1992-12-07

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: that Bill C-268, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the First Nations of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to introduce Bill C-268 at second reading after some extensive but important consultations with the parties in this House after considerable discussion and consultation with aboriginal organizations and individuals throughout Canada.
I will be presenting petitions later today. I do not know whether there are hundreds of thousands of names, but there are certainly tens of thousands of names of aboriginal peoples from across the country who have signed a petition endorsing the general thrust of Bill C-268, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the First Nations of Canada.
I want to say right off the top that one of the positive aspects of this round of consultation was the suggestion for a change in the description of the bill. The explanatory note in the bill says that:
This bill would ensure that, in each and every year, the 21st day of
June is known as the "Aboriginal Solidarity Day".
There was a suggestion that would be a more appropriate way to title the bill as well because referring specifically to First Nations is not as inclusive as the term aboriginal suggests. If the bill proceeds to a legislative committee, this could easily be clarified through an
appropriate amendment, making this bill more inclusive of all aboriginal people of Canada.
Today our country and aboriginal peoples are at a very crucial and critical point in the evolution of our history together. In terms of the movement now toward selfgovernment, self-determination and self-reliance, aboriginal peoples have never been better poised for advancing these three causes and for advancing aboriginal cultures generally than they are today.
In the referendum process, one of the positive aspects enjoyed by many of us was working together with aboriginal organizations toward constitutional change which, in our judgment, would have enhanced the situation within Canada. It certainly would have enhanced the situation regarding aboriginal peoples. The leadership role played by Ovide Mercredi and other aboriginal leaders was nothing short of outstanding and extraordinary.
Personally, I had the opportunity of sharing almost all of the meetings, seminars, discussion groups and public forums with local aboriginal leaders in the Kamloops constituency.
I refer specifically to Chief Nathan Matthew who is not only chief of the Cheu Chua Band, the North Thompson Indian Band, but also the recently elected chief of the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council and also Chief Manny Jules from the Kamloops Indian Band. For many years now he has provided excellent and outstanding leadership along with his colleague, Nathan Matthew, toward advancing the cause of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia and throughout Canada generally.
I could also refer to a number of individuals representing different aboriginal communities, both reserve and off-reserve communities, who played outstanding leadership roles in the discussions on the referendum. They explained to the public what was meant by self-government, why it was important that aboriginal peoples become more self-determining and self-reliant and how this could be achieved in co-operation with the non-native communities. Their comments did a great deal in

December 7, 1992
Private Members' Business
enhancing the understanding between native and nonnative people.
This bill reflects the renewed and enhanced recognition, understanding and appreciation by non-native people of native people and native cultures generally.
The recent spate of movies has assisted this process. I do not think there is a single classroom that I visit in carrying out my responsibilities as a member of Parliament where young people do not raise questions about aboriginal peoples and cultures.
Young people ask questions regarding aboriginal aspirations within Canada. They ask questions in terms of an enhanced appreciation of aboriginal history within the Canadian context. It really moves me.
In a very short period of time we have made quantum gains in not only the advancement of aboriginal people but also the understanding, appreciation and recognition of that advancement by the non-native communities.
The day in the bill to be identified as the national solidarity day is June 21. First Nations people have identified this date as a day of celebration in terms of their own communities, accomplishments and aspirations.
I felt for our country as a whole it would be appropriate to set aside June 21. By definition, it is the day heralding the beginning of one of our seasons. It is the beginning of summer. It is the longest day of the year. It is the time for renewal and regeneration.
It is the perfect time out of the 365 days for all of us to say together, shoulder to shoulder, arm in arm that we move forward in solidarity in the best interest of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities of Canada.
Today I simply ask my colleagues to pass this bill on a voice vote to enable it to go quickly to a legislative committee meeting.
There may be other appropriate changes, but because it is a fairly straightforward bill the one suggested change would be to change First Nations day to the aboriginal solidarity day. That would make it more inclusive.
From the homework which has been done around this bill, it seems to have the virtual unanimous support of all aboriginal organizations and of thousands and thousands
of individuals from aboriginal communities, including reserves, Metis communities and urban communities.
People have asked: Does this bill mean that there will be a national holiday on this day? The answer is no, this would not be a staff holiday. It would simply be a day set aside to appreciate the occasion. It is not that we would not want to do this throughout the year every day. It means there would be one specific day of celebration, a day of coming together to celebrate how much we have achieved. It would be to acknowledge the continuous development of our aboriginal communities from coast to coast to coast.
I ask my colleagues to see fit before the hour is out to pass this on a voice vote and allow the bill to go to the next stage of development.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-268 which proposes to designate June 21 as a national day for the recognition of aboriginal people in Canada.
Certainly, most Canadians are well aware that the contributions of aboriginal people to this country cannot in any way be underestimated.
I spent much of my life studying and teaching Canadian history. Quite frankly, one of the things we have not done well in teaching Canadian history is to recognize adequately the contribution of aboriginal people, or those we would probably call First Nations today, during the settlement period.
They played a vital role in assisting the survival of Europeans and in the fur trade. They were vital partners in the process and I particularly note the role women played in that process. The aboriginal people played a role in establishing the province of Manitoba in 1870. They played a role in the wars in which Canada has participated.
Certainly they play the roles as teachers, politicians, authors, athletes, business people, homemakers, et cetera. It has indeed been a very significant contribution and one which regretfully has gone largely unrecognized. Their heritage is a very important part of Canada's heritage and is one which should be honoured and valued.
December 7, 1992

The hon. member's bill is very worthy of our consideration and debate. This is particularly true as we approach
1993.
The United Nations has declared 1993 as the International Year of the World's Indigenous People. I think it is appropriate that the United Nations recognizes the contribution of indigenous people around the world in an appropriate fashion. In fact, the Government of Canada has been moving in that direction, in its own way, during the course of the last months. Agriculture Canada sponsored the first ever federal Aboriginal Awareness Week from May 20 to May 22. Just recently the department challenged other departments to participate and many have.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development held a Native Awareness Day focusing on employment issues. Other federal departments are preparing to participate in the International Year for Indigenous People which begins on December 10, two days hence.
In approaching this issue, I believe there are some important matters which should be considered. First, it would be very important to hear from the aboriginal leadership on this issue because it is important that they be consulted and be a part in the process. One of the things that troubles me about aboriginal-government relationships during the course of the last few decades is that very often it is a case of one side doing something for the other side. There is a degree of implied paternalism and, in fact, real paternalism in that.
That process can no longer be accepted. What is important now is that the principle of partnership be very much agreed upon. Prior to the passage of such a motion, it would be important that consultation occur, and if there is agreement that this day should be recognized in this appropriate manner, then the wording of the bill would have to be influenced by that as well as the choice of the date.
I would also hope that such a day, provided it was agreed upon, would recognize the culture and the contribution of all aboriginal groups in Canada, non-status as well as status Indians, Inuit and Metis. This type of
Private Members' Business
clarification would be helpful in securing the objective of the bill.
One of the difficulties I have with Bill C-268, as worded, is with the use of the word solidarity. This may be due to my own difficulty in understanding the meaning of that word. The word as used in our recent history has had political connotations and sometimes confrontational connotations. One of the things that should be consulted and considered during the consultation process is the use of that word. My personal opinion is that perhaps another word might be more appropriate.
The aboriginal people of Canada had a self-sustaining, self-supporting, self-government in place prior to the coming of the Europeans. It was a society which was not free, but relatively free of conflict. It was a society in which there was a very significant role for women as well as men. It was a society in which people were proud of their achievements.
There is a great deal which we in Canada today can learn from the role of aboriginals in our history as well as the result of their participation in today's society. It is important that we treat this proposal with respect just as it is very very important that we enhance our understanding of the aspirations of the aboriginal community as it exists today.
During the course of the weekend, when I was back in my constituency of Brandon, I had a fairly long discussion with one of the chiefs from a nearby community. While we did not agree on each and every point during the course of our discussion, I was reminded of the role of the First Nations in Canada. I would certainly suggest to the House that we should give very careful consideration to the principle of the motion which is before us.
Prior to reaching a resolution on this matter, I would suggest that we would want to consult very carefully with the aboriginal community itself to determine what its views are on this very important matter.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut\

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-268. I must say that it is a nice gesture. At this point I think the only way we can look at it is as a nice gesture.

December 7, 1992
Private Members' Business
When the hon. member who spoke last said that the contributions of the aboriginal people cannot be underestimated, it is very true. I do not know why we say contributions to the people of Canada because it should not be regarded as that. It should be regarded as the things that aboriginal people have done on behalf of Canada.
Just last month the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic agreed to give to the Government of Canada 82 per cent of Nunavut, or 660,000 square miles, so the Government of Canada can have certainty over the land that it thinks it owns.
When we are talking about recognizing the contributions of the aboriginal people, we have to make some concrete decisions as to what we should recognize, acknowledge exactly what the aboriginal people have done. The government and other organizations should instantly recognize, by making available some things to the aboriginal people, rather than just through gestures like the recognition of the day. I can give some examples.
The Government of Canada just cut the CMHC housing on reserves to the point where aboriginal housing is in dire straits. It already was in dire straits and now it is in even worse condition. The government should immediately go back to pre-1991 funding from CMHC for aboriginal housing.
The people of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay who were moved to those communities from northern Quebec have been asking for recognition, an apology, as well as $10 million to help them. The government moved these people to help maintain sovereignty over the Canadian Arctic. It should immediately move to do those things for the people of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay.
The government should immediately move to counter the kind of ads which the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the anti-fur movement and the animal rights groups are putting out. "Hie government should immediately counter those attacks.
One of the more bitter legacies of the last 300 to 500 years is the lack of spirituality issue and morale of the aboriginal people in Canada. If people had looked at the newspapers in the last few days they would have seen that in a particular community, Big Cove, New Brunswick, 75 native people, aboriginal people, have attempted suicide in the last year. People must wonder why these young people, most of whom are young men, are killing themselves. It is the despair on the reserves
and the despair in the communities that are causing this. There should be a move by the government to do something about those matters. It is not a case of more money. It is a case of recognizing that these people have something to offer and maybe what they have to offer can help them get out of the deep despair a lot of communities and a lot of reserves are in.
These are only words. The government has not done the kind of work it should be doing. It should be countering all the things plaguing us today. The government can also do an awful lot for the aboriginal people of Canada by doing things like appointing qualified people. We have a lot of problems with the justice system that has been introduced or that we have had to live with for hundreds of years.
The government should move to appoint people like Judge Igloliorte from Labrador, Justice Sinclair from Manitoba or even the hon. member for Wetaskiwin to the Supreme Court. It should show its commitment to bettering the lives of aboriginal people by doing these things. It should do these things to ensure that the aboriginal people feel very much a part of Canada. It should do the things aboriginal people have been telling them to do, such as doing more for the environment and more about the land claims issues.
Still today the Government of Canada has an extinguishment policy where it asks all aboriginal people who will be negotiating comprehensive claims to extinguish their title to the land before they even sit down to negotiate.
It should do something about recognizing the languages and cultures of aboriginal people. There are 53 different aboriginal languages in Canada, yet not one of them is recognized nationally. Territorially we have seven aboriginal languages recognized in the Northwest Territories, but not one of them is recognized nationally.
It is a nice gesture but the government and other groups should make every day a day to honour the aboriginal people of Canada, the people who were here to welcome Christopher Columbus when he took a wrong turn trying to get to India. The government could show its commitment by telling the people of Canada that every day is a day to honour the aboriginal people of Canada. Every day is a day to recognize the contributions of the aboriginal people of Canada.
December 7, 1992

