses experiencing financial difficulties will have more time to reorganize, protect jobs and address financial problems.
Unpaid suppliers will now have the right within 30 days of delivery of goods to a firm that subsequently goes into bankruptcy or in receivership to reclaim goods that are clearly identifiable as theirs.
There are also a number of other measures to help consumers, such as the opportunity to make arrangements with creditors to prevent bankruptcy, a simpler and less expensive bankruptcy process.
These reforms demonstrate the government's commitment to put in place economic policies that will enhance Canadian competitiveness and prosperity.
The minister and our members of Parliament should be congratulated for finally achieving these long, overdue reforms.


MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada has consistently requested the federal government's support of nation-wide municipal infrastructure projects as one means of kick-starting our failing economy. Instead ad hoc government policies of program cuts increase taxes. Expensive studies instead of action further weaken our economy.
Canadians need jobs. Municipal infrastructure projects will create jobs.
Northumberland, lying on the shores of the world's largest inland waterway, depends on harbour maintenance and development for a large part of its economic well-being. Trenton, economically hurt this year by unprecedented job losses, has an undisputed need for marine and harbour development. Port Hope's harbour is becoming unusable as a result of silting.
When will this government recognize these small harbour needs, support municipal infrastructure projects of all types throughout Northumberland and get our economy going? Employment and development spinoffs will soon compensate for costs through new taxable income and less unemployment insurance and welfare payouts.

November 30, 1992


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in 1991 the government awarded a large contract for the construction of 12 mine countermeasures vessels for the Canadian forces to SNC-Lavalin group with the ships being constructed at Halifax-Dartmouth shipyards.
methyl bromide, a chemical 40 times more destructive to the ozone layer than chlorofluorocarbons.
We urge this government to launch programs that help developing countries eliminate methyl bromides, through increased research and the transfer of technologies.

I along with many people in my riding were disappointed with this announcement as St. Catharines is home to Port Weller Dry Docks which had bid on this contract.
It is time for this government to start practising what it preaches.

There were many critics who claimed that this decision was purely political and that the government had interfered in the ultimate awarding of the contract.
The Auditor General in his latest report has examined this contract and at page 447 states: "We examined the planning phase and options analysis for this project. The department carried out an adequate needs analysis and fully analysed the options for meeting the needs as well as the vessel options presented by the bidding firms".
We are proud of the people of Port Weller and of their record for producing and repairing ships on budget and on time.
I trust that this report of the Auditor General will relieve concerns that this contract was awarded unfairly.


WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, last week as I met with Albertans I asked for suggestions that I could pass along to the hon. member for Vegreville, the Minister of Finance, as he prepares for his statement in this place on Wednesday.
I received quite a few. However, nobody made the silly suggestion put forward by the Reform Party which says that we should get rid of western diversification but keep regional development operations that assist Quebec, Atlantic Canada and northern Ontario.
Maybe the Reform leader does not like the fact that western diversification requires businesses to repay their loans. We Albertans have learned that neither consistency nor the facts get in the way of Reform tactics and their so-called policies.


OZONE LAYER DEPLETION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, 1992 is the worst year ever recorded for ozone layer depletion. People are at risk of skin cancer, blindness and even a weakened immunity system because of increased ultraviolet radiation.
Albertans did have many constructive suggestions which I continue to pass along to the minister. A few examples are to cut all grants by at least 50 per cent, eliminate all government TV advertising, and reduce the number of government employees.

In response to this spreading global danger, last week the Government of Canada failed to take tough measures. Despite the UN warning that the ozone treaty is not enough, the government supported watered down measures.
The government accepted the timetable for the phaseout of hydrochlorofluorocarbons to be lengthened by 10 years, thus opening a loophole that allows further damage. It rejected a U.S. proposal to control harmful


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to the Liberal's fight of their lives over free trade?
First, they voted with the Conservatives to oppose an NDP motion to scrap the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. Then they voted with the Tories against having trade committee hearings in every province in Canada and to the proposed North American free trade agreement.
November 30, 1992

It is obvious why they did that. They had no idea who might be concerned about the proposed trade deal. They did not recommend a single witness for the trade committee hearings currently under way in Vancouver. It is obvious they want to conduct trade deals the way the Tories do, in secret.
Not to be outdone, the Liberals in the B.C. legislature voted against a government sponsored motion calling on the federal government to pull out of the NAFTA talks.
It is clear Canadians can count on only one party for clear and consistent opposition to the Tory trade deals: Canada's New Democrats.


CORN AND SOYBEAN PRODUCERS
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, the corn and soybean producers of Ontario are in a crisis situation this year.
Normally by the end of November all of the soybeans and most of the corn would be harvested. This year depending on the region, between 20 and 60 per cent of the soybeans and 80 per cent of the com are still in the fields. Many farmers with no livestock have no source of income. Livestock farmers are faced with having no feed or very poor quality feed so that their cash flow is eroded.
The corn producers have proposed the adjustment to the Advanced Payments for Crops Program to include these crops not yet harvested but covered by crop and revenue insurance. The com producers' request would cost no more than the normal advanced payments program and any risk is eliminated because coverage is ensured.
I urge the government to respond positively and quickly to this request for assistance.


CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in congratulating the Calgary Stampeders and their fans on the Grey Cup victory last night.
If it could not be Winnipeg, I am glad it was Calgary. They added another illustrious chapter to the Grey Cup history which has been part of Canada for the past 80 years.
The game last night reminded us that the CFL is a cherished institution for Canadians who care deeply about its distinct rules, its players and what it means to individual communities. Too many Canadian institutions and traditions are disappearing. They are being swallowed up, each time chipping away at our own sense of identity.
I urge all members of Parliament to engage in a serious debate on the question of CFL expansion to the United States, rather than taking a hands-off approach. I will be introducing a private member's bill to engage Canadians and their members of Parliament in this debate.
Putting it simply, it is the fourth quarter with only minutes to spare. If we fumble we could lose the whole game.


VIOLENT CRIME
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud the efforts of those action groups currently working on behalf of victims of violent crime, groups such as CAVEAT, organized by the family of murder victim Nina de Villiers, and Victims of Violence International, originally organized by parents and families of abducted and murdered children. These are only two of many groups in Canada working for change.
I believe we need to extend the minimum terms given to those offenders who commit crimes against women and children. We must reconsider the negative impact these offenders have had on our society and treat them accordingly.
I believe we need to take a new look at the Young Offenders Act. We need to reduce the minimum age from 18. We need to take a tougher stand with those young adults committing serious violent crime.
I have received and presented petitions containing thousands of signatures in support of such action.

November 30, 1992
Oral Questions
I believe along with the majority of Canadians that the time has come for the government to take another look at the way we deal with violent offenders and to take action to improve the situation.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's airlines continue to suffer from the effects of deregulation and this government's mismanagement of the Canadian economy. They also continue to battle for survival.
In recent days, both Canadian Airlines and Air Canada have taken positive steps to improve their financial positions by raising fares by 5 per cent. These steps were only necessary because the airlines were engaged far too long in self-destructive and unneeded competition.
Raising fares will improve Air Canada's and Canadian's balance sheets, but they keep harming themselves by continuing to overlap departures and arrivals between too many city pairs.
The time has come for the Minister of Transport to sit down with the airlines and help them hammer out an agreement that will allow them to serve travellers in each market fully, yet effectively.
This may sound like deregulation to the minister. If it will save him embarrassment he can call it anything he likes. The critical need right now is for action that will allow the two airlines to compete fairly and sensibly.

[Translation)


VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil -Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to pay tribute and express my admiration to Virginie Lariviere for her determination and courage in trying to eliminate violence from television. As the adoptive mother of a 13-year old boy, I am able to see every day the kind of children's programming available, most of which has violent images or appeals to violence.
Second, I would like to ask the millions of people who signed Virginie's petition and all those who support her efforts to do something concrete in this Christmas period by not buying violent or violence related toys and music.
Through their individual actions people will show manufacturers and legislators that we take this issue very seriously.
Once again, congratulations, Virginie Lariviere, and do not give up.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Last week the Minister of Finance told Canadians that the recession was over in this country. This week, adding insult to injury, the Minister of Finance has declared that a 10,000-person lay-off at CN is, according to the minister, none of this government's business.
Will the Minister of Finance retract these cold and I suggest callous statements made just days before his mini-budget statement? Will he acknowledge that the recession and Canada's unemployed are real and are the primary responsibility of this government and this minister?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the hon. member that his conclusions are wrong on both counts.
What I did say in the House was that of last week we had five consecutive quarters of growth. With the third quarter GDP figures out today it is now six consecutive quarters of growth, registering 1.4 per cent annually in the third quarter of this year, a 5.3 per cent increase in domestic demand, a 3.5 per cent increase in consumer demand and major increases in investment and machinery and equipment. Those are all positive indicators for the economy.
With respect to the reference to CN, what I did say was that there were programs available and the Government of Canada would be working with these organizations to ensure that they could effectively utilize the programs available under Employment and Immigration and any other programs that might be utilized in cushioning the blow of this adjustment that was taking place.
November 30, 1992


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister now wants to be a credible forecaster. Let us look at his record as a forecaster.
In last February's budget the minister forecast unemployment in Canada this year at 10.1 per cent. It now stands at 11.3 per cent. The minister forecast growth at
2.7	per cent and, as he just said, it now stands in the third quarter at 1.4 per cent. The minister forecast a deficit of $27.5 billion and in the first six months of this year it has already past $19 billion.
This minister is no forecaster and he is no Minister of Finance if he continues to insist that Canada's unemployed are somebody else's problem.
I want to ask this minister whether or not he will commit himself here and now in the House of Commons, before the people of Canada, to bring down a mini-budget or a budget or a budget statement, whatever it is called, in 48 hours that will quit wishing for recovery and will start putting people back to work in this country?
Hon. Don Ma/.ankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think all forecasters were left somewhat surprised at the projections that they made in all the industrial countries with respect to global growth. The world economy is growing at a rate of 1 per cent.
In 1992 the G-7 group of countries was expected to grow in the vicinity of 3 per cent. It is now probably something in the order of 1 per cent to 1.5 per cent. The Canadian economy is weak because the world economy is weak. Because we are a country that trades with the world global interdependence is a fact of life, globalization is a fact of life. We have to trade with other countries.
What we will be doing in the future is trying to take steps that will help the recovery that is occurring. The rate of growth in the third quarter is 1.4 per cent on an annual basis. That is six consecutive quarters of growth. We will do whatever we can to facilitate and encourage that.
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the minister is back to forecasting. Let me quote from the budget speech delivered by the minister last February:
More than 500,000 jobs will be created before the end of next year-
That was from the minister's budget speech to this House. Mr. Speaker, 500,000 jobs have not been created in Canada. In fact since the minister uttered those words an additional 156,000 jobs have been lost in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we want to ask the minister whether or not he is prepared to commit to Canadians who see unemployment now standing at nearly 1.6 million that he will deliver an economic statement in two days that will put people back to work in this country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as well I was not able to predict the massive depletion of the northern cod stocks in his own province of Newfoundland-


Brian Vincent Tobin: We did.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -and the consequences of that both with respect to the fishermen and the fish plant workers. This government took action to deal with that particular issue. A number of unpredictable developments have not only occurred in Canada but indeed have occurred throughout the world, and we recognize that.
If the hon. member just holds on to his seat and is a little patient I think he will be surprised as to what we will offer, bearing in mind that we have very little room to manoeuvre. It is very tight in terms of our manoeuvrability given the fact that the revenues are down. Because of the revenues being down we lack the flexibility to act perhaps as aggressively as the hon. member would like.
I will certainly take his recommendations into account as I put my statement together. It will be an economic statement on the future, on the fiscal outlook, as well as on the economic outlook.

November 30, 1992
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question as well. It is about a confidential report prepared by his department which shows how business executives in Canada are focusing on the deindustrialization of this country. I quote:
Some manufacturing companies have made a decision fairly easily
after free trade to shut down Canadian activity, and just use sales staff
in the Canadian territory.
Having had this report for over a year, keeping it secret and doing nothing about it, will the minister finally admit that the deal is working to lose jobs in Canada? Can we expect that in his report on Wednesday the Government of Canada will finally take its responsibility and have an economic policy that will encourage companies to stay in Canada, not drive them away?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the evidence at hand is entirely contrary to that.
With respect to the story the hon. member referred to, I am sorry to advise him the story is wrong. This was not a government commissioned study. It was an unsolicited report that was sent to the Department of Finance. We kept it on file and released it under the auspices of Access to Information. It was not, as the report has suggested, a finance department authorized study.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the fact that it was not prepared by his department perhaps means that it has more credibility, is more honest and is more objective.
Does the minister mean to say that unless his own officials prepared the document he will not even bother reading the report by a reputed academic from the University of Western Ontario which says clearly that we must find ways to minimize the negative impact in Canada and to provide serious adjustment programs to help the many workers who are losing their jobs?
Is it not time that the minister and his government started to renegotiate a bad trade deal and did something about workers who are losing their jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I was merely trying to point out the facts for the hon. member. I am sorry he is so worked up about it.
I must say that I would rather read the C. D. Howe report on the success of the free trade agreement, the
fact of the matter that there have been jobs created, particularly in those areas of manufacturing.
Quite frankly the evidence is very clear that in the first nine months of this year exports to the United States have increased by 10.5 per cent. Since the free trade agreement came into effect I think the exports have increased to the United States by something in the order of 16 per cent.
What is really important is that in those high value added, job intensive areas exports have been increasing. That should be good news to the hon. member, even in Winnipeg, because it too is a very major source of manufacturing. It is a very good city and a very effective city in terms of manufacturing of exports to the United States of America.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the chartered banks in this country are reporting record profits: $676 million for the Bank of Nova Scotia and $640 million for the Bank of Montreal so far.
Today we just heard from the National Council of Welfare that Canada has made little real progress in the last 10 years in dealing with poverty. There were 3.8 million poor Canadians in 1990, over 1.1 million of them children, and there are probably an additional 800,000 poor Canadians as a result of this recession.
Is this the kind of country the Minister of Finance thinks Canadians want, where poverty is getting worse for people and bank profits are at record heights?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity many times to answer the question on child poverty and to emphasize what the government has done within its means for Canada's children. The National Council on Welfare report says today, among other things, that the government should be commended for the $15 billion it has invested in its departments, including the $2.1 billion increase over five years.
In answer to questions on child poverty last week and the week before, I said that governments and all concerned should do everything to try to overcome and eliminate child poverty as much as possible. Again I call on my colleague, as I have called on others, to give us all the measures we need to achieve these objectives.
November 30, 1992


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in fact today's report makes a very important point that poverty gets worse when unemployment goes up.
I have here a confidential 1991 study on free trade effects prepared for the Department of Finance indicating that many company executives were warning finance that free trade would continue to lead to significant job losses for Canadian workers.
Why has this government pushed ahead toward North American free trade when it knew from its own studies that this would lead to increased unemployment and increased poverty for many Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a report issued by the C. D. Howe Institute, dated October 20, 1992. If the hon. member has not read it perhaps he should.
It starts out by saying:
Three years after its implementation, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement -is working to Canada's benefit-the data on Canada's external trade over the past three years do not support the view of critics that the FTA has led to widespread job losses or that Canada has become merely a provider of natural resources to the U.S. economy -.Canadian merchandise and service exports to the United States have thrived -both absolutely and relative to Canada's exports to the rest of the world -in most sectors that were liberalized under FIA. In fact, he says, Canada has gained most in exports of non-resource based, high value added manufacturing products to the United States-areas that are crucial for the - growth of the Canadian economy.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in the three years before the free trade deal came into effect the exports from Canada to the United States went up by over 7 per cent. In the three years that followed the free trade deal those increases were only 4 per cent. Moreover, Canada's trade deficit with the United States on issues including services and goods decreased during that period. The trade situation was worse.
Oral Questions
According to this study on poverty which I quoted today, the largest increase is in the number of poor children. Often children are poor because their mothers cannot work. Is the minister prepared to announce an initiative to increase the number of child care spaces in his statement on the economy this week?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to quote his evidence. If he did not get a chance to read The Globe and Mail editorial on November 28, perhaps he might be interested in what it has to say. I quote:
Hewers of wood and drawers of water no more: manufacturing now accounts for fully half of Canada's merchandise exports, against less than a third just a decade ago.
It goes on to say:
September's $13.1 billion in total merchandise exports was an alltime high, as was the $10.3 billion that went to the United States. Since the last quarter of 1991, exports have jumped 11 per cent to an annualized rate of $157 billion-exports as wheat (up 37 per cent so far this year) and natural gas (up 21 per cent), but also industrial machinery (18 per cent), office equipment (8 per cent), auto parts (19 per cent), heating and refrigeration equipment (19 per cent), electric lighting (16 per cent) and perhaps surprisingly-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will have to move on.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport was quoted in the Canadian press today as saying that he does not want to end up in jail by encouraging an end to the destructive competition in the airline industry.
If the minister is worried about jail terms, then surely so would the company officials be concerned with such a discussion.
Given this situation, how does the minister expect the airline crisis to resolve itself? Does he have a plan for re-regulation or changes to the competition law and, if so, when is he going to announce it?

