1992-04-10

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor has three minutes remaining in debate.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I think three minutes should be just about enough to point out to this government how the incompetence, irresponsibility and lack of sensitivity to the human damage which it is causing has come clear this morning in the dramatic increase in unemployment rates which has taken place in this country.
We see today an increase in unemployment rates to 11.1 per cent across this country. That is the highest level which we have seen in Canada since 1985. For adult males over the age of 25, we have a level of unemployment of 10.4 per cent, which is higher than in the recession of 1982.
What we have here is a government which has presided over the loss of 146,000 full-time jobs in this past month; 146,000 jobs in a single month. How can we possibly have any confidence in the economic management of this government? It is a government which has had no success in dealing with the deficit, no success in dealing with unemployment, no success in dealing with
poverty in this country, which has created increased inequality across this country, which has given tax handouts to its friends, as I discussed yesterday in the first part of my speech, and which continues to misunderstand the bitterness, the anger, the unhappy tragedy which is out there for Canadians across this country.
This is a government which is failing this country, failing it economically and, through that economic failure, failing to build this country for the future.
Yesterday, a promising development took place in Halifax with respect to constitutional change in this country. But those promising developments in constitutional change are not going to bring unity in this country so long as this government is creating two Canadas, one that is rich and privileged and powerful and another that, as these figures show today, is increasingly unemployed, increasingly powerless, increasingly left out of any kind of economic opportunity here in this country.
We cannot support anything that comes from this government pretending to be economic policy which in effect will have the result of continuing the tax handouts to large corporations and tax hand-outs to the rich, which created the economic mess which we see in front of us at the moment.
This government has failed. This bill is a sign of its failure. I hope this House will reject this piece of legislation on that basis.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I want to make a comment and put a question to the member who has just spoken.
Indeed, the unemployment numbers released this morning, as the member has suggested, show a dramatic increase month over month in the level of unemployment in Canada. We have been accustomed in this House to seeing an increase from 10.1 to 10.2 or 10.2 to 10.4, but I think Canadians have to wrap their minds around the reality that in one month, in just 30 days, unemployment in Canada increased from 10.6 to 11.1 per

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
cent. In one month another 100,000 Canadians went on the unemployment lines. During the period of one month, every day of that month more than 3,000 more Canadians a day went unemployed. If the trend continues, this very day that we speak, before the day is out, 3,000 more Canadians will be unemployed across this country. .Three thousand more notices a day are being given for jobs that have disappeared.
That is an incredible rate. That is a tragic rate of job loss in this country. What makes it tragic is that this job loss follows quickly on the heels of a budget introduced February 25, a budget that was advertised as a stand pat budget, a budget for recovery, a budget that would allow the natural market forces to do their work, to stimulate this economy and to put Canadians back to work.
I want to ask my hon. friend, who has been a finance spokesman for his party, a trade spokesman for his party, whether he believes the budget delivered by the Minister of Finance, the first budget delivered by this current Minister of Finance, can still in any way, shape or form be called relevant and appropriate, given the current economic circumstances and given what looks to be like the first tentacles of a vicious recession-not a recession, but a depression gripping this country.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
We used to read stories as young kids growing up. One of my favourite stories was the story of the emperor who had beautiful clothes which were being spun for him, clothes which were supposed to dress him in splendour. It took one child to look at that emperor, start laughing and say: "He hasn't any clothes on," for the emperor to suddenly realize that he had been fooled.
I think that we have a situation in this country where a government has, with pomp and circumstance and splendour brought in a budget, pretending that that budget would do something about our economic problems. Ever since that budget has come out, there has been one piece of information after another which has said that the budget was threadbare, that the budget was ultimately non-existent and that the government stood there with absolutely nothing on in trying to deal with the problems of our country.
Just this past week we saw a reduction in housing starts. We see again, just this past week, reports of all sorts. The Royal Bank which gives to this government $50,000 or $60,000 a year in campaign contributions, nevertheless had to admit that the government's growth projections of 2.7 per cent were absolutely crazy.
In fact, the level of growth that could be expected in this economy was simply 1.4 per cent, less than half of what the government expected. We see today the final shock which I hope, because I care for these people who are being affected, will change this government's mind.
I hope that the shock of seeing this kind of dramatic, powerful rise in unemployment will force this government to change policy, force it to reduce interest rates significantly and force it to adopt a municipal infrastructure job plan, force it, through an economic recovery fund, to keep companies operating so that we keep people at work, force it to recognize that it has to extend the RRSP proposal to renovations so as to get more people back to work, force it to recognize that over the longer term it has to have an industrial strategy to get our industrial sectors back competitively throughout this country.
Across this country, there is a sense of despair which will be increased by the unemployment figures this morning. I plead with this government, please do something to respond. Show that you care, because people across this country need that sense of hope which they do not have in this government's present budget policies.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, I want to participate in the debate on Bill C-56, because this debate is another example of how this government attempts to substitute substance with process.
The bill now before Parliament would ensure that the government, through legislative control, would follow the spending program that has been laid down by the government for a five-year period. Through this bit of smoke and mirrors, through this so-called legislative control of the government's spending program, the government attempts to convince Canadians that it is going to be responsible in how it spends taxpayers' moneys.
April 10, 1992

More to the point, the government is attempting to enforce its expenditure program not only on this current government but on succeeding governments. It is really a bit of nonsense. If the government wants to operate in a responsible fashion with respect to expenditures, then all the government need do is ensure that cabinet functions in a responsible way. If ministers do not function in a responsible way then all the Prime Minister need do is fire them.
With nearly eight years in power, to put forward legislation that purports to control expenditures and suggests that it is being fiscally responsible is pure nonsense. It is more propaganda. It is a deathbed repentance by a government that is on its last legs. It is a government that has fully the support of 10 per cent or 11 per cent of the population appealing to the 90 per cent that has left this government in terms of their political support. It is propaganda.
Speaking of propaganda, this morning I picked up a newspaper and I read the following headline: "Wilson Defends Spending Millions on Free Trade Success Stories". Canadians ought to think about that. The minister of trade is going to launch a multimillion dollar advertising campaign to tell Canadians about the great success of free trade.
Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. You would want to have the face of a robber's horse to propose spending millions of dollars to say how good free trade is. Can you imagine?
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked the minister of trade if, rather than have a propaganda campaign, would it not be better to use that money to help the hundreds and thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs because this government could not do a good job in negotiating the free trade deal.
That was the question put by the Leader of the Opposition, and the answer from the minister of trade- and we need to hear this answer in the face of the unemployment stats this morning-was whether his hon. friend was saying that he is against providing advertising, providing information to Canadians, to let them know of the successes.
This morning the unemployment stats came out. Here is the story. We do not need advertising. It says that unemployment in Canada has gone from 10.6 per cent up to 11.1 per cent. It says that 1.6 million Canadians are
Government Orders
unemployed. It says that in excess of two million Canadians have given up even looking for work and have registered at the welfare agencies all across this country. They are not even looking any more.
We have upward of four million Canadians who are out of a job productive cycle in this country and the minister of trade, that sensitive, that caring, that plugged in, that realistic, that heart-beating Canadian from Bay Street wants to buy advertising to tell Canadians that there are some success stories.
Mr. Speaker, I am from Newfoundland, not Disneyland, and I am tired of this fantasy propaganda effort by the government opposite.
We have become like the people who used to watch the nightly news during the Vietnam war. We have become immune to the body bags. We have the numbers every month, 11.1 per cent, four million Canadians, 1.6 unemployed, and it does not register any more. We have become numb to the human face of unemployment. We have forgotten to care. We have been so battered and broken and bullied and pushed and pounded, month after month, by the tragic plight of unemployment in Canada that our nerve endings are numbed. We have stopped caring.
The government's response is that it is going to buy advertising. It is going to spend millions of dollars to tell those four million lost souls, to tell the man who has lost the dignity of a pay cheque, the woman who has been driven out of the work force, the children who have been dislocated and moved from their homes because the banks have grabbed up the mortgage and taken back the home, it is going to tell those poor lost unfortunate souls that there really are success stories, Virginia. There really is a Santa Claus. There are some people who are succeeding under free trade in Canada.
That is the most brutal, that is the most cynical kind of approach to government that one can possibly imagine. It is adding insult to injury. It is saying that this government believes that the level of intelligence, the level of conscientiousness the level of awareness, the level of sensitivity of the average Canadian can be defined by the cost of an advertising campaign.
This government is so convinced that the people of Canada live in little bunkers called houses and that they are so turned off by the plight of their neighbours, that if it can reach them by an ad on radio, television or in a newspaper it can communicate what is going on in this country.

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
Canadians are out in the streets talking to their neighbours, their brothers, their sisters, their mothers, their fathers, their cousins. They know that this economy is in a free fall. They know what no one dares to say and that is that we are not in a recession. This is not a recession we are living in; this is a depression.
Canada has entered a depression. An unemployment rate increase of 100,000 in one month. Three thousand people a day, each and every day for the last 30 days have been laid-off. That is not a recession. That is not slow growth. The country is in a depression.
The budget brought down by the Minister of Finance on February 25 as everyone well knows was an act of cowardice. It was turning away from the tough challenge of putting this country back to work.
We have heard many members of Parliament from all across Canada echoing that message. In particular we have seen many provincial members visiting the national capital coming from the poorer provinces which have had transfer payments for health care and education, CAP transfer payments. Some provinces were put on the Canada Assistance Plan unilaterally introduced by this government. They come to Ottawa and say: "My God, do you realize what is happening out there in the street, in real Canada?"
In just the last few days, I have had the opportunity of talking to members from the province of Nova Scotia. I spoke to Daniel Graham for Inverness South, Charles MacArthur for Inverness North and to Kenny MacAskill for Victoria, who are here in Ottawa making their case, telling the parliamentarians in this Chamber, telling members on the other side that it is time to recognize the real face of unemployment, the real face of human misery that is felt out there in the land. When members take the trouble to come from the other legislatures of this country and to convey that message, we have an obligation to listen.
What has happened in Canada in the last 30 days? What has happened since the budget was brought down in February across this land?
Let me talk about my own province. Unemployment in Newfoundland has now reached 20.3 per cent, a full 1.4 per cent increase. Not half a per cent, not a third of a per cent, but a full 1.4 per cent increase over one month. From 18.3 per cent in March 1991 to 20.3 per cent in
April 1992. How does that translate? It means that on the Avalon peninsula of Newfoundland, 18.8 per cent of the work force, those who have still bothered to register at Canada employment offices, are unemployed.
In the riding of my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls, who has spoken with such power, eloquence, passion and conviction about the people of his riding in this Chamber, it means that 22.7 per cent of the work force is unemployed.
In the riding of my friend the member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, it means that 20 per cent of the work force today are unemployed. That includes 1,000 fish plant workers in Catalina who lost their jobs because of foreign overfishing. Their jobs were closed down. My hon. friend spoke in this House with passion and with dignity on their behalf asking that their voice be heard and considered by this government. Just like the body bags in the Vietnam war it did not even crack a dent. It made no impact. It was like hitting the battle armour of an M-l tank. The news of those 1,000 jobs lost just bounced off and deflected. The government went straight ahead with its economic plan ignoring all of those people whose lives had been put on hold while this government continued to flounder and to flail and to offer more confusion, conflict and contradiction in its own ranks with the inability to deal with the reality of unemployment.
In western Newfoundland and Labrador, in my own riding, unemployment this month has gone to 23.6 per cent. There are 13,000 people who have registered and are unable to find work. This government's answer is: "Recovery is around the comer".
The Royal Bank announced just two days ago that its own projections for recovery in Canada were being scaled down from nearly 3 per cent, 2.7 per cent, to 1 per cent at best.
. The Royal Bank officially said that there will be no recovery in 1992 based on the current economic policy and plan of the government. It said that there will not be a recovery until 1993. Well the Royal Bank ought to get honest with Canadians. It should quit the soft sell. It should quit the mush. It should be honest and say that the country is moving into a long-term depression. The country is bleeding.
April 10, 1992

The same minister of trade who negotiated the free trade deal, who at the last second went to Washington in the dead of the night and signed on the dotted line on behalf of Canada on a free trade deal, the former Minister of Finance, the current minister of trade, now says: "You can trust me to sign and to negotiate the Canada-U.S.-Mexico deal because I am the guy who gave you the free trade deal".
What has been the result of the free trade deal? The result is that 300,000 highly paid manufacturing jobs in southern Ontario have gone. They have not gone for a week, or a month, or a year. They are gone forever because that manufacturing capacity, that manufacturing power base has been transferred to the United States. It is gone. They have not given a lay-off notice; they have levelled the factory. They have not told people to take a break; they have broken down the assembly lines and moved them south of the border.
The so-called most massive adjustment programs ever known in the history of the free world promised by the Prime Minister, adjustment programs and retraining programs, are nowhere to be seen in this country.
Canada needs a new economic program. Canada needs a recognition of how difficult times are in this country. I saw the news last night and the news was that the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs felt a renewed degree of confidence in the possibility of negotiating a constitutional deal. That is good news. I hope there is progress and that it stands up.
But by God, we have to realize in this place that the capacity of a country to heal itself constitutionally, to come together constitutionally, the capacity of a country to reach into its soul and find the generosity to unite is directly related to our capacity to put bread and butter on the table and to have the dignity of receiving a pay-cheque at the end of every pay period. They are inseparable.
Governments that believe they can negotiate constitutions in isolation of the human circumstance of the men and women of a country are governments that are living in fantasy land.
I feel, in a sense, that my voice is wasted here today because this Chamber is going to close for a scheduled break for the next two weeks and it is a Friday. It is the
Government Orders
last day of the week. It is the last day before we go away for 14 days. I ask myself whether anybody opposite is going to spend one moment of time, Mr. Speaker, other than you whom I know we can count upon, contemplating the real meaning of this dramatic increase in unemployment.
I wonder whether one minister opposite is going to go away and face up to the reality that the current economic plan has failed, that the current economic approach has failed and that Canada needs a new economic initiative. The country needs stimulation. The proposal of the Liberal Party of Canada, as articulated by the leader of the party, now needs to be given a chance.
We asked for a municipal infrastructure program. We asked for a program that would see one-third funding by the federal government, by the provincial governments and by the municipal governments. We asked that the multibillions of dollars of work that is out there waiting to be done and needs to be done, which represents an investment in the country, a retooling of our infrastructure, rebuilding the bridges, the roads, the water and sewer systems, the municipal infrastructure, that it be taken on and people be put back to work investing substantially in our future. We were not talking about painting the graveyard fence for the third time, we were talking about rebuilding the infrastructure of this country.
We ask again that that proposal be looked at. The Federation of Municipalities of Canada which originated that proposal will be meeting soon in Montreal. The mayors of all the great cities all across this country will be coming together. Once again, I expect they will be asking the government to look at that proposal to get this country working.
It is not hard to understand why the mayors are saying that. Look across the country. In St. John's, Newfoundland unemployment is 16.8 per cent; in Saint John, 12.6 per cent; in Sherbrooke, 12 per cent. In Oshawa, in southern Ontario, the heart of the manufacturing centre of this country, 11 per cent of the people are unemployed; St. Catharines, 10 per cent; Windsor, 11.6 per cent; Winnipeg, the riding of my friend and colleague, 11.7 per cent. In great Edmonton where every person from Cape Breton to Newfoundland went to find a job