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion. I hope, if we are to make this gesture, that it will not be an empty gesture but one that will recognize and do more than has ever been done for the aboriginal people of Canada.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this matter.
My colleagues have addressed it in a number of ways. I was interested to hear a couple of the comments of my colleague from Nunavut, which I guess will be the new name of the constituency as rightly it should be, about recognizing aboriginal people every day.
One interesting result of the very difficult times we have seen in the last years as we have discussed our Constitution has been a change in attitudes dealing with aboriginal people and aboriginal issues. There has been a change in understanding not only of aboriginal people but thankfully in the attitude of non-aboriginal people in relation to those people and a greater understanding of the historical and cultural contribution of aboriginal people.
I question myself all the time on this point, but I genuinely believe there is a new commitment among Canadian people not only to resolve the problems plaguing aboriginal people for hundreds of years but also to recognize that the tremendous number of problems and challenges aboriginal and northern people face are not problems of their own creation and that solutions are found in the attitudes and actions of all of us in this country.
In coming forward with a solution like this one perhaps we can focus on a number of things, like education. If we can focus the resolve of governments, the resolve of the community and the resolve of interest and support groups on looking at some of the concerns and at what some of the solutions might be, we as a country will be stronger and much better off.
People have said to me in the past that the issues of different provinces are not issues that pertain to them. Some of the historical concerns and some of the history and culture of Quebec, for instance, are of no relationship to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Private Members' Business
I have always argued and I firmly believe that whatever the history of a particular people or a particular group of people, be it the history of Quebec, the history of Ukrainian people in western Canada or the history of those people who came and developed the Fraser River in British Columbia, it is as much a part of the history and the culture of modern day Newfoundland and Labrador as our history and culture, as diverse as they are, are part of theirs. Inevitably we can find connections.
What has happened to all of us collectively, even though there may have been no relationship, impacts on all of us today and in the future. It is something we should feel proud of and, however vicariously, take some ownership of and feel some possession of. Perhaps there is no other group in this country than the first people of this country, those people who came here perhaps 35,000 and 40,000 years ago in some cases. They were the people who were here when the European settlers came. They were the people who welcomed the European settlers as early as 1497 in the case of eastern Canada, and I suspect probably 500 years before that when the Norse came to L'Anse aux Meadows on the northern island of Newfoundland. If we can begin to understand they are part of our history then we are taking the first step to ensuring that we are sensitive in everything we do to that particular history, to that initial ownership and to that initial possession.
Aboriginal people lived, farmed, hunted, fished and occupied this land. They had governments that allowed well developed, highly developed cultures and societies not only to function as individual entities but to relate to each other and to develop structures that allowed for a reasonable and sensible ongoing day-to-day and long term living together.
We consider that the base of self-government. It is not something government gives or even the Constitution gives. It is something we should all recognize. We all have to recognize that aboriginal people particularly are facing challenges more and greater than the rest of us in many cases. The whys of that is something I suppose we could debate for a long period of time.

Private Members' Business
I can say without much fear of contradiction that a lot of it has resulted from a total lack of understanding of aboriginal people, their communities, their societies, their traditions, their histories, their cultures, the way aboriginal people relate to each other, and frankly today the way aboriginal people want to relate to the rest of the country and would like the rest of the country to relate to them.
If we can get some better understanding of that in terms of knowledge, in terms of education and in the end in terms of some practical application of how it is, we can come together to help resolve these problems. But the coming together has to be a recognition that we must, as we do in so many other cases, provide the tools, provide the opportunities and provide the resources for aboriginal people to continue to develop the societies and the cultures that played such a huge role in the development of this country in a very positive and very substantial way.
We must help aboriginal communities maintain the sense of tradition as so many of the rest of us do and insist upon. Unfortunately from time to time we are prepared to deny it to others. We should be able to apply that and help it be applied to 1992 and the year 2000 and beyond. We should be able to say to aboriginal people that how they govern themselves is critical to their ability to grow, to flourish and to cany on. The rest of us should have the ability and the willingness and the understanding to be able to support that process.
Frankly June 21 is as good a day as could we come up with. We have seen it reflected in the Dene and the celebrations they have had of recognition. The aboriginal communities in Toronto have done the same. The AFN in its old form in the past has used the same date. It is symbolic in many ways. It is symbolic in a lot of cultures but no more important than in aboriginal cultures.
I hope we can use it as well to recognize there is not one group of aboriginal people. They are hugely diverse peoples and nations, very diverse cultures, very diverse ethnic backgrounds and very diverse histories. Understanding that difference is essential in understanding the aboriginal people.
I congratulate my colleague across the way for trying to bring some of this together. As my colleague from Brandon-Souris has raised, there are perhaps some
concerns about the way the bill is written. There are some concerns that it include all people, but I think the message is important. We should say to Canadians that it is in all our interests and it is to all our benefit to understand and to express our support for aboriginal people in coming to grips with their concerns. It has to be symbolic but it has to be practical. It cannot simply be a pat on the head. For too long, unfortunately, it has been just that.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to stand this morning to speak to Bill C-268, an act cited as a National Day of Solidarity for the First Nations of Canada Act.
I think it is most appropriate that June 21 be the day set aside for this day of solidarity. The first day of summer strikes me as being a time, particularly in Canada, that takes on a significance that only those who live in the northern climes can appreciate. That being the case, I would suggest that it also reflects on the appreciation which we as Canadians have for our First Nations.
There is no way in which we as a nation can make up for past injustices to our First Nations. I am reminded of an incident which occurred just this last summer. I was canvassing door to door but I happened to meet someone on the street. I saw them coming toward me and, as I got closer, I recognized the person as being a young aboriginal person. I stopped and introduced myseif, said hello to him and asked how things were going. He said: "Not too well; I have lost my land".
I come from a farm. I suppose all Canadians are well aware that farmers are losing their land at a rather record pace. In my naivety I thought perhaps he was from the agricultural community and had lost his farm. I said: "I am terribly sorry to hear that. Where is your land?", to which he replied: "We are standing on it".
That just goes a short way toward exemplifying the depth to which the aboriginal people have suffered and the understanding as well among themselves of how much they have suffered and how far they have to go. I grant that the setting aside of a day of solidarity with our First Nations is not going to erase the past wrongs, and there are others which I think should probably be mentioned.
December 7, 1992

I recently discovered something, much to my chagrin, because my ancestry is Scottish. Some of my ancestors came to this country and availed themselves of the ability to acquire land very, very cheaply. It was known as homesteading, a way of settling the west, which certainly the country needed. To my horror, I discovered that our native people were not able, whether they were treaty Indians or whether they were Metis, to become homesteaders, at least without giving up their heritage and without giving up their treaty rights. That is certainly an outrage that cannot be corrected, but an outrage nonetheless and something for which certainly our aboriginal people are suffering yet today.
The fact is these people had inhabited the land for century after century after century. They had developed in the country, on the land, forms of government which suited themselves extremely well, and of course which we know today would, can and must still hold them in very good stead. Of course, I am talking about their inherent right to self-government. It certainly has been demonstrated that they are eminently qualified to be able to do that.
As well, as a western Canadian, I am aware of the devastation that was caused by forcing the aboriginal people on to reserves. I am also aware of the piracy which occurred when after the reserves were set up, those who were in charge, those who were in control, those who were in power of authority proceeded posthaste to illegally take back many, many of the acres and many, many parts of the best farmland in the different provinces from those to whom it had been promised.
Just recently in the province of Saskatchewan, the Canadian and provincial governments have gone a short way toward rectifying some of those injustices, but nonetheless there is much more which has to be done. That is a concrete way of rectifying some of the faults which we have perpetrated in the past.
In conclusion, I congratulate my colleague from Kamloops for having brought forward this motion. I certainly ask that members unanimously support its furtherance through the House.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since there are no further speakers on this bill, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time and that there are no further speakers on this bill. After listening carefully to all of the interventions, which were very thoughtful from all sides of the House, there seems to me to be unanimity in having this bill referred to a legislative committee.
At this point, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to seek unanimous consent to have this bill sent to a legislative committee for further study.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is not unanimous consent.


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The sitting of the House is therefore suspended until noon, when we will proceed to consideration of Government Orders.
At 11.52 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 12.01 p.m.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East) moved:: That this House condemn the government's continued adherence to its failed economic policy of trickle-down misery.

December 7, 1992
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Since today is the last allotted day in the supply period ending December 10, 1992, the House will proceed, as usual, to consideration and passage of a supply bill.
Considering our recent practice, is it agreed to have the bill distributed now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, since many members wish to speak to this motion, we in our caucus have decided to share our speaking time. In other words, we will each take 10 minutes.