November 30, 1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we announced the government's position last week with a loan guarantee of $50 million to Canadian Airlines-PWA so that it can pursue all its options in restoring the company to profitability.
\ English]


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, the government has given Canadian Airlines $50 million in order to buy its silence at the next stage in this affair.
Yesterday it announced it was not paying its creditors. Meanwhile, the minister says he is afraid of going to jail so he has to sit on his hands.
Is the government just going to sit back and wait until the next crisis puts one or both of these companies over the brink? Does it have a plan of action or is it ready to admit that what it really foresees is a one airline policy for this country?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think that the nonsensical statements by the member for Ottawa South on this issue are more harmful to the stability and profitability of the two airlines. I would hope his statements will be more sensible.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Not since the depression have the Canadian railroads been in such difficulty. Since this government took over in 1984 one in three workers has lost his or her job. Now the government has failed in its interprovincial trade strategy, in its tax reform strategy, in its infrastructure strategy and it has not even responded to its own royal commission.
Can the minister not offer the workers of western Canada one single idea of how their jobs are going to be protected and enhanced in the next decade?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the previous MP mentioned that the government had
bought the silence of PWA. First of all, I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian taxpayers. The Council of Employees that are involved in this transaction have also recognized that the government has made a good gesture toward the survival of the Canadian Airlines company.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what PWA has to do with the rail system but perhaps the minister will answer the supplementary question.


An hon. member:: No wonder we are in trouble.


David Walker: However, it is not just the airlines. It is the railroad. It is the roads. It is the infrastructure. The whole transportation structure in this country is falling apart because the minister does not know one component from the other.
I ask again, is it not time the minister brought together the shareholders, people who understand the industry, to come up with a game plan that makes sense for Canadians and starts to protect this industry again?


Jean Corbeil: I did not
know the Liberal Party had endorsed the overturn of the NDP.
We are working with the different companies. Last year we worked with the trucking industry to reinforce its competitive aspects and survivability. We are working with the airline industry to put it back in its profitable state and we are doing the same thing with all industries in the transportation sector.


BILL C-91
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The present process for considering the new patent drug legislation does not allow for any meaningful representation by Canadians who are concerned about the price and availability of drugs. Some of these Canadians are demonstrating for low cost generic drugs on the Hill today.
The provincial ministers of health have formally requested a delay in order to allow for a full and thorough review of Bill C-91. Will the government delay the passage of Bill C-91?
November 30, 1992


Mr. Speaker:: I have to advise the hon. member that I think it is quite clear that is a question that should go to the committee alone and cannot go to the minister. Perhaps the hon. member has a supplementary question.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government: Why is there the rush to pass Bill C-91 in spite of the interests of Canadian families and seniors?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, as you pointed out, the bill is now in committee.
I think the government's policy is widely known. We believe that bringing Canadian legislation into line with intellectual property legislation in other industrialized countries will put Canada on an equal footing. Since 1987 our policy has attracted investment totalling $1 billion, and since last January commitments totalling $500 million across Canada, this coupled with a strengthening of the rules of the Drug Prices Review Board. I believe consumers stand to gain on all fronts.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Over the last three years more than 200,000 metro jobs have been leeched into the Tory monetary sewer. Bureaucracy alone stands between 112,000 workers and $9 billion worth of local construction projects.
Is the minister leaving hundreds of thousands of Canadians without jobs during Christmas so that he can position his capital spending projects closer to the election?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I disagree entirely with the hon. member's allegation.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for capital spending from a spent force in the capital.
This government's so-called economic fundamentals have fundamentally strangled all growth and job creation in the small business sector. The government blames the
Oral Questions
banks for the credit crunch but it is its own low inflation policy that has made small business loans too risky for many lenders because company assets will not rise in value as quickly.
I ask the minister to accept that his policies have been a tragic miscalculation and to have the courage to reverse them before small businesses get even smaller.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I can take it from the hon. member's question that she is in favour of high inflation and more government borrowing and higher interest rates. If she is in favour of high inflation then she is in favour of higher interest rates. That is not a policy we support.


EAST COAST FISHERY
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister says that restructuring is a prerequisite to a bail-out in the east coast fishery. Could he be just a little bit more specific? Who is going to be affected?
Will the government continue its policy of driving fishermen and plant workers right out of the industry altogether with no place to go, or will he now commit to a long-term adjustment program that provides the necessary support to all affected fishery workers, fishermen and plant workers?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, the government has no policy of driving fishermen or fish plant workers out of the fishing industry. However, the government does recognize, as does the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as does the government of New Brunswick, as does the government of Nova Scotia and as does the government of Prince Edward Island, that there are too many fishermen in the industry at the present time.
There is too great a fishing effort being exerted on the fish stocks that are available to us. There are about 84 per cent more fish processing plants than the industry needs. The processing plant capacity in Newfoundland, for example, is 20 per cent used.

November 30, 1992
Oral Questions
These are some of the reasons why the industry is having the difficult time it is having. We have to match all of those assets to the resources.
As part of the northern cod moratorium, we are attempting to provide early retirement packages for fishermen over the age of 55. We will be announcing a program of licence reductions in the future. We are going to professionalize the fishery.


An hon. member:: Time.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is all very interesting. You should not call time when I am trying to explain the program.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister loves to decry the excess processing capacity in Newfoundland. Why does he not 'fess up and tell the House that he was in the cabinet that approved most of the excess capacity when he was a provincial minister.
The minister's policies are creating two classes of fishermen, those who are getting some assistance in these difficult times, and those that are left to fend for themselves.
Despite his announcement last week, I have to say to the minister that fishermen and plant workers are still falling through the cracks, including those who are suffering terribly on the south and west coasts of Newfoundland and elsewhere across the Atlantic.
What does the minister have in mind? What further measures does he have to aid all those people who are the real victims of quota cuts and catch failures?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. gentleman will acknowledge that I have made every effort to assist the fish plants and fish plant workers and fishermen in his own district of Burin-Burgeo.
As a result of the effort put into it-and in all modesty,
I had something to do with it myself-the plant at Grand Banks was resurrected and is now in a different kind of fishery. The plant at Gaultois is operating.
We were able to find that Burgeo was a plant that would come under the northern cod recovery program. We cannot find the same with respect to Ramea because that would be contrary to the facts and because Fishery Products International took steps in 1991-92 that resulted in that plant not being eligible. The managing
director of FPI is now trying to blame that action of his on me. I rather resent that. I hope that the hon. gentleman opposite will take up my cause.


DUTY FREE SALES
Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
Can the minister inform the House whether information that Mohawks are selling items duty-free to white people was accurate and, if so, could he tell us about the steps he has taken to stop this unlawful activity which allows non-aboriginal citizens to purchase cigarettes or other goods without paying duty, unlike the majority of Canadian taxpayers?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously aware of these concerns. That is why non-compliance activities for both natives and non-natives are currently being aggressively pursued by way of audits, on-site visitations, other audit schemes and so on.
However, the bottom line remains the same, that for the province of Quebec, Revenue Quebec as well as myself and Revenue Canada are committed to take every necessary step to make sure that compliance on and off reserves in Quebec is going ahead according to the laws and regulations of the policies of both the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. Likewise in the rest of Canada, Revenue Canada is going to be taking every necessary step to make sure that compliance is agreed upon by all involved.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week the Canadian Environmental Law Association testified that the North American free trade agreement continues the requirement of perpetual supply of all of our resources to the American market, including energy, under article 605, while granting an exemption to Mexico from the energy requirement, annex 603.6, and other resources, annex 316.
November 30, 1992

Where is the conservation strategy here? Where is the integration of the economy and the environment we have all heard so much about?
In short, how can this government continue to say that the North American free trade agreement is environmentally sound?


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me state some of the facts.
There is nothing in the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States that commits us to continue to supply the United States with all of our energy. She knows that very well. What we are committed to do is to meet certain contract requirements. Nothing requires us to sign more contracts, but the NDP have never understood that.
With respect to the North American free trade agreement, there is an exception for Mexico because of the Mexican energy decree.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government does not understand about the proportionality clause.
Under the Canada-U.S. and this new trade deal, water is treated as an ordinary good. This provision effectively cripples our federal and provincial governments' control of water exports.
Will this government finally admit that there is really no environmental consideration here, that a greedy bottom line will be the only real consideration in the future development of schemes to export Canadian
water?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in reference to the hon. member's question and also the answer of my colleague, I would like to point out to her that in 1973-74 when the International Energy Agency was formed, countries that were in a net import position such as the United States, Germany and Japan had to develop what was known as a strategic petroleum reserve. In other words, they had to have reserves on hand in case of shortage. Countries, such as Canada, which are members of the International Energy Agency and which are in a surplus position did not need an SPR.
Oral Questions
Mexico, which is part of OPEC, obviously as an exporter of oil does not fall into those proportionality requirements. So the long bow she then draws to water is just as false as her first premise.
 * *


VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the government and the Governor of the Bank of Canada are so obsessed with fighting inflation by raising interest rates that this has caused a completely artificial rise in the value of the Canadian dollar and a recession that is destroying the manufacturing sector and tens of thousands of jobs.
Now that he has created a disastrous situation and is faced with the need to reduce interest rates in order to start economic recovery, is the Minister of Finance prepared to confirm today that his department intends to borrow American dollars to reduce short-term pressure on the Canadian dollar instead of pursuing his suicidal policy of high interest rates?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that the Governor of the Bank of Canada or the government created a policy that is keeping the dollar high. I do not know where he gets his figures. A little over a year ago, the dollar was worth 89 cents while today it is around 78 cents. Some increase.
As far as interest rates are concerned, we have explained on many occasions that the government must operate under the constraints of a very high national debt which makes the ability or will of lenders to lend us money a major factor to contend with. Interest rates are based on that factor and not on a whim of this government.


Benoît Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Finance tolerate the fact that last week the rate on Canadian Treasury bills was 9.05 per cent, while the rate on U.S. Treasury bills was 3.27 per cent, a difference of nearly 6 per cent?

November 30,1992
Oral Questions
Does the Minister of Finance realize that today, economic recovery is no longer being blocked by the value of the Canadian dollar but by the unacceptably high real interest rates we have to pay to attract investors who are afraid to lose money on the Canadian dollar? Is it not time the government sent a very clear message to the financial markets and indicated that it has confidence in the Canadian dollar by borrowing U.S. dollars? Otherwise, it should let the dollar go down and let interest rates go down.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, if it were as simple as all that, it would be very easy to manage the economy. However, investors base their assessment of Canada's economy on a range of factors. These include the deficit and the debt of the Government of Canada and that of the provinces and Crown corporations like Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro. That is the basis on which they decide whether or not to invest, and we respond to the laws of the market.


CANADIAN FORCES RESERVES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the Canadian forces reserves.
In his report, the Auditor General in his chapter on the Canadian forces reserves made some disturbing revelations. He talked about accountability, rank structure and how heavy it was. He talked about equipment acquisition and talked more than anything else about availability of the Canadian forces reserves.
I would like to know whether the minister agrees with the allegations in the audit report and what he intends to do about them.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very important issue. In Canada's military history reservists have always played a key role and very often a most important role when they took part in military activities. The Auditor
General's Report raises some points of which we are quite well aware, and within the total force policy. The department and the forces are reviewing exactly how reservists fit into the total picture in Canada. This is a priority for us. Some of the points raised have already been dealt with and others remain to be corrected, but I can assure the hon. member that I share his concern.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The Canadian forces reserves are quite concerned about what was contained in the Auditor General's report. They do, after all, make up the total force concept which is a part of the minister's defence policy. I agree, it is a very important part of the defence policy. They volunteer. They give up their time. It is really quite a serious indictment.
Given that we spent $750 million last year on defence and given that availability is really important, can the minister at least give the House some indication of when there maybe some legislation that will ensure availability by legislation to make them (a) available and (b) protect their jobs when they are serving their country?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the analyses that we are now undertaking include this issue of reservists' availability for call-up. In the present system of no advance notice in which nearly half answer the call for requirements with the professional forces in Cyprus, for example, or in the gulf war, I am told that is quite a normal response rate, approximately 50 per cent.
Now the idea of having a bill to assure reservists that they can leave their jobs and return to them has been discussed a lot in Canada for some time. There are pros and cons. The danger with too restrictive a law is that reservists will have trouble working in the private sector because it might be perceived by employers as a danger.
This question is still being discussed now and no decision has been made one way or another.
November 30, 1992


GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It is about the wise use of taxpayers' dollars.
The Canadian Saltfish Corporation, an agency of this government, after lending $110,000 has leased a ship from Claymore Shipping, owned by the father and the daughter of Captain Morrissey Johnson, a former Tory member of Parliament, for $2,200 a day or $1.5 million. At the same time, the same Captain Morrissey Johnson sits as the chairman of another Crown corporation, namely the Fisheries Prices Review Board, where he makes a measly $91,000 a year.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he approves of those practices and what exactly he intends to do about it.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is quite funny how the network operates. This is a question that was raised in Newfoundland about 10 or 12 days ago by one Danny Dumaresque, a member of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland. At his press conference, the experienced reporters there who know what is happening laughed at him. The reaction he got from the press was not questions; it was laughter.
There was a vessel chartered some years ago by a company with which Captain Morrissey Johnson had been connected, the Canadian Saltfish Corporation. It was all quite proper and legitimate. When Captain Morrissey Johnson was a member of this House he had no connection with that company. The company was operated by his daughter.
He is an honourable person who gave four years of his life to this institution. Unfortunate he was not returned here.
The hon. gentlemen opposite, one of his colleagues, gets up with this scurrilous nonsense, which is outrageous.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, that proves again that sometimes when you lose, you win.
Oral Questions
I want to ask a supplementary of the President of the Treasury Board.
The government contracting procedures say that government contracts, and I quote from the minister's own manual, "shall stand the test of public scrutiny, of prudence, probity, and encourage competition". The president of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation said about this contract: "We do not have to do things by public tender".
Which is the government policy, public tenders or sweetheart deals?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy is to operate in accordance with the regulations. In the case of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, in those years it was operating a very expensive business in Labrador on the north shore of Quebec which no private enterprise would touch. We could not get a private enterprise firm to take over this work. It had to charter vessels to move salt bulk fish to and from Labrador as well as supplies and do all of the rest of the work that needed to be done.
The president of the corporation has already answered these questions publicly in Newfoundland. Everyone in Newfoundland knows there is nothing to this dastardly huffery of the hon. gentleman's provincial colleague. Nor is there is anything to what he is now getting up in this House and trying to-


BUILDING OVERPASSES
Mrs. Marie Gibeau (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Referring to the building of two railway overpasses for Henri Bourassa Boulevard on the border of Montreal north, the minister is reported to have said in an interview with the Montreal North Guide that these overpasses are in federal jurisdiction. Yesterday the minister said that the federal government had agreed to assume responsibility for building the overpasses.
I would like to ask the minister what he is waiting for to announce the beginning of the work and can we hope for construction to begin in early 1993.