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
when all else went wrong, unemployment is nearly 12 per cent. In Victoria, unemployment is 8.6 per cent.
This Prime Minister promised when he took power that he would change the face of Canada. Yes, Mr. Speaker, he has succeeded, he has changed the face of this country. It is a battered face, it is a bruised face, it is a shameful face, it is a face of a people who have lost their dignity and their hopes for a prosperous future. That is what this Prime Minister has done.
Canadians are telling this government, and certainly we on this side are telling this government, either face up to the reality of our circumstance, provide us with a realistic economic program, assist us, assist the municipalities and assist the provinces in getting this economy going, or move aside.
It should move aside because no government with just 11 or 12 per cent of the support of the people, not for a month or not as a consequence of a particularly bad political policy or a faux pas by the Prime Minister or a faux pas by the Minister of Finance but a government that has been sustained at 12, 13 or 14 per cent for a year has to ask itself whether or not it is fundamentally out of step with both the aspirations and the reality of the majority of Canadians.
This government is out of step. This government is dangerous to national unity. This government has brought this country to the edge of crisis. This government has to get with it and bring forward a realistic program.
If members opposite have one shred of compassion and belief in their country, if for one moment in their existence as politicians they can see beyond their partisan positions and see the position of the country for what it is, this government has to vacate office. It has to move aside. It has to call an election. It has to give the people of Canada a chance to elect a new administration of whatever stripe, of whatever make-up, to give this country a chance to work again.
In closing, may I say that if there is only one of that raggedy lot across the way who is maintained here as a voice of conscience for his people, I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it is you. Because when the fire storm comes, not many on that side are going to survive, and with good reason.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for a magnificent, exceptional presentation to the House.
I want to ask him a question based on what he said a few moments ago about our rising today for a period of two weeks. I would like to put this question on the record. I want to ask the hon. member-and this should be something for the government to think about and the Canadian people to think about for the next two weeks. Why does the hon. member believe the government has behaved in such a manner?
The official statistics show that there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of people who filed income tax returns in Canada earning between $100,000 and $125,000 a year who have non-taxable returns filed. Why is there an increase of some 40 per cent in the people who earn between $125,000 and $150,000 a year who filed income tax returns in Canada but do not pay one penny of income tax; a 40 per cent increase if they make between $150,000 and $200,000; a 30 per cent increase if they make between $200,000 and $250,000?
Here is the key one. If they make over $250,000 a year in Canada, why does the hon. member think that the Government of Canada made changes in our tax system? The official statistics from Ihxation Canada show a 30 per cent increase in the number of people making over $250,000 a year who filed income tax returns in this country last year and the year before who do not pay one penny of income tax.
I want to ask him why he thinks the government turned around three months ago, changed the law relating to trusts in Canada to allow them an increase for 30 years for all of those deferred capital gains taxes since 1972 owed by our biggest corporations and by our 20 or so billionaires in Canada. Why has that been deferred now for another 30 years?
Why did the government change the law relating to what very wealthy people can claim as entertainment and it places now as a limit in the Criminal Code of Canada that one can claim anything as long as it does not violate the Criminal Code of Canada, an 80 per cent deduction on the income tax returns of the wealthiest people in Canada?
April 10, 1992

I want to ask the hon. member why does he think the Government of Canada has done this?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, no rational person, and I do claim to be somewhat rational, no sane person, and I believe there is a degree of sanity in my approach to life, would attempt to give a reason that this government has favoured the privileged few at the expense of the hard-working many.
I could not pretend to rationalize or to give any rational, sane, reasonable, understandable or communicable reason that could be retained, examined and turned around in the light of day and found to be a solid reason that this government would do such a dastardly thing. Perhaps it is because it believes it has given such a large tax break in the February 25 budget to Canada's poor.
We have to be fair. My friend from Gander-Grand Falls would want to be fair. The government did give- he will recall we discussed it-a $2 a year tax break to a family of four with an income of $15,000. That is $2 a year, less than one penny a day, but it is $2 a year. The government did give a $7 a year tax break to a family of four with an income of $30,000. We must be fair and acknowledge that. It did give senior citizens just a few weeks ago a great big increase for this year, 37 cents a month.
We know the poor people of Canada are getting their share. It is only reasonable that if the wealthy millionaires and billionaires and the privileged corporate few are getting their multi-tens of thousands of dollars tax break, that senior citizens should get their 37 cents a month, that a family of four with an income of $15,000 should get their $2 a year. I suppose that is the rationale. Frankly, I do not understand it.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-IHnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I sit between the hon. members involved in the last discussion. Quite frankly, my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls always does ask skill-testing questions and I must congratulate my hon. colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte for giving an equally skilful answer.
I have another question for my hon. colleague from Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte. I wonder if he can answer this question. How, in his calculations, can a
Government Orders
government, any government, start with an x deficit and eight budgets and seven years later, after 30 income tax increases-


An hon. member:: Thirty-three.


Fred J. Mifflin: There have been 33 income tax increases, and goods and services tax bringing in billions and billions of dollars, we do not know yet exactly how much it is going to be, breaks for the rich just discussed, and all the extra income that it gets from individuals. The middle class now pays $1,620 a year more than it paid when that government came to power. After all this money coming in, the deficit is notx minus 1 orx over 2. It is still x, the same x as it was in 1984 and still there is no compensation that can be afforded. There are a measly few dollars for the people in a riding like Bonavista- Trinity-Conception who do not have any source of income, no UI, no nothing as a result of closure of a plant because of the mismanagement of the fishing industry. Can the member explain that?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception, as always, puts a veiy good question. He makes a very powerful and persuasive point.


Fred J. Mifflin: In the meantime, what about the national debt?


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is right. This government that has practised so-called frugality, this government that has told ordinary Canadians to tighten their belts until they can count their ribs outside their winter coats because they protrude that far, this government in the name of fiscal and monetary policy has put on a vice-grip, has planted the jackboots on the foreheads of all of those who are without privilege in this country, has more than doubled the national debt. It has taken the national debt, accumulated over 117 years by all previous governments of all political stripes and in a measly little eight years has doubled 117 years worth of debt. In eight years.


An hon. member:: We have doubled the economy.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The member opposite, who goes out the door like an anxious crab scurrying after a bit of foul herring says: "We doubled the economy". He says that on the day that unemployment in Canada has gone to 11.1 per cent. I said earlier that members opposite had the face of a robber's horse. There is the robber's horse.

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
How have they done it? They have done it because while they were busy, so-called clamping down on expenditures, and busy putting the boots to the ordinary people of this country, they were equally busy feathering the nests of their friends. That is the simple truth. That is the reality.


George Baker: In view of that answer, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member whether he believes perhaps that is what is behind all of the recent changes to the Income Tax Act that benefit the very wealthy in Canada, as the hon. member said a moment ago, "to help their friends". We have seen several examples. The hon. member mentioned that a hairdresser recently got appointed to the board of the Federal Business Development Bank. Does the hon. member think that at that rate, the coiffeur of the minister of fisheries' moustache could be appointed to the United Nations? Is that the real reason why these changes took place? As the hon. member said a moment ago, it is to satisfy their friends.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond to that.
The hon. member has reminded me that the minister of fisheries, the member for St. John's West, a member of this cabinet, wants to practise the words of the premier of Newfoundland, so they say, "fairness and balance, a reasonable and just and proper approach to the expenditure of public funds". That is the bill we are debating today, Bill C-56. That is proper and reasonable expenditure of public funds.
The minister of fisheries for Newfoundland and Labrador, the minister of all the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, 95 per cent of whom are not in the minister's riding, that minister of fisheries, the member for St. John's West, according to the estimates tabled in this House spent 70 per cent-seven zero-70 per cent of all the small craft harbours' budget for Newfoundland and Labrador in one constituency, the constituency of the member for St. John's West.
How can the hard-working fishermen who have a tough time making a living against the backdrop of foreign overfishing, who cling by their fingernails to the rocks on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, scraping out and harvesting a living from the sea expect fairness when the minister of fisheries spends 70 per cent of the entire
budget for the entire province, for the entire land mass of all of Newfoundland and Labrador in one constituency, his own, a city riding? Shameful.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some trepidation to join this holy trinity of Newfoundland members who have just in vivid and colourful language expressed the lament that all Canadians must feel on this black Friday for the plight of our nation and the sorrowful condition of so many Canadians.
I looked at the figures this morning to see in my own city of Winnipeg an unemployment rate of 11.7 per cent, up 20 per cent over last year. There are over 40,000 individuals unemployed in that one city alone.
I did not have to read the figures this morning to know what the situation was. I only had to visit high schools in my own constituency which had to put food banks in the schools themselves. We have now added a new form of curricular activity in the high schools of Winnipeg which is food banks to feed hungry students.
I did not have to read the figures to see that there are over 50,000 people on welfare, an increase of 25 per cent. Again, in my own constituency, I found that there was a two and a half year waiting list for people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits to get into the training program.
I cannot ever forget the gall and blatant hypocrisy of a minister of employment who stood up in this House when asked these decent questions about what he is going to do for these people and said: "Don't worry, we are spending more money on training than we ever spent before," if you happen to be on the unemployment insurance roll.
What happens when you have 200,000, 300,000, or 400,000 Canadians who have exhausted their benefits and have nowhere to go? They do not get included in the calculations of that minister.
If you are a young person coming out of school and looking for your first job, you are not eligible for a training program. You have to wait for two or two and a half years. If you are a woman who wants to come into the work force to help support the family, a single parent mother, you do not get in the training program. You are on the waiting list.
April 10, 1992

By the way, officials in that riding have said: "We do not even take applications any more. We have given up. We do not even take names for the list because there is no point. Why let people go for frustration?"
Perhaps the argument is best summed up this way. At a meeting in my riding last night they said that recession is when your neighbour loses his job and depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when this government loses its job.
That is going to be the only answer that Canadians are going to ask for. They understand that there is a bankruptcy, a total and complete failure of commitment, engagement or understanding about dealing with the plight of the unemployed in this country.
The government simply does not care any more. It will bring in a budget that totally ignores the economic reality of a country that is haemorrhaging in its loss of jobs and in fact aids and abets that loss of jobs.
I want to tell a little story. On Monday, I raised a question in this House of Commons to the external affairs minister asking why CIDA was giving a contract to an American firm to build steel grain bins which could be built by any number of firms in western Canada.
Now, I want you to listen to this carefully, Mr. Speaker, because you are a loyal son of the west. The minister wrote me a letter and with great clarity responded by saying that the reason we gave the contract to the Americans in Nebraska is because the costs were 30 per cent lower.
I showed the letter to the steel manufacturers in Canada. They did some comparison figures, and they recognized immediately what was happening was that the American firm was dumping its product into Canada.
So we have the incredible circumstance of a Canadian governmental agency using Canadian taxpayers' money, aiding and abetting an American firm to engage in an unfair trade practice by dumping its product below price in our country and taking away the jobs of Canadians while doing it.
And yet we have a government that is complacent, indifferent and could not care less. To top it all off, we
Government Orders
then have the minister of trade getting up and saying: "I am going to spend millions of dollars to tell Canadians about our success stories".
I suppose the number one success story in that glossy, multicoloured brochure will be how that firm in Nebraska took jobs away from Winnipeg because the Government of Canada procured products from them rather than from Canadians. I suppose that is the number one success story on which we are going to be spending Canadian government money to tell us how the system is working.
It is no wonder that we are facing 11 per cent unemployment when we have a government which does not even understand how to use its own resources, its own procurement, its own contracting, to give Canadians a helping hand.
To repeat and paraphrase the words of my good friend from Newfoundland, who in his own way paraphrased the words of Cromwell, you have done enough damage, it is time for you to go.
There are opportunities, there are initiatives. I look back into the historical record just to give one example. Back in 1983 when there was also a recession-we do not in any way try to cover the fact that there was high unemployment-but let me give you a contrast as to what was done at that time.
We used to have the NEED program, the New Employment Expansion and Development program. We put up $200 million, which was matched dollar for dollar by the municipalities, the provinces, the private sector and we put close to 60,000 people who had exhausted their UI benefits back into the work force. Tories across the way like to say that make-work projects do not work, but I will tell you how it worked.
Today in the city of Sudbury, the hills are blossoming with trees and grass because we put people to work on an environmental program to restore the environmental ecological fabric of that city.
In Thompson, Manitoba when the entire nickel mine went down the tubes for a full year we put 2,000 or 3,000 workers back to work fixing up the infrastructure of that city.

April 10, 1992
My good friend from Cape Breton is here. He knows full well that under that program we were able to build sewage and water treatment plants in his municipality.
Is that a waste of money? We just had a report from the Minister of the Environment yesterday which said: "My God, we have dirty, poisonous water in Canada, but we can't do anything about it". Well, we were doing something about it. We were putting unemployed people back to work to save the environment. That is what we were doing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, next week is National Soil Conservation Week. Activities to heighten public awareness of new efforts within soil conservation will take place right across the country.
Farmers understand that good environmental practices make economic sense. In particular, they are promoting soil conservation by reducing tillage, looking more carefully at the chemicals they use, and taking marginal land out of production.
The new Land Management Assistance Program is now getting under way. This federal-provincial program is designed to help producers develop sound land management practices, practices that foster environmental sustainability.
Canadians across our country are concerned about environmental sustainability. Long-term protection of the health of our land, our water, and our air is of concern to farmers and is a high priority of this government.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, last August 9, Carol Valerio, a Canadian citizen and lifelong resident of this country, was legally married in the Dominican Republic. She immediately began making arrangements for her husband to join her in Canada only to find that officials predicted a processing time of no less than 1,000 days.
All too often Canadian citizens are discovering that the immigration system that they have been paying for all their working lives is unable to respond compassionately to their legitimate requests to be reunited with spouses living abroad.
I call upon the government to rediscover an appreciation for the integrity of families and act swiftly to ensure that the Valerios and other couples are not forced to spend their best years apart.