Canada has the highest unemployment rate in the western world; higher than Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and the United States.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yet once again last week we heard the government say that it has the fundamentals right, that it will stay the course, that it is doing a good job.
In the United States, the unemployment rate is 7.2 per cent and President-elect Clinton has called it a national disgrace. He has called for a massive program to put people back to work. In Canada, the unemployment rate is 11.8 per cent and this government has cut benefits for the jobless.


An hon. member:: Shame.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Two days after the Minister of Finance tabled an economic statement in which he said one more time that the recession is over, the unemployment rate has once again reached a record high; 1,650,000 in jobless lines. The Minister of Finance calls people who are worried about the unemployed bleeding hearts.
The Minister of Finance says the way to kick-start the economy is to kick people when they are down. The Minister of Finance says the ways to attack unemployment is to attack the unemployed. The Minister of Finance says the way to attack poverty is to attack the poor. There are millions of people in this country who cannot afford to put presents under their Christmas tree this year and who cannot even afford to provide a Christmas dinner for their children. It is not like they cannot afford a Christmas turkey with stuffing and cranberry sauce. They cannot afford a grilled cheese sandwich. They will have to rely upon Christmas baskets
from charitable organizations to feed their kids on December 25.
The minister of employment calls them couch potatoes. It is not like they cannot afford Air Jordan basketball shoes and Nintendo Game Boys for their kids. They cannot afford shoes or any games for their kids. The minister of employment accuses them of wanting to spend their winters in Florida.
Millions of people who are still employed are terrified about whether they will be able to hang on to their jobs. They are worried they will be the next out on the street and the minister of employment calls them rip off artists and bums.
In a desperate effort to appeal to a right-wing constituency in a budget last week that I parallel as almost an instant replay of the Republican convention last summer, the government has chosen to destroy hope for all those who are down on their luck. In a desperate effort to give the Prime Minister another couple of months to make up his mind whether he is going to quit or not, this government, with no constructive agenda, has decided to stick it to the weakest members of our society.
While the Prime Minister will be spending his Christmas at 24 Sussex, millions of other Canadians will be at the Shepherds of Good Hope, the Salvation Army soup kitchen or the local food bank. While the Minister of Justice is in Vancouver planning her leadership bid, thousands of her constituents will be figuring out how to tell their children that Santa Claus is not coming this year. While the Secretary of State for External Affairs is planning her leadership bid, thousands of Torontonians will be lining up to collect welfare. While the Minister of Communications is travelling around Ontario in his bid,
600,000	jobless Ontarians will go to bed realizing that the ministers in this government consider them to be the dregs in society.
In a despicable attempt to try to gain support among people who do have jobs, this government is prepared to sacrifice the one in five Canadians who do not have jobs. This government is hoping to get re-elected by proving that it can beat up on the little guy. The government plans to cut hundreds of thousands of people off unemployment insurance so that it can claim that it has reduced the official unemployment rate. It does not care that it is going to throw thousands and thousands of people on to the welfare lines. It will not help the unemployed. It will recategorize them.
December 7, 1992

This Conservative government is so afraid of losing its spot at the top that it is playing for time by destroying the lives of thousands of people at the bottom of the economic ladder. The truth is the government has no agenda, but it does not have the guts to call an election now and it does not care how many lives will be destroyed in its effort to cling to power over the next few months.
The Prime Minister used to say that every Canadian government had a moral responsibility to call an election after four years in power. This government has been in power more than four years, but that promise, like every other promise of the Prime Minister, has turned to dust.
The truth is that this motion underlines to Canadians the truth that this Conservative government is morally, philosophically and politically bankrupt and bereft of ideas. It is a tired old government that has run out of steam, has nothing new to offer and is flailing around like a cornered rat.
I could read the statistics. Long term unemployment rose from 425,000 to 806,000 Canadians. The number of part-time workers who would like to be working full time, involuntary part-time workers, rose from 409,000 to 662,000 people. The number of people who have given up rose from 101,000 to 141,000. The number of unemployed parents supporting children rose from 305,000 to
444,000.	The hours lost by people who would like to be working longer hours, but who have shortened their hours to keep their companies and their fellow workers working, increased by 52 per cent.

According to the statistics, in Montreal alone 215,000 people are unemployed. At this very moment, one out of four persons in Montreal is living on unemployment insurance benefits or welfare.
In this region, 615,000 people are living below the poverty line.

These are beyond statistics. Last week in my office I had the opportunity of meeting with an unemployed steel worker and his wife. His name is Andy McQuarrie.
Government Orders
He says that I can talk today about his circumstance. I think that his circumstance reflects the circumstances of thousands of other Canadians. He is a 54 year-old man who worked for a company for 21 years. He was a good employee. That company, Canadian Building Systems, went south. The member for Winnipeg South says: "Lay it on".
Andy McQuarrie would like to know what this government is doing for a 54 year-old man with 21 years of service to his company, who not only is suffering from the government's cutbacks on unemployment, but who finds himself at the age of 54 with a 16 year-old daughter at home that he is trying to support. He has a wife and family and an education level that is not great because he left school for the work force at grade nine. At age 54, with a slight hearing problem and a back problem, he is told that he should get retrained and get back and become a productive member of the work force.
Andy McQuarrie wants to work. Andy McQaurrie has been out there every day. He sold his house because he could not afford the mortgage and this month he cannot afford to pay his rent. There are literally thousands of people like Andy McQuarrie who were looking to this government last week for some hope, who were looking for a sign, a signal that maybe Bill Clinton's change in economic thinking in the United States will trickle over to Canada. What he saw instead was a government that was prepared to penalize the down to try and ensure that they are out.
Our message to this government is that it is about time that it is out. We hope that this non-confidence motion will pass so that some Canadians will finally understand that every member in this Parliament does not support the heartless move of this government as enunciated by the Minister of Finance last week.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my colleague said, which affects everyone, even the member for Winnipeg, despite her silly comments earlier.
This morning, I too contacted my riding office before coming here and almost all cases this morning were constituents who came to say: "Mr. Boudria, you are in

December 7, 1992
Government Orders
Ottawa. Can't you do something to find me a job, because I haven't worked for months?"
I admit that we cannot do everything, we cannot do the impossible, but at least we could have done something. Could we not at least have had an infrastructure program that would help people in construction, for example, not to shovel air but to do work that already needed to be done, like repairs?
I take Perley Bridge in my riding as an example. It is certainly not a pretty sight. This bridge needs to be replaced. The sewers in our cities like Hamilton, Haw-kesbury and Alexandria and our sidewalks are projects that need to be done. I think it is past time that we just have useless make-work projects, if there ever was a time for that. Should we not have invested in that infrastructure which our cities, towns, villages and country need and at the same time restore hope for those people who need it so much, those whom my colleague was just talking about?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and that is what Canadians expected last week from the Minister of Finance's mini-budget.
They talked about spending a lot of money on starting infrastructure projects, an idea already supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Mayor Jean Dore in Montreal, Bob Morrow in Hamilton and a number of other mayors. The Leader of the Opposition said, in the House and elsewhere, that the right time to go ahead with this kind of project was when we were in the middle of a devastating recession, which has now been going on for 30 months. Funding for such projects should be released when times are difficult, when the need is there, not just when the economy is starting to recover.
When the Minister of Finance says the recession is a world-wide phenomenon, he is right. However, two years ago here in the House, the former Minister of Finance admitted that he had decided to create a recession in Canada in order to cool down an overheated economy in Toronto. That is what he said. Right in the middle of a world-wide recession, the former Minister of Finance decided to pursue a policy in this country which merely made a bad situation worse.
The government says this is a world-wide phenomenon and nothing can be done about it, but these are the
same people whose policy it was to keep interest rates and the dollar high-a dollar that was very high in relation to the American dollar. What a coincidence. This was just after it decided to sign the free trade agreement. It is clear that pursuing a high dollar and high interest rate policy at the very moment the government signed a free trade agreement with the United States merely brought things to a head, and this is exactly what made a bad situation for worse.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to deal with the opposition motion. This motion is very timely because of the belief of Canadians, as reported in the media and by forays of different ministers of the government, that in essence where we are today is simply no fault of the government; in essence, what has happened is that the Conservative government's policy has to be the way it is because its hands are tied.
One issue we have to talk about in this place in a debate like this is solutions. We have to talk about ideas that we have as members of Parliament that will help our constituents and Canadians in general to feel that there is some hope and to understand that we in this place are dealing with issues that are of utmost importance in their minds.
What concerns me the most in this whole debate so far and in this last eight years of Tory rule is that they have continued to perpetuate the myth that the federal government's hands are tied. They say we have a deficit and therefore they cannot afford to help Canadians. The attitude is that market forces will lead the recovery and that we will get out of the recession if we leave it in the hands of the business community; that if we allow the U.S. to get back on its feet, it will lead the recovery and that, indeed, will usher in better times for Canadians.
The Canadian government and the Canadian people are in grave trouble. Let us look at the facts. Unemployment is at roughly 1.7 million people, welfare at 2.3 million Canadians. That is a total of roughly four million people. It is not easy to say in this House that there are four million Canadians who are not participating in the economy, not active contributors to the policies we would like to put forward in order to build the hopes and aspirations of Canadians.
December 7, 1992