November 30,1992
Tributes


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Bourassa knows that these overpasses are to be built as part of the reconstruction of Henri Bourassa Boulevard. The main parties in this affair are the municipalities concerned and the Government of Quebec. As for the federal government, of course we will build the overpasses once construction on the boulevard has begun.
[English)


KEMANO PROJECT
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Documents released from the minister's department indicate that pressure was put on departmental scientists to alter their evidence in a court case regarding Alcan's Kemano project.
Will the minister confirm that the RCMP in British Columbia is reviewing his department's operations as it relates to the allegations of the changing of testimony? Can he tell us when we can expect an answer on this investigation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the RCMP is conducting an investigation it is not confiding in me as to how its investigation is proceeding or what the results of its investigation are. It would presumably report to the provincial minister of justice or to whatever authorities it is conducting the investigation for.
There has been some kind of an investigation into this matter going on now for a year or two, but we have never been put in possession of any information as to just exactly what the investigation is about or what results have occurred.
I can tell the hon. gentleman that no political pressure has been put on anyone in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as to how they should testify in any particular case. With respect to this particular project there was an agreement entered into, as the hon. gentleman knows, dealing with these matters. I know of no pressure exerted on anyone in that connection.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Gohar Ayub Kahn, Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Elizabeth Cull, Minister of Health and responsible for Seniors of British Columbia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
*
*


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to designate tomorrow, December 1, an allotted or supply day.


HON. STANLEY KNOWLES 50TH ANNIVERSARY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, today is the 50th anniversary of the election of the Hon. Stanley Knowles to the House of Commons.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On November 30, 1942, 50 years ago today, a by-election was held in Winnipeg North Centre to replace the late J. S. Woodsworth, first leader and founder of CCF, who had died earlier that year. Mr. Woodsworth had represented Winnipeg North Centre since 1921 after his defence of working people thrust him into politics during the Winnipeg general strike of 1919.
His successor and the one he wanted to succeed him was the young Stanley Knowles, a United Church minister and CCF activist who had run twice before for Parliament in 1935 and in 1940. Stanley would carry on the tradition of Woodsworth, picking up his concern for rail workers in Winnipeg and the abrogation of their pension rights, particularly by the CPR, that went back to the 1919 strike. In 1948 he succeeded in getting those pension rights back and protecting further abuses of that kind by the railways against striking workers.
November 30. 1992

The son of a railway worker himself, Stanley's base of support was to be found at both CN's Transcona shops and CP's Weston shops. Election after election and in between elections for over four decades Stanley could be found standing at the shop gate handing out Hansard, handing out not propaganda, not what he was going to say, not a simplified version, but all of what he had to say and all of what he had repeatedly said on behalf of working Canadians, someone who took Canadians seriously and did not try to influence them with catch phrases tested by focus groups. Stanley was out there the day after the election, too, saying thank you, something that I did with him after his last election in February 1980.1 remember being there with Stanley in the cold of that particular month as the guys went in the shop gate and they said: "Congratulations, Mr. Knowles, way to go, kid. Look after him, Stanley, show him the ropes". And he did, as he showed so many other people the ropes in this place.
Stanley, you knew how to say thank you, but so many more Canadians owe a thank you to you for your persistence and precise use of the rules to advocate so many causes, like the end of the means test for old age security and the lowering of the pensionable age, two of your greatest accomplishments.
Stanley was and is a House of Commons person and it is a source of true joy to all of us who know him that unlike so many others he can have the real privilege today of celebrating his 50th anniversary and of being in the Chamber to do so, surely a unique achievement in Canadian parliamentary history.
Just the fact that Stanley continues to be present in this Chamber gives it a certain dignity. Canadians take comfort in knowing that you are here, Stanley. Time and again I am asked by people in Winnipeg about Stanley and how he is doing. Stanley, you occupy a special place in the hearts of many Winnipegers and indeed many Canadians.
As midwife to the birth of the NDP, as trusted adviser and House leader to M. J. Coldwell, Tommy Douglas, David Lewis and Ed Broadbent, as a friend to the hon. member for Yukon, as an early friend of women's issues,
Tributes
as an expert in parliamentary procedure and defender of Parliament during the 1956 pipeline debate, and at all other times, and more recently as an example to Canadians who have suffered a stroke, of perseverance and of devotion to the work of a lifetime, we salute you.
May God grant you many more years in this Chamber which you so ably served and in which you served the Canadian people in such an outstanding and selfless way.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a truly great Canadian, one who has inspired parliamentarians both past and present and indeed all Canadians with his dedication to the work of this House and to this country.
It was 50 years ago today that Stanley Howard Knowles was first elected to the House of Commons to represent the riding of Winnipeg North Centre. He worked hard on behalf of his constituents and served them exceedingly well. To prove this point they re-elected him 12 times-12 times, Mr. Speaker-between 1942 and 1980.
From the moment Stanley Knowles set foot in this House he fought tirelessly to improve social justice for all Canadians. He outlined his goals in his maiden speech on February 3, 1943 and remained loyal to those principles throughout his long and distinguished parliamentary career.
One of his key achievements was to succeed in having pension benefits for senior citizens improved. As a matter of fact, when he first came to Ottawa pensions were only $20 a month.
Mr. Knowles has worn many hats over the years, often at the same time. A few of those included that of worker, trade unionist, minister, scholar, social activist, family man and of course parliamentarian.
We are honoured to still have Mr. Knowles among us today providing guidance, advice and inspiration. He is arguably the foremost expert on parliamentary rules and procedures in Canada today. As a fellow octogenarian, it is certainly a privilege for me to have the opportunity to pay this tribute to a great Canadian and long-time friend.

November 30, 1992
Tributes
Mr. Speaker-and you should pay attention to this; it is for you if you are listening or not-back in the seventies there was a controversial bill in the House of Commons to improve the pay of members of Parliament. Quite a sizeable increase was recommended. This may come as a shock to a lot of people, but I did not approve of it and I voted against it. There were other changes in it. There were increases for cabinet ministers.
One of the things that struck me was, with all due respect to cabinet, I felt there was one member in the House of Commons who was entitled to a reasonable increase and that was no other than the Speaker; it was Mr. Jerome at that time. I said the Speaker should be entitled to a cabinet minister's salaiy. I went over and talked to Stanley about it and he helped me word it. In any event it went through, but when it was over Stanley came over and said: "Stan, you are the only member of Parliament in the opposition who was ever able to get a money bill through" because that was an increase in salary.
Again, Stanley, it is a privilege and a pleasure to be here to invite all members of this House to join me in paying tribute to the Hon. Stanley Knowles, someone who makes us all proud to be part of Canada's parliamentary tradition.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the congratulations to Mr. Knowles in celebration of his 50th anniversary. I bring greetings not only of the Liberal Party but as the member of Parliament representing the same seat as Mr. Knowles did. I always say to people I have both the great fortune and the great lack of fortune to have the former member of Parliament sitting in front of me at all times.
I can say at times when I stand here I can see Mr. Knowles sit upright as he turns to see whether or not I am representing Winnipeg North Centre in his tradition. Despite our partisan difference I hope he feels the people are being represented.
On a personal note, Mr. Knowles' reputation has lived on and on in Winnipeg North Centre. When I go to many places in the community-and I do not mean just among the seniors or the elderly but I mean among all age
groups-people ask me regularly: "How is Mr. Knowles, how is he doing, is he still in the House every day?"
It is real tribute to somebody who represents an area for as many years as he did that many years after people still inquire. Those of us who are now serving in the House aside from the Table understand just how difficult it is to be that well respected. It is a tribute to all of us that he continues to share with us every day what goes on in this House.
I know I will bring back to the people of Winnipeg North Centre his goodwill. They in turn will wish to hear from him that he continues to be interested in the House. On behalf of the Liberal caucus and the people of Winnipeg North Centre, I again say congratulations to you, sir, and it is fine to have you here.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to say a few words.
I remember when I first came here in 1968 that Stanley Knowles was then here about 26 years. I thought, boy, that is a long time to be a member of Parliament or to be associated with the House of Commons. Now it is 24 years later and he is celebrating the 50th anniversary of his election to the House of Commons in 1942.
Not only is November 30 the 50th anniversary of his election to the House, November 30 is the 13th anniversary of his appointment to the Queen's Privy Council on November 30, 1979. On both counts I want to congratulate the hon. Stanley Knowles, the former member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Back in 1942 when he was elected, he was elected with a majority of some 6,900 votes. His campaign manager in those days was David Lewis. Mr. Knowles has told me about that campaign when he succeeded J. S. Woods-worth. He told me about a fund raiser that was organized by the CCF in the old Marlborough Hotel in Winnipeg. It created a stir among CCF circles in Manitoba because he decided to charge $1.50 ticket for this fund raising dinner back in 1942. We can see how times have really changed since those days.
Not only was Stanley elected in 1942 but he was re-elected another 12 times. To be elected to the House of Commons 13 times is quite an honour for any person in this country.
November 30, 1992

Stanley was elected, as I said, 50 years ago and there is no one in this Chamber, either as a member of Parliament or working on our staffs, who was here at the time when Stanley Knowles first came to Ottawa. I guess you have outlived everybody Stanley. You have survived absolutely everyone.
One of my memories about Mr. Knowles was not only was he Mr. Parliament when I first came here in 1968, but shortly thereafter, in 1973 when he turned 65 years old, we had a celebration for him in the Speaker's room 16, just behind the Chamber. The Minister of National Health and Welfare of the Liberal government at that time presented Mr. Knowles with his very first pension cheque. He might be the only Canadian in history who actually had the Minister of National Health and Welfare come to him at a reception and present him with his very first old age pension cheque. I remember that like it was yesterday.
Mr. Knowles, we want to say to you from the bottom of our hearts: You have made this institution a much greater place. You made this country a much greater place, and there are an awful lot of us who owe an awful lot to you. We hope you are here with us for many years to come.
*  *


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex -Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege with regard to reports in the Canadian press of this document that was presented by Canada Post Corporation in which it suggests systematically denying members of Parliament information required to carry out their duties.
The document is a communications plan from Canada Post with regard to the retail postal outlets. The plan indicates that where there would be changes to postal services, retail postal outlets or retail postal outlets closing, in each case the government relations will decide whether to advise in advance individual members of Parliament as to what is happening within those ridings.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to take the hon. member away from his intervention, but when the hon. member refers to government services, I take it the hon. member
Privilege
is referring to that division or that group within Canada Post, not to the government.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, yes. That is correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Jerry Pickard: Mr. Speaker, the government services of Canada Post. Thank you for the correction. The excerpt was confirmed by Canada Post Corporation Government Relations superintendent, Mr. Thrasher.
This information clearly prevents MPs from obtaining information they require to scrutinize a Crown corporation, Canada Post, when asking questions here in the House and when dealing with their constituents' concerns here in the House as well.
As a result, I feel that it is a prima facie breach of privilege for members. If the Speaker finds this to be the case as well, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have just heard for the first time this particular point.
I heard my hon. friend seek to establish a prima facie case of privilege. I listened carefully and I did not hear such a case being made. It might be that a Crown corporation would have a particular communications strategy vis-a-vis announcements to be made to the public and to members of Parliament for any number of reasons.
I do not believe that what we heard described here today would in any way inhibit a member of Parliament from performing his or her duties which is, as we all know, the only test of whether a privilege has been intruded upon.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I support the comments of my colleague.
I listened to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader indicate that it would not impede the work of a local member of Parliament as it relates to his or her particular Canada Post facility. That is absolute nonsense. In point of fact, it would affect most seriously their duties and how they carry out their duties in terms of the notice that one would get and the ability of the member of Parliament to organize with interest groups in that particular community. Knowing all of the information which Canada Post has at its fingertips would be very helpful to a member of Parliament in his or her role in representing their constituents.

November 30,1992
Routine Proceedings
I have examples in my own riding where Canada Post attempted to close post offices. It was only for the fact that we had the information and were notified and consulted beforehand that we were able to mount an attack and to provide the alternative for the government and for Canada Post.
I just wish to reiterate that this is a very serious breach. I believe it to be essential that members of Parliament have this kind of information and consultation, and are treated fairly and generously in this particular process. I would hope that the Speaker would find a prima facie case of question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the intervention of the hon. member for Essex-Kent, the hon. member for Cape Breton East-Richmond and the hon. parliamentary secretary.
I am not going to make a decision now. I am going to adjourn it. The hon. parliamentary secretary may want to consider whether there are more facts that should be in front of the Chair.
It seems to me it would be helpful if I knew a little bit more about exactly what this government relations group had in mind with respect to its particular approach in notifying members of Parliament as to actions that are taken with post offices in their particular ridings.
I am going to adjourn for the moment. The parliamentary secretary might want to give me some indication as to whether there is anything further to hear and at that time we will deal with it further. I thank all hon. members for their intervention.


POINT OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have a very unusual request that I wish to make of the Chamber. I have not had an opportunity to consult with members opposite nor to my left, but I think what I am asking will be self-explanatory.
I have a letter here that I just wish to table with the House. It is a letter which is signed by the executive committee for the Westray families who are calling upon the Government of Canada and the Government of
Nova Scotia to have a federal inquiry into the tragic events which occurred at Westray. I am wondering if I could have unanimous consent of the House to table this letter so that it may be on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has asked the House for unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of a document entitled The Canadian Position With Respect to Conventions and Recommendations Adopted at the 77th and 78th Sessions of the International Labour Conference in Geneva, June 1990 and June 1991.


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition asks that the government reconsider its decision with regard to the Court Challenges Program, a program as we know that has been abolished by the government, a program which allowed many individuals
November 30, 1992

and minority groups to clarify to the courts their constitutional, linguistic and equality rights. These people would like to see access to our courts given to all Canadians and, to that effect, would like to have the government reconsider its decision so that it would be available to all Canadians at all times.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I have three sets of petitions.
The first petition has some 36 pages of signatures, collected for the most part in the Peterborough region but also throughout Ontario and Canada.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to amend the laws of Canada to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer card and to advise producers of killer card that their product, if destined for Canada, will be seized and destroyed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have the honour to present to the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, has three pages of signatures.
The undersigned are asking and praying and calling upon Parliament to take the actions necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, the third group of petitions I have to present pursuant to Standing Order 36 totals some eight sheets of signatures. The petitioners request that Parliament revise the laws of Canada to replace the Young Offenders Act with an updated Juvenile Delinquent Act with a lowered maximum age of 13 rather than 18.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I too have three sets of petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36.
Routine Proceedings
The first petition is rather belated. Its 25 signatories were asking and calling upon Parliament to call a referendum. We now know that this has been done so I will file that petition.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, my second petition has 100 signatures. The petitioners are saying that it is desirable for all Canadians to provide senior citizens with the necessary support to live their lives as independently as possible and that the federal government has a primary responsibility to ensure the adequacy of seniors' pensions.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure that Canadian old age security pensions are sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canada's senior citizens.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, my third petition has approximately 700 signatures. This is a very important petition. The signatories are from Nepean, Ottawa, Smiths Falls, Kingston, Manotick, Renfrew and many, many areas throughout eastern Ontario.
The petitioners are speaking to the fact that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have been sentenced to 28 years each in a Brazilian prison, have suffered a miscarriage of justice and cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons.
The petitioners believe that Parliament should urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada immediately.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition is from 51 petitioners in my riding who are opposed to the GST, particularly with respect to dance lessons. They say that the GST on dance lessons represents both a significant cost to those taking dance lessons and an additional burden for persons or groups operating dance schools.
The petitioners call for the government to remove the GST with respect to dance lessons.