ARMED FORCES MEDAL DISPLAY
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, this summer Veterans Affairs Canada and the
T.	Eaton Company are taking a unique medal display across the country.
The collection amassed over the decades by Veterans Affairs Canada features every decoration won by men and women of our Armed Forces. It features medals awarded to members of the Northwest Field Force and takes us through the Boer War, the two World Wars, all the way to our most recent decoration, the Canadian volunteer service medal for Korea.
This display is a part of our heritage. I congratulate the
T.	Eaton Company for sponsoring this cross-countiy tour. The Eaton family itself has a fine military tradition having personally financed the machine gun battalion in the First World War.
The medal display is Canadian at its truest and best. It is well worth a visit.


INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON DISABILITY
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in 12 days over 7,000 people from 100 countries will gather in Vancouver for Independence 92, the Interna-
April 10, 1992

tional Congress on Disability under the theme "Self-Determination by Persons with Disabilities".
This congress will reaffirm our commitment to full participation and the integration of persons with disabilities into the community.
The minister responsible for disabled persons plans to use this event to announce upcoming omnibus legislation on disability issues. Considering that the government has had about seven and one-half years to prepare for this, we expect more than just an announcement of upcoming legislation. We would like to see the bill itself.
I also call on the government to overhaul legislation affecting disabled persons in such areas as social assistance, health, education, and taxes.
Canadians with disabilities believe these measures are long overdue and hope that this government is fully committed to making full participation a reality.


TOBACCO ADVERTISING
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has forfeited world leadership in the health battle against smoking by allowing tobacco companies to export cheap cigarettes to the U.S. for the primary purpose of smuggling.
Canadians wanting positive action to reduce smoking must now look to countries like Australia which has now banned all cigarette advertising in promotion of sports and cultural efforts.
The Australian government took this action after research showed that tobacco advertising induced children age 10 to 12 to start smoking. A full 80 per cent of children in this age group believe cigarette advertisements encourage them to smoke.
The Australian High Court has ruled that sports and culture sponsorships are used for advertising opportunities not benevolence.
Where does our federal government stand in regard to the health of children age 10 to 12 who are now being actively recruited as smokers of tomorrow? Let us regain world leadership in the battle against smoking and adopt the same advertising ban as Australia.


INTERNATIONAL PEE-WEE HOCKEY TOURNAMENT IN QUEBEC CITY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, again considering the huge success of the International Pee-Wee Hockey Tournament at the Colisee in Quebec City last February, it seems important to mention that this 33rd edition of the tournament was a unique opportunity for some 2,000 twelve and thirteen-year olds representing 105 pee-wee clubs to get together in a spirit of friendly sporting competition.
This unique event, the world's most prestigious for minor hockey, gave 193,546 visitors and 5 million ice hockey fans who had already been to the Quebec Colisee a chance to appreciate how talented the new generation is.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that Quebec City paid tribute to all the tournament volunteers by raising a giant banner in homage to them on the roof of the Colisee. The 34th edition will be something not to miss next year.


LIBERAL PARTY YOUTH COMMITTEE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to advise this House and residents of Prince Edward Island that the Liberal House of Commons-Senate Committee on Youth will be travelling to Prince Edward Island on April 22.
This committee was set up by our leader to co-operatively design a plan of action to address the problems faced by our young people.
There are 400,000 young people unemployed in Canada at this time. Thirty-eight per cent of Canadian adults cannot meet everyday literacy requirements. We have a 30 per cent high school drop-out rate. It is obvious that something is going wrong.
We must provide our youth with the necessary education, knowledge and skills to compete in the increasingly international economy. We must also ensure that the country that we turn over to our youth in the years ahead is united, economically competitive and environmentally sound.

April 10, 1992
I encourage all Islanders to participate in this initiative either by making a presentation or by attending the hearings as an observer.
* % *


UNITY HOCKEY TOURNAMENT
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, 60 bantam hockey teams from all across Canada are participating this week in the Unity Hockey Tournament in Toronto. For many, this week has provided their first plane trip, their first visit to Canada's largest city, and certainly their first and probably only opportunity to play hockey in historic Maple Leaf Gardens.
As you would understand, Mr. Speaker, I was thrilled to be able to stand at centre ice to drop the puck at the beginning of the game between the Brandon Bantam Wheat Kings and the Ste. Foy Gouverneurs. But I was even more excited to learn that accompanying parents were encouraging late evening hotel room discussions involving young players from across this land on the theme of national unity.
Our collective thanks are owed to many, including the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and particularly to the MP for Broadview-Greenwood who initially proposed this idea.
In fact, without the organizational skills and tireless efforts of Dennis Mills, Diane Scharf and others, this tremendous week which in itself is a testament to the value of a united Canada could not have occurred and many of us would have been the losers as a result.


FISHERIES
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, on three separate occasions in this House in the past few weeks I have asked questions to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Employment and Immigration seeking a compensation package for those people who have not been looked after as a result of the recent northern cod reduction and specifically the closure of the processing plant in Catali-na-Port Union.
I met last weekend with families who are among the hundreds of people who have not yet had any form of compensation. It is no good for the government to talk about the $584 million or to talk about the $57 million in compensation for the two previous years, as it always does, if these 100 families cannot get their hands on any of it.
I am going to appeal to the compassion of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his fellow Newfoundlanders who have been severely hurt by this tragic turn of events in the north Atlantic fisheries.
When can I expect a straightforward reply that yes, there is a minister for Newfoundland who cares and that compensation will be forthcoming while there is still some dignity and hope remaining.


ARCTIC POLLUTION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, with the government's report yesterday on the state of Canada's environment, among the points mentioned in the selected highlights is the following:
Despite its remoteness, the Arctic has not escaped pollution from
southern Canada, the United States, and even Europe and Asia.
Lead, PCBs, pesticides and other contaminants are found in the air,
water, soils and wildlife of the region, carried by winds high in the
atmosphere, as well as by north-flowing rivers and ocean currents.
What is the government doing about this? It says action is underway to accurately determine the sources of the contaminants. We know where the contaminants are coming from. It is not time for more studies, it is time for action.
The government's approach reminds me of Ronald Reagan: "Let us check trees to see if there is acid rain". Let us do something about it now.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, in its examination of cross-border shopping, the federal government must give careful consideration to the Ernst and Young study done for Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Two findings of the October 1990 study are of particular importance:
April 10, 1992

(1)	That 43 per cent of the survey respondents claimed that the motivation of their last same-day shopping trip was for specific purposes, like the purchase of gasoline or milk;
(2)	That 68 per cent of those surveyed said that if gasoline was comparable in price with that in the U.S. they would not cross-border shop.
In light of these findings, all governments must consider the fact that the current level of taxation on gasoline, both federal and provincial, represents some 85 per cent of the price differential of gasoline.
Together gasoline taxes constitute 40 per cent of the retail price. In this case taxation is making us uncompetitive. I think the federal government must entertain and examine innovative proposals which would seek to address this tax-induced competitive inequity.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, on February 13 last in the Thompson case, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the danger pointed out two years ago by a committee of this House.
The appeal process for public servants and others denied security clearance by departments is toothless and has no authority according to the Supreme Court.
In the words of the chairman of the Security Intelligence Review Committee: "Canadians have had their rights significantly reduced".
A special committee of this House had recommended that section 52 of the CSIS act be amended to make security clearance review decisions binding on department heads but the government said no. Now the Supreme Court has confirmed the worst: Canadians have virtually no rights on appeal. Careers and rights are at stake here as a result of bad or biased decisions by department heads.
I urge the government to act immediately to restore to Canadians the fair and effective appeal process they thought they had under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and to introduce an amendment now.


UNITED NATIONS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, since 1974 the United Nations has passed some 24 resolutions calling on Thrkey to withdraw its troops from the independent state of Cyprus.
In 1990 the UN passed resolutions calling for Iraq to withdraw its troops from the independent state of Kuwait. In 1991 a coalition of UN forces, including Canada, enforced the UN Kuwait resolutions. After 18 years the UN Cyprus resolutions still have not been enforced.
Canada, the U.S. and all members of the UN-Kuwait coalition should be deeply embarrassed by this double standard. Canada must do everything in its power to bring about an immediate, peaceful and just solution to the Cyprus problem.


ARMED FORCES MEDAL DISPLAY
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, on May 1, a splendid exhibition of medals will begin a grand tour.
Veterans Affairs has brought together all the decorations for bravery that Canadians could win since the Northwest Field Force was formed. Now thousands of people will have an opportunity to see this important part of our heritage.
The collection will be presented in 25 Eaton stores. The partnership between Eaton and Veterans Affairs is a shining example of cooperation between government and business.
Mr. Speaker, it was appropriate for Veterans Affairs to associate with Eaton in this enterprise because of that company's great generosity during the First World War. For example, Eaton obtained many government contracts during the 1914-18 war and afterward it returned to the government all the profits it had made.
Mr. Speaker, this exhibition, which will tour the country, comes at a good time. The 75th anniversary of the battle of Vimy reminded Canadians of all they owe to those who served their country in wartime. When they visit the medal exhibit, Canadians should remember that

April 10, 1992
Oral Questions
many of the highest decorations for bravery were awarded posthumously.


TAXATION
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to alert all Canadians receiving pensions from other countries that this government may once again be picking their pockets and it could be doing it illegally.
Canada has struck protocols with most other countries. Canadians should be aware that they may be eligible for a pension from their land of birth. I am not aware of the details of protocol agreements other than Italy-Canada.
The Italian government sends $270 million to Canada tax free each year and the Canadian government is taxing these pensions to the extreme. The most disturbing effect of this situation is that the Italian government has not yet ratified the agreement. Is the government in the habit of implementing tax legislation that has not been legally ratified? The two governments should seize the opportunity to renegotiate the unsigned agreement. Come le parole degli mei amici Italiani. Noi abbiamo un govemo ladro. We have got a government of thieves.


Some hon. members:: Order.


Some hon. members:: Withdraw.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie would want to withdraw that comment.


Steve Butland: If it is appropriate, Madam Speaker, I certainly withdraw.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the serious situation on the island of Cape Breton where unemployment has once again risen from 18.8 per cent in February to 20.3 per cent in March of this year. This is a very high rate of unemployment.
I call upon the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, as well as the minister of science and technology to try to assist in putting a plan of
action together in order to assist those Canadians who seek meaningful employment.
The mayors and wardens of the municipalities of Cape Breton have attempted for quite some time to have meaningful discussions with representatives of ACOA only to find that the minister responsible is just not available.
The situation is serious. Young people are leaving. There is a sense of helplessness among Canadians in that region. I call upon the Government of Canada to exercise some prudent judgment on behalf of those individuals who reside in Cape Breton and provide them with meaningful work which they so desperately need.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Today we were informed that the projections given a month ago by the Minister of Finance were totally wrong. In one month, the number of unemployed workers rose by 74,000, which means 2,000 for every day since the Minister of Finance brought down his budget, and this is seven days a week, including Saturdays and Sundays.
When will the government realize that last month's budget projections have so far been proven wrong, that projections for many sectors have become increasingly negative and that the time has come to implement an action program to create jobs, before this country is overcome by a climate of despair?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, naturally we were disappointed at the figures released today by Statistics Canada on the unemployment situation in Canada. It confirms what the Minister of Finance said in his budget.
April 10, 1992

If the hon. member took time to read the budget, the Minister of Finance said: "Real output in the fourth quarter of 1991 was flat or may have declined. Available evidence suggests this weakness is carried over into early 1992". In fact, the figures that came out today did confirm what the Minister of Finance said in his budget.
Having said that, the Minister of Finance in his budget made many proposals which are designed to encourage Canadians to improve the economy of this country. He enunciated those yesterday very clearly: reducing personal income tax; the home buyers purchase plan; steps to improve competitiveness in the manufacturing and processing sector; and improvements in research and development. He went on to list a number of things that were in his budget.
Those still pertain today. It will take time to get them into the economy, but will be very important for the future growth of this country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, it is absolutely unbelievable that the minister would get up and say: "I am disappointed". He should have said the government was wrong. Everything it has done so far is not working. We have more than 1.5 million people in Canada who would like to have the dignity of earning a living and this government is doing nothing.
We made a proposition a month ago. The government took only half of it.
This week we had in this town the mayors of the biggest cities in Canada. In every town and city in Canada there are hundreds and thousands of projects ready to go. They are willing to start the work if the federal government would pay one-third of the costs and the provincial governments would be willing to pay one-third.
Why not come to your senses and accept the help of the municipalities who want to create jobs? That is what we need. We are fighting inflation. In the 1930s, there was no inflation; the interest rates were very low. There was a lot of misery and this is exactly where we are going with the inaction of this government.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition is entirely wrong. The government
Oral Questions
recognizes the requirements of this country and that is why it is putting $3.4 billion this year into training and that is why the first ministers in this country have agreed to take certain actions to help the economy.
I will remind my hon. friend, who says the provinces and the municipalities will just jump in with a couple of extra billion dollars of what the premier of the province of British Columbia said after the first ministers' conference and I quote: "But if you are expecting us to write cheques right now for instant throw money at the problem of 1.4 million people being unemployed, a lot of this is structural unemployment. It is going to take many years to undo. It is not going to happen quickly. We are not going to do that. We are not going to go back to trying to increase our deficits by making money available to deal with some of the things you have talked about. That has been tried in the past and it does not work".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. minister to go to the 83,000 people in Vancouver and make that nonsensical statement.
It is important today to realize that something has to be done when we have more than 203,000 people in Montreal who are unemployed, 213,000 people in Toronto alone who are unemployed, 36,000 people in Quebec City who are unemployed, 40,000 people who are unemployed in Winnipeg, 47,000 people unemployed in Edmonton.
We have a government that says nothing, does not care, that will adjourn the House and does not want to recognize that it made a mistake. Every prediction it has made is absolutely wrong so far and we want a program of action before we have many more people unemployed.
Why not use some common sense and do something positive? People want to work. It is the government that is not working properly.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, after consultations throughout the country by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization, it was very obvious that certain recommendations were made by people from all walks of life, from ordinary Canadians in this country as to some of the solutions as to what we should be doing to get the economy going again.