I want to talk a little bit about the Conservatives' policies as they relate to those particular Canadians, and indeed about the lack of policy. We all know that Canadian employers and employees pay roughly $20 billion toward the unemployment insurance system. That is a lot of money. That money is mainly used for income maintenance.
Why is it if Canadians are unemployed or on welfare, they are being paid to a certain extent to stay home because they cannot find employment, to stay home because they have no hope of finding a job, to stay home because they are not educated in some of the industries that are going to be the main industries of the future? That is a very obvious question that should be asked, and one that we should very comprehensively deal with in this place.
It is important for us as Canadians and as members of Parliament to put forward suggestions. Why is there not a national apprenticeship program in this country to try to help those without the tools to get employment in certain industries to move on to other industries? Is it a fact that a 54-year old man is not capable of being retrained? The pundits say so. I do not agree with that. There are people in this country, no matter what their age, who have the abilities to be trained in a particular area in which jobs may be created.
Why is it that instead of having people collecting unemployment through an income maintenance system they are not asked to go into some sort of co-op system? In such a system we would ask employers across the country, in Ontario for example, whether they would take an unemployed person who is on UI, and has no hope of getting a job, for a certain amount of weeks and months. We would continue to pay that individual's unemployment insurance as we are anyway and they would have the opportunity to go to work every day through a co-op program and learn some other trade. Why is that not possible? Why can we not give Canadians that kind of policy initiative to give them hope?
The government likes to say that there are a lot of Canadians who just do not have the skills, and that is true. However, why do we not put together an initiative to allow Canadians to go into the colleges and universities that are available to us and enter a program that
Government Orders
would give them the skills to go into the work force at some future date?
We have all the infrastructure, the infrastructure of the colleges and the universities and the infrastructure of the existing business community. It is already there. Why do we continue to just pay income maintenance to Canadians to stay home and collect unemployment and welfare? We could put that kind of initiative together and put those four million Canadians to some use for the good of all of Canada and at the same time give them hope that eventually they will be able to get a job that they can call their own.
In other countries they have completely changed gears concerning the unemployed. They have completely changed gears concerning people on welfare. However, here in this country we continue to say that eventually market forces will put those people back to work. They will not because times have changed.
It is incumbent on us, as members of Parliament, to establish policy initiatives that will put these people back to work, that will train them and give them some sort of hope that eventually they will be back in the work force where they rightfully belong.
The Conservatives' economic policy, or the lack of such, is what we are talking about today. The myth they continue to perpetuate that their hands are tied and they cannot do anything because of the deficit we have is completely unacceptable. If we continue to use that kind of philosophy this country will get into bigger trouble than it already is.
Let me give an example as it relates to regional development. In northern Ontario there is a regional development program called FEDNOR. It has a particular mandate to diversify the economy. That is what its mandate is. It has to set the rules and regulations by which the business community can access certain loans and grants.
The other day I put forward a very legitimate concern of a very large constituency in my riding, the agricultural community. We have been working for the last 20 years in Kenora-Rainy River to have a port of entry into Minnesota. Minnesota is a very protectionist state. It does not allow the export of agricultural commodities through northern Ontario into Minnesota.

December 7, 1992
Government Orders
Lo and behold, we get this beautiful free trade agreement. I have written probably 10 letters to the Minister of Agriculture in the last four years letting him know about the difficulties of the agricultural community. We even gave him some solutions. We entered into a discussion with the state of Minnesota to open this port of entry so the agricultural community can diversify itself.
One of the things that Minnesota so desperately needs, and which we can provide, is slaughter cattle. It is a very normal commodity. What do we do now as northerners in Ontario? We ship our slaughter cattle all the way to Manitoba through North Dakota and back to Minnesota. That costs an extra $800 per trip for transportation.
I have asked the minister on numerous occasions to examine that very simple thing we can do as members of Parliament to give that particular industry and the agricultural community a chance to make a go of it in that area. All I have got so far is political rhetoric.
Those are the kinds of issues that we are dealing with today in the House. These are the reasons why the motion put forward by my colleague is so important. We as backbenchers can stand up and talk about these kinds of issues and the government should not hold its head down in shame but listen to what we have to say. Maybe it could take a look at this initiative, put it forward, and help the community. Then this country will start to work a little more efficiently.
There are some other initiatives that we would like to talk about, and I would like to talk about, in the mining and forestry sector, but this government seems to think that it cannot get involved. If anyone believes on that side of the House that governments cannot take an active role in making our economy work then they are really stuck on an ideological bent that will not get them anywhere in the future in making this country as truly great as it should be.
I hope that during the debate-


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


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to
commend the hon. member for all of his good suggestions. They make some sense.
However, I wonder if he knows that the current federal government, which he and his colleague have spent such a lot of time denigrating, has set aside $3.8 billion for retraining to ensure that people who are out of work through no fault of their own have an opportunity to come back into the work force and have a rewarding and productive experience in the future.
I also wonder if he is aware that we have another quarter of a billion dollars set aside for sectoral training, which will be undertaken through advisory committees in conjunction with the labour movement. The hon. member says that we have not used the resources to try to help people who are in this category and who need help. How can he say that in light of the truth and the facts that I have just laid before him?


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. I find it almost unbelievable that the member would stand up and say: "We have $3.8 billion in training and we have so many dollars in sectoral training". The reality is we have four million Canadians who are not working or are on welfare.
Let us put that in clearer terms.
That is like saying that B.C. and Alberta, the two furthest provinces to the west, are completely unemployed, not working, or on welfare.
When we take that kind of situation and put it in its proper context tinkering around with the system is not what we are talking about. We saw in the economic statement put forward last week a continuation of the tinkering with the system that is making the situation worse. We are asking for initiatives by the government that will revamp the unemployment insurance system, that will make it a training regime rather than an income maintenance system. That is what we are talking about. For example, in my riding in the last four years there have been some major layoffs in the mining community.
We are not suggesting for a moment that in the mining community mines will not close down. For example, in Ignace 250 people were laid off permanently in the mining industry in that community because the mine was shut down.
December 7, 1992

What is the government's policy to deal with major closures in single industry towns like Ignace? We also know in the province of Ontario that there are going to be other mines, with large work forces, that will shut down in the near future. What is the government going to do when that inevitable situation occurs? It cannot continually say that is too bad.
There must be a policy, an initiative, so that we are ready to deal with those individuals who happen to be 25, 35, 45, and be prepared to do something and not say: "Go on UI until it runs out", or in this case, because of the simple little change the government made, tell them to use up all their severance, and in some cases the only savings they have, which takes a good year, and then go on UI for another year, and then maybe convince them to go into some sort of training program-if there is anything available.
That is the issue we are dealing with. The $3.8 billion figure is a nice number. It sounds really good, but does it meet the needs of Canadians when there are four million Canadians sitting at home wondering if they will ever work again?
It would if this government could say to us that eventually over time, with its policies, it believes that unemployment will be 6 per cent and showed us how many people will be working and trained, if it said: "These are the demographics and how it is all structured". However, that is not what we are hearing. We are hearing that there is restructuring, period, and because of that restructuring there are going to be some very difficult times which will have to be accepted.
I do not think Canadians are prepared to accept that, and the government will see in the next election that they are not. They want initiatives by their members of Parliament, by governments at all levels, that will make the economy grow but at the same time give them some hope.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, today's opposition motion condemns our government for adhering to its economic policies and clearly suggests that our policies are the source of Canada's slow growth and industrial difficulties.
There are at least two clear and basic problems with that simplistic and self-serving attack.
Government Orders
First, it implies that Canada is somehow isolated from today's global economy, that we are this little island in the northern hemisphere that can crawl into its shell and not pay attention to what is going on around the world.
Second, it tries to suggest that the government is doing little or nothing to help the economy and the people who are facing hardship.
Let me point out that by using the phrase "trickle down" the hon. member's motion is obviously trying to equate our policies with those of the administrations of the United States. What the hon. member ignores, and I believe clearly hopes that Canadians will not realize, is that in Canada the federal government already plays a more involved role in the economy than does the federal government of the United States.
My hon. friend from Hamilton East used an excess of verbiage this morning. She was quoting the Minister of Finance to the people of Canada. She attributed to him a number of statements that obviously the Minister of Finance has never, ever uttered. I want the hon. member to produce those quotes to the House, all those things she attributed to the Minister of Finance today. Anyone who knows the Minister of Finance knows that he would not make the statements the hon. member attributed to him this morning.
Let me return to the main issue here. We all realize that Canada is only slowly recovering from what has been a very painful and prolonged recession. The economy is still weak and unemployment is much too high. People in businesses everywhere are feeling the painful consequences. It is also true that only by recognizing the underlying causes behind our difficulties, the interplay of global pressures and Canada's competitive ability, can any government implement effective policies to win firm and lasting economic success and security. That is the basis of the policies we have put in place.
These are policies that look ahead to Canada's medium term needs rather than superficial quick fixes. This is where we differ so dramatically from the opposition. What little economic plan it offers seems to emphasize nothing but supposed quick fixes. Of course that should be no surprise. It was its emphasis on short-term crutches in past periods of economic difficulty that helped diminish our competitive muscle and has left Canada so vulnerable to economic weaknesses today. That is the opposition's legacy and its formula again for the future.

December 7, 1992
Government Orders
Canada cannot afford yet another dose of Liberal steroids and snake oil. Instead, to create jobs and boost our standard of living, we must make sure the actions we take today do not leave us weaker tomorrow. That is one of the guiding principles behind our policies and actions.
Let me again remind the opposition why the Canadian economy is not as strong as all of us would like. It reflects many factors. Some of them are beyond our control such as the ongoing weakness of our trading partners. Canada is one of the most trade dependent nations in the world. When other major economies slow down sharply our economy suffers. Other factors beyond our control include the negative effects of foreign subsidies on grain prices which has hurt our agricultural sector. As well, weak world commodity prices have had a harsh impact on companies and workers in sectors like mining and in forestry. We also face problems like the disappearance of east coast fish stocks.
Canadians are also being affected by the difficult process of industrial restructuring that companies must apply if they want to survive, succeed and provide jobs in this fast changing global market. That is never mentioned by the opposition. Many of Canada's current economic problems are the inevitable consequence of the excesses of the 1980s, the reduction in our ability to compete caused by poor productivity and business cost performance, high levels of corporate and personal indebtedness and the poor state of government finances that was inherited in 1984.
These are problems that took years to build up and take time to be corrected. It is also a fact that our government has made real progress in reversing these trends, progress we must maintain for Canada's economic future. The questions we have to ask concern what is being done now. Unfortunately the opposition is much better at bugling complaints about what we are doing than offering reasonable alternatives.
The first thing to do is to recognize that there are limits to what governments can do to get the economy going again in the short term. I understand the opposition's position: oppose, oppose, oppose. That is why it is called the opposition. We must recognize there are limits to what we can do.
We as governments do not have resources of our own that we can simply go out and spend and create jobs and incomes. The resources of Canada's governments come from one place only, and that is Canadian citizens. Government spending is paid either by the citizens of today or by the citizens of tomorrow because government borrowing now leads to heavy taxes and reduced services in the future.
We also have to realize that taking more money from some citizens to give to others will not do much to stimulate the economy and restore confidence. Most Canadians feel our national tax burden is already too high. Taking more money from the citizens of tomorrow through increased borrowing is just a bad solution.
Canadian governments are so indebted now that increased borrowing may just cause Canadians to expect higher taxes in the future, leading consumers to hold back on spending even more. At the same time increased borrowing could cause lenders, especially those in other countries, to worry about the government's financial ability to repay its borrowing. It is a vicious circle. This could result in higher interest rates for all Canadians, creating further economic problems.
Despite the limits on government resources there are two important areas where governments can and I believe must act. The first is action directly to help Canadians deal with lost jobs and falling incomes. We are doing this.
People often take for granted the resources that the federal government provides to help cushion economic weakness. For example, more than one-third of all federal government spending goes to provide direct income support to people. This includes unemployment insurance, old age security and assistance to children. As well the federal government makes substantial payments to provinces to help fund other social assistance and medicare. There is also spending on regional development.
Most important, this spending continues even when a recession cuts government revenues. In other words, when the economy is weak governments actually increase the share of their revenues that go to assist Canadians, especially those most vulnerable to hard times. This contributes to restoring economic growth.
December 7, 1992