November 30, 1992
Routine Proceedings PROUD TO BE CANADIAN


Rodney Edward Laporte: My
second petition is from a number of constituents in my riding who want to promote the 'Proud to be Canadian' project which is sponsored by the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs across Canada.
The undersigned support the 'Proud to be Canadian' project as an opportunity to nurture a positive life-long relationship with our heritage and our flag, to encourage stronger ties among Canadians for the further advancement of Canada as a leader in world circles, and to promote a tremendous pride in being Canadian. It is a tribute to Kinsmen and Kinettes across the country.


ABORTION
Rodney Edward Laporte: My final petition is from 51 people in my riding who say that RU 486 is a drug which causes the abortion of the human foetus at an early age of development, and that the administration of RU 486 has caused the death of at least one woman to date. It has caused serious health problems in others during clinical trials in France and the only proven use for RU 486 is the abortion of young human beings. Therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to withhold approval of RU 486 and prevent the marketing and/or testing of this drug to induce abortion.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to deposit a large number of petitions asking that this House amend the Young Offenders Act. These were signed in memory of young Rosalynn Dupuis who was murdered last spring.
The petitioners ask that more serious sentences be allowed. They ask that programs of rehabilitation be started. They ask that all of these very serious crimes and the criminals who have committed them, especially if they are young offenders, be treated very seriously as the crime demands, and that we remember the victims of
these crimes and give them as much consideration as we do the young offenders.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present two petitions on behalf of many dozens of senior citizens, individually and through their clubs, to ensure that old age pensions are secure in this country.
They say that many hundreds of thousands of Canadian senior citizens live below the poverty line, that over 80 per cent of single women over the age of 65 live in poverty. They know the federal government has the primary responsibility to ensure the adequacy of seniors' pensions and therefore call upon Parliament to urge the government to ensure that the Canadian Old Age Security pension is sufficient to meet the basic needs of Canadian senior citizens.


REFUGEES
Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a petition signed by Canadians from all across Canada: from British Columbia, Quebec, my riding of Ottawa Centre, and so on.
These constituents are calling on the government to show some compassion in dealing with refugee applicants from across the world, in particular those who come from unstable countries where civil strife is taking place.
I would join these constituents in calling on the government to show some compassion in granting them the refugee status required.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
November 30, 1992



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25. 1992, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted in my answer to the question I was asked just before the break. The member who asked it spoke about the situation of education in the province of Quebec. What he did not mention was the fact that Quebec is blessed with a Liberal Party government under which the people of Quebec have not suffered the way the people in Ontario are suffering under our current government.


David Charles Dingwall: Explain.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond is asking me to explain that.
It is a simple explanation. The NDP government in Ontario is driving business out of the province. The Liberal government in Quebec is attracting business to the province. That is the difference.
It used to be that businesses left Quebec for Ontario but since Ontario switched to the NDP the trend has reversed. We are finding that other provinces in Canada are the net beneficiaries of the election of the NDP. It was not long ago they called the premier of Ontario the citizen of the year in Buffalo because he had driven so many Canadian businesses out of Ontario into Buffalo.


Mr. Butland:: Answer the question.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am answering the question. I am trying to point out the advantages that Liberal governments have afforded.
We do not hear complaints in this House about Liberal governments in Prince Edward Island-the hon. member laughs-Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Quebec that we do about governments in other provinces, particularly
Government Orders
in Ontario where, as I indicated earlier, we would be out of the recession if we had any other government but that one.


An hon. member:: Come on.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member is from Saskatchewan. He does not know. The New Democrats in Saskatchewan are a different kettle of fish. They are really Liberals out there.
In Ontario the NDP sadly are not Liberals and they are not Conservatives. They are neither fish nor fowl. Some would say foul. Of course, I am being very careful in my use of the word, spelling it very correctly. However, some say that the Government of Ontario is definitely a weak link in the chain of provincial governments in this country and I agree with them.
The hon. member is from Saskatchewan. He knows that business has been moving into Saskatchewan and out of Ontario because of the NDP government in Ontario. He must know that.


Rodney Edward Laporte: No, Peter.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Everybody else in Saskatchewan that I see tells me that is true. They tell me that business is booming in Saskatchewan compared with what it is in Ontario because they are moving. Ontario is suffering a decline. Just ask Bob Rae about the loss of corporate tax revenue. I heard him moaning about it in an article I was reading in the paper. There were quotations from Premier Bob saying that all his tax revenues were down so he had to cut.
I know why they are down. It is because businesses are moving out. He just has not figured that out yet. He will in due course. It will probably be year four of his mandate before that happens.
I am sorry that perhaps my time on that question has gone. What I was trying to point out was that the Liberal governments are the ones that help create the atmosphere in which economies prosper in Canada. Tory and NDP governments work together to destroy that prosperity.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to participate in this debate on second reading of Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
There are a number of items one could make reference to, but I will be fairly succinct this afternoon in directing my comments at a number of different aspects of this particular bill.
My first point concerns amendments to the Canada Student Loans Act. In my constituency this year has been an extremely difficult one for students, who last summer attempted to find summer employment and found that there were very few opportunities. Second, the proliferation of taxes over the last eight years has had an excessively negative impact on family income. Third, many families do not have the privilege of having meaningful work in that there are about 1.6 million Canadians now unemployed.
When we examine that situation and some of the provisions contained in the budgetary papers of the Minister of Finance-one of them being a 3 per cent administration fee on student loans, and also the elimination of the six-month interest-free period for students who have graduated and cease to be a full-time student.
To the casual observer these measures may not provide all that much difficulty. I am here to speak on behalf of my constituents who believe that these measures are regressive and are not necessary. They do very little to facilitate students who are going into the work force and those who are not there at the present time, nor do they assist students who are presently having to seek financial aid to go on to post-secondary education of some sort.
In my constituency I have met with literally dozens upon dozens of students who have come up against a brick wall. There is no summer employment and family income has been taxed 32 times by this administration in the last number of years. The Government of Canada is presently using tables for the purposes of calculating the family contribution dating back to 1983-84. They are vastly outdated.
The other aspect is that, as I said, many families and many bread-winners are now finding themselves without any form of work whatsoever.
To tell students who wish to pursue their post-secondary education that they will have to pay off the top-note that it is off the top-a 3 per cent charge is rather tough.
I know that there are members in this chamber who have children, daughters and sons and some even grandsons and granddaughters who are going to university and they do not find that to be a very burdensome fact of life. When I go back and trace my own roots going into post-secondary education, my parents were janitors. I had to borrow the money to go to university, and a 3 per cent charge off the top is a lot of money.
To some oil baron or some major contractor or lawyer or doctor, whatever it may be, maybe that is not burdensome. It is the kind of money that you can buy your books with, 3 per cent. It is the kind of money that pays for the aeroplane ticket to one's home at Christmas. That is what it means.
I cannot for the life of me understand the government of the day when it talks about a prosperity agenda and turning around and slapping students with a 3 per cent off the top administrative fee.
The government's retort to my assertion is the following: "Students who have gone on to university and who have received money from the Government of Canada are not paying it back, and we have to take measures to ensure that we are going to get that money back".
I have suggested to the Secretary of State and other ministers of the Crown that there is a way this can be done. Many students who leave university-and one of the great examples is in the city of Toronto-cannot find work. MBAs and students with BAs in education and the sciences cannot find meaningful employment.
What does the government do? It is taxing students today at a 3 per cent administrative fee. What does it do to the students who do graduate?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It charges them interest.


David Charles Dingwall: Not only does it charge them interest, but it has eliminated the six-month interest free period. If you were to graduate in May of 1992, you would have June, July, August, September, October and November without having to pay any interest on your student loan. You would have a six-month free holiday. The government has done away with that.
Students cannot get the jobs; there are no jobs to be had. It is another burden given to young people and young students in this country.
November 30, 1992

If the Government of Canada finds itself in the precarious position on defaulted student loans in excess of $700 million, if that is the case, why does it not think? Is it the disease that has plagued this government for the last number of years and has been referred to in Question Period as this government being a spent force?
I would think that if you were in business and somebody owed you that kind of money you would look at the situation and you would say: "It is awful. We have to do something to recoup that money".
The first thing you have to do is send out notice to those students who have found meaningful work and have an ability to pay, that they should pay back. Nobody in this country who is reasonable would disagree with that. If the lawyers and the doctors are out there practising law and medicine and making money they should be paying the money back to the Government of Canada which loaned them the money to pursue their education.
What about the thousands and thousands of students who want to pay back the money they have borrowed but who cannot get a job? In my end of the country, in Cape Breton, many students have had to leave to go elsewhere to find employment, whether it be in British Columbia or in Alberta or in Toronto.
There are no jobs there. Those jobs are gone. What happens? This government says it is not going to give it to you interest-free for sue months; it is going to ding you right away. You cannot get a job so what do you do? Your debt continues to mount and mount. What does the Government of Canada get out of this process? It gets nothing.
Students get something; they get more debt. Is that what we want to do in this country? The answer is obvious to most reasonable individuals except the crowd over there. Why does the government not think and say to students maybe there is a program that if you owe x amount of dollars we will take you as a business major and say you have to put in 18 months with the United Appeal; no salary, but then we will write your student loan off?
There is a contribution that the student is making. They are getting something back and the government will see something for its efforts in that it will have more
Government Orders
educated, more experienced, talented young people who will have some semblance of experience because, as we know and we all have it in our districts, students are caught. They cannot get a job because they have no experience and because they have no experience they cannot get a job. It goes around like a vicious circle.
Why could the government not come up with some sort of a package? You are not going to get the $700 million by socking it to the students who do not have an ability to pay. Surely the Government of Canada has to be a little bit more imaginative. Maybe we can do something with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Students are prepared to take the risk, to take the challenge, to take the opportunity to get the experience and to get their debt ratios down. I was very fortunate when I graduated from university. I was able to get a job and pay back the money I owed the Canada Student Loans Program, for which I am very thankful.
I have constituents who come to my riding office who are desperate, who have no form of employment, who cannot get an aeroplane ticket or a car to go to Toronto to get a job. As my friend will say, there are no jobs in Toronto. They have been terminated.
This thing about having a 3 per cent administrative fee on students today and then turning around and shortchanging them with regard to those who do graduate come August 1, 1993 to eliminate the six-month interest-free period is absolutely nonsense and does nothing to resolve the problem which is facing young people in this country.
The other thing the government ought to do in terms of the tax, the 3 per cent, as well as eliminating the six-month interest-free period, is meet with the stakeholders in the Canada Student Loans Program and revise the program to make it meaningful.
Let us go back to the family contributions. How many members in this Chamber have heard from parents who talk about the proliferation of taxes, who say my husband or my wife has lost their job, the income has been reduced, the income has been further reduced by the number of taxes and yet the Government of Canada under the auspices of the Canada Student Loans Program is Using tables that go back to 1983-84?

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
Surely the stakeholders, the students and parents would want to have a meaningful dialogue on how we can address some of the deficiencies which are numerous in the Canada Student Loans Program.
I am not going to get into what different provinces do or how they do it, but suffice it to say in my province of Nova Scotia and in my district of Cape Breton-East Richmond students are having a very difficult time and parents are having a very difficult time. They want to see their sons and daughters pursue post-secondary education but there is a system that continuously works against them.
I would hope that on second reading of this bill the government would see its ways and amend accordingly and get rid of these regressive measures.
The second point that I wish to raise is the whole aspect of amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act. The budget says: "The budget proposes that the broadening of the scope of the Small Businesses Loans Act by increasing the maximum individual loan amount from $100,000 to $200,000".
Are they in Disneyworld over there, mentioning $100,000 to $200,000? Have you ever talked to anybody in small business lately? They must be thinking of the Easter bunny and Santa Claus and the tooth fairy to think that this is going to have a major impact on small business in this country.
Small business is telling me that it cannot get $100,000 today. How is $200,000 going to help? It will also tell you: "Government, you promised to eliminate massive paperwork. You have not followed through on that". There is the proliferation of taxes on small business in excess of 32 taxes. When you have the consequential effect with regard to provincial government, it is even much more than that.
Finding capital is difficult. The banks are not lending money. The Minister of Finance gets up and does the Alberta two-step; one forward and two back. He tries to tell us there is all sorts of money out there for small business. It is not out there.
Theoretically $100,000 as opposed to $200,000 is a little bit better. However, that is theory.


An hon. member:: That is the cost for a year.


David Charles Dingwall: That is right. The hon. member is mumbling over there and he will have an opportunity to participate in the debate. The first thing you should do is call an election so we can get rid of this crowd over there which has lost the will to govern.


An hon. member:: Be constructive.


David Charles Dingwall: You have to instil in the system some sense of confidence as to where we are going. This government has not done that.
The hon. member, who will be an hon. member at least when the books are written, will no longer be a member of this House after the next election and he will then have an opportunity to understand fully and to appreciate what small business is having to go through in this country.


An hon. member:: What should we do?


David Charles Dingwall: Look at the proliferation of the taxes that this government has put into place.
This is a government that argued and campaigned in 1984 that we had too many taxes then. We come in now and there are 32 new taxes. This is the government that took in the GST and said to the people of Canada that this was going to be the panacea to cutting the deficit as far as Canadian taxpayers are concerned.
It really cut the deficit; from about $180 billion it has gone up to well over $400 billion. That is the Tory way. The hon. member wishes to mumble, but he will have his opportunity and mumbling does not really resolve the problem. The fact of the matter is the introduction of the GST further facilitated the recession that we are now in.
Third, the GST has had negative consequences in terms of the revenue it was supposedly to produce for the Canadian government. Not only were those members wrong in theory, they were wrong with regard to how they implemented all of their tax changes as they affect the Canadian economy.
What better group in society has felt the pain than small business in this country? Therefore, I say to members opposite that Bill C-76 and the amendments are putting another $100,000 made available to small business which in theory is fine, but the reality is that banks and many institutions are just not lending the money.
This will do nothing to assist in that regard.
November 30, 1992


Garth Turner: Be constructive. Do not just criticize. Give solutions.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the hon. gentleman in terms of the proliferation of taxes that there were too many. They brought in the GST at the wrong time.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


David Charles Dingwall: I am trying to respond to the hon. member's questions, but again he is one of those Tories who sits on the other side and reads the dogma which comes from PC research. They think they have the monopoly on all the answers to the ills of society.
My colleagues in this party and I know that we do not have all the answers, but we know that member over there and this Tory administration have brought in 32 new taxes when they promised they would not introduce any new taxes. They brought in the GST which further facilitated the recession we find ourselves in at the present time.
This is a government that has now put an additional tax of 3 per cent pn students. This is a government which is attempting to eliminate a tax-free provision for six months for students who are no longer full-time students. That is contained in the provisions of Bill C-76.
I have offered solutions with regard to student loans. I have offered solutions with regard to small business which the hon. member has heard. However they do not want to hear answers. They do not want to hear alternatives. They do not want suggestions, and the reason is that they have lost the will to govern.
I can assure all members across the way that Canadians will reward them handsomely for not having the will to govern and to listen. Let us have an election and then they can be accountable to the Canadian citizens for all the wonderful things they have done for the taxpayers of this country.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech was outstanding in terms of volume. Certainly it also deserves very high marks in the indignation category.
He was saying that the government was not interested in alternatives or any suggestions. Five or six minutes ago he was speaking how students were very enterprising and that perhaps something could be worked out with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and so on.
Government Orders
I was not quite clear what he had in mind when he made that suggestion. I invite him to elaborate on it because on this side of the House, although he alleges that is not the case, there are people who are interested in alternatives and new ideas. Could he elaborate on that?
Second, while he is returning to the debate, could he say what he would have done in relation to student loans if he were the minister responsible and had read in the last few days the report of the Auditor General talking about some $400 million in defaulted student loans?