April 10, 1992
Oral Questions
I will remind the hon. member that it is not just Canada that is having financial difficulties right now. Financial difficulties are being experienced around the world. Our largest trading partner is experiencing financial problems. That is one of the reasons that our economy is not going well. We are an exporting nation and we have been unable to export into markets to any great extent that have had these financial difficulties.
The Minister of Finance did take action in his budget. If the Leader of the Opposition was fair he would recognize that. The minister reduced personal income taxes. He introduced a home buyers purchase plan, which I understand the Leader of the Opposition supports. It was one of the suggestions that was made by him.
I can talk about the tax situation whether in manufacturing and processing.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance.
The sharp jump in unemployment from 10.6 to 11.1 per cent in the one month since the budget means that the budget is a failure. It obviously does not go far enough.
Almost 75,000 more Canadians have lost their jobs since that budget. That is 2,000 people a day, two people a minute just since last February.
Why does the minister not admit the government's failure and take new action now to help Canadians get back to work? Why does he not do something now to stop this bleeding away of the Canadian economy?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, we have done a number of things, and the hon. member knows that. He also knows that a budget brought in in February does not produce instant results in a month's time. If he were fair he would admit that to the Canadian people.
The hon. member knows that budgets take time to work through the economy and to give confidence to the Canadian people to start producing jobs. I remember the
hon. member asking for lower interest rates. Of course they dropped again 20 basis points yesterday, and they are in the area of the lowest interest rates we have had in some 20 years.
Inflation is low, so there is capacity now in the economy to lower interest rates further. That is one of the very strong efforts that this government has done to get those rates down and to keep them down, and we have been successful in doing that. Of course this will help the economy grow as this year goes on.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, there has been a response to the government's budget. The unemployment rate went up last month in nine out of ten provinces. That is the response.
Ontario and Quebec had sharp increases. In Ontario major cities like Toronto and Windsor had sharp increases.
Why is the government so deaf to the cries of individual Canadians? Why does the minister not hear them pleading for government action to help them get back to work and not phoney TV ads wasting taxpayers' money? That is not the action they want. They want jobs. Why does he not do something about that right now?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, Canadian people understand that short-term make-work projects do not solve the economic problems of this country.
They know that we have to get the basics in place, and that is what is being done. Certainly they want jobs. We understand that and we want them to have jobs. That is why we are pursuing policies that will give them longterm, meaningful jobs.
That is why we are spending $3.4 billion this year in training and retraining. That is a tremendous amount of money for training and retraining in co-operation, I might say, with the provincial premiers who are co-operating in the training.
As Premier Harcourt pointed out in his comments, with the large unemployment and 300,000 jobs going begging in certain areas where we do not have the expertise, obviously our training has not been geared in the proper direction. That is what we are doing now in co-operation with the provinces.
April 10, 1992

Oral Questions


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance.
Whatever the acting minister chooses to say about what Canadians do or do not understand, Canadians who are unemployed, their families and the communities they live in understand very well the devastating effects of this government's economic policies. Every day they get worse and today's over 11 per cent unemployment rate just confirms that not only is the budget a failure, the government is also a failure and it must take action now.
As families are being devastated, as communities are being devastated, how many more jobs lost, how many more families hurt, how many more communities devastated before this government will take some action?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I will repeat for the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, who obviously did not listen to the answers earlier, that we have taken action.
The budget enunciates a number of them. I will repeat them for her just to refresh her memory. There are personal income tax cuts. There is a home buyers purchase plan which, by the way, has spurred the housing industry on. There are increasing home starts. There are increasing sales in homes. This is very encouraging. It is one of the industries that will help lead us out of these difficult economic times.
We have put in place adjustments to the manufacturing and processing industry. The industries have been hard hit during this recession and we have done something in the budget to help them.
The hon. member knows that these things do not happen overnight. For her to make the statement that because things do not happen in one month after the budget it is a failure, is totally incorrect.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, yes, things do not happen overnight. It has taken since 1984 for this government to destroy the Canadian economy, destroy Canadian jobs, and devastate Canadian communities.

Madam Speaker, 76,000 jobs were lost in a single month. In Montreal, over 200,000 people are unemployed and 100,000 are on welfare. This means that poverty in Montreal is costing the country $600 million annually. And the minister still has the nerve to say things are getting better? Has the government no shame?
Something has to be done now to bring down the unemployment rate and create jobs. What does the government intend to do, not in two years but now, for Canada's unemployed?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, that was the same question she asked the first time.
I want to refer to a couple of points she said in her preamble that were incorrect. I do not think this minister or any minister in our government said that things were going well. We are going through a tough period of time as are other countries. We are all going through a tough period of time, but we have basics in place. All indicators, commissions and groups indicate that Canada is in the best position to come out of these difficult times, and that is what we are doing.
I repeat there are a number of items in the budget to help the economy go on. I might remind the hon. member who says that this government has led Canada to a tough economic situation that we had the fastest growth and job creation over a seven-year period of any OECD country. So what she says is totally wrong.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, the acting minister also knows that we have the second highest rate of unemployment in the OECD countries. That is the result, the direct result of this government's high interest policies, the high dollar, and the Canada-
U.S. trade deal.
The minister mentioned earlier in his response to another question that the Canadian Jobs Strategy and training programs needed to be changed. The change that this government has made has been to cut the Canadian Jobs Strategy for the last number of years, $100 million in the last budget. This has had devastating

April 10,1992
Oral Questions
consequences for the employment equity programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
This is reflected today in Canada's statistics when we see that women over 25 are the most adversely affected by these unemployment statistics and are followed very closely by the young people in our country who are also suffering because of unemployment.
It is clear this government's policies have created this situation. If the government is not willing to make things better, will the government at least stop making things worse?


John Horton McDermid: On the contrary, Madam Speaker, the government is not making things bad; the government is working to improve the situation.
The hon. member said that we have a high interest rate policy. It turns out we have the lowest interest rates we have had in this country in 20 years. The dollar is some five cents lower than it was a year ago and that has helped with exports.
Our trade has grown since the free trade agreement with the United States. Our trade surplus with the United States has grown. There are some things happening in the economy that are very good. It will take time to come out of this, but we are in a position to do it. We are confident that as this year wears on we will find that economic conditions will improve and employment will improve.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Canada is experiencing a massive and alarming one-month jump in the unemployment rate in this country and this government's response, specifically this minister's response, is to launch a multimillion dollar advertising campaign to tell the people of Canada the "good news" about free trade.
Unemployment in Newfoundland today is 20.3 per cent. In my own riding it is 23.6 per cent.
I want to ask the minister of trade, the minister of propaganda, whether or not he is prepared to cancel the multimillion dollar advertising campaign telling Canadians that things are all right and whether he is prepared to face up to the reality of unemployment in Canada and
to use that money to create jobs in Newfoundland and across this country. People want the dignity of a pay-cheque, not the pablum from a propaganda campaign.


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Madam Speaker, as my colleague has said, we are quite upset with the level of unemployment. We have taken a number of actions to deal with the unemployment problem.
In addition, we know that people are aware of success stories, people who are finding new markets and building new markets in other countries. What we want to do with this advertising program is to convey to Canadians that there are people who are achieving success. If that can motivate others to do the same sort of thing then they will create jobs as well.
Are we going to sit in this House of Commons and only talk about the negatives that are happening in the country and not about the fact that some statistics are moving in the right direction? Inflation is at 1.7 per cent, the real gross domestic product in January was up, interest rates are down to their lowest levels in many years, and the Canadian merchandise trade balance has increased steadily month by month since September. These are all positive elements which must be taken into account.
If all we talk about is the negative then everybody will think negative things and will not see the progress my hon. friend would like to see and we on this side of the House would like to see.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, how can this minister fail to realize that Canadians want to put a roof over their heads. Some 1.5 million unemployed Canadians want to put food on the table. They do not want to fill their heads with phoney propaganda, spreading the good news in the face of the reality of a continued recession leading toward depression-type circumstances in Canada.
I plead with the minister, in the name of 11 per cent of the population who are unemployed. Will he cancel an insult, an intellectual insult, a multimillion dollar advertising campaign, and put that money to work putting Canadians back to work and give Canadians the dignity of a pay-cheque in the face of this deep and lingering recession?
April 10, 1992


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let us put things in context. The economic circumstances today are better than they were in 1981-82, so my friend is misleading people when he says things are far, far worse.
He talked about the phoney program. What we are trying to achieve is to let Canadians know that there are successes. I have talked to people who are building business in other countries. They are building business in the United States. SR Telecom is a company that has grown from $2 million in sales about 10 years ago to $48 million in sales today.
Do people not want to understand that there are those successes in this country? Do people not want to understand how it is that SR Telecom built that business in that period of time?
Maybe there are ways that other companies in Canada can follow that success, can be motivated by that success, can emulate that success and create jobs here in Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Minister for International Trade about one of these success stores he talks about.
I have here a letter from the general manager of Westeel Manufacturing, a steel fabricating firm in Winnipeg. It points out on the evidence of the minister of external relations in a letter just delivered on Wednesday that CIDA is aiding and abetting an American firm to dump steel products in Canada, taking jobs away from Canadians.
What is the minister of trade going to do to stop his own government agency from aiding and abetting a firm to undercut Canadian manufacturers by 16 per cent and steal jobs from people in the city of Winnipeg?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the specific situation that my hon. friend talks about. However I am advised by one of my colleagues that the way my friend opposite has described this is a bit misleading. If he wants to raise the specific issue with me, I would be very happy to look into it. To dump this on me, a specific issue like that without any advance notice, makes it very difficult for me to give
Oral Questions
the hon. member a response in the House of Commons today.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, this is the minister who wants to talk about success stories. We had better start talking about the number of jobs that are haemorrhaging out of this country, aided and abetted by the government's own policies. He should understand.
Specifically I want to ask the minister a question on employment in the city of Winnipeg. Over 40,000 people are unemployed, yet there is a two-year waiting list for people trying to get on training programs as a direct consequence of the cuts of this government.
On behalf of those people, unemployed people who have exhausted their benefits, young people and women who want to get back into the work force, I want to ask the minister: Will the government undertake a special training employment program in co-operation with the provinces and municipalities to put people back to work?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, we have significant programs in place. Let me give my hon. friend a listing of them.
Some $1.8 billion of the unemployment insurance development uses fund will be spent in 1992 for training, including income support and courses in supplementary allowances, work sharing, job creation, encouraging self-employment and helping people understand how they get into jobs where they are self-employed, the Canadian Jobs Strategy, job employment, skills investment, job entry-some half billion dollars-Community Futures, innovations, and skills shortages. There is a broad range of programs in place in Employment and Immigration.


Lloyd Axworthy: You have cut the funding.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend keeps saying that we have cut the funding. The funding has increased. On the UI development uses fund it was $1.4 billion last year. It is going to be $1.8 billion this year. On the Canadian Jobs Strategy there was $1.6 billion worth of funding last year; on job development, $460 million; on job entry, $500 million.

April 10, 1992
Oral Questions
There are significant funds being directed at the concerns that my hon. colleagues have expressed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are getting into a speech now.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I would like to pursue the matter of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Under the Employment Equity Act women, aboriginal people, disabled and visible minorities are target groups for that Canadian Jobs Strategy.
I have here a leaked memo from the employment equity branch. In all cases, with the exception of visible minorities, participation rates have decreased for these target groups from 1987-88 to 1991-92. The rates for aboriginal people are down. The rates for women are down. The rates for the disabled are down.
Who in this government would like to stand up in this House and tell those 11.1 per cent unemployed Canadians, the highest in 11 years, why and how the CJS has failed these target groups so miserably?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I have listed the range of programs. I have another listing here of other programs.
My hon. friend is saying that she knows of people who need some support. I am not saying that there are not people who need that support.
The government within the resources we have available is making a significant contribution in trying to deal with the problems that my hon. friend is talking about. If she will look at the total amount of resources that this government has made available in this area, she will see there has been an increase in that total amount over the last few years.


Joy Langan: I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
I would like to talk about the significant contribution. Last week the Minister of Employment and Immigration met with the House standing committee and he did not tell us about this failure. This memo is dated March 16. He knew and he did not tell us.
The memo predicts further reductions for participation rates among these designated groups in the next
year. Yet the parliamentary committee reviewing the Employment Equity Act this week was not told, and it is reviewing the act.
Who is prepared to explain why the government was not honest? Why the cover-up? Who will explain to the unemployed aboriginals, women, and disabled about this scam and cover-up?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, there is no cover-up here. My hon. friend knows that she can see the Minister of Employment and Immigration and he will take her through those figures.
The figures I have just given to my hon.-


Joy Langan: Why did he not tell us that during the committee?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it is very hard to give an answer to my hon. friend when all she is doing is yelling back. If she is not going to listen to the answer, then there is no point in giving her one.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
In this country today, 414,000 young Canadians are out of work. This figure will increase as thousands of young Canadians finish college and university.
What specific measures and programs is this government considering now to ensure that these young people will be able to find work?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, one of the great concerns in this country is the drop-out rate from high schools. It is very high in this country. Although education constitutionally is a provincial responsibility, we are co-operating with the provinces in encouraging young people to stay in school to get the basics.
A lot of the unemployment problems we have now are because young people do not have the education. The premier of British Columbia pointed out very clearly not too long ago that there were 300,000 high-tech jobs available in this country going unfilled because we had not trained our young people to take those jobs.
April 10, 1992

That is what the training programs are about. That is what the $3.4 billion we are spending in 1992 is for. It is to help just those people.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
Since 1985 this government has slashed the Summer Employment Experience Development program by almost $70 million. There are 85,000 more young Canadians not working today than there were a year ago.
Why will the minister not review these cuts and find the necessary money in order to ensure that young people are able to get back to work? The minister could start by looking at the advertising budget. There would be enough money there to do that.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, if my hon. colleague is referring to the Summer Employment Program, I would like to remind him that it was increased by $3 million for this year.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
During March there was a loss of 56,000 full-time jobs, the fifth consecutive monthly decrease in full-time jobs and 45,000 of these full-time job losses were with women. Women, especially single mothers, were already serious victims of the recession and now their situation is worse.
The fact of the matter is that the government's policies are not working. The minister has said that they have taken action. Yes, but that action is wrong. It is not working. The recession is nearly two years old. It is not just this year's budget that is not working; last year's budget did not work.
I want to ask the minister: When is he going to start listening to reason and change these disastrous policies?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, despite what my hon. friend says, the Minister of Finance received advice from people in all walks of life when he was doing his pre-budget consultations. The advice given, together with the advice of members of Parliament, was included in the budget.
Oral Questions
We believe that we are on the right track in the budget. We are not happy with the results of March, although we expected that unemployment would remain high in the first part of this year, and that was said in the budget. The Minister of Finance was very forthright on that.
I can tell the hon. member that the programs that the Minister of Finance announced in his budget will work in our economy and the situation will improve. There is no question about that.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Acting Prime Minister. I repeat, 45,000 out of the 56,000 full-time jobs that were lost last month were women's jobs. Fifteen hundred women a day lost full-time jobs. That is four times the rate of men. This government's policies mean less pay and more poverty for women.
Despite that, how could the minister for trade stand here in the House yesterday as he did and say: "Our job is to help companies before people". Will he admit that women in the textile industry, women losing full-time jobs at a rate like this need programs specifically designated to help people, not companies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that is a distortion of what I said yesterday, which is very frustrating.
We are not at all happy with what is going on in the economy today, but as my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, has said, the finance minister's budget is designed to create jobs for people. We are doing that by giving companies an incentive to invest. That investment will create the jobs.
It will do something else besides simply create jobs in the short term. It will also put the companies in a position where they will be able to compete in the long term. That will allow them to maintain those jobs.
That contrasts with the make-work projects that my colleague would like us to have which are over and done with in six months or one year and then they are gone. We would lose the ongoing benefit of the tax treatment to new investment that the Minister of Finance has brought in.