We must also recognize that these automatic stabilizers can be a mixed blessing. When the economy is weak, government automatically takes in less taxes. Revenue is down and this reduces the pressure on reduced incomes, but it also means an increase in the deficit. This is happening now. Unless we take action the deficit will continue to climb adding new pressure to interest rates.
The second thing government must do is respond to the underlying economic problems Canada is facing, particularly our poor national productivity record. Increased productivity is a key to improving Canada's competitiveness at home and I guess very important in our vital trade markets. Raising Canada's productivity growth requires that all stakeholders in the economy work together so that we can invest more in capital, technology, education and workers' skills.
The key role that governments can play in helping is to establish first a climate that supports and rewards productive investment. The opposition does not talk about that. The second is to help Canadian workers and businesses adjust to the economic restructuring that is now taking place. The opposition does not recognize that restructuring is going on. It says we are using it as an excuse. The third is to create the secure trading opportunities that allow Canada to increase its sales to world markets. What do opposition parties want to do? They want to tear up the trade agreement.
The federal government has been doing all these things to help our economy. We have improved the climate for investment by getting inflation and interest rates down and through tax reform. We have reoriented our labour market support toward provision of training and help in adjusting. We have pursued trade agreements that secure Canada's access to its export markets. We are committed to adding to those positive actions.
That is why last week's Fiscal and Economic Statement announced wide-ranging initiatives to bolster further public and private investment in economic growth while also reducing the cost of government. These actions are built on the policies which are already increasing Canada's productivity and competitiveness.
Let me remind hon. members once again of the highlights of this action plan for real, sustained growth and secure lasting job creation.
Government Orders
Over the last decade the small business sector has created 80 per cent of new full-time jobs. To help this vital sector the government is launching a small business employment and investment package. Under this package most small businesses will be able to add new workers without paying initial unemployment insurance premiums in 1993. This will reduce the cost of hiring additional workers by up to $1,600 each.
Other actions include a 10 per cent small business investment tax credit for machinery and equipment purchases. Rules on investment in small businesses by RRSPs and other funds will be simplified and investment options expanded. Programs that provide financial assistance are being expanded or extended. This is for small business. These are the things small businesses said would help them during these economic times. The government has listened to them and they were announced by the Minister of Finance.
Research and development as we all know is a key to developing the new products and processes that deliver competitive successes and growth in the global marketplace. There are still areas where tax rules could be improved to help business adapt and grow in an area of knowledge based work and technical change. We set aside $400 million over five years to remove tax base impediments to innovation and growth. In an increasing knowledge based economy Canada's economic prospects depend more and more on the skills of its people.
The government is helping to meet this challenge. Our support for worker training and adjustment, as my colleague from Winnipeg pointed out earlier, will be increased to $3.8 billion next year. Part of this, funds for developmental training use under the UI program, will grow to $2.2 billion. That is up from $1.9 billion last year and just $550 million in 1990. That is a big increase. That shows the priority the government is placing on training. The increase will be used to meet the special needs of long service workers who lose their jobs, the type of person that my hon. friend from Hamilton East was mentioning this morning.
The government will also help workers and employers make learning and skills upgrading a constant priority. The government will provide $250 million over five years to help lever a national training effort driven by labour and business. It will develop tax incentives to help defray

December 7, 1992
Government Orders
the costs of training workers to meet these occupational standards.
A nation's infrastructure, such national assets as transportation and communications, can provide an important competitive advantage in the new global economy. Based on savings and other activities the government is committing an additional $500 million to pursue specific strategic opportunities. In the next five years these initiatives will result in infrastructure of some $2 billion and directly generate 4,000 to 5,000 jobs a year.
We are taking direct action to help the people of Canada. A tax cut will take effect January 1, 1993. This will put $1.2 billion back into the economy. It is an economic stimulus, modest but important.
We also announced the 1993 unemployment insurance premium rates for both employers and employees would be frozen at 1992 levels. This leads me to the federal deficit and the challenge it presents us.
It is because of excessive deficit spending during the 1970s and 1980s that our government faces tough limits on what we can do to boost the economy today. We have to break this vicious cycle of borrow and spend if we are going to create a truly strong and prosperous economy.
To achieve this goal we are taking further strong action to reduce federal operating costs. All our new initiatives will be paid for through these spending cuts and budget reallocation. Some $8 billion will be saved over the next two years.
For two years salaries will be frozen for public servants, the prime minister, cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, senators and the federal judiciary. Crown corporations that depend on federal funding will have operating budgets cut to achieve the same results.
Operating budgets of government departments will be cut by 3 per cent in 1993-94. Combined with the wage freeze, federal operating budgets will be 5 per cent lower than the planned levels over the next two fiscal years.
Average unemployment insurance benefits will be frozen. Subsidies to most organizations and interest groups will be cut by 10 per cent in each of the next two years. These cuts we recognize mean further sacrifices for many Canadians, but they are needed so that a
stronger recovery and sustained growth can be shared by all Canadians.
In conclusion, our government is taking real positive action to boost Canada's economy and create the conditions for new jobs. The results of these actions are not trickling down; they are showing clear results. At 1.4 per cent inflation, the rate is the lowest in the G-7. Productivity is up by 2.6 per cent so far this year. This increases our competitiveness. Trade performance is showing results. Merchandise trade surplus, one of the keys to reducing our current account deficit, is up by almost $2 billion from last year.
Real output increased 1.4 per cent in the third quarter. Domestic demand, including consumer spending, housing, investment in machinery and equipment, increased by more than 5 per cent. Employment has increased in five of the last six months. There have been 104,000 full-time jobs. That is the rise since August. Yes, we must interpret these signs cautiously. The world economy is going through a very difficult period.
We are not immune from that. We understand that. We are doing what we can for the Canadian people, this country and the economy, not only today, because we have put in place policies to help today and in the future. We cannot forget the future. I believe that for far too long governments have ignored down the road and looked at the next four years at what might get it re-elected in the next election rather than looking at the long term and what is needed for this country.


Mr. Mills:: Nine years later.


John Horton McDermid: Well, in nine years we have accomplished a tremendous amount. In tax reform, in new trade agreements, we have accomplished a tremendous amount in this country. Today, there are -I will get the exact figure for the hon. member over there who is chuckling away-1,247,000 more people working than in 1984.
As the fundamental strengths of Canada's economy continue to grow, we will be well positioned to be a growth leader among the major nations as the world's economy improves. Everyone in the world is saying that today. This will prove that our government has truly and fully honoured its obligations to Canadians to help them win a secure and prosperous future. That is what we are working toward and will continue to work toward.
December 7, 1992


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, very briefly because the minister challenged me to speak about some statements that were made. I would like to quote from The Ottawa Citizen of December 4: "Don Mazankowski was pulling no punches". "There is a sense up here that all we do is bring out cheque writing machines and send people a cheque. Those days are over. Bleeding hearts want the government to spend more on social programs, Mazankowski said, but eliminating benefits for voluntary quitters is just being fair to workers and businesses who support the system. Look at the people who are working. Look at the people and the sacrifices they are making".
[Translation\
The worst example is what his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration said, and I quote: "They claim someone who leaves his job for no good reason to go to Florida in the winter should get unemployment insurance benefits. It's about time the government had the balls to be realistic, considering the times we live in, etc. etc."

These statements, including the statement made by the former minister that the recession was made in Canada, are all part of the public record. The minister should stop accusing other people of misstating the facts. The facts are here in black and white in direct quotes in several newspapers as a result of statements made by his government in the last few days.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted the Minister of Finance, listing a number of things that he said. She just mentioned one here. She mentioned a number in her speech. I believe that a lot of them were probably manufactured by her as she went along. Using her usually excessive rhetoric, she probably attributed a number of things to the Minister of Finance that he did not say. I will be interested to see each one of the quotes she attributed to the Minister of Finance and the justification for that. She has only stood up and justified one of them.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member carefully. I believe he used these words: "We must break the vicious deficit
Government Orders
cycle". For nine years the government has made projections on deficit and debt which have not really come to pass. This government came into power in 1984. When the Tories were in opposition, they had a real attitude toward deficit and debt. At that time it differentiated their party from ours because we were a little more sympathetic toward people who were unemployed and in pain.
The government came in with a policy of tax reform yet it has had 32 tax increases, not to mention the poorly designed GST which, in fact, the Minister of Finance admitted last week required some changes. I think that is fine.
The trade performance on the merchandise trade surplus in the last six years has been in decline. The debt has doubled in the nine years of this government. I must confess that the inflation numbers are very good and interest rates are low. However, there is a feeling in the country that there is no confidence in our economy, no hope. I would suggest to the member that a lot of the reason why that exists is because there is very little trust in this government. There is no trust in its projections. That is a fact.
Does the member not think that part of the reason why we cannot seem to get the spirit of this country going again is because none of the actions that have been taken in the last little while are doing anything to rebuild that trust. He is basically making the same speech in year nine that was given in year one. Yet in the last eight years this government has never acted on its own advice or its own prescription.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. I can tell the hon. member that I am not giving the same speech I gave nine years ago. I can say that our deficit is half of what it was when we came into power in 1984. In 1984 the deficit was about 8.5 per cent of our Gross Domestic Product. Today it is about 4.5 per cent. It has been cut in half.
I can say that we have an operating surplus today, which I could not say in 1984. The government of the day was borrowing $16 billion just for the operations of the government. Today we have an operating surplus of some $7 billion. So, no, it is not the same speech.