David Charles Dingwall: It is larger.


Patrick Boyer: It is a larger amount, he informs me. It is a very high figure. It is one that gives cause for concern as to the whole viability of the student loans program. I would like to hear his thoughts on that as well.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made some suggestions in my remarks as to what the Government of Canada could do. I do not wish to repeat it verbatim, but with regard to Canada student loans defaults, surely the Government of Canada has to send a signal to those individuals who have the ability to pay that they must pay.
I give as an example myself. When I graduated from university and went on to work, I had the ability to pay and I did pay. I paid my student loans off. There are those in the system who have the ability to pay. The government should be serious about getting that money back. We have seen some examples in other jurisdictions where governments have been serious with delinquent payments.
Many students have graduated and have no form of employment, no opportunity for employment, no likelihood of employment, particularly in the regions. I guess to a large extent students cannot find employment in some of the major urban centres of this country. I am sure the hon. member has, as I have had, numerous students with their MBA, BA, Bachelor of Commerce, et cetera, who cannot get anywhere.
The government has to be creative. It has to be creative with some players who are out there, for instance some of our national social agencies such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses. I will use myself as an example. Perhaps it is not a good example, but I think the hon. member will see the point.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
1 graduated in commerce. If you have a student who does not have the ability to pay, perhaps that student can work for 12,14,16 or 18 months with the United Appeal. Make a contribution to the United Appeal. Maybe it is a marketing expert. Maybe it is a financial expert. You work to pay off your student loan. It is not written off at the taxpayers' expense. You have to make a contribution to the community, to those social agencies which are out there, in order to lessen the debt for students.
Maybe it cannot all be done through that particular national organization of volunteers. Maybe something can be done through the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses in terms of some form of a wage subsidy that the Government of Canada will pay in lieu of the student getting moneys, and giving a proportion of that amount of money back to the Government of Canada.
It is not the spendthrift Liberals trying to write all these debts off. I think governments have to be creative and go to the stakeholders and speak to the students and volunteer organizations such as the cancer society, the United Appeal, the Red Cross, the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses, economic groups, environmental groups across this country, all of those. If we can come to some understanding, some form of contract of service in lieu of the payment of the student loan, I think it will contribute substantially for the student in lessening his or her debt, and also contribute substantially to society and to the organizations they are to serve.
I want to tell my hon. friend that you are not going to get one hundred cents on the dollar through default student loans by doing what you are doing at the present time.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my colleague's good grasp of the situation. However, when he suggests that the government should become creative in attempting to collect this $700 million of outstanding debt, I am sure he is aware-I want to highlight it, I want to put it on the record-that the government has become very, very creative. It has in fact farmed out the collection of outstanding student loans to the sharks out there. I read where the various private collection agencies are vying for these very lucrative contracts to get their teeth into
these students, or failing that if the students have no jobs, get after their parents.
I am not exaggerating. These people are like sharks. They harass these people at school. They say: When are you going to pay, and the student says I have no job, I cannot pay.
I cite the case of a 53-year old constituent who came into my office and borrowed $4,000 about 15 years ago. He said that he made a pact with the government to pay $20 a month. But he said: "As I pay my token toward the debt, it is expanding faster than I can pay it". He asks: "who is going to hire a 53-year-old?" He is not employable, he accepts that fact which is really a tragic statement for an individual to make. The government is not prepared to give him a chance. In fact, it goes one step further and puts it out to these collection people who harass and harass. In the case of young people, if they cannot pay it, they say: "Well, can't the parents pay it? Take money out of their RRSPs".
Surely there must be a better way. It is creative but it is certainly not acceptable. It is not compassionate in any way. Granted there are dodgers out there who they have to be come down on hard, but for every dodger I am sure there are 25 or more good, sincere, ambitious young people who want to work.
I ask the member to comment on this policy that the government has initiated.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising this aspect about the harassment which is taking place of students who have left university and who are attempting to find work. He is quite right.
The harassment which is taking place is totally unacceptable to young people, to me as a legislator and hopefully to this House. Some of the tactics which are being used are just unbelievable. If one were to use the code word from the movies loan sharks that is what it looks like.
These individuals are being called at home, receiving letters in the mail, called at work, even if it is part-time work as baby-sitters. There are uncles being called, grandmothers being called, family members being called. There may be a separation in the home, a father has gone or a mother has gone. They are calling these individuals to try to get their pound of flesh.
November 30, 1992

That is totally unacceptable. It underlines, in my view, the need for us to be creative. Let us remember that when you get a Canada student loan the bank does not lose any interest. The bank gets paid because it is guaranteed by the federal government. Perhaps there is a way in which we can do something on the interest with regard to these loans which are outstanding.
In my constituency there is a young person who is paying interest at 17 per cent because that is what it was at the time. Interest rates were high. He was locked in at that time. Therefore that person has to pay the money back.
We have to be more imaginative, more creative. Since the money is paid to the bank and it is owed to the Government of Canada, I think we have to look at ways to revise the rate of interest which is being paid. As the member has correctly pointed out, a constituent who has agreed to pay x number of dollars finds out after five or six years it has not done anything really to the principal because it is all going to interest.
Those are the kinds of things that I think we as a Parliament must attempt to do for students in this country who are trying to pursue their post-secondary education.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this bill, Bill C-76. As you know, there are four aspects to this bill. It makes changes to the Canada Student Loans Program. It makes changes to lobbyists who are required to pay a registration fee. It is going to reduce salaries of ministers and it is going to increase limits for business improvement loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act. I would like to make comments about all of these, some in more detail than others.
Very briefly, with respect to the increase in registration fees or providing registration fees for lobbyists, there is nothing wrong with that except that the government does not seem to be distinguishing between lobby groups. There are a lot of lobby groups in this country that are doing a good job that are lobbying for the disadvantaged. These groups tend to be non-profit groups or groups with very little funding. They can ill afford to pay registration fees.
Lord knows we need groups lobbying for women, minorities, native peoples, the disabled, the homeless,
Government Orders
the poor, et cetera. There should be an exemption for those types of groups which are doing very good work, work that often is not done by this government, work that needs to be done in this country.
The next area I want to talk about briefly is with respect to ministers' salaries. We welcome the fact that salaries of ministers of the Crown will be reduced by approximately 2.5 per cent of their total income. That is a token amount and that is appreciated.
However, I would suggest a better approach would be the one suggested by my leader, the hon. member for Yukon, the Leader of the New Democratic Party who suggested that with regard to members of Parliament who have to pass any legislation that deals with members' income, members' pensions, perks, and the rest of it, it should pass by this House.
However, it is not appropriate for us to be doing this ourselves. As we have suggested, there should be a committee, an independent body set up that will make recommendations to this House with respect to MPs' salaries, ministers' salaries, perks, pensions, everything that surrounds a member of Parliament or minister of the Crown. That package would come to this House and would simply be passed by this House without any questions being asked. That is a more responsible approach to this issue.
There are two other areas I would like to spend a little more time on. One is with respect to small business. This bill purports to make changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act which will increase the amount of loans that are available under this act from $100,000 to $200,000. It is important to point out some of the background with respect to this bill.
Since its establishment in 1961, the objective of the Small Businesses Loans Act has been to encourage private commercial lenders to make term loans to small business enterprises for financing the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of specified fixed assets, equipment, premises and land. The rate of interest must not exceed chartered bank rates of prime plus one. That is all very well. As well, the federal government is liable to pay 85 per cent of any loss sustained by a lender as a result of a loan made under this act since 1985.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
There is nothing wrong with that aspect of the act. There is nothing wrong with increasing the amount available under the act for loans. However, there are problems with this bill, the main one being that small businesses are having difficulty getting any loans under this act. In fact, trying to obtain a loan in the first place is a major task. One main reason is that the attitude of the banks is that most small business people are simply a bad risk. I have been told by people in my riding that if a small business entrepreneur has an opportunity and is a good credit risk, banks often time will not even mention the Small Businesses Loans Act and will offer them money under a different program. Of course, the goal of banks is to bring in the most revenue possible. As we have seen in recent days, bank revenues are at record highs for a number of the chartered banks.
It is interesting to note that the number of small business improvement loans made by lenders has decreased from almost 35,000 in 1985 to a little over 10,000 in 1991. That is a major decrease. The amount of money lent decreased from over $1 billion in 1985 to something like $413 million in 1991.
We have to emphasize that the banks have a responsibility to help end the recession. The problem with the Small Businesses Loans Act is that we need the banks to make it work. Small businesses create over 80 per cent of the new jobs in Canada, but the banks would apparently rather lend to large businesses than to small business entrepreneurs. Therefore, increasing the limit to $200,000 is simply not going to help the small business operator if he is trying to get a loan for $40,000 or $50,000. It does not help them.
Small businesses are hurting. Business bankruptcies are up again. In September over 1,200 businesses failed, up 18 per cent. While the banks are cutting back on loans under $100,000 to small businesses under the Small Businesses Loans Act, in the fiscal year ending March 31, more than 85 per cent of all funds for loans and guarantees by the Federal Business Development Bank were in the over $100,000 category. This government needs to provide more risk and venture capital for small businesses and simply not just to larger firms.
I think we on this side of the House would all agree that small business plays an integral, essential role in the economy of this country. Over the last several years the small business sector has been responsible for most of
the new job opportunities. Between 1980 and 1989, Stats Canada indicates that almost 80 per cent of the new jobs created in this country were created by small businesses with less than 50 employees.
Small businesses are often the mainstay of many small rural communities. I know that from experience in Saskatchewan, having been part of a major rural paper for this party. In fact, it is the first federal party to have a rural policy. I travelled to many parts of rural Canada this last year.
Small businesses are a mainstay in rural communities. This government and other governments have not focused attention on the need to help small businesses in rural communities. Certainly, this measure is not going to help them either.
Full employment can only be achieved with the full co-operation of Canada's small business sector. There is an unfair tax burden in that small businesses still pay an average tax rate higher than Canada's largest businesses. The GST will add further hardships both in compliance costs and in accounting costs for the small business person.
Ninety-eight per cent of small businesses are Canadian owned. Their earnings are usually reinvested right back into the community and into the Canadian economy.
Small businesses operate under severe constraints in the Canadian economy which in turn limits their potential to produce even more jobs. Constraints, such as high costs for development capital, severe undercapitalization, high interest rates and higher taxation levels compared to corporations put small business at a real disadvantage in the Canadian economy.
What should we do about this? The federal New Democratic Party has suggested a number of alternatives including: ensuring that banks provide more loans to small businesses at the rates given to big corporations; establishing a more aggressive buy Canada program which includes government contracts and is targeted to the small business and community enterprises; providing risk and venture capital for small businesses; providing greater opportunities for women to establish small businesses including the commitment by the banks to treat women in an equal manner; and identifying areas in which small business could expand to meet consumer demand now covered by imports.
November 30, 1992

We should be providing small businesses with relevant financial marketing and management assistance through federal one-stop shopping centres to be organized in conjunction with local business communities. This is really important in rural Canada. Reform of the Federal Business Development Bank is needed to focus its activities on small business, especially those most in need.
Canadian Patents and Development Ltd. should be directed to work with small businesses to help them patent new innovations and to market those patents world-wide.
The tax system should be changed to make severance pay tax exempt and to allow the tax-free use of RRSPs to start up new small businesses. We must immediately move away from the high interest rate policy that this government has pursued and as well withdraw the GST.
Those are measures that the New Democratic Party has suggested. They are measures which would help small businesses.
Although the increase in the funding from $100,000 to $200,000 in terms of loans in the Small Businesses Loans Act is fine, it certainly is not enough. It is certainly not going to help small businesses that are struggling today or many individuals who are thinking of starting up small businesses.
We all know that small business people spend a lot of hours working at their small businesses. Many of these people do not spend 35 or 40 hours a week working in their businesses; they will spend 75 to 80 hours or more. Often that person is the manager, the accountant and the clerk. You name it, they do it all. Those people have not received the respect they deserve from this Parliament.
Those are some of the measures my party and I support. They are measures which are essential if small business is really going to survive in this country.
I would also like to make some comments with respect to the fourth area with which this bill deals. That is with respect to student loans. This government is planning to
Government Orders
remove the six month interest-free provision that is presently in place for student loans.
I remember when I was a student. I studied education initially and I also studied law. I graduated in April and was fortunate to get a job. In those days, there was still a big need for teachers and my job started in September. I had all of May, June, July, August, September and October before I had to pay interest on my loan.
That was very important for me because at that point, having been a student for some four or five years, I had a lot of debts. I had over $10,000 in student loans to pay back. It was essential for me to allow myself to get established. I taught in a small town in Kipling, Saskatchewan. I moved to that town. I moved my family there and incurred debts moving to that community.
The interest-free provision was very much appreciated by me. There are lots of students today who, even if they do get a job after completing school, should have the opportunity to establish themselves in the work place. This is simply not going to happen now.
To be faced with an interest burden as soon as students graduate simply is not fair. Many students find themselves out of luck and do not get jobs with anywhere from $8,000 to $18,000 in loans. If they still do not have a job after a year or so, their best course is to declare bankruptcy. That is what I would advise them to do.
Why should they be faced with that burden? They come out of school owing $18,000 or $20,000 and that is rising at the rate of who knows what the interest rates might be because they seem to be going up and down like a yo-yo. The last thing they need if they start working after a year or so is to face that increasing burden. This government is simply encouraging people to avoid paying those bills.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie also raised a very important point with respect to the fact that students are often hassled with their loans. I have had constituents come into my office as well. A number of times former students have come in and have said that they are working at a minimum wage job somewhere, or

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
that they do not have a job yet, or that they are single parents. There is a whole host of situations.
In any case, they are being hassled by collection agencies. I have had occasions to deal with a few of those agencies on the phone and it is very difficult. It is not very pleasant nor very fair to have a collection agency harassing a student. This government should do something about that. If it wanted to help students, it could start with this.
The 3 per cent surtax now on student loans which the government said it was going to remove but is still being taken off the top when a student gets a loan is also a burden. Yes, it is a lot of money when you are a student and you do not have a lot of money to spend. You lose 3 per cent off the top of a loan that you have to pay back and that you are going to pay interest on as soon as you graduate.
It is true. As I listened to debate on this bill today there were some comments with respect to the fact that moneys given to the provinces for education are not always channelled to that particular goal or objective. The accountability is not there. This was something that was removed by the Liberals back in 1975 and has not been dealt with since. One of the ways the government could deal more efficiently and effectively with student loans would be to put that accountability in place. That would be helpful.
As far as students repaying the loans not only should we be providing a six-month grace period, we should also be providing a grace period until the student obtains a job. Then the government would get its money back. We would not have the $600 million or $700 million in outstanding loans that are not being paid back to the government. Students would be making payments on their loans. When a student has a mounting debt and is trying to make payments on the loan but is having a very difficult time just meeting the interest payments it does not make him or her very anxious to pay that debt off.
We should show a little more respect for our students. After all, if we are going to compete in this world and if we are going to be a competitive nation, we are going to need educated Canadians.
We want to encourage people to go to school. We do not want people to be detracted from going to school because of lack of finances. We want to be encouraging
people to take out loans to get an education and contribute to society. When a student graduates and there is no job available, it is not that student's fault. What we should be doing, I would suggest, is providing an interest-free period until that student obtains a job.
Although there are derelicts in this country who will negate their obligations, the vast majority of students do not fall into that category at all. In fact, I would suggest that the vast majority of students would be more than willing and would want to pay back their loans.
Students should be treated fairly. Once they have a job and start making a contribution to this country they can pay back their loans and can start paying interest. However, to burden students with a debt load before they find a job is unfair.
What this government is doing with the proposed changes to the student loan legislation is not going to help the government or the students and that is unfortunate. Therefore, I certainly will not be supporting this portion of that legislation and I believe the rest of my colleagues in this party will not be supporting it either.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, it seems that all of us who are getting up to speak on this have at one time or another had student loans and repaid them. I guess there is something to be said for the importance of this program over the years. It has helped a lot of us acquire a university education.
In the remarks just made by the hon. member he was outlining different parts of his party's policy dealing with this whole question. Certainly what he was saying about small business is not, as he was intimating it might be, just a concern to people on the opposition side of the House.
Anybody in public life in this country certainly understands the importance of small business. A lot of measures taken by the government bear that out that it is an enduring issue and an important focus for anyone in public policy in this country.
I would like to go on from that comment where I thought he was perhaps being too general to be really helpful in his assessment to a more specific point he raised. The member said that it was the New Democratic Party's policy to withdraw the GST.
November 30, 1992

I would like to ask the member what is in fact meant by that? Is it to revert to the pre-existing 10 per cent telecommunications tax that applied to phone bills and television cable services, that sort of thing, and the 13.5 per cent tax on manufactured goods and on building materials and so on?
In the alternative, if it is not to go back to that, is it simply to vacate that field entirely? If that is the case, how does he and his party propose to make up the shortfall in many billions of dollars of obviously needed revenue for the Government of Canada that any government needs to carry on the public service of the country?