April 10, 1992
Oral Questions
I realize that is a fundamental difference but we have a very clear and solid reason for doing it the way proposed by the Minister of Finance.


BEER INDUSTRY
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade and of course, it relates to even more potential job losses.
Seventeen thousand workers are involved in the brewery industry. About 1,700 jobs, 10 per cent of them, are directly related to the amount of beer exports from this country.
The United States is now threatening to impose an $8 a case surcharge or tariff on Canadian beer going into the United States.
I would like to ask the Minister for International Trade what he intends to do about this threatened bump-up of those prices of beer going into the United States.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is referring to speculation that is in the media today.
Discussions are continuing with the U.S. administration. As my hon. friend is aware, we have put down a proposal, a proposal that is the result of consultations that we have had with both the industry and the provinces.
The speculation that is in the media today is something that we reject. If the U.S. tries that then we are going to have to take strong action in response. But until we see the specific action taken by the United States, it is difficult to give my friend a specific answer.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, we have heard the same answers relative to magnesium. We have heard it on pork. We have heard it on beef. We have heard it on Honda. We have heard it on softwood. I can go through a whole list where this government is going to get tough.
My question to the minister is that if he is not prepared to have this bump, is he going to alter his advertising program and modify the Budweiser slogan
"this beer is for you" and tell Canadians that "this bump is for you"? What is he going to do to fight for Canadians instead of using the same old excuses he gives in this House time and time again?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that sort of nonsense is pretty hard to take from a member from British Columbia where this government has taken action to protect the interests of the B.C. forest products industry-


David Barrett: You're selling out the logs.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend says we have sold out the logs. Show me where we have sold out the logs. Show me through the Speaker, show the people of Canada where we have sold out on logs. We are fighting that one and my hon. friend knows that.
My hon. friend knows precisely what we are doing and if my friend would come to a briefing and get some advice on what is-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: This is questions, and answers, if possible.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Alan Redway: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.
The minister is aware that the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board has reported that a major source of pollution in the Great Lakes is toxic substances travelling through the atmosphere from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Is the government addressing this problem in the negotiations relating to the North American free trade agreement and what specifically is the government doing to stop pollution coming to Canada from Mexico?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the issue of airborne pollution is of great concern for us, especially given the fact that Canada has a very important land mass.
In fact, it is not only in the Great Lakes, it is also in Canada's Arctic that we have some concerns about some of the substances that we have found there that do not originate either in Canada or even in the United States as far as we know.
April 10, 1992

As the member may know, the Prime Minister and the President of Mexico signed an environmental bilateral agreement in March 1990. In the framework of the trade negotiations, the net effect is that these trade negotiations are leveraging a lot of activity between the three governments in the area of the environment.
One of the issues that we are looking at is air pollution control. There is a Canada-Mexico environmental collaboration program now going on that will assist the Mexican government in establishing emission standards that hopefully will have a direct effect on those types of airborne pollutions.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Last Sunday, on April 5, 40 people armed with clubs, axes and sledge-hammers attacked the Iranian embassy here in Ottawa, four hours-I repeat, four hours-after a similar attack in London. After five days spent investigating the matter, can the minister confirm today that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service had been watching the embassy from a van for two hours before the attack took place?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General I am pleased to respond to that question.
The hon. member will know that the work of CSIS and some of the operational details of the activities of CSIS cannot be discussed here by me at the present time.
Certainly the whole circumstances relating to this attack-


Ms. Copps:: Shame, shame.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The hon. member for Hamilton East feels that we should lay out before the House of Commons information that could be prejudicial to Canadian security. I do not believe that is appropriate.
What I can do is to say that I am informed by the Solicitor General that the operational response to the incident was both professional and timely. It was marked
Oral Questions
by the highest degree of co-operation and co-ordination among all of the agencies involved.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the following is professional and timely and the response time correct.
Will the minister confirm that CSIS not only videotaped from inside a van the arrival of the protesters equipped with ladders, clubs and axes, but that CSIS also filmed the destruction of the embassy, filmed a protester videotaping his cohorts during the raid, after which one of the CSIS watchers, asleep at the switch, declared 3 minutes and 52 seconds later, and I quote: "Somebody should call the cops"?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm that. As the hon. member will know, in a case like this the Security and Intelligence Review Committee would look closely at all circumstances relating to the matter.
If the hon. member wants to provide any evidence to substantiate his allegations to the Security and Intelligence Review Committee, he would be welcome to do so and indeed I would argue that it would be his responsibility to do so.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, last Sunday, Canadians thought that CSIS was asleep at the switch. CSIS was asleep in the van outside the Iranian embassy.
Given that CSIS has been accused of failing to report extremism in 1989 and failing to co-operate with other police authorities in the past, I want to know now what is the government going to do to put an end to this?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the fact that the hon. member shouts on the floor of the House of Commons does not change any of our responsibilities. Our responsibilities are to provide for the security of Canada.
If the hon. member or if any of his colleagues have any evidence to tender in support of the allegations they made, they should turn it over to the Security and Intelligence Review Committee which is charged by Parliament with the responsibility for overseeing all of the activities of CSIS.

April 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings
If he has such evidence, let him turn it over. [Translation]


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, Canadians are tired of this affair. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the RCMP have the duty to work for the good of Canadians and not to engage in jealous rivalry with each other.
So I would like to know what concrete action the government will take to end this jealousy between our two Canadian security forces as soon as possible, in order to help Canadians and stop hurting them.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the hon. member should not be putting partisan considerations ahead of matters relating to the security of Canada.
His obligation, as is the obligation of all members opposite, is to turn over any evidence they have to the Security and Intelligence Review Committee.
What we have had is a series of allegations being made by him and by his colleague without evidence. If they have evidence, let them turn it over and let SIRC do its job.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Last question, single question.


JOB TRAINING
Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of trade, since he is in charge of the prosperity agenda.
On March 16,1 asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration if he would allow UI recipients to pursue three years of retraining at a university as well as at community colleges and end the discrimination. He said he was open to suggestions.
To that end, I have received endorsements from the University of Alberta, the University of Manitoba, Acadia University, Algoma University in my community and community colleges across this country. Mr. Docquier and Mr. Thibeault from the Canadian Labour Force Development Board endorse it.
Will the minister recommend-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am glad this is a short question.


Steve Butland: What is the rationale for saying no to university training? The minister says that there are 300,000 jobs out there for high-tech. Why say no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that area is obviously the responsibility of the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
My hon. friend has made a very powerful presentation, obviously with good support. I am sure my colleague will take his representations very seriously.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the government's response to 20 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate Monday, April 27,1992 as an allotted day.


BILL C-41 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE D
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure and the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of Legislative Committee D on Bill C-41, an act respecting the energy efficiency of energy-using products and the use of alternative energy sources, with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]
April 10, 1992

[English\


NATIONAL ROUND TABLE ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Jean J. Charest: for leave to introduce Bill C-72, an act to establish the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I wish to briefly inform the House on the purpose of this bill, which is non-controversial. All members on all sides of this House will find it a bill that is useful in terms of putting the National Round Table on the Economy and the Environment into law. It will establish it and give it a legal basis from which to develop its operations and contribute to the issues of sustainable development. I do not want to add anything more, given the fact that this bill is not going to be the object.


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


PLAIN LANGUAGE ACT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-343, an act to promote the use of plain language in federal statutes, statutory instruments and regulations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a brief word about my bill. I wonder if you would permit me to do so. I saw the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs in the House a moment ago. I would like to
Routine Proceedings
congratulate the government and ourselves on the historic breakthrough in the recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal people which appears to have been achieved in Halifax yesterday. We can all take some pride in that and I want to congratulate the minister.
I believe that Canadians want their laws and their regulations to be in plain language. This bill is an act to promote the use of plain language in federal statutes, statutory instruments and regulations.
At the beginning of each session the Speaker of the House will name three representatives from the recognized political parties. After second reading in the House the bill, or statutory regulations, will go to committee. The committee will try to put the law not in complicated lawyers' language but in plain language that everybody can understand.
I introduced this bill today in the hope that Canadians will get greater-


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


PETITIONS
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to introduce a petition signed by Canadians across Canada from Saskatchewan and Ontario, from my riding of Ottawa Centre, from British Columbia and from other parts of the country.
These Canadians are concerned about the state of our educational system. They are calling on the government to set up a consultative process to deal with national educational standards whereby we could consult with the provinces, educational professionals, industry, labour, parents, students, volunteer organizations and individual Canadians.

April 10, 1992
Routine Proceedings JUSTICE


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 4,500 people from western Canada concerning the tragic case of Christine Lamont and David Spencer who have been sentenced to a 20-year jail term in Brazilian jails as a result of a miscarriage of justice.
There has been very ample and important evidence demonstrating the irregularities in their sentencing. The only relief available from such severe punishment is for Canada to request expulsion in accordance with Brazilian law.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to 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.
We have now been waiting several months for the minister to make a decision. The longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes. It does not demonstrate that Canada is really interested in the plight of these Canadians, and 4,500 Canadians want the minister to act.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition from residents of Ottawa, Montreal, Gatineau and Nepean who are very concerned with the uncertain situation of foreign domestic workers.
They urge Parliament to call on the Minister of Employment and Immigration to give foreign domestic workers the option to not live in the homes of their employers outside of working hours. They also ask that work experience take precedence over any formal training, and that domestic work be recognized as an occupation in Canada and the necessary points be awarded toward permanent resident status.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to rise to present a petition from 42 Canadians from across this country, from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Ontario.
These petitioners are concerned that Canada have a well trained and skilled labour force in order to keep the country competitive. They humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to urge the government to promote and encourage the institution of national education standards in consultation with provincial governments and educational, professional, industry, labour, parental, youth, and voluntary organizations, as well as individual Canadians, to achieve this.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 in which those Canadians who wish us to remain internationally competitive and to maintain our status as one of the leading countries in the world, those who wish to have a skilled labour force, and those Canadians who wish to reduce the functional illiteracy rate in Canada call upon the government of Canada to co-operate with provincial governments, educators, volunteer organizations, youth and parents to establish national standards in order that we may address those concerns as so announced.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present.
The first is from the residents of the village of Pleasantdale. They have seen their rail line abandoned and this government erode services to rural communities and are now faced with the prospect of losing their post office. Therefore, almost all the residents of Pleasantdale have signed this petition calling on the government to return to a policy of supporting post offices in rural communities and they ask the Government of Canada to maintain the post office at Pleasantdale, Saskatchewan.
I have a similar petition from residents of Porcupine Plain, Saskatchewan. They are calling on the government to support Canada's rural way of life through the support and maintenance of rural post offices and rural postal services and to reject the Conservative agenda of cutbacks and closures.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, residents from the Choiceland area point out that current applications before the CRTC propose to allow entry into the long distance telephone market by Unitel. They point out that this would provide a regulated cost advantage to the applicants who do not have to supply local telephone service.
April 10, 1992

Since rate structuring would lead to increases in telephone bills for nine out of ten Canadians, particularly those living in rural and isolated communities which I represent and would jeopardize Canada's tradition of affordable universal telephone service, they are calling on the government to reject this policy.