Government Orders
I can say that from 1964 or 1965 through to 1984 government expenditures increased at a rate of a little over 14 per cent a year. This government has kept the increase in expenditures year over year to less than 4 per cent, less than the rate of inflation. So, no, I am not delivering the same speech today.
We delivered on corporate, personal and sales tax reform, something that was recommended for over 40 years by a number of royal commissions, including one that the Liberals set up just recently and reported in 1984-85, which recommended that we go to a consumption tax.
Is the Minister of Finance making some changes? Certainly he is. He wants the tax system to operate in a better way. Is the hon. member telling me that the Liberals never changed tax systems in this country, that they never amended them? They certainly did amend them. For him to make those statements is crazy.
Finally, there is the other thing about projections being wrong. If the hon. member were honest with the House, I think he would admit that every single organization that makes projections, banks, think-tank organizations both here and abroad, governments at all levels no matter who their political masters are, made projections for 1992 that were off base, every single one of them. If the hon. member looks at the projections that the federal government made, they were far more conservative than those projections that were made in the private sector and some of the think-tanks both here and overseas. So do not lay that one on the Minister of Finance.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Why no confidence?


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member is totally unfair when he makes that criticism of the Minister of Finance.
Why no confidence? I think there are a number of reasons. When people read that General Motors is going to lay off 20,000 people around the world and that IBM is laying off thousands of people, they worry about their own jobs in their company, no matter what that company may be. I understand that concern very, very much. I think people rein in. I think people start paying down debt, which we are seeing. I think people save, which we are seeing. I think people tend not to spend when those
types of things are going on. This is going on around the world, not just in Canada. It is a concern. I am not minimizing it at all, but I think that is why there is the lack of confidence there.
We have got to get through this restructuring process. All industries and all businesses everywhere are having this problem. It is not just in Canada where the confidence is down; it is everywhere. The hon. member knows that.
I think we should have a very frank discussion about what is going on in the world rather than hammering away. I will tell you one other reason. The opposition gets up every day and just hammers away, just bangs away at all the problems. God, we do not minimize the problems, we have got them. They are major and we are doing something about it. Therefore, the hon. member should be fair in his criticisms of the Minister of Finance when he says those things.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I think the comments which the junior Minister of Finance has just stated to the House, that we should have a frank discussion and that we should talk about what is really happening in this country, are good suggestions and I am going to follow them. I want to follow them in talking this morning, as coolly and as unemotionally as I possibly can, because I think that maybe I will get it out of my system. To start with, I think what this government is doing with respect to the unemployed people in this country is sick. I think there is a psychological sickness in this government which frankly appals me as a Canadian.
I want to try to talk about some of the reasons that I feel as deeply as I do about that and I want to try and do it as calmly and as coolly as I possibly can.
The minister in his comments has made a suggestion quite defensively. Of course, it is up to the opposition to oppose and up to the government to defend. One cannot accuse it too seriously of being defensive. One of the things that I have always believed is that the government would make far more sense to people by listening, far more sense to the country in trying to explain what is happening if it started out saying: "Yes, there are some very serious problems which have been demonstrated by the unemployment figures that came out this Friday and we are shocked by those unemployment figures".
December 7, 1992

The government should have been prepared to say that if after nine years of being the government of this country the fact is that unemployment has reached a level of 11.8 per cent, not as calculated by the opposition, but as calculated by the government's own statistical agency, and that level of unemployment is higher than we have had in Canada since 1983, clearly it is doing something wrong.
This government is clearly doing something wrong. We can look around the world at the various other places that the minister mentioned. The United States does not have an 11.8 per cent unemployment rate. In fact, unemployment rates in the U.S. are 7.5 per cent, 7.4 per cent and they are falling.


An hon. member:: It calculates them differently.


Steven W. Langdon: Based on the same kinds of calculations. Many of the European economists do calculate them somewhat differently but they do so in a way that tends to overstate them compared to our figures.
There are not unemployment rates there that are as sky-high or that have moved as dramatically as in this country. In this country there is a human tragedy. It is a human tragedy that is evident not just in the 11.8 per cent unemployment figures but in the specifics of the unemployment figures.
Take young people for instance. The unemployment rate for young people is 18.4 per cent. How can there be any sense of hope among our young people? How can there be any sense of enthusiasm, of looking forward to the future with excitement and hope in our high schools, our universities, or our community colleges when the unemployment rate among young people is 18.4 per cent?
Look at women. There was a big jump in unemployment last month, and 60,000 of the 84,000 jump was among women. Women are again being hit particularly hard by these increases in unemployment. We can look at what has happened to full-time employment.
Full-time employment fell by one percentage point in this past year. The government would have us believe that jobs have increased in this country, despite the fact that the unemployment rate is up.


An hon. member:: There are more people working.
Government Orders


Steven W. Langdon: This is true, there are more people working, but more people are working at part-time jobs. More people are doing so involuntarily.
We have a serious and tragic situation in this country, and we can see it not just in the over-all figures. We can see it in community by community figures. We can see it in St. John's, Newfoundland, where the unemployment rate has gone up from 14.5 per cent to 15.2 per cent in the past month. We can see it in Montreal where the unemployment rate has gone up from 12.8 per cent to
13.6	per cent.
We can see it in my home community of Windsor where the unemployment rate is up from 12.8 per cent to
13.6	per cent. In Regina it has increased from 8.4 per cent to 8.9 per cent. Even in Calgary, which used to be thought of as somehow immune from all of these unemployment problems, the rate has increased from 9.8 per cent to 10.7 per cent.
There is a human tragedy taking place across the country. People are losing their jobs and losing their sense of confidence in this country as a consequence.
The Minister of Finance suggested on November 26 that: "I would argue with the hon. member's contention that we are still in a recession". He went on to talk about how there had been this tremendous increase in employment and that there were all kinds of strong positive indicators.
Then reality intruded last Friday with that massive increase in unemployment rates from 11.3 per cent up to
11.8	per cent, higher than anything since 1983. In the face of this human tragedy, this despair among unemployed people, it is perhaps not surprising to see the government talk about cutbacks. It has talked about cutbacks for years. It has talked about bringing the deficit down even though the deficit has gone up.
The reality is that there is something very sick when we have this much unemployment and it is growing and then a government decides deliberately to attack the unemployed. Over 30 per cent of the cuts it made in its budget statement last week were cuts affecting the unemployed in this country, $2.5 billion according to the government's own economic statement, $900 million from those who are identified as voluntary quitters, but

December 7, 1992
Government Orders
in fact this includes people who are fired from their jobs, and another $1.55 billion from the benefit freeze.
The Minister of Finance was quoted in the Montreal Gazette on December 5 as being mystified, as being caught completely by surprise by the outrage that greeted the government's decision to cut off unemployment insurance benefits. The minister is still not really sure why so many people are up in arms.


An hon. member:: They are not.


Steven W. Langdon: The junior minister suggests they are not. I do not know where he spends his weekends.
If he were to talk to ordinary working people in his constituency, he would have found the sense of outrage, anger and real despair about this government that I certainly found in my constituency, and that I found yesterday in a rally against the North American free trade agreement in Cornwall. This anger and concern is out there. If the minister does not believe it he can wait until the election and discover it for himself.
Why is it there? It is there because people across the country understand what is happening in the labour market?
I want to put on the record this morning some cases that I hope will demonstrate to the Minister of Finance exactly why his decision to attack the unemployed in the way he has is so unjust, so cruel and so fundamentally sick. I will give some examples of people who have phoned in to us, of cases we have been working on in our various constituency offices.
There are a couple of cases from Winnipeg. In one case the person quit his employment because the boss was always in a rage, always intimidating, and always insulting. He was given a 12-week disqualification under the present rules until the other employees of this particular company also quit and backed up his story. At that point the 12-week disqualification was finally eliminated.
Under the new changes, he would have been facing having to somehow go out and get welfare. He would not have been able to get that welfare if he had a bank account of any kind, if he had a house or if he had a car. He would not have been able to get welfare.
In another case from Winnipeg someone was being transferred to another community who had a fiance. Obviously, his fiance wanted to move too. As a result of the fact that they had not been living together she would
have had to take the 12-week penalty to be able to move from Winnipeg to this other community many miles away.
Under the present changes that are now suggested she would receive absolutely nothing if she wanted to move to the new community and look for a job that would keep her in the same city as the person to whom she is engaged to be married.
That is an actual case.


An hon. member:: Are you suggesting that unemployment insurance is for people who quit because they are engaged?


Steven W. Langdon: Under these new rules she would not be entitled to anything at all.
Are we saying that people cannot phone in sick for a day?
I want to talk about three cases from my constituency that demonstrate this point very powerfully. One case concerns a woman who works for a home care institution. Often as she works for her various clients providing home care she does some extras for them. One of her clients, somebody who had known her and her husband as friends before she became employed for this home care company, asked her if she and her husband could move some furniture in the house. Her husband came in and moved some furniture. The home care company that this woman works for has a policy that no "strangers" are to come into the houses of any of the clients that the woman works for.
When they discovered that this woman's husband had come in to move this furniture, this woman was fired. She went to UI, explaining the circumstances, and she is seeking redress with the Ontario Labour Relations Board for unfair dismissal. During this period she has been disqualified again for a period of time from receiving unemployment insurance. Under this new system she would receive nothing.
I had somebody in to talk with me just this past Saturday who was involved in a dispute with her employer who has fired her because he believes that she took money unfairly from his business. She rejects this categorically. They are in a court case to settle the issue. The court case will take at least a year to come to its conclusion. Under the new rules she will have no support. As a single parent of three children, she will have no support whatsoever from unemployment insurance despite her years of paying into it.
All of these cases, and I have many more that I could include, demonstrate how viciously unjust, how psychologically sick this decision is that the government has taken in its economic statement.
I do not know if it will do any good to change this government's mind but we at least will keep fighting. We will keep bringing these facts before Parliament, before the people of this country.
Government Orders
Therefore, I wish to move:
That the motion be amended by adding the following words:
specifically the government's planned changes to the
Unemployment Insurance Program which will further victimize the
unemployed.