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question by my hon. colleague across the way, it is certainly very tempting with the GST and its some $18 billion or thereabouts which I believe it brings in every year to maintain that sort of tax. It is not a progressive tax; it is a regressive tax. The hon. member says it is a progressive tax but it is a regressive tax. We on this side of the House are opposed to regressive taxes.
This country survived for 125 years without a GST and it has only been in the last little while that we have had a GST. There are alternatives. Certainly the way the manufacturers' sales tax was put in place was not the answer. We all agreed it was not an appropriate tax. This government actually doubled that tax in the years before it did away with it. That is not the answer, unless it is a very small tax.
What is needed in this country is some true, progressive tax legislation. This government should do a complete revision of the Income Tax Act. The Income Tax Act is not designed solely for getting tax revenue from Canadians. It is an act that has all sorts of social programs, social initiatives and economic initiatives tied to it. The Income Tax Act is cumbersome. Corporations hire accountants, tax lawyers and others and pay them good salaries, $80,000, $100,000 or $120,000 a year to find loopholes in it.
The previous Minister of Finance said he was going to simplify the Income Tax Act. All he has done is complicate it. The first thing we should do is take the Income Tax Act and throw it out and come back with a truly
Government Orders
progressive, simplified Income Tax Act that will tax Canadians fairly.
At least $27 billion in corporate profits were totally untaxed in recent years and hundreds of billions of dollars are taxed at an extremely low rate. I appreciate the comments made by the member that we all appreciate small business. However, small businesses get the fewest breaks and the most taxes.
If we had a revised Income Ihx Act that would provide fairer taxation for all Canadians and take some of the burden off the middle class, we would have a more progressive economy. We would also have an economy that would recover faster, because the middle-income people are the ones who do the most for this economy. They are the ones who buy the goods and services and they are the ones who contribute back into the economy.


Mr.   Garth@: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member would not wish to mislead the House in any way. I would ask him to consider comments he made about the regressivity of the GST. The GST is a tax on consumption and when during a recession consumption falls then the tax take on a consumption tax also falls and that is extremely progressive.
That is exactly the reason why the amount of money collected by the GST, now at roughly $15 billion, is almost $2.5 billion less than the amount collected by the taxes it replaced. Anyone can see, in effect, that has amounted to a $2.5 billion tax reduction for Canadians during the course of this recession.
It is not just that which makes it more progressive. It is also the fact that the GST credit is in place, pumping about $2.3 billion this year back into the pockets of lower income people. Certainly the member has to agree that the GST regime and a tax on consumption, particularly when the economy has been in decline, has been a much fairer and progressive way to raise funds.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, the GST is a regressive tax. It is regressive because it taxes everyone at the same rate. If I make $20,000 and I get a haircut I am charged 7 per cent tax. That 7 per cent is worth more to me than if I am making $60,000 and get that haircut. It is a regressive tax. There is a provision in it for the lower income group in our society to get something back. However, it is a regressive not a progressive tax.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to what the hon. member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore had to say and I want to put the question directly.
As I understand it, the policy of the NDP, if Canada was unfortunate enough to elect them as the government of the day, would be to abolish the GST.
If the GST is abolished-even if we accept the incorrect figures of the hon. member for Halton-Peel of $15 billion-we no longer have $15 billion that we are using to fund existing programs. Precisely what will the NDP put in place to replace that $15 billion if it is going to abolish the GST upon coming into office? What else will it do, or how is it going to cover these programs?
It is nonsense to say that we will have a complete revamping of the Income Tax Act because any rational person knows that to review the Income Tax Act is going to take, if not months, years. In the meantime, is he saying that while his party is reviewing the Income Thx Act, we are going to continue to have the GST?
If he is going to abolish it, what is he going to put in its place? What policies is he going to cut?


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my Liberal colleague, the position of this party is yes, do away with the GST.
A New Democratic government, the date it conies into power, is obviously not going to remove the GST immediately because it is making $18 billion. That is true, but an NDP government will remove the GST. Certainly in its first mandate it will be gone, and a more progressive tax system will be put in place.
The hon. member might consider talking to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood who I believe has ideas on improving the Income Tax Act. There is one alternative.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was going to get a break today and get the NDP to endorse a single tax. I guess no such luck. I keep hoping.
I want to begin my remarks today by referring to that portion of the bill that deals with the Small Businesses Loans Act. I have stood in this House several times and have said that I believe this is good legislation, the fact that we are taking the Small Businesses Loans Act from $100,000 and doubling it to $200,000.
Most Canadians do not realize that essentially this means that if I ran a small business and I went to my local bank, and provided the bank manager knew about the program, I could be entitled to up to $200,000 in a loan from that bank on capital items. The bank is supposed to be progressive in its attitude of lending under this legislation because the bank is guaranteed 85 per cent of the loan if the company should go into default.
My problem with this legislation is the fact that very few bankers across Canada know about this program. I have been pleading for months with this government to try to do something to communicate to all the bank managers in Canada that this legislation exists.
If the government were to do this, it would go a long way in rekindling some spirit of hope and confidence in the small business sector. I will not go into a long dissertation on the importance of small business to the economy of this country because we all know that small business employs close to 80 per cent of the people.
We also know that the greatest hope for new job creation lies in this particular sector. The government needs to address the communications aspect of this particular part of the legislation, the Small Businesses Loans Act.
The second thing I find frustrating is that it has taken us almost a year to put this amendment to the Small Businesses Loans Act through the House of Commons. This is the kind of thing I really believe serves us poorly as legislators, as members of Parliament.
It is almost nine months since the Minister of Finance announced this legislation. The press reports would talk about the Small Businesses Loans Act going from $100,000 to $200,000. That creates an expectation with many businessmen out there that there is something in this budget for them. It is almost a year later and we still have not made this legislation come alive with the business community of this country.
Basically there is all-party agreement on this legislation. It seems to me that when we think about little things we could do that are not going to cost the treasury any money, things we could do to stimulate the economy, deal in some hope with the small business sector, here is legislation that could have gone through this House six months ago and there would not have been anyone on
November 30, 1992

this side to say that we are against moving this legislation through too quickly.
As someone who comes from a small and mediumsized business background, I can tell you if there is one thing that tends to discourage an entrepreneur, not from time to time but often about the way this place works, is that we seem to take so long doing so many simple things, and this is a specific example.
The other thing I would like to deal with is that section of the bill which deals with the amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act. The amendment gives the Governor in Council regulation-making power to enact regulations charging a fee to be paid by lobbyists when as required by the act they register under the act.
I am going to be critical of the government on this particular part of the legislation. The Lobbyists Registration Act is like smoke and mirrors. Basically we are amending the act so that from now on lobbyists are going to be charged when they register.
We need a full debate on how the lobbyists or the government relations people who are involved in that exercise in this city interact with members of Parliament, interact with officials, interact with the entire policymaking apparatus.
I watched the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore last night on cable 10 in Toronto where he was being interviewed on, I think, John Tory's show. The subject being discussed was the way lobbyists were basically manipulating the system from the bottom up in this town. I commend the hon. member for his straightforward remarks. They were right on the button as far as I am concerned.
I can remember back in 1980 there were a few lobbyists around this town but they tended to be people who would try and advocate a thrust that was more along the lines of policy-making or policy amendments.
In the last five or six years I have noticed the incredible industry of lobbyists that has emerged. It is like a whole new sector of the Ottawa economy. These various government relations vice-presidents and various associations not only work on policy but are now lobbying for
Government Orders
grants and are lobbying for contracts for privatization of airport terminals. It is the most incredible thing.
It is at a point now where anything of substance that goes on in this city by-passes most MPs. Good lobbyists will deal with a cabinet minister's office. Let us say it is something to do with transport. They will deal with senior officials and with critics directly related to that particular issue. They will basically by-pass the whole parliamentary process.
We do not need some little tinkering amendment to the act which is contained in this particular bill. We need a full-blown debate on what goes on in this city and in this country with the lobbyists.
It is not that I am against the exercise of people wanting to advance their particular point of view, whether it be the auto sector, the oil sector or whatever. What bothers me about it is the way the whole thing is shrouded in secrecy.
In the United States all lobbyists are registered, but they also have to report their sales and their fees. In other words, if I was a lobbyist representing a particular client in the oil industry or the oil sector I have to register the amount of money that I received from that particular account.
If all of a sudden it is seen that I am representing a particular industry and at the end of the month or at the end of a six-month period I post that I received $10 million in fees from a particular sector of the economy people will certainly know where my thrust is coming from. It tends to make people a little more alert to what is going on in the process.
It is incumbent upon the government as it is preparing itself to do a little bit of a face-lift over the next 30 days-we understand that the government is preparing a Speech from the Throne and maybe right at the top of the list it could say that it is going to take a good hard look and review the lobby system, how it works and how it affects the parliamentary process in this country.
Maybe before this particular Parliament ends some of us can become relevant again. Right now, as most of us would agree, it seems that on any given day the lobbyists are more relevant than some of us.

November 30,1992
Government Orders


Derek Vincent Lee: They're outflanking us.


Dennis Joseph Mills: They are outflanking us, as my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge River has just said.
As for student loans, my government House leader said it all today when he talked about the fact that the credit collection system that this government has hired is very tough. We are talking now about student loans that are not necessarily in default, but people are a little slow or their payment schedule has been delayed.
Quite often that delay in payment schedule has been due to unfortunate circumstances. Maybe a young person who has graduated has not had the opportunity to find a job or maybe there were some other commitments in terms of family or whatever that had to be looked after right away. It is so demeaning when someone is just in the process of getting on their feet, and I have had single mothers in my own riding come into my office a couple of times almost in tears when they have received phone calls, letters and threats. In particular cases in my riding this agency was called Total Credit Collection. It was so aggressive in its approach that it just knocked the stuffing out of these people who were trying to get on their feet.
There is absolutely no reason why the government cannot send some signal to these collection agencies it has hired to be a little more sensitive. I can see these people using that technique if it is someone who has a healthy job, if they have assets and resources and are trying to default on paying the debt back to the Crown as a point of negligence. Fine. I can see the collection agency being a little bit aggressive with that kind of person.
However, I do not think it is very constructive to pick on people who are disadvantaged during a very tough time.
I know that even though we are trying to put across our point of view on some of these particular components of this bill here today the government will probably not do anything to amend it. We can only hope for some direction from it to the various agencies it is responsible for to ensure that they will be a little more sensitive. I challenge the government to address the issue of lobbyists.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the member for Broadview-Greenwood has given another of his thoughtful speeches. I want to pick up the challenge he has just issued to deal with the lobbyist issue.
I suspect that if he would have moved an amendment to the provision he has pointed to dealing with the fees it probably would have been one I would have gladly seconded.
As we are not going to have that exchange right now, at least the House has just referred to the Standing Committee on Corporate and Consumer Affairs the Lobbyists Registration Act so that it now undergoes its three-year review.
While I know that some members of this House and certainly most of the practitioners of the lobbying trade would say: "The present legislation is fine, leave it alone, thank you very much" there are certainly many of us-and I would hope most members of this House- who feel that the practices engaged in by those who insert themselves between the people and those in their government and extract a fee for doing so-and I speak here of the tier one lobbyists, not the tier two lobbyists. They finally have an opportunity before this committee to make their views known because we will certainly want to make our views known about what we consider to be something that is fundamentally undermining representative democracy and eclipsing Parliament.
The member for Broadview-Greenwood spoke of the minimal contact between these representatives of special interests in our society and those of us who are elected officials. A senior representative of one such lobbying firm told me not more than 5 per cent of all their contacts are MPs. That number is in the published literature as indicating where the contacts are made.
There are many things that have undermined the peoples' elected Chamber over the past two, three, or four decades. This is one of them.
The fact is that we as parliamentarians will now have a chance to review the Lobbyists Registration Act and deal far more substantively with the issues that are raised here about democracy in Canada and the conduct of public business than is dealt with in this one amendment, which only goes to the question of a fee that is charged.
November 30, 1992

It is time for us to look at other aspects such as the abolition of contingency fees, such as disclosure of the ownership of the lobbying firms, such as having elected officials report the contacts made by lobbyists, such as disclosing the exact nature of the lobbying transactions, such as disclosure of fees, random spot checks and verification, and such as the government bringing in Bill C-43 which was studied by a joint committee of this House and the Senate, recommendations now made to deal with conflict of interest.
All of this is uppermost in the minds of Canadians who like many of us here want to see some fundamental reforms in the way Canadian democracy is practised.