Derek Vincent Lee: I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Ottawa area who bring to the attention of the House the fact that gasoline prices in the Ottawa area are significantly higher than those in other parts of southern Ontario.
The causes of the problem relate to federal and provincial marketing, taxation and distribution policies. These residents bring this matter to the attention of the House and ask that the government act to redress this imbalance and injustice.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 257 will be answered today.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): How much has the Department of Transport budgeted for the cost of transferring the Halifax Terminal Control Unit to Moncton, N.B.?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: The Department of Transport has budgeted $1,737,300.00 for the transfer of the Halifax Terminal Control Unit to its parent Area Control Centre (ACC) at Moncton, N.B. thereby providing the department with a more cost beneficial operation. This includes employee relocation, training, equipment installation, etc.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has 11 minutes remaining in his debate, plus 10 minutes of questions and comments.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the precision of your instructions on the time available.
I began to speak on this bill just before Question Period. I am glad in a way that we had that opportunity to have an exchange with government ministers about the tragic and terrible events as reported today by Statistics Canada in terms of the unemployment figures. There was no clearer evidence of just how strong and serious is the need and how inadequate and ineffectual is the response.
It is hard to believe that when the government is presented with the evidence of increases in unemployment of 20 per cent, of young people not being able to get jobs, of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits, the only response we hear from the Minister of State for Finance is: "Well, I think our forecast was right".
The hon. gentleman shows as much empathy as an Arctic ice-floe. He has no understanding of what it means to be unemployed. He will soon find out. As soon as the election is called he will have the full experience and maybe it will change his mind.
Equally, it is hard to believe that the Minister for International Trade, a former Minister of Finance, would have the gall, the unmitigated nerve to stand in this House and defend a government policy of advertising so-called success stories for millions of dollars and refuse to concede that it might be more important to

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
create a few more success stories for individual Canadians who are unemployed.
There is not a more obvious example of waste than a government that is churning up the printing presses, going to some high-powered friends in the ad agencies, buying lots of time on CTV, Global, or whatever, while it is ignoring young people, single mothers, people who have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits, fishermen, and others. It covers a wide spectrum.
It is an admission of enormous gross failure and a hardening of the arteries when it comes to the responsibility of a government to create employment.
Allow me to use this opportunity to clarify two points. When I asked the Minister for International Trade why a government agency was authorizing the purchase of U.S. products in violation of Canadian trade law he said that his colleague from Provencher, the minister of energy, told him that this was a misleading statement.
I want to show the House just how misleading it is. This is a letter from the general manager of Westeel. He said:
The grain storage industry members in Canada-would request that Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise Branch immediately bring into effect an anti-dumping and countervail action against CIDA and Central Canadian Structures, Winnipeg, importers of record on this transaction.
Is it misleading when the industry itself is asking for it? The minister, in an attempt to once again camouflage and hide the truth says: "Well, that is misleading", as if that should be taken as gospel.
Is it not amazing that a minister of industry, whose primary function is to defend the interests of Canadian manufacturers, whose sworn oath of office is to act on their behalf, is prepared to contravene and tolerate a contravention of our own trade laws, seriously hurting our own manufacturers? For the sake of what?
Does he really have deep concern for a manufacturing plant in Nebraska? What is he afraid of, what is he covering up? I do not understand the logic. It would have been so obvious, so easy for the minister to get up and say: "Here is a serious problem, I am going to look into it". That is what ministers are for. We have a House of
Commons to respond to these kinds of events. That is the definition of accountability. However, instead he tries to defend the indefensible.
Let me point out another attempt to camouflage, to smoke-screen the realities. When this side of the House importuned, made requests, presented ideas, and submitted proposals-municipal infrastructure program, increased training for those who are not eligible under the UI system-the response of both ministers in Question Period was: "Oh, those are make-work projects. They don't work. We don't want to throw our money away on getting people to work".
Which is worse? Is it worse than having people on welfare, paying for their upkeep through transfer payments and CAP, having them stay at home, unused, not paying taxes, going through the emotional stress affecting their families?
One of the primary symptoms of the condition affecting this country is the number of high school students absent or late for school. Sometimes the reason is that they are the only wage-earner in their family.
They can and must get a short-term service job at a hamburger stand or as a gas jockey because their father or mother no longer has a permanent job, no longer can go to work. If you talk to the schools in Winnipeg, which I have done, you are told that it is an increasing problem. Kids miss school in the mornings or leave early in the afternoons to go to work because they are the only wage-earner in the family. Yet, we have a government that says it would rather have people on welfare than going to work.
What incredible perverse logic. What an incredible indictment of the kind of thinking that seems to be rattling around inside the Cabinet chambers, if you can dare to call it thinking at all.
Yet, it is not a question of people painting fences or raking leaves, all those old mythologies that Tories like to use. I have given examples under the NEED program in which we had people building municipal sewers to get rid of waste. This is a government that presented a report yesterday saying: "What is one of the great problems in Canada? It is dirty water, undrinkable water, pollution, environmental degradation".
April 10, 1992

What would happen if in co-operation with the municipalities, the provinces and private industry we were able to offer 100,000 Canadians or so the opportunity to begin investing in the clean-up of the environment, saving money by the way? Ultimately, pollution costs. There is a cost to dirty water, there is a cost to dirty air.
Yet, this government does not seem able to understand that there is a lot of worth-while important work out there to be done. This is a government that refuses to heed the call.
At the same time, with the most arrogance I have heard, it will say: "But we are prepared to pay millions of dollars for advertising to tell about the success stories". Is that not incredible?
People come here saying that they want to work and municipalities put propositions on the table. Yet, what do we get? We get $25 million for a productivity study. How many more millions for the Mike Wilson success story, which begins in that steel fabrication plant in Nebraska that just got more work because of the Canadian government? A great success story.
It is hard to explain to people back in the constituency how on the one hand they can see the need, feel the pain, know the hurt and at the same time they will tune in to a Minister for International Trade who says: "My major initiative this week is to get more camouflage out on the airwaves".
Is it any wonder that there is cynicism out there? People want government to work for them. People understand it is only government that can fill in the gaps at times. There are things that the marketplace cannot do and God knows we have so many tasks that need to be done that go unfilled.
It may just come down to this ideological blindness that says government cannot do anything worth while. The evidence contradicts that. There are important, good, effective, constructive things that government can do. It does have to do it by itself.
Work can be created through the private sector, with stimulus and changing the interest rate policy, investing in infrastructure, putting serious training programs in
Government Orders
place. That is investment, it is not make-work, and it is only the public sector that can provide it.
Why do we tolerate 1.6 million Canadians unemployed when there is plenty of work to do? All we have to do is have a government that is prepared to go to work for those Canadians.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for his very forceful speech on a disastrous problem for this whole country.
During Question Period I brought to the attention of the government the fact that during the month of March, Canada lost 56,000 full-time jobs. Of those, 45,000 were held by women. In other words, out of those 56,000 full-time jobs that were lost last month, 45,000 were lost by women. That was the fifth consecutive month of recording losses in full-time jobs.
In addition, I looked at the labour force survey that came out today and it has added a new figure that was not there before. It has brought to our attention what is called "discouraged workers". These are workers who are not counted in the unemployment figures because they have given up looking for work. They have tried and tried, but then they finally gave up. Therefore, they are not counted among the 11.1 per cent, the 1.5 million Canadians out of work. But they are estimated in this new supplement to the survey as being approximately 99,000, another 99,000 not even counted in the unemployment figures. They are out of work but have given up looking.
When we asked the government today about these terrible statistics, the minister said: "The government is taking action". We know the government is taking action. It is mostly action to get out of programs, to cut unemployment insurance, cut training programs, put a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, not get involved in a massive infrastructure program. It has a philosophy more or less that the free market will fix everything.
Earlier in the member's speech he referred to what we did when we were in government in 1982-83 when we were faced with a recession. We believed, unlike this government, that a government must take action and it intervened with the private sector and with the provinces to do something.

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
By the way, if we look at Canada, the greatest years of prosperity in this country have been at times when there was a partnership of the government, the private sector and the provinces.
I want to ask the member if he would expand a bit on the NEED program. He referred to the NEED program and the other programs that we used to start the economy rolling again at the time of the recession in 1981-1982, unlike this government which is quite content to sit back and let things happen.
Yes, it is taking action but it is action to get out of things, rather than action to stimulate the economy and put people back to work.
I wonder if he could expand a bit on a different philosophy, a Liberal philosophy, which is co-operation, participation by the government with the private sector in getting the economy rolling again.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to put on the record the kinds of things that a caring government is interested in doing. If I might, I would make one comment in response to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace about what we are discovering today. It is not just unemployment that is the problem, it is also a question of equity that is a problem.
But those who are suffering the most are clearly those who are most vulnerable. The progress we have attempted to make in this country over the years in ensuring equal treatment in the work place between men and women, of providing more equal treatment for disadvantaged Canadians, disabled Canadians, is one that is also suffering as a result.
What bothers me most is this continual attempt to evade responsibility. Today we heard once again another example of the great lie where a government minister said: "We are putting more money into training".
The only increases that are going into training programs are paid for under the Unemployment Insurance Act which is not public money. It is money contributed only by employers and employees. The government is not contributing any new money. It is only drawn out of the unemployment insurance fund which means the only people eligible for training are those who can draw UI.
What happens when you exhaust your UI benefits? You are no longer eligible for training. What happens if you are a young person getting out of school? You are
not eligible for training. What happens if you are a single parent who wants to get into the work force but has no work record? You are not eligible for training. That is why there is a two-year training list because training paid for by the government out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund has been cut back successively the last two or three years.
Those are the facts. Those are the honest facts. For the government to keep saying that it has increased dollars for training is not being honest with Canadians.
In terms of the kinds of things that can be done, let me give an example because I think maybe government members ought to know. I am sure they have unemployed people in their ridings.
In 1982 when the previous government announced the new employment expansion development program, by the end of that year, in one year's time, it had spent $189 million federally which was matched by $71 million provincially and $91 million from the private sector.
We had a direct one to one ratio of contributions which means it had a multiplied effect. We put 35,000 people back into the work force using the programs as a trampoline. In addition to that, and I think the hon. member would know because he was an active proponent of the program, we had a special program for the employment disadvantaged, people who had a hard time getting work, those who were disabled, those who had been out of the work force for a long time, mothers who had only one child.
Again we were able to put several thousand back into the work force. It was a program that was shared with the private sector. We would pay part of the wage and the private sector would pay part of it. What is important is that many of the people who were brought into that program stayed working for the same employer after the program was over.
It is a total contradiction to the evidence that was provided today by ministers. They make up these things. They fabricate them in their own minds. They have their own bubble factory where they sort of swallow their own mystique. But that is the reality.
I am not saying that is all you do but there is a direct responsibility by the federal government to work in a co-operative fashion with other levels of government and the private sector to put people back to work and that in itself will provide the stimulus to get the economy going again.
April 10, 1992

If people are working, then people are consuming. If people are consuming, then they start helping other people go back to work. That is why we came out of the recession in 1983-84, because we had a government that was prepared to invest.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I look at the legislation before us today, Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures and I cannot help but think that the government, once again, is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadian people as it has with its debt reduction and servicing act, telling them one thing and doing another.
I know this bill is very important to the members of the government because they have filled the government benches today and are here waiting breathlessly for my comments on this bill.
I want to tell those members of the government that they will not accomplish what they have tried with this bill. They will not pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Canada by getting them to believe that they are serious about putting a cap or control on government expenditures, or for that matter, reducing or servicing the debt and the deficit of this country.
The very fact that they set out hollow words in statutes does not add to the credibility of this government. In fact, by doing that, I believe that they have increased the skepticism of the people of Canada.
The ordinary citizens in Canada, while perhaps not always totally up on what is in these various bills, are still well aware of the over-all thrust of what is going on here. They have watched very closely and very carefully since 1984 what this government has done. The fiscal policies, the monetary policies that have proven so disastrous in this country as shown today by the StatsCan labour force information shows that the unemployment rate is up across Canada to 11.1 per cent.
In my area in the Okanagan, there is well over 13 per cent unemployment. As Mr. Speaker knows, the Okana-
Govemment Orders
gan is known for its warmth, its sunshine. We have had blossoms out over the last two or three weeks.
Unfortunately on Monday we were hit by frost. That is going to be devastating. Three straight days of heavy frost will be devastating to the orchard industry in the Okanagan and Similkameen regions and will cause higher unemployment throughout my area. Where we have people coming from all across Canada during the summer to pick the fruit, it will cause further hardship.
What have we got from this government? We have more hollow, more empty words set out in Bill C-56. What is in this bill?
The government has set out spending limits under the definitions section over the following five years, stating that during the 1991-92 fiscal year, the spending limit will be $97.2 billion.
The following year it is $100.9 billion, followed by $104.1 billion for 1993-94. In 1994-95, it is $107.4 billion and in the final year, 1995-96, it is up to $111.25 billion plus the amounts by which the spending limit for the year has increased under the various other subsections.
As members can see by that, it is not control as such. It is setting out within this bill limits that on the increases in the deficit and government spending. I know, since I have been in this House since 1988. It is very apparent. I have read each of the budgets as they have come out in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. In each case I have watched. The first year as a new member of Parliament I thought the government was really going to get the deficit under control and spending under control. By the end of the year, in the public accounts the following year I found that the deficit had increased even though it said it was going to decrease.
The government has set out this wonderful plan each year for how much the deficit was going to decrease and how it was going to get the government expenditures under control. If we go back to the first year, the deficit was supposed to be down to about $25 billion. In fact it

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
tells us that it was $30.5 billion, somewhere in the same region where it was when I first came here in 1988.
It has not changed all that much since 1984 when this government was brought into power. What is happening? I think that they are misguided. Government members are misguided in both their fiscal monetary policies and in their over-all thrust of where they are going. We see in the budget cutbacks of $100 million in the Canadian Jobs Strategy, a program that has been used well in Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. It has been used well in Alberta, in your riding, Mr. Speaker, and throughout Canada. It is an area we have looked at and enjoyed as a method of retraining and as a method of ensuring people are allowed to go back into the work force.
When we look at the unemployment results this morning, we see that 1.525 million Canadians are out of work. Depression, not recession, is what we have. Increasing unemployment means fewer dollars for people to spend. It means more people out of the work force who pay fewer taxes. It means more expenditures for governments as they try to shore up the economy. It means more people who have given up, women and men who have given up even looking for a job in the job market.
It means people who have run out of unemployment insurance, who have been a year, a year and a half, two years, three years without a job and without hopes of ever getting a job. They have simply given up. They are now on social assistance, on the welfare rolls, and where does this cost roll to? It rolls back to the taxpayer. It is part of the non-productive sector we have to pay out to ensure that people are allowed to live in some dignity.
Most people do not want to be on social assistance. They will do anything to get a job. They feel very depressed and despondent at having to stay at home. It causes problems within the family if the husband or wife is unemployed. They feel they are not worth anything. They are not able to find jobs. Very often they are not even able to get job interviews.
These people want some hope. They are not going to get hope out of Bill C-56. What they want is job creation. They want some of that $8 million the government is putting in advertising put into municipal infrastructure or construction, the creation of jobs.
The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism would like some of the money put into his area so that he can develop his programs. He has worked hard. He knows the backbone of the Canadian economy is the small business sector. They are without hope, without some of these programs. Only we in this Parliament and only they as government can offer some hope to those who might get into small business, to those who might create a starting position of one, two, three, four and perhaps a hundred new jobs within communities like Oliver, Osoyoos, Penticton, Grand Forks, and other places in my riding that have high unemployment rates.
Programs like Community Futures and Western Diversification are excellent programs that offer some hope. People look with such cynicism upon a government that says it is going to spend $8 million in telling people about the successes of the free trade agreement.
I have heard various ministers on the government side speak in favour of the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement.
What has the FTA done? It has devastated the manufacturing sector throughout Canada. I think that is shown in the commentary on unemployment figures wherein it states as follows: "The estimates for Statistics Canada labour force survey for March 1992 show a sharp rise in the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment and a substantial decline in employment. Following little change in the last quarter of 1991, the unemployment rate has increased since January and rose 11.1 per cent in March from 10.6 per cent in February, continuing the trend of recent months. There were losses in both full-time employment and employment in manufacturing".
I think that says a lot. Perhaps that says it all. What we have seen under the free trade agreement is the devastation of our manufacturing sector. We have seen jobs that have gone south both to the United States and to Mexico. We have seen an increase, as we have perhaps seen in this report, in the service sector industry, an industry which normally pays fairly low wages, not the high wages of the manufacturing sector.
Is that what is becoming of Canada? Are we to be a service-based industry for the United States, for Mexico, for the rest of the world?
April 10, 1992