Dennis Joseph Mills: My question to the member relates to that portion of the minister's paper, the one investing in growth, and it has to do with the section relating to keeping inflation low. The government goes on to describe the importance of keeping inflation low, and I do not think that any one of us in this House would argue that controlling inflation is a vital ingredient in terms of putting some of the basics in place.
My question to the member, because the member is an economist, has to do with the actual program that we use in the Government of Canada for measuring inflation.
I have been saying, and many other members have been saying, for the last year and a half that there is not any inflation in this country. Things are so depressed; prices are suppressed, even wages have been suppressed. I know that the government, because it is so preoccupied with these inflation numbers, seems to be less sensitive to the million and a half people who are actually carrying the burden of its preoccupation with the inflation numbers.
Does the member think it is possible that the modelling that the government is using to calculate these inflation numbers could be in error and the actual inflation is a lot lower than we actually have shown? Maybe if we took a review of that system we might get this government to let up a little bit and put a little bit of steam back into the economy.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for an interesting question.
Inflation levels in Canada are calculated by Statistics Canada using a system of average expenditure patterns which a particular household would undertake in a given month.
They are not based on modelling techniques as are some of the projections in the government's material. Those modelling projections are often subject to considerable error, but the actual inflation figures are rarely subject to those errors. They are, however, somewhat misleading for any individual household because what they give is a figure for an average household.

December 7, 1992
Government Orders
If you happen to be, for instance, a household which relies on electricity for heating and cooking, the level of inflation, the way prices have increased for you recently has been significantly higher than if you happen to be a household that is using natural gas because natural gas prices have not increased nearly as much.
The other key point to make about the inflation figures is that the great bulk of the increase in inflation which has occurred in recent months have been increases related to government taxation. They are not really signs of pressure in the economy to which the government needs to respond because of the overheating of the economy.
To suggest we have no inflation in Canada might be a little bit extreme, but we certainly have no significant inflation which we need higher interest rates to counter. The higher interest rates which we have had in Canada recently have been related entirely to pressure on the Canadian dollar, a pressure which I think is a reflection of lack of confidence among investors throughout the world in the economic policies of this government.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member if in his criticism of the federal government he would not include the borrowings of the provincial governments and that the economic policies and stands that provincial governments take do not affect as well the confidence in the dollar and the subsequent change in interest rates.
Borrowing collectively from the provinces which is greater than the federal government and labour laws which frighten the hell out of business and investment in this country, which the Ontario government is determined to bring in even as the best advice it received told it not to-does the member not think these particular policies also affect the economic performance of this country?
Or does the hon. member just think it is the federal government alone and that in this federation that we have provinces do not have an important role to play in the confidence he talks about?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, again I thank the minister for an interesting question because it certainly is the case that what provincial governments do has some effect on business confidence, consumer confidence, on the amount of disposable income that people have in their pockets to be able to spend.
In the House of Commons we have to concentrate on the levels of performance of the federal government. The levels of performance of the federal government as they affect provinces are probably more important than the provincial governments themselves.
The minister talks about the fact that provincial governments have had to go out and borrow more money and he is certainly right in that. It has been true of provincial governments throughout the country. The reason that has had to take place is that the federal government has reduced very significantly its transfer payments to provincial governments. The promises which were made to the three provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario with respect to support for the Canada Assistance Program have been brutally broken by this government. The government promised when it brought the Canada Assistance Program in that it would pay 50 per cent of that program. Do you know what level it is paying in Ontario now? Just 33 per cent of the total.
The reason for that is that the government of this country has put the unemployment figures in Canada up significantly. It has reduced the capacity of people who are on unemployment to get unemployment insurance and has, therefore, forced provinces to pay the gap, pay the difference because only welfare is available.
For provinces like Ontario the consequence is a shortfall in payments from the federal government of $4.5 billion this past year. Despite that the province of Ontario will be very close to its deficit figures, whereas the Government of Canada is $7 billion higher than the deficit figures it projected for this year and over $10 billion higher for the deficit figures it projects for next year. What we see here is a group of people bankrupting this country both financially and in terms of policy ideas.
December 7, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Speaker has taken under consideration the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor and I expect to make a ruling after Question Period.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about an economic plan that is, to quote the Prime Minister, staying the course. Let us look at what kind of a course we are staying on.
We are looking at a course that has brought us the highest number ever of Canadians out of work. Canadians are worried about how they are going to put food on the table, how they are going to pay the rent or mortgage, how they are going to send their kids to school. We are talking about staying a course that has brought us a record number of bankruptcies, both individually and personally. We are talking about staying a course that has brought us a record level of poverty. We now have close to four million Canadians living in poverty, one million of whom are children. Food banks across this country are in greater numbers than McDonald's and one third of the people using those food banks are children.
We are staying the course because it is supposed to reduce the deficit. This is the same course that we are now into the ninth year of hearing is going to reduce the deficit. Instead, we have a higher deficit, not a lower deficit. The deficit itself has doubled. Is that deficit paying for more services? Is it paying for programs to address the economic misery in this country? It is not. What we are spending now on programs and services to Canadians has dramatically reduced and this increased deficit is going to pay the debt.
We were going to reduce the debt. This course we are on, and I have read it in every budget statement since 1984, is going to reduce the debt.
How much is the debt reduced? It has gone up by over 200 per cent, up not down. In every budget since 1984 the government has said that it is going to create more jobs. Instead, we see jobs leaving this country, disappearing by the tens of thousands, and by the hundreds of thousands in total, since this government took office.
The only people in Canada who do not know that this course is destroying this country, bringing unprecedented misery to Canadians, reducing our opportunities to have the kind of future that this country and Canadians
Government Orders
deserve, the only people who do not know that is what this course of action is doing are the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and all those sitting on the other side of the House.
We have this kind of a budget because this government sees its popularity vanishing down the drain and drifting into the hands of the Reform Party. It is doing everything it can to steal back votes from the Reform Party, votes from a party that says the "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy of citizenship and of governments is what works. Those who have should continue to prosper. Those who do not should continue to fail in increasing numbers.
A good government and a good society is not about dog eat dog competitiveness, where only the strongest, wealthiest, most powerful and most vicious survive. That is not what this country is about.
The only positive thing I can see in this economic statement is the small bit of assistance that is being offered to small businesses. We have a small business loan program in this country that is not working for small businesses. We know the rate at which those businesses have been going out of business. We know the rate at which the jobs they provide in greater numbers than any other sector of our economy have been disappearing.
However, what we also see in this budget is a deliberate attempt, as we have seen over the years with this government, to stifle the voices of those who stand up for those who are living in increasing misery as a result of the actions of this government. We do see a cutback in funding to organizations for women, funding to organizations for aboriginal people and funding to organizations for the unemployed in this budget. However, if this government believes that stifling the voices of protest is going to get it re-elected it is dramatically mistaken. Those voices are out there and are powerful. Those voices are out there waiting to elect a new government.
This budget is hypocritical and contradictory. It blames the world situation for the misery in Canada right now. That is really easy. If the government blames the rest of the world it does not have to do anything about the problem, does it? It can pretend that it is somebody else's fault, hide its head under the blanket and pretend that it will go away when somebody else does something about it.

December 7, 1992
Government Orders
It is hypocritical in that it says we need to leave more money in the hands of consumers. Is that what it is doing when it cuts unemployment insurance, when it says that when people have lost their job after 20, 25 or 30 years of dedicated service to an employer they are going to be able to collect barely half their salary, provided it is under $33,000?
Is that how people are going to manage to send and keep their children in school, to send them on to university, to develop the education and commitment to learning that this country needs in the future? I do not think so. Do we leave money in the pockets of consumers so that they can stimulate the economy when we freeze wages for the largest employer in the country?
The federal government itself says that half a million and more public sector employees are going to have no more income next year when they have already been through one year of zero increase and then they are going to have a third year on top of that. Does that stimulate consumer spending? I do not think so.
Does it stimulate consumer spending when the government says on one hand that it is going to spend millions of dollars to create jobs and on the other that it is going to create unemployment within its own work force? Does it stimulate or save money by forcing people not to collect unemployment insurance but instead to collect welfare from the local community where other unemployed people like them are struggling to keep a roof over their head and pay their property taxes? Does that help stimulate consumer spending? I do not think so.
This economic statement tackles the lowest paid or the totally unpaid, the most vulnerable in our society and in each of our communities. It has been the pattern of this government to not do its job for those who most need leadership from their government to end the misery and create jobs.
We have young people dropping out of school to support their families. Does that help build a future for this country? I think not. We have a government boasting about improvements. It says: "Trade is up, jobs are up".
However, that is not the reality that Canadians are seeing.
When it has let the situation get so bad that it cannot get any worse I suppose it seizes on one-tenth of one per cent improvement to claim improvement. If there is any improvement in any indicator it is only because under this government the situation has got so bad that it is no longer tolerable for Canadians, and this government is no longer tolerable for Canadians.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to tell me how much the interest payments are on the national debt and how much they were when her government left office.
She talks about the debt growing and the difficulties that the government today has in terms of options. She may want to outline for the members of this House and the public what contribution her government made in its previous incarnation as the party in power.
It left a huge debt, and the increase in the debt is entirely due to interest payments. When that government left office the gap between income tax and program spending was absolutely incredible, insupportable. It mortgaged the futures of not only our children but our grandchildren. Those members continue to talk about program spending that would further bankrupt this country, and not just our grandchildren but their grandchildren as well.
Perhaps she would like to explain how her party would come up with all these programs, with all of this spending, with all of these quick fixes without increasing the debt the way it did in the 1970s.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to that question with a question to the hon. member.
I ask her how her government has turned the debt of this country from less than $170 billion to close to $500 billion. I ask her how her government has managed to introduce 37 different tax increases, increasing the burden on the poor and making the middle class close to poor, but has still not managed to pay off some of that debt and therefore reduce the interest payments on that debt.
December 7, 1992

I ask her how through years of good employment, higher revenue into the coffers of the government and lower interest rates her government could irresponsibly fail to pay off that debt. In fact, it has increased the debt and the interest payments on that debt.
I ask her how her government could spend $22 billion a year paying interest on foreign debt. That alone is costing Canadians $11 billion in forgone income tax, $22 billion out of the Canadian economy in interest payments to foreigners. It is money that is not circulating in the economy. That is $11 billion in income tax that could be collected if that debt interest were being paid in Canada. That is one-third of the deficit right there.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the member from Winnipeg asking my colleague a question I recalled some of the personal income tax increases that have happened during this government's almost nine years in office. From 1984 to 1988 personal income taxes rose from $37.5 billion to $59.7 billion. From 1988 to 1992 personal income taxes increased another 22.6 per cent to $73,256 billion.
As well as not tackling the debt, this government certainly knows how to suck out billions of dollars from the taxpayer. Does the hon. member not think that kind of Draconian attack on the taxpayers of this country goes a long way toward suppressing consumer confidence?