Dennis Joseph Mills: If that is a motion the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore is advancing, I would certainly second it on this side of the House. He has hit the nail right on the head in terms of all the things that have concerned me.
Let us work together over the next couple of weeks to see if we cannot get something in motion with the consumer and corporate affairs committee. I appreciate the member's comments.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, now that the question and comments period has focused on the lobbyist registration provisions I want to ask my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood whether or not he thought it might be appropriate in the context of this bill to think a bit about the issue of the contingency fee issue raised by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
Many of the lobbyists now operate on contingency fees. A lot of them are not out there trying to procure government contracts. They are simply trying to steer government in a specific direction on behalf of their clients. However those who are seeking government contracts often do operate on a contingency fee and therefore end up piggy-backing on the taxpayers' dollars. We are talking about millions and millions of dollars.
Instead of just an entry fee or a registration fee for lobbyists, why would our government not require lobbyists of the Tier I category who now operate on contingency fees to publish their hourly rates? In that way when the contract was given, when it was over, we could calculate how much work they did and how much they could get paid instead of simply taking 5 per cent or 10 per cent from a multimillion dollar contract. Would that not be a good amendment to this bill?
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: I believe my colleague from Scarborough- Rouge River has once again addressed one of the essential problems with what is going on with lobbyists. Too many of them are using the system. They are treating a government grant like a real estate agent selling a home: the higher the price of the home, the greater the fee. In other words, they will take 4 per cent,
5 per cent or 2 per cent on a multimillion dollar grant, contract or transaction. It is not right. This is the kind of thing we will have to address when the matter is in committee.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to some comments that the hon. member made regarding banks and small business loans.
He is quite right when he identifies the root of the problem as not necessarily being a legislative one but being one of attitude on the part of Canadian banks. He and I will both know that several banks over the last few days have announced some very impressive profit figures, which leads us all to the inevitable conclusion that it is not a problem of a lack of funds in the system. It is a problem of a desire or an ability to take any risks on the part of the banks or to share risks with those entrepreneurs who are willing to go out into the community and invest.
Certainly the legislation extending the ceiling from $100,000 to $200,000 is completely meaningless if entrepreneurs are not able to get their hands on the funds. It is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to send the clearest and strongest message we possibly can, that we believe bankers need to loosen up their wallets and really put some of these funds into circulation.
I have a question for the member. Some of us have been kicking around the idea that perhaps there should be some changes to the Bank Act which would mandate certain percentages of the asset base of the bank to be forced into circulation for small and medium-sized businesses.
In other words, first an encouragement and if the encouragement does not work then perhaps some legislated way that we could require Canadian financial institutions, namely the big six banks, to make those funds available. After all, we have created an environment in which those bankers have grown large because of a lack of competition for a great period of time in this country.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
Would that be something that the hon. member might consider looking into on his own?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member for Halton-Peel that would be a little too much regulation for me. I would like to see the banks give more autonomy to the branch managers. Often today one goes into a branch manager and he says: "Listen, I have a memo here from the head office and my hands are tied, even though I know and I recommend that you are a healthy, productive business, you have a great product, and you should be given the money".
We need to get the Minister of Finance, the minister of industry and the minister responsible for small businesses to call in not just the six banks but all the schedule B banks and use some moral suasion with all of them to make sure their branches exercise the legislation the House has created.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992.
There are four parts to this bill: changes to the Canada Student Loans Program, to the Lobbyists Registration Act, the Salaries Act, and the Small Businesses Loans Act. I wish to speak mainly to the Student Loans Act portions of the bill and to the small business provisions of the bill.
In the riding of Kootenay East we are about 1,400 kilometres from the closest university. When students make applications for their loans we know the kinds of problems they are facing when they come from that distance and the kinds of costs that are involved. To see what the government is doing I say is nothing worse than shameful. It is a tragedy.
It is a tragedy that this government comes out with these kinds of drastic changes to the Canada Student Loans Program during a time when it stands in this House and talks about competitiveness, about how we must retrain people and about how people must be better educated to be able to be competitive in the job markets that are going to be.
To say that a student, after he has completed his program, is not going to be entitled to the six-month
grace period for interest on the loan when he pays it back at the end is nothing other than thievery. When these students come out most of them have spent their lives putting together and borrowing money to be able to go through university. They need a good six months to be able to re-establish themselves. They need the time to be able to adjust and find the locations where they are going to live and set up their lifestyle so that they can start to pay back their loans.
However, the government is saying no. It is saying that it is going to do away with the six months of grace. Immediately upon coming out of university they must pay them back. It is shameful. The government is talking about competitiveness and retraining. There are 1.5 million unemployed people at the present time, yet the government brings about these kinds of changes under the Canada Student Loans Program. At its semi-annual general meeting in May 1992 the Canadian Federation of Students adopted its policy. The federation is opposed to the government's abandonment of the original objective of the Canada Student Loans Program of enhanced access to post-secondary education. Again this is an attack on the students.
They oppose a statement for the Canada Student Loans Program based on speedy completion of the program. They oppose the establishment of a special operating agency to administer the Canada Student Loans Program. They oppose the elimination of interest subsidies on student loans for a six month cessation of studies, which I have already indicated. They oppose the government's move to divest itself of the public responsibility for providing 100 per cent guarantee of Canada student loans. They oppose the federal government's risk sharing arrangement with financial institutions as a means to guarantee Canada student loans.
They oppose the application of the commercial interest rate on Canada student loans. They oppose the increase from 60 per cent of full course load to 80 per cent in order to be eligible for a Canada student loan. They oppose the reduction of the limit of total borrowing from 520 weeks to 340 weeks under the Canada Student Loans Program. They oppose the government's move to end forgiveness provisions for students with disabilities under the Canada Student Loans Program. This is
November 30, 1992

shameful. No wonder not many government members are speaking on this legislation. It is very hard to defend.


An hon. member:: We did away with the 3 per cent.


Sidney James Parker: You did away with the 3 per cent. The government added 3 per cent last summer. Students were trying to get their loans and they were told there was a 3 per cent cost on top of the loan.


An hon. member:: No more now.


Sidney James Parker: They say there is no more now, but it was brought in by this government.
Students from my area of southeastern British Columbia are going to be deeply affected. Many of them probably will not be able to carry on with their education because of the policy of this government which calls for 60 per cent of the wages they make during the summer to be put toward their education in order to qualify for a loan. Because students from my area have to travel all that distance and stay in the facilities available to them, it just cannot be done and the government should not bring in these kinds of fiscal policies at this time. This is not the kind of program that should be cut.
This is not the time for the government to cut off payments to the provinces to assist in helping students get their education. It should be done universally. The federal government should ensure that the loans are available universally across Canada so that everyone has an equal opportunity for the kind of education that will be required in the future. If these students do not get the proper kind of education, we are not going to be competitive. We are not going to be able to meet the needs of the coming generations. The government should know that and should act to do something about it.
I have students calling me saying they are not able to get their student loans. They are finding out that they cannot go to university because they will not have enough money to carry it through. In a country as large as Canada, because students happen to live far way from a university, they cannot afford to go. The government is making it harder for them to get the kind of financing required for them to attend universities.


An hon. member:: This is one of the most generous countries in the world.


Sidney James Parker: Our youth require that kind of education and we must provide it in order to compete. Members
Government Orders
opposite have said that themselves, yet we are cutting back and it is wrong.
I would like to talk about the small business provisions of this bill where the amount has increased from $100,000 to $200,000. That is not the problem with the small businesses.
There is a situation in my riding in southeast British Columbia, in Elkford, Sparwood and Femie, where the mines have been shut down. The mines have not been in operation for over six months. The small businesses are now finding that the banks are coming in and saying: "We are going to have to foreclose". They need some assistance and they need that help during this period of time until the industry can be restructured.
This is not going to bring about the kind of help required there. This is not the kind of financial help the small businessmen need.
The small businessmen who come to me with their problems are the same ones going to the bank. They seem to have the assets to be able to borrow the money but the banks are not willing to give it to them or the banks are not willing to readjust their mortgages to help pay over a longer period of time so that they can survive. To add another $100,000 to the amount of money they can get is not going to help any if they cannot get the money in the first place.
Small businesses are the ones creating the most employment across Canada. It is the quickest method of getting people to work. They create the most jobs and it is distributed equally throughout the country.
If this bill addressed that problem and set up a system whereby small businesses were treated with some compassion, with some sensitivity and some recognition of what is required by the banks, we would find that they would be in a much better operating state than they are under this piece of legislation.
Is it any wonder that many small businesses have gone bankrupt. Foreclosures have taken place. Loans are not available for inventory financing, working capital requirements or the refinancing of existing debts, but it can finance up to 90 per cent of the eligible cost of land and premises and up to 80 per cent of the cost of equipment. The rate of interest must not exceed chartered bank rates prime plus 1 per cent.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
A small business enterprise is one operating for profit with an estimated gross revenue which does not exceed $2 million in the year of application for whose principal business is in communications, construction, fish, manufacturing retail trade, service businesses, transportation or wholesale trade.
The federal government is liable to pay up to 85 per cent of any loss sustained by a lender as a result of the loan made after March 31, 1985.
This piece of legislation is not going to address the problems of these small business people, the ones requiring anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000 to be able to bring about the kind of help needed to cariy them through or possibly even for their inventory. Those provisions are not there.
As might be expected from the above, the main problem for small businesses is not the loan limits. It is trying to obtain the loan in the first place. The attitude of the banks is that most small businesses are bad credit risks. That has to be changed. Increasing the limit is fine. We are not against that, but the banks have to be more co-operative. There is no sense increasing the limits if the banks will not lend the money in the first place.
Over the last several years the small business sector has been responsible for most new job opportunities. Between 1980 and 1987, Statistics Canada data indicates that almost 80 per cent of new jobs created in Canada were created by small businesses with less than 50 employees. This was true even during the recession in the 1980s when many larger corporations were laying workers off.
Small business is often the mainstay of many smaller rural communities. That is certainly the situation in my area.
They are feeling the pinch now and they need help. They need it now. Full employment can only be achieved with the full co-operation of Canada's small business sector. With regard to unfair tax burdens, small business still pays an average tax rate that is higher than Canada's largest businesses.
The GST will add further hardships both in compliance costs and in accounting costs for the small
business person. Ninety-eight per cent of Canadian businesses are Canadian-owned. Their earnings are usually reinvested into the community and the Canadian economy.
Small businesses operate under severe constraints in the Canadian economy which in turn limits their potential to stimulate the economy and produce more jobs. There are constraints such as high costs for development capital, severe undercapitalization, high interest rates and higher taxation levels than corporations. This puts small businesses at a real disadvantage in the Canadian economy.
That is the problem. Large amounts of money are available. The banks are only interested in loaning out the large loans. They are not interested in the small businessman who comes in with his little problems. They figure there is too big a risk. They have not got the time to spend with them so they let them go.
It is a tragedy that during this period when we are talking about competitiveness and governments are talking about saving money and cutting back, it is cutting back on the two areas that could create the best benefits for the government.
Student loans provide students with the capacity to come out fully trained to be able to meet the demands of our future. Small businesses need help now to be able to hire people and get the economy going. The government is doing neither.
In closing, I appeal to the government to rethink this piece of legislation, to reintroduce it with more compassion, with more desire to bring about the kind of training and education system that we all want in Canada where our students can afford to go to university, get the training they want so that when they come out they will be of benefit to our country and our people.
Our small business people should be able to go to the bank with dignity. They should be able to walk into the bank with some confidence that they will be given a fair and equitable hearing. They should have an opportunity to be able to either pick up some inventory money to assist them with their inventory or to carry them through some difficult times or to be able to get some money to be able to offset some adverse circumstances that have occurred in the economy.
November 30. 1992

Further, they should be able to reinvest or redo their mortgage and carry it over a longer period of time so that they can sustain themselves through these difficult economic times. If the government were to take that approach, this would be a much better piece of legislation. It would be legislation that we on this side could support. We certainly cannot support this legislation.
It is unfortunate that there are four pieces tied into this legislation because there are parts with which I can agree. I agree with cabinet ministers taking a reduction in pay during this period of time, as set out in the bill. I can agree to some of the lobbyist statements in the bill. However I have to say to my constituents that students in my riding and students across Canada are going to find it very difficult to be able to get the amount of money that is required for them to carry on with their university studies.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said that he agreed with the provisions that relate to the lobbyists. I would invite him to elaborate on that statement.


Sidney James Parker: Mr. Speaker, the member has not exactly interpreted what I said. I said there are some provisions in this legislation which I can agree to. I said I could agree to the cutbacks in the wages of the Prime Minister. I said that I could agree to some of the provisions of the lobbyist parts of the bill.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, it may surprise the hon. member but I am not hard of hearing and I am not that slow witted. I heard him just repeat a second time what he said four or five minutes ago, namely as far as the lobbyists are concerned he supports the provisions that are in the bill.
I rose to ask him if he would elaborate on what he means when he says he supports the provisions in the bill that relate to lobbyists. I did not invite him to reiterate all of his speech. I want him to elaborate on the point that he made here on the floor of the House.
Government Orders


Sidney James Parker: I am just getting my notes together, Mr. Speaker.
I guess the point I could make is that the government should be charging lobbyists. It should know who the lobbyists are. They should be registered. I agree with that. I have no problems with that.
I have no problem with the government knowing who the lobbyists are, what the charges are and if there are charges, the government should receive that money. I have no problem with that. That is the meat of what this lobbyist legislation is about. I have no problem with that.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am going to start my remarks by saying how profoundly I disagree with what I have just heard. It might sound to some people that it is a trivial matter to be charging a fee to lobbyists. I submit that it is not.
I have before me Erskine May Parliamentary Practice, twentieth edition. I want to read about the fundamental right of anyone to be able to speak to a member of this House without having to pay a fee. That is fundamental to a democracy.
Let me read some of it:
The right of petitioning the Crown -
That means the right to make representation to any one of us.
-for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from the very early times, and has had profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure.
I read further:
The rights of petitioners and the power of the House to deal with petitions were expressed in two resolutions of the Commons in 1669.
For 323 years people have been able to address Parliament without paying a fee. There is no reason why a lobbyist should be called upon to pay a fee today.
Sure, there are a few lobbyists that could make it into the list of the top 500 people in Canada. Sure, there are a few of them. That does not apply though to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Red Cross, labour unions or a small business in my riding or the riding of the hon. member who wants to have a meeting with any one of us to come and ask for a grant, to come and ask us for help.

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
Why should people have to pay to see an MP? That is wrong. I do not care what anyone says. That is wrong. No one should ever have to pay to see a parliamentarian.
The law we have now for lobbyists, Bill C-82, received royal assent on September 13, 1988 and came into force September 30, 1989, a year later. Let me tell what parliamentarians had to say at that time. This was a unanimous report of our committee. I ask the hon. member from the NDP to listen to what his own colleagues had to say in a report that we tabled in this House. On January 27, 1987 page 2-15 our committee said: that there would be no cost associated with the filing of information and lobbying matters.
On June 30, 1987 the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs outlined what it proposed to do. Here is what it said: "There will be no charge to lobbyists to register and there will only be nominal cost to cover the cost of photocopying and such for people seeking information from the system". That is what it said.
Let me tell you what the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and now government House leader said on June 30, 1987. He said, speaking to the Lobbyist Registration Act: "It addresses fairly and reasonably and effectively the public's need to know who is intervening and why". Listen to this: "It does so without placing any restrictions or burdens on the rights of Canadians to talk to their members of Parliament, or deal with the government on issues affecting them directly".
That is what the minister at that time said. It is an important issue. It is not just that we found a device here to get a few dollars out of someone that is rich. Even if they were all rich, which they are not, it would be wrong. They are not all rich.
Let me tell you what some of the groups have had to say about this measure. I read here a text that actually appeared in our parliamentary newspaper, The Hill Times. Sean Moore, a person who is quite familiar with the lobbyist registration system and has written more about it than probably anyone else save and except the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore perhaps, said: "In order to recover the costs the fee every time would have to be $54 per transaction". That is including
registration and deregistration. Assuming you will not charge anyone to deregister, the cost would have to be $75 dollars per transaction. Can you imagine the Federation of Agriculture of my riding having to spend $75 for the privilege of talking to the hon. member sitting over there? Is that right to him? It is not to me.
Certainly the government can make a case for cost recovery on any other section of the bill. I would vote against it anyway because I will not agree, but on that section there is not just a principle of cost recovery. There is another principle far more important. It affects our rights as parliamentarians in this House and, more important, the rights of each and every Canadian to have the opportunity to address any one of us without having to pay a registration fee. That is the important principle, I submit.
I see my hon. colleague across from Etobicoke-Lake-shore. He is very knowledgeable in this area. He has worked on this in the past, has produced papers, has written about it and knows the issue very well. I worked on the committee that established our present lobbyist registration rules. I did so with the hon. member for Nickel Belt, the hon. member for Peace River and several others in this House. We produced legislation which is not bad.
It needs to be updated now because some people have found loopholes in it. As a matter of fact, as we are today debating this particular bill containing that clause, this same House has appointed another committee to review the lobbyist registration system. That is how wrong all of this is. It is absurd what we are doing right now.
Regarding the consumer and corporate affairs committee to which has been referred the Lobbyists Registration Act pursuant to the adoption of some years ago, we had a steering committee meeting the other day at which I recommended to Our chairman, the member for Portage-Interlake, that both the member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore and the member for Peace River be seconded to that committee because of their expertise so that we can all work together to improve the bill, to get rid of what I euphemistically call the MacAdam loophole or other loopholes that exist in the legislation and find ways of making it better.
November 30, 1992