Government Orders
That is not good enough for the Canadian people and it is certainly not good enough for me. We have to take initiative. We have to ensure that our raw resources are produced in Canada, that we have from those raw resources value added production in our mineral industry, our softwood lumber industry, and our agricultural industry.
For too long we have turned our back on research and development. For too long we have turned our back on ensuring that those industries are developed for jobs for Canadians. That is where we have to turn to give some hope to those unemployed people, those 1.525 million Canadians who are presently out of work.
Later this month or next month I will specifically have a motion before this House dealing with value added production and the necessity for Canadians and the Canadian government to have a buy Canada policy.
If this government had a buy Canada policy, can we imagine the number of jobs that could be produced in this country, the number of people who could be off those unemployment rolls?
The number of institutions controlled by this federal government is enormous. The number of areas within Canada supplied by contract suppliers who buy out of the country is massive. If we could convince those people who bid on our Canadian institution contracts both federally and provincially, I firmly believe we could have that employment base. We could have the encouragement for our small business sector. We could have the encouragement for our manufacturing sector in all these resource areas, in the value added areas of our resource areas to produce the employment, to create jobs here in Canada.
I look at this sham of a bill and the sham of the debt reduction and servicing act. According to the polls people say they want the deficit reduced and they want our national debt under control.
The government set up a bill to have people believe that it was going to do something to control the deficit and debt when in fact it can overspend. By the minister's own statement he said this bill can be amended.
If government members in fact had a commitment to get their debt under control and to get the deficit under control, they would not need the words in this statute. They would not need the debt reduction and servicing act, which is a sham, an attempt to fool the Canadian people. They would show us by their actions that they had the ability to manage the economy of this country and to manage the expenditures of the Government of Canada. They do not. They have proven that. They talked about managing change.
The change I have seen since November 1988 when I came to this House is higher unemployment. The free trade agreement has led to the flood of jobs to the south and the dissolving of the manufacturing sector.
I have essentially seen the Unemployment Insurance Act gutted and the benefit periods shortened. I have watched the gutting of the universality of family allowances, the threat of the gutting of universality to old age security with the clawback. I listened to a minister announce the end of universality in Canada.
I fear that it will also lead to the end of universality in our medical program. When I hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare talk about the sacred trust, those words come back to me. I remember hearing in the 1988 election about our sacred trust in social programs.
We have seen what this government thinks about that sacred trust and how hollow those words are, as are the words in these particular statutes.
It is interesting to look at some of the comments of those before the committee studying these. The recommendations of the committee included the following: "Any legislated reduction in total tax revenues which causes the federal government's fiscal targets not to be met must be accompanied by measures offsetting this decrease (in revenues) through other forms of revenue increase or expenditure reduction. Revenue increases, however, may take place that have the effect of reducing the deficit".
Government members did not pay any attention to those recommendations of the committee. Most witnesses who appeared before the committee agreed that there had to be some control on government spending, but very few of those witnesses attempted to articulate just why legislation was needed to achieve spending

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
control. I would suggest, as I have said earlier, that they should be showing the leadership as opposed to putting down in legislation what they think people want to hear.
Professor Douglas Hartle from the University of Toronto recognized the need for spending restraint but viewed the control program as little more than a public relations exercise. He concluded that the federal government forecasts of future deficits are contingent upon declining interest rates more so than programs spending control.
Further, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business stated: "Within the current dismal economic and fiscal circumstances, small business owners and Canadians generally have lost confidence in the government's ability to manage its own affairs, let alone manage the country".
This bill is a sham. It is a public relations opportunity for government members. They should put their money where their mouths are and show us through action rather than this type of legislation which can be changed at any time that they in fact mean business. They have not convinced me. I am sure they have not convinced the Canadian people. I cannot support a bill that is a sham, a public relations exercise. This bill should be defeated.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask my hon. friend a few questions based on his very interesting speech. It had a somewhat different tone than what we usually get from his party, especially in his opening 15 minutes when he talked about the deficit and expressed his concern that the decrease in the deficit is not what he would have liked to have seen. I appreciate that emphasis because I know it is a concern that NDP governments have in the provinces as well.
What does trouble me though is that he neglected to say that we have of course decreased the deficit somewhat. But the economy has doubled in size since we were elected. We have twice as big an economy than before. Therefore, the deficit as a proportion of the national economy has dropped from around 8 per cent to about 4 per cent. Nobody says this is a strong accomplishment but it is something he might like to acknowledge. I wanted to ask him about that.
I also wanted to say that in many ways I am glad he was elected in 1988, because he does try to come up with constructive suggestions. But I do not know if I have heard any suggestions from the NDP members on how to cut the deficit. They are always complaining about other things. When we try to cut spending they complain.
The only suggestion from the NDP members is to somehow cut business perks and so on. That is fine. They can suggest those things and they will be analyzed. Besides that, I do not get many other suggestions on how to cut the deficit. I was wondering if he would share with me what he would like to see done further in a concrete way to decrease the deficit.
Finally, I was struck by his comments about universality. Part of the reason for changing the way we deal with that subject is that we did not think it was progressive for the very wealthy to receive the same social benefits as middle-income and low-income Canadians. I would have thought that NDP members would share our views on that. They insist on the very wealthy, someone earning $500,000 or $200,000 a year, getting the same social benefits and medical coverage and so on, as low and medium-income Canadians. How does he justify that, especially coming from a social democratic party? If we could do something on this we could decrease the deficit further.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the questions from the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism who works hard within his portfolio. Certainly his work is appreciated by those people in my riding who have had the benefit of some of the programs under his jurisdiction. I know he is working under some budgetaiy constraints as many other departments are.
He spoke about the expansion in the gross domestic product. It is interesting that the figures I have seen show social program spending has not increased relative to the gross domestic product over the past 16 years. What the government would have us believe is that it is the social program spending that has caused all of the deficit problems. Well, it is not.
He alluded to a number of things about taxation and how to cut back on expenses. I know he listened carefully to my remarks about increasing employment through small business initiatives and through ensuring full employment.
April 10, 1992

As long as we have an unemployment rate of 11.1 per cent across Canada, 20 per cent in Newfoundland and variations of that across the country, as long as we have a high unemployment rate, as long as we are not committed to close to a zero unemployment rate, we are going to continue to have a major deficit problem.
We have to get those 1.5 million people who are unemployed off the unemployment insurance roles and back to work. We have to do that by creating employment with value added production and buy Canadian initiatives.
We also have to get the people who have given up looking for work into the mode where they are interested and know they have a chance to get back to work. If we have full employment, or near full employment, we will have a productive Canada. We will have a handle on our deficit problems.
This government's fiscal and monetary policies have been misguided I would suggest. In fact, it has been so intent on keeping the inflation rate down it has forgotten the importance of people.
That is what the New Democratic Party is all about. We care for people. We want people to be employed. Yes, we have indicated that we would like to see the deficit decreased. We have come up with a number of ideas including a look at the Income Tax Act. Instead of, as has happened over the last years, a drop from 34 to 28 per cent for those in the higher income brackets, I suggest that perhaps those should be moved up.
We are one of only two countries in the world that does not have some kind of wealth tax or estate taxes. Those types of things for those in the higher income areas could be looked at, as well as the business lunch and other tax breaks that the business community needs but abuses. The abuses have to be cut out. That could save us millions and millions of dollars.
Yes, we are working hard toward ensuring that this government is accountable to the Canadian people. We are working hard to come up with reasonable ideas, hoping that the government, as it did with our suggestions for a number of years, lowers the interest rates and finally starts realizing the wisdom in that advice after years of our pushing the government.
Government Orders
I told the minister of state three years ago that is what the business community wanted. It wanted the assurance that the interest rates would be lower, that the interest rates would be stable so that they could plan into the future. I am glad that the minister and his fellow cabinet members listened to the other members in the New Democratic Party and myself and started dropping those rates.
If the government would start listening to us now as far as a buy Canada program goes, as far as creation of full employment for Canada, it would find that many of its problems with deficit control would dissolve.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I must say in the closing hours of the House before we adjourn for Easter, I know my voice is not going to penetrate too far with members here. I can understand that having been here at many Easter and Christmas closings, but we do have television.
Quite frankly, I was going to be like most other members and get in and out of this House quickly so we can get back to our constituencies for the Easter break and get some reaction from the people. That is part of the reformed rules and they are very good rules, so that we get out of this incestuous cockpit of a capital of the nation and go back to the real people and get views and reactions from the real people.
It was only Question Period and quite frankly, the response of the Prime Minister to John Major's election victory with tremendous credit to John Major that started to make me want to have a speech. I heard the Prime Minister respond over the CBC this morning on Newsworld and listened to what he had to say and knew that others heard what he had to say. For my former colleagues in the Conservative caucus I hope they start to listen.
I am going to say a few things that will not make me too popular or any more popular certainly with the Prime Minister than I am today. It is related also to this bill under discussion. The bill under discussion is Bill C-56 and it is called an act respecting the control of government expenditures.
I am not going to get into all the things that can be said about government expenditures, where they are good, where they are bad, and what we are doing. It was really the catalyst for my rising now. I say to my hon. friend, the member for Provencher, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that I am glad he is here. Obvious-

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
ly, ministers have to do other things and the Minister for International Trade is not here.
Really what got me this morning in Question Period, along with what I had heard earlier about the Prime Minister's reaction to John Major's victory in England yesterday, and I will try not use too many pejoratives, symbolizes one of the reasons I am standing over here as an independent. It also symbolizes the malaise, the discontent, the skepticism and/or cynicism in the public about the whole political process.
Specifically, on one government expenditure, that is government advertising, we heard it today during Question Period. We had the hon. Minister for International Trade, a good friend of mine, who was trying to answer the fact that there is a $9 million program, part of it buy Canadian. That is interesting, and it is $4 million, but $4 million more for in effect saying: "Feel good Canadians, because trade is working".
Then there is another million which is part of a joint program with a private broadcaster to in effect show that things are going pretty well, even though we know without getting into all the statistics that there are a lot of bad things out there.
The point is this in terms of government expenditure. I was a member of a very vigorous, active and I thought principled opposition, as the now minister of trade and commerce was, as the minister of energy and resources was.
We complained until the cows came home at what the then government of the Liberal Party was doing on advertising. It was using taxpayers' money to try to make Canadians feel good because the economic realities were not there to make them feel good.
I just do not understand where the Official Opposition research department is. Certainly, knowing what was coming up with the latest advertising budget, I would have thought the Liberal opposition especially, and obviously the research department of the NDP, because there are some members who were here during the time when we were in opposition. Mr. Speaker, you were here too. They could have got chapter, verse, verbatim, comma, semi-colon and exclamation marks of the then member for Etobicoke-Centre or the then member for Provencher chastising those awful Grits for using taxpayers' money to make people feel good when the realities of the world were making them feel something else.
I do not know if the Liberals or the NDP research department are going to do their homework over the Easter break and really come back and show, without being personal here, what Canadians feel about this place. In effect, we say great things in opposition and then we get into government and we do a flip-flop because we are in government.
I tell you that in the old days before television, instant communications and travel, you could get away with that. But that is part of the malaise of the land. You cannot get away with it today.
We are talking about the most recent advertising situation. I have been sitting here as an independent member, on the opposition side in effect. I have really been surprised that the opposition did not get its act together before when in effect, not just trade now where there is a $9 million expenditure of taxpayers' money involved. Some of it is good, but the $4 million to make you feel good when the facts are that your neighbour, your friend and members of your family are unemployed are the reality is going to be a sham as members have said.
The green plan and the environment are very important, but a budget of $4 million in May 1991 going to $12.5 million now for advertising and PR? That is not control of government expenditure.
Canada is a great country and I hope it stays a great country. But goodness gracious, for the budget of the Canada 125 birthday party to go from $25 million to $30 million before we really get into the 125th year of Canada, mainly for PR and advertising, nothing into the communities is certainly an excess of government expenditure. It does not fit the prescription of Bill C-56 which is control of government expenditure.
We do not have to go back too far in the memory bank of Canadians to realize that the promotion and the advertising of the GST was $9.1 million.
Without getting too personal, but we have had the reply to a question on the Order Paper that the Prime Minister's PR of pictures and brochures for some of his trips has cost the Canadian taxpayer quite a few million dollars. That may be good, too, to a point. I know you have to advertise and have nice brochures, and I do not discount ministers and the Prime Minister being offshore.
April 10, 1992

The point of the matter is that this bill is to control government expenditures. In the four and a half minutes I have talked about this item of advertising I have already reached a figure of over $70 million dollars on advertising, just the type of thing we in opposition said was a waste of taxpayers' money.
That is about all I am going to say about advertising because I am now coming to what really got me going earlier this morning. I think it is time that members of Parliament, Canadians, and especially reporters start to focus on some of the ex cathedra obiter dicta of the Prime Minister, who is a very pleasant, engaging individual and has a personality that is overwhelming in many ways. However, some of his facts and statistics should not be allowed to stand unchallenged, no matter how engaging his personality may be.
Quite frankly, when I was listening to Newsworld this morning talking about the reaction of the Prime Minister to John Major's victory in England last night I thought it was April Fool's Day. I thought it was April 1.1 could not believe the Prime Minister's voice. I have heard blarney from Ireland before. I have heard blarney from Blarney. I guess it is possible to kiss the blarney stone and even have more blarney. In my history as a member of Parliament, with all respect to Charles de Gaulle, President Mitterrand, and many other eminent people from France, I have never heard such blarney from the Republic of France as I heard the Prime Minister express today in reaction to John Major's victory in England last night. He chortled and chuckled.
I can see him making a comment and naturally giving congratulations to the Prime Minister of England, as he should. It was an outstanding victory and thank God it was a good victory. However, for the Prime Minister to take comfort-I wish more government members could see and I hope their constituents will talk to them when they go home over the Easter break. The blinkers on the eyes of the Prime Minister were demonstrated in spades by his reaction to the victory last night when he said that it just shows that polls can change and this is what can happen and that he will be back to lead the government to a third majority victory.
Government Orders
I do not know when the press conference was, it may have been early morning. However, surely to goodness the trance and mesmerization of his power of persuasion in the government caucus will start to unravel. He has to admit that the whole reason the Tories won in England is that they removed a very powerful Prime Minister, a very powerful individual named Margaret Thatcher, who had run her course.
She had stayed to her course. She made some unpopular decisions, and the public said they had enough, as they had said about Winston Churchill after the Second World War, despite the fact that he gave a spirit to England to fight that grand fight.
The Tories in their own wisdom, within their own structure in England, were able to neatly, cleanly, and cruelly get rid of Margaret and put the new man in place.
How the Prime Minister of our country, who was and has been for the last two years the lowest in the polls-which is still accepted by the government members-can take comfort from this is more than I can understand. However, the big problem which again mesmerizes the press, has most of the press fearful and certainly mesmerizes the government caucus is the statement which is not true. He said today, and I heard him say it: "I have been in this position before. Before the 1984 election we were 17 or 18 per cent down in the polls".
I know this is sort of intra-party, but it concerns government expenditures and the fact that we must start waking up some people around here in the government and in the government caucus.
In fact, for a year and a half, even before we had a leadership convention in 1983 the opposition led by the right hon. member for Yellowhead was running ahead of the Liberal Party by 10 to 15 per cent and for three months was over 50 per cent ahead of the government party.
In effect the Prime Minister is technically correct. After the leadership convention electing the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra there was a soft blip in the polls for two months during which the Liberal government for the first time in a year and a half to a year and three-quarters went up a percentage point in