I want to do that but I say to members of cabinet that if that is what they want, why do they not submit that proposal to our parliamentary committee, have it reviewed by all members of this House, test it out and listen to witnesses on it, not move it unilaterally and in the disguise of a cost recovery bill because that is wrong? That affects all of our privileges as MPs, both in this House and in the other place.
If no one from the government side-I do not mean from the benches other than the cabinet, but at least from the cabinet rows-listens to this today in this House, I hope that members from the other place will take this issue most seriously because it affects them individually and collectively as it affects us as members individually and collectively.
I say to all hon. members of this House read that clause in the legislation. Read it carefully. Read what others have said about it. I think you will agree as I do that this clause is not only bad in terms of cost recovery-you can argue, agree, or disagree on that point- but it is bad because it infringes upon our privileges as parliamentarians and upon the rights of those we are called upon to represent.
That is why we should not even be voting on that particular clause. It should be removed from the bill altogether and if the government wants to proceed with that approach-even though I happen to think it is wrong-it can make that submission to the committee looking at the bill and can argue it there. Witnesses can make representation. The anti-poverty group can come and say whether it thinks it is right or wrong to have a fee for lobbyists.
Big business can come and make the same pitch if that is what it likes, but that is the forum in which to do it, not this bill because that is not right.
If members were to listen to this testimony, not just mine, but that made by others who are experts in the field, they would know that this is not a good idea.
The only salvation I can think of at this time is that this particular clause is discretionary. It says the Governor in Council may make regulation.
My only hope today is if this government is so wrong-headed as to proceed with that particular clause, at the very least it will either not promulgate it or not file any regulations afterward, not gazette any regulations
Government Orders
pursuant to that clause so that at least we will not be subjected to the clause in question before we have that rigorous test that we are going to have as an institution when we review the Lobbyists Registration Act in the time to come.
I know I have been given up to 20 minutes to comment on this but I feel so profoundly about this particular clause that I shall not address any other part of the bill. I will limit my comments to this and instead invite colleagues to question me on this. I feel it is an important principle, one that each of us should think about today. Hopefully the government will think about this again. If it does not choose to withdraw the offensive section in question, at the very least the next best thing will be never to promulgate it and next best to that is to never produce regulations prior to the testing of this whole idea by the parliamentary committee in question.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has made a very telling point in addressing this bill and focusing on the fee that would be charged to lobbyists.
It is the nature of legislation coming from the finance department that its perspective on this would be to look at the revenue possibilities of anything and everything and for a government that is facing deficits, as are all governments in our country at all levels, looking to find funds wherever it can.
It is abundantly clear, as the hon. member has just explained, that the narrow focus of simply revenue raising is inappropriate in several respects when it addresses the interaction of those with public government in Canada.
In the first instance, and he mentioned this as well, this is being referred currently to a parliamentary committee that is going to review the entire operation of the legislation that governs lobbyists in our country at the moment and can in that way begin to address some of the fundamental problems that have come to light over the past decade. That is the broad and proper context in which to review this, not simply in the narrow framework as one can understandably expect from the Department of Finance to look at cost recovery wherever possible.
The member could perhaps elaborate on another issue and this has to do with the points that I made earlier. I had listed six or seven points of fundamental reforms,

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
radical changes that are needed dealing with the tier one lobbyists here in Ottawa; that it is a way of actually getting at the major concerns about undermining the operation of public governance. This exclusive measure of simply raising fees is an inadequate response to this much more deep-seated problem in the way that lobbyists are conducting themselves.
For Parliament at this time to be dealing with such narrow and limited aspects of the total operation of lobbyists does not reflect well on this place, given also the fact that we will have a parliamentary committee dealing comprehensively with the issue.
The member did very well to quote from Sean Moore, who is certainly an astute observer of what has been underway recently in Ottawa with respect to lobbyists. I see the Chair is impatiently wanting to hear from the hon. member in response, so I will permit that to happen by making a specific question.
Would the hon. member contemplate that a good measure for the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which will now be looking at the Lobbyists Registration Act,.ought to have as its first step a resolution directed to the ministry to request that this permissive power given by the section in this legislation to make these regulations be put on hold, be placed in abeyance, certainly pending the final report from that committee on the Lobbyists Registration Act?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to some of the points our colleague has raised.
First of all, I do not question that it is the role of the Department of Finance to produce legislation to raise funds. That is the role of the minister, too. It is our role as parliamentarians to sort through that. That is where I think-and I am not anticipating a vote of the House here-we will probably fail later today.
In my own mind I am trying to think that if this kind of bill were presented before the British House of Commons there would likely be a backbench revolt. What are we doing about it? Not much. In a few minutes we will be voting on this bill and the sad reality is that because it is included with other measures which will be largely
supported by government members, which is understandable, this will likely carry with it as well. That is what is wrong. That is what is so terrible about this.
The failure is not one of the Department of Finance. Collectively and individually it will be ours as an institution in a very few minutes. That provision should be put in abeyance and it would certainly be a very worthwhile suggestion that the first motion passed by the committee be one to ask the government not to implement this change before a thorough airing before the committee reviewing the lobbyist legislation.
The committee will no doubt want to review this possibility of charging fees. It will want to review whether the fees of lobbyists should be made public or whether the disbursements to lobbyists should be made public. That is the case in California. It is a good idea to review that and discuss the merits for and against, what amount and so on, thresholds and what have you, and decide whether paid and unpaid lobbyists or paid lobbyists doing unpaid activities should be registered. That is a loophole that exists now.
All of this is not because lobbying is sinister, evil or wrong. There is nothing wrong with doing that. At least I submit there is nothing wrong. Every time a constituent phones any one of us asking for his rights, defending his rights, airing his grievances, that is lobbying. That is okay. Whether someone charges or does it for free it does not make any difference providing it is done legally and with all good intent and with the opposing party's right to know, being there. We have the lobbyist registration system so that the opposing side can be heard. The opposing side can know who is doing what to whom. That is proper. There is nothing wrong with that.
However, our role has to ensure that we have a strong system to preserve integrity; a system that will ensure that everyone can know what is happening in the best possible way and at the same time no one is hindered in his or her attempts to reach Parliament or, to put it in ancient terms, to petition Parliament, being any one of us individually or all of us collectively.
In conclusion, that is why I feel so strongly about this clause. I submit to all my colleagues that they should take a few moments to reflect upon it as well.
November 30, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The first five hours of the debate have now expired. The length of the speeches now will be 10 minutes maximum without questions or comments.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to participate in this debate this afternoon because I think it marks a trend I see not just here in this House of Commons but across Canada and it disturbs me.
It is fair game for governments at all levels to turn to their senior staff and talk about revenue; how to generate more revenue for government, how it could be done in a creative way. I am disturbed by the outcome of the process, much like the previous member said in some of his remarks.
If the Parliament of Canada were given a long list of ways in which more money could be generated, that would seem to me to be a fair, open, reasonable and sensible process and we could somehow pass judgment on what is a good idea and what is a bad idea.
The process that I work with here and have worked with in other places does not really ever do that. This bill in its current form strikes me as being the most wrongheaded approach you could conceivably come up with; four rather disjointed notions about how to raise revenue all put together in one bill. Somehow it then gets translated into something that would be almost a matter of confidence. It is impossible to tear the four pieces apart and say that this might be supportable but this is not, or to examine the good and the bad of each one of the four sections of the bill, or to say that somehow this would be a sensible way for a government to raise revenue. It has all kind of bonded together in one bill. Therefore I think there is an error in process in that sense.
There is also something about this that whenever governments decide to squeeze the system it somehow always grabs the wrong person and squeezes that person. In this bill, for example, students are being asked to kind of give up a bit of an advantage in that they had a grace period, only six months and only for those who received Canada student loans. We are not talking about a lot of people, but surely of all those people in our society whom a government could raise a little more money from this is not the group to hit on.
This is not the only government in Canada to target this group. Whether it means to do that, whether there is a great deal of thought in going through it or whether this somehow just kind of pops up on a computer somewhere and makes it through an internal, quiet,
Government Orders
secretive selection process that says get more money from this group, I cannot believe that a group of members of this Parliament would sit down in open debate anyway and say: "Here is a group you ought to get more money from, students. Let us nail them before they even have a job. Let us nail handicapped students in particular. They are unlikely to ever get a job so get at them right away". That does not seem to me to be a logical outcome of a process.
In my own province, for example, a young woman was in to see me about an ID card that she had received from the province of Ontario. Between the time she had sought the application for the card and actually filled it out the price of that identification had risen from $3 to $15. I know Ontario is in hard times and I know the government in Ontario is looking for all kinds of ways to generate revenue, but was that the outcome of a thoughtful process, that this is where you need to generate your income?
In this bill here, is this the outcome of a thoughtful process? I think not.
As the previous member went through the Lobbyists Registration Act portion on this, I would not mind touching on that a bit as well. I do not read anywhere in here that somebody who wants to come and talk to me is now going to be charged a fee. Nobody I know would be stupid enough to pay such a fee in the first place and there is nothing in this bill that I read that says they have to do that, but there is certainly a lot of open-endedness here. The actual fees may well be set by a government sometime at a later day and, if it thinks of it, it may even tell the Parliament of Canada what it has done. That is surely the wrong way to do that.
If there is a problem with lobbyists, and I would be one who would advocate that there is and who would advocate that you ought to have some kind of a registration act that worked, the current situation seems to kind of blow it all away. At the same time that the government is changing this act, another parliamentary committee is going to review it once again. That cannot be a logical process either.
If the general public is somehow saying it has given up on politics, perhaps this is one of the reasons why. Perhaps this is one of the things that makes people in their living rooms ask what is going on here; the government is passing an act and reviewing an act at the same. Different acts are being reviewed in different ways. Somehow to those of us who play the parliamenta-

November 30, 1992
Government Orders
ry sport it makes some sense if you turn your mind to it. However, to the general public it makes no sense.
There are changes in here about loans to small businesses as well. I found it interesting as I read through that section of the act that deals with small business loans, but that is not the problem that most small businesses talk to me about. They do not have a problem with limits, they have a problem with getting somebody to loan them money. If we were trying to turn this economy over one would think that whether the government in particular wants to directly provide loan moneys to small businesses, which would be one mechanism it could use, or even if it just wanted to help small businesses secure loans from private lending institutions which would be another way to do, that at least is identifying the problem and doing something about it.
The confusion in the public mind exists concerning the question of why raise the limits when nobody is going to get a loan anyway? That seems to be the problem. I can think of two or three federal agencies all purporting to help small business. I go to meetings and get briefing notes from all these agencies whose purpose in life is to assist somebody with a small business. I would have to tell members that I have never seen one of them actually help somebody. I am sure they do. I have just never seen it happen, but I have been in politics for only 20 years. Maybe in my 21st year in public life it will happen, but I have not seen it take place yet.
I know they have seminars on how to do this. I know they put out very attractive brochures on how to do this. I know they are very active at every reception I have ever been to, but I have never seen them perform what is purportedly their basic function: helping somebody get a loan.
I find it pretty difficult to defend when I see somebody who is supposedly out there assisting small business. People come in my office and say: "I have a small business. I would like to employ five more people. I have five in my work place now. I would like to employ five more and I cannot find anybody who will help me".
I will say: here is an agency of the federal government or an agency of the provincial government or an agency at the municipal level and they are all supposedly helping small business get started. Inevitably they all come back to me and say: "They seem to want to lend money to people who do not need it. They seem to want to help those who are already a success. They seem to want to buy into a winning idea, but nobody really wants to help a small business group that is just starting out".
I talked to a guy this morning who has just exactly that problem. He has some good ideas. He has some good products. He would like to employ more people, but there are no agencies in place to help him. Two years from now, if he makes a success of his business, there will be all kinds of people wanting to buy into that idea. That is the tragedy of this bill and many other bills of the same ilk that seem somehow to identify a problem and then get totally irrelevant when it comes to providing solutions. That is what I find ironic about this entire process.
This process, this bill in particular, does not make any sense to me. Somebody could say: "Why do you not take one of your parliamentary committees, some senior staff, and identify all the ways in which governments can generate more money? Let the parliamentary committee report annually, never mind once in its lifetime, on things that are stupid, on ways in which governments could either reduce their expenditures or raise some more money".
That would be a fair and open process that all of us could watch happen. We could understand the logic or the lack of logic that is the outcome of that, and we would at least know what is going on. This bill, it seems to me, is one of those classic examples of somebody turning to senior staff and saying: "Find me some more money somewhere in the system". The four solutions that are presented here do not do anybody any real good.
There is even a section in here that talks about the cabinet's salary. I am sure that is wonderful, but I am also sure that will not feed one family in Canada this year. That is a shame because there was an opportunity through this type of activity to rationalize governments. That perhaps is a contradiction in terms, but it seems to me that governments do not have to be this illogical, this irrational.
November 30, 1992

There are ways and means in which members of this House could serve a useful purpose, could identify areas where governments are spending money that they do not need to spend. They could probably even identify some ways somewhat like these that could generate a few more funds and would not really hurt people.
It seems to me that at the nub of this bill the wrong thing is being done. It is attacking the wrong people and doing something that really will not help anybody. It seems to me that is wrong.


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.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.


ACT TO DISSOLVE OR TERMINATE CERTAIN CORPORATIONS AND OTHER BODIES MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, be read the third time and
passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, November 25, 1992, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on third reading of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies.


David Charles Dingwall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There may be a disposition in the Chamber to apply the vote which has just taken place on Bill C-76 to the deferred division on Bill C-63, as well as to the deferred division on Bill C-26.


Miss Grey:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like it recorded that I am certainly in favour of that. I would just like to put my position on the record for the Table. On Bill C-63 I would be voting yea and on Bill C-26, nay.
(Division No. 352)

		
	YEAS	
		
	Members	
Anderson	Andre	
Atkinson	Beatty	
Bertrand	Bjomson	
Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais	
Blenkam Bouchard (Roberval)	Bosley Bourgault	
Boyer	Brightwell	
Browes	Cadieux	
Cardiff	Chadwick	
Champagne (Champlain)	Chartrand	
Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Collins	
Corbeil	Cote	
Couture	Crosbie (St. John's West)	
Darling	Desjardins	
Dobbie	Do mm	
Dorin	Duplessis	
Edwards	Epp	
Fee	Feltham	
Ferland	Fontaine	
Fretz	Gibeau	
Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene		
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbault	
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)	
Hawkes	Hicks	
Hoc kin	Hogue	
Holtmann	Hudon	
Hughes	James	*>
-'-V. r-Jelinek	Johnson	'Joncas	Jourdenais	Kempling	Koury	Landry	Langlois	Larrivee	Loiselle	Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)	4- . vMacDougall (Timiskaming)	Marin	..Martin (Lincoln)	Mazankowski	McCreath	McDermid	Mitges	Monteith	(/V. ' 'Moore	Nicholson	Oberle	O'Kurley	Paproski	Porter	Pronovost	Redway	Reid	Reimer	Ricard	Richardson	Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin	Schneider	Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth)	Shields	Soetens	*Sparrow	Stevenson	Tardif	Thacker	'.'.[DOT]s'Thompson	Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tbrner (Halton-Peel)	Valcourt	Vezina	Vien	Jiv.rVincent	Weiner	Wenman	Wilbee	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)	Winegard -108


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I abstained from the vote on Bill C-76, but I would like to have my vote recorded as in favour of both Bill C-63 and Bill C-26.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


PUBLIC SERVICE REFORM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act and other acts in relation to the Public Service of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of Mr. Loiselle for third reading of Bill C-26.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6.37 p.m. the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 1, 1992