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
the polls. This is always relied upon by the Prime Minister to say: "Okay fellows, I can come back again".
Also, the polls say that regardless of the position of the Tories in England before and during the campaign-and it was up and down and neck and neck for awhile and not really ahead very much-the leader of the Tories, Prime Minister John Major, was always running far ahead of the other leaders in that campaign which is certainly not the situation in Canada.
In terms of using Bill C-56 as a means to participate in this debate, I am just hoping, for the sake of the country and the Conservative Party, that the beguiling message of the Prime Minister about polls and his capacity to resurrect himself-I suppose that is proper to talk about since we are getting close to the Easter season, but I do not want to trespass too far because it might get sacrilegious.
However, I think it is time, for the sake of Canada, that government members going back to their ridings shake out the wheat from the chaff and talk to their constituents to determine if whether, in trying to patch this country together and solve some of the serious problems that we have, there should not be something like what happened in England. They should determine whether there should be a change in leadership so that, either through a referendum or an election, there are some new faces around so the public will have a choice and not just give present leaders and parties the kick in the kneecap that is certainly indicated by the polls and has been for about a year and a half.
I know this is drifting away a little from government expenditure. However, government expenditure involves elections and referenda. I could list all the constitutional conferences, the Spicer commission, and the Beaudoin-Dobbie commission. The total is close to $100 million. All those conferences and commissions, and ongoing conferences, together is a situation of government expenditure.
The Prime Minister must look at himself in the mirror and not do the blarney act, which he is excellent at, but look in the mirror and ask: "Am I part of the problem?" We should take him at his word that this constitutional question is more important than any leader or any party. If he really believes that, members should go home and get the reaction from their constituents about the Prime
Minister, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the NDP.
If this country is really under the threat of dissolution and separation, which many believe, and it is very serious-and I am prepared to admit that the Canada I knew when I came into this Parliament 26 years ago is forever changed regardless of the form of change-why are we not thinking a little ahead, instead of talking in mystery about referenda or saying: "We will see what we can do with a joint agreement with provincial premiers and if we get a couple of recalcitrant ones we might meet with House leaders to see where we go from here".
Instead of playing hocus-pocus with members who should be more involved than they are-and I give full credit to the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs although, quite frankly his message is getting very hard to take, but he has shown the patience of Job and he undoubtedly needs that patience. However, if we are in such dire straits, and I am afraid we may be, what is so wrong with a union government to put all leaders and all parties on the spot?
There was a fellow Nova Scotian, Sir Robert Borden, back in the days of the First World War. As a result of some problems with conscription and/or Quebec and through some political intrigue and some political manipulation he developed on the floor of this House a union government. It went to the people and got confirmed and then ruled until the war ended. Yes, there were some divisions in the country. I am saying this in a serious way, rather than Irish blarney from France about the state of the government party and the prognosis of the potential resurrection of the Prime Minister, against all the evidence. I think members should really talk to all of their constituents, not just their beleaguered party adherents. Right or wrong, the time is the same now as I saw here with Pierre Elliot Trudeau, the then Prime Minister. There is a certain time when the body politic of Canada for a variety of reasons, some right and some wrong, depending on where you stand, makes up its mind and says it is time for a change.
I am just about ready to conclude, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my earlier remarks about five minutes ago, regardless of who the Conservatives picked in 1983, it is my thought, having run ahead in the polls for a year and a half with Joe Clark under siege, that we would have won a majority election in 1984. Perhaps not with the
April 10, 1992

same majority and obviously not with the same contingent from Quebec, but we would have been able to do it because the body politic, long before Trudeau took that walk in the snow storm, had made up its mind that the then, Prime Minister Trudeau, had done his job, had done certain things and it was time he moved on.
I am just hoping that my former colleagues on the government side and the people they represent will get to them over this Easter break so that we can come out of this Parliament of paralysis, paralysis because the leadership question is very much a part of the constitutional question, let alone the economic question.
I am afraid and sad because I frankly think the present Prime Minister is one of the most engaging personalities we have had on the political scene in my lifetime. But the fundamental fact is that an engaging personality, with all the interesting quirks and quarks of that individual, is not what is needed at this time.
In conclusion, the people may go for a union government or not, and the Prime Minister may finally find out where we are in this constitutional proposal. The clock is ticking in Quebec. I thank God that the Prime Minister and the government caucus are finally coming around to the potential of a referendum because I was one who could never accept the fact that it was all right for a part of the country to have a referendum and it was not good enough for the rest of the country to decide for itself.
Whether we go as far as a union government-and that may be considered-surely the Prime Minister should consider if he should not pull a President Johnson. President Johnson, when caught in the machinations and division of the Vietnam war, did the right thing. He made a declaration and got out and they finally resolved the Vietnam war with new leadership.
I say in all sincerity, as we wind down here before Easter, that I think the Prime Minister has many serious things to consider. The one thing he should not try again on the Canadian public is Irish blarney.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes here in the House to try and understand, together with Canadians across the
Government Orders
country, the significance of this bill whose purpose is to control government expenditures. Imagine, a bill to control government spending.
The first question we must ask is this: How can a government be so obvious about its failure to do what it was elected to do in the first place: manage this country's affairs? The government's job is to redistribute wealth, manage the federal budget and administer its affairs. And what do we see today in Bill C-56? The government is proposing legislation to limit its expenditures.
It is absolutely mind-boggling. However, it is, above all, an admission of failure.
If we consider the problems we have faced during the past few years, including an unprecedented series of new taxes, I think it is clear to all Canadians that the GST was the worst thing that could happen to this country. Instead of tabling legislation to prevent spending, I would have preferred to see the government table a bill that would prevent taxation. Now, that would boost the confidence of Canadians. But instead, we have this purely cosmetic proposal.
Seriously, this is all a lot of smoke and mirrors and the government should realize we are not fooled that easily. I hope that the media and that journalists who have an interest in public affairs will at least make that clear across the country and tell people this is unprecedented.
I heard one of the government ministers tell one of my colleagues in the House that they had heard a lot of criticism but no solutions. We have asked the government repeatedly to introduce measures to deal with unemployment, like investing in municipal infrastructures such as sewers, dump sites, and so forth. It has done nothing. The only suggestion it agreed to implement was to let people use their registered retirement saving plans when purchasing a home and to reduce downpayments for such transactions.
There are other alternatives that could be considered. Today, we have a bill before the House whose purpose is to control spending, but I always thought that was a foregone conclusion. When I had the privilege to be elected to this House-and I would have hoped our party would form the government-it was obvious to me that our job was to control spending. I never imagined a government would introduce this kind of legislation, as if

April 10, 1992
Government Orders
they were kids who couldn't be trusted. It does not make sense.
In any case, we must consider the options for reducing our deficit. We must control the deficit, but you are certainly not doing the right thing, because the national debt has more than doubled. You cannot even take credit for reducing the national debt. It is now twice as high as it was before. Can you take credit for not raising taxes? Hardly. The number of taxes introduced by this government is unprecedented in our history. You lose on that score as well.
This government can expect to be retired by Canadians, which is going to happen very soon.
Mr. Speaker, to get back to what can be done, provincial governments, and especially the Government of Quebec have asked for a genuine policy on training. Look at the statistics. Incredibly, more than 300,000 jobs are not filled in Canada because people do not have the technical skills or the training, if you prefer. We need schools to provide training for certain trades and help fill these jobs. This gives you some idea of how badly we need a training policy.
Every year, and I would even say every month, technology is becoming increasingly important. Do we have a real national training program to deal with this phenomenon? We do not. They promised us one during the free trade debate, but they never delivered. Those are not opinions, but facts.
The massive need for training in this country could be met in co-operation with industry and the unions, and I think that is quite feasible.
I think that our young people, and I am referring to those between the ages of 16 and 24, and even up to 25, need some kind of national service. Let me explain. There is no military connotation. I was thinking of some kind of national training system for young people who are not going to school, who do not have a trade and who do not have a job, and who otherwise would have no future. We as a government have a moral obligation to ensure that our young people at least have a chance to earn a living, to learn a trade or go to a trade school. Considering the seriousness of the problem, however, we need truly creative solutions, such as a two or three year national service that would ensure these young
people would be able to learn a technical trade. For instance, they could go to a trade school under a program based on industry's future needs.
The unions would be involved as well, as they are in Germany. We admire the Germans and Japanese, so why not imitate some of their training programs? We can do it. So this is one of the alternatives: a national service for youth, to give them a chance and give them the confidence they need. That is what we all need. People lack self-confidence, and as a country, we are starting to lack confidence in ourselves. We need measures to show that the government has the political will to help these young people deal with the problems they are facing. That is one of the alternatives. How many times do we have to repeat that we need a training policy? That is clear, and the unions are willing to discuss it, I am sure of that. Industry is willing as well, because it stands to gain financially, and what better motivation could it have?
The second set of alternatives concerns our tax system. During the past 25 years, as our economy has evolved, more and more Canadians have realized that our tax system is neither fair nor equitable. The middle class is forced to pay more than its fair share and as I have said many times, and I say it again, they are fed up.
Twenty-five years ago, we had a royal commission, the Carter commission. A great Canadian, Kenneth Carter, assisted by a team of dedicated people, explained how a modem state should tax its people. They discussed a model that deals even-handedly with large national and multinational corporations, explained how personal income tax should be approached and made recommendations for sales tax as well. They indicated that in a modem state these components were necessary to ensure that taxes were fair and equitable. Unfortunately, the commission's recommendations were not followed up. An attempt was made to try to implement some of these, which met with tremendous opposition from the financial elite of this country, the big corporations, which did not agree with these recommendations. And believe it or not, it was the first report of a royal commission that was never published. How do you explain that? The Carter commission was quoted at Harvard University as a classic example for modem countries that wanted to know how to adapt their tax system. Even the Scandinavian countries used Kenneth Carter's report to adapt the tax system in their industrialized countries.
April 10, 1992

Until we realize that public confidence is linked to our taxation system, we will always be in a vicious circle. People must be confident if we are to progress and it is important that they be taxed fairly. If they are treated unjustly and unfairly, they will lose confidence and do everything they can to pay less and less of what they should pay to the state. Our taxation system is therefore something that must be reformed in our country.
The third point that I would like to raise, is that for many years in Canada-even before 1984 with FIRA- since 1984, foreign investment in Canadian industry has been too high. Too much foreign investment in Canadian industry creates tremendous problems, we must realize.
Foreign investment in Canadian industry is the highest of any industrialized country. Why must we be the champions in this field when we know that it creates many problems? First, when these companies have research and development to do, they do not do it in Canada, but in their home country. The statistics show that.
Second, these foreign companies make 75 per cent of their purchases in their home country, where the parent company is. Only a quarter of their purchases is made here in Canada, although the companies are established here. Third, we must say that when they take over our industry, a huge amount of dividends goes outside our country.
We should demystify the issue of foreign investment. If we look at the facts in our country, we see now that American companies have invested $68 billion in various Canadian industries, in manufacturing, services and consulting-$68 billion.
In the last 30 years, they have invested barely $6.7 billion of their own money. Is that clear, Mr. Speaker? They only invested $6.7 billion. Where does the rest of the money used to buy up these Canadian companies come from? They borrowed it from Canadian banks. That means nearly $61 billion which American companies used to buy Canadian companies comes from Canadian banks. They took your money, Mr. Speaker, my money, and the money of most Canadians from their
Government Orders
savings to buy Canadian companies. Talk about a sensible policy.
Please note that I am not saying it is all this government's fault. That is not what I am saying, but since 1984, it has speeded up this process. On the whole, we are all in some way guilty for this bad policy. We have been the victims of a myth about foreign investment.
Those are the three things that I wanted to mention today. Of course there are more, but from much reading and consulting many experts on the subject, we see that it is very important to correct these deficiencies in our economy.
Unless and until we have the political will to face the real problems, we will not be able to solve them. Mr. Speaker, not solving them will hurt all Canadians.
I would like to take a few moments to mention the free trade agreement that was signed with our southern neighbours. We know today that 69 per cent of our fellow Canadians realize that this agreement is flawed and that serious mistakes were made. The agreement fails to deal with some important matters and it should be renegotiated, that is obvious. But be careful. If they lack the political will to do it, it will be up to us in the opposition when we form the next government.
So, to summarize, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for your patience regarding my speaking time, I would just say that it is in all Canadians' interests for the government to show the will to deal with the real problems. I mentioned three in particular: the tax system; training, the need to have a real training policy; and the need to deal seriously with foreign ownership in our country, in order to stop this haemorrhaging.
In conclusion, I know that all our fellow Canadians want to regain the prosperity that we knew in past years. To do so, however, will take a tremendous amount of political will and time is running out.
[English)


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

April 10, 1992
Government Orders


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, April 27, 1992.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think you might find there is unanimous consent for you to call it four o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being four o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 28(2), the House stands adjourned until Monday, April 27, 1992, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
And a very Happy Easter to all.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.43 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 27,1992