Marlene Catterall: I thank my colleague for the question. It is probably a good time to remind Canadians of the 3 per cent surtax on income tax that was supposed to come off when the GST was introduced. They will know that they are still paying a good part of that surtax. It is making it more difficult for them to pay their mortgages and pay their debts. Nonetheless, Canadian consumers know they have to pay off their debt and that they cannot simply keep piling on interest on interest on interest as this government has done.
It is a good thing that Canadians are managing then-personal finances better than this government is managing its public finances.
Government Orders


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, what usually happens to the employee who does not know how to manage the company's budget? He is dismissed. Well, it seems to be high time to dismiss the Conservative government now in power, which from budget to budget has led us straight to quicksand.
When it took office eight years ago, this government promised to put the nation's finances in order and thus assure Canada a prosperous future. Today we see the results. Imagine what this country would have become if it had not promised us a better future.
Every year the Auditor General presents a report of government activities and spending. He does not just say what was done but adds comments and suggests possible cuts. What is this government doing about it? We really wonder.
From what the Minister of Finance presented to us last week in his economic statement, we may even wonder whether he read the report. If he did, he did all he could not to benefit from it.
He announced cuts of some $8 billion spread over two years. About a third, $2.5 billion, has to do with unemployment insurance. To quote Gilles Lesage in Le Devoir: "Most cynical of all, instead of announcing some breaks for victims of the crisis or, even better, announcing the promised jobs, the government attacks the present and future unemployed. Those who are already poor and voiceless will become even more so, as if they alone were responsible for their precarious situation. We gladly agree that reforms are necessary, but Ottawa should not be going about them in this manner at this time."
In Quebec the unemployment rate is rising all the time as job creation is not able to offset the lost employment. The Minister of Finance and the federal government could have announced that the overlapping jurisdiction and costly duplication involved in labour force training and development programs would end soon. Even more waste. Quebec needs the assurance that the constitutional agreements that were ready can be turned into administrative agreements. Ottawa is not moving and the situation is getting worse every day. Ottawa still

December 7, 1992
Government Orders
refuses to get involved and the Reform Party of Canada is glad to see Quebec going down the drain.
There is absolutely nothing here for economic recovery. The only solution Ottawa came up with was to go after the unemployed instead of unemployment. The Tory government is obsessed with reducing the deficit and inflation, but all it seems to be doing is prolong the recession. Is this the way to run a country?
Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance has also created a nightmare for employers and employees. According to Mr. Dufour, president of the Conseil du patronat, and I quote:
These changes mean we will constantly be going to court. Endless legal challenges. I am not saying this measure is all bad, but I have some questions about the way it will be implemented.
It is bad enough for the government to assume that large numbers of people are cheating on unemployment insurance, but taking money out of the pockets of people who worked hard and need help to get back on their feet is simply the last straw.
Of course, the minister will say that the people who are penalized will be the exception, but now that a certain kind of employer will be able to use blackmail, the whole system can turn into a nightmare for the employee.
I would now like to quote Mr. Gaetan Guerard, president of Mouvement Action-chomage:
About 3 per cent of the people on unemployment insurance are freeloaders, and that is par for the course. Most people leave their jobs as a last resort, but now, they may prefer to hang on, which in the long run will be just as bad for the employer.
The changes proposed by the Minister of Finance will not create jobs or replace jobs that were lost, so they are no help at all. These changes are supposed to improve the country's economy. However, the federal government is actually transferring to the provinces the burden of supporting all these people who will end up on welfare. What a strange way to make Canada competitive and prosperous.
After eight years of mismanagement by this Conservative government, the country really needs a responsible government to take charge. It is high time for us to take
power to get this country back on its feet. Canada is on a downward slide and we must at all costs stop this slide before we completely lose control.
The government in office was elected because it promised a growing economy, jobs, jobs, jobs, prosperity and a decreasing deficit. What did it deliver? Just the opposite. The country could hardly be in worse shape. Companies are closing left and right, young people no longer believe in tomorrow and more and more people in their forties find themselves with nothing after their jobs were completely wiped out.
Taxes continue to rise, salaries are frozen, inflation is still rising and this government tells us to have confidence. They want us to have faith in its management. That is really making fun of us.
The country can no longer live with band-aid solutions that solve nothing; it is time to take drastic action and to dare to have guts. It is time to take charge of this country, to work with business and to build a promising future.
It is high time to listen and especially to implement the Auditor General's recommendations.
It is high time to stop duplication and give Quebec and other provinces that want it jurisdiction over manpower training and development. It is high time to call an election and let the people choose a new government to run this country.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said it was time her party came to power to straighten out the economy in this country. Could the hon. member describe the principles and policies that would form the basis for her party's decisions?
First of all, will she increase spending and borrowing? Will she cut or increase revenue? I would like some details on what she expects to do in the way of programs.


Shirley Maheu: I want to thank the hon. member for Levis for this opportunity to remind the House of the program suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. To create jobs, we asked for infrastructure projects that would help our provincial and municipal governments and in the process kick-start the economy. The government considered this, but it has only provided for overhauling two bridges in Montreal. That's all it amounts to.
December 7, 1992

As to whether we want to increase spending, my answer is this. Who increased spending in this country? Who almost tripled the debt? Who raised taxes 37 times? The Tory government. It is high time we started listening to the experts in this country, something it seems incapable of doing.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to congratulate my Liberal colleague and point out to hon. members opposite that what we need is a government that will start thinking about what Canadians need. Statistics are all very well, but what people want is jobs. They want to work. We know there is no miracle solution. We realize that. But the projects you introduced in your mini budget do not hold out any hope for Canadians. There is nothing there that can help people this winter. We want something for this winter.
The infrastructure project proposed by the Leader of the Opposition would involve all three levels of government: the federal government and the provincial and municipal governments, each contributing one-third. We know these projets are ready to go today. Why were there no proposals for a program of this kind? It seems to me that if we had a number of projects that could start right away, to provide some hope for people who want a job between now and next summer- Perhaps the hon. member would like to comment.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add to what my colleague said. Canadians are listening to us, of course. In its mini budget last week, the government predicted 5,000 more jobs.
I live in and represent the riding of Saint-Laurent- Cartierville. Saint-Laurent is Quebec's second-largest industrial city. We have lost over 5,000 jobs since this government took power. When they imposed the free trade agreement on Canadians, they said that high technology was our country's future. Philips, a high-tech company in our riding, has just let 490 high-tech jobs go in the very field that the government says is the future. I think that they really need to reflect, consult and listen.


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


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, by the middle of this month Canada must decide whether to renew its UN peacekeeping commitment in Cyprus for another six months.
We have been there for 28 years so it is understandable that our government which is being pressed to provide peacekeepers in other world trouble spots would consider ending our Cyprus commitments.
Cyprus is the last European country still occupied by foreign troops. Since 1974 the UN has passed 24 resolutions calling on Turkey to withdraw its troops.
Canada stood behind the UN resolutions in Iraq and Kuwait. We did not pull out in the middle of the gulf war. We stayed until the job was done.
Negotiations for a solution to the Cyprus problem are scheduled to begin again 100 days from now. Surely the honourable thing for Canada to do is to keep our peacekeepers in Cyprus until their job has been successfully completed rather than pulling out now, risking a new war just so that we can take on another peacekeeping commitment someplace else.


WESTRAY MINE DISASTER
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, 26 men lost their lives in the Westray mine disaster. Today, seven months later the widows, the children, the workers, the loved ones including Chris Martin of Thorburn, a brother of one of the men who lost his life, are still asking: Why? What happened? What went wrong?
Those widows, those workers, those children have a right to know. Canadian taxpayers also deserve to know because they footed the bill to the tune of $135 million.
They are asking whether safety was compromised. Why did the Prime Minister act so quickly to have the deal approved? Were human lives the pawns in a political game?

December 7, 1992
A federal inquiry could answer these questions. That is why the Prime Minister should call one without delay. Or, as the Prime Minister unwittingly indicated in responding to the member from Halifax West last week, does he have something to hide in this matter?


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec City Organizing Committee realized a major coup this weekend by putting Quebec City on the list of finalists for the Winter Olympics of the year 2002. The final choice will be made on June 16, 1995, in Budapest. This is a first victory for the volunteers who worked hard for beautiful Quebec City, known world-wide for its hospitality.
Mr. Speaker, there is still much to be done, but I want to assure you that the people of Abitibi are proud to be part of a project which is so wonderful for the population of Quebec and that of Canada.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, like other sectors of the Canadian economy ravaged by this recession, the steel industry is no exception.
Combined with the thousands of lay-offs and trade disputes with the U.S., inaction by the Conservative government threatens future destruction within the Canadian steel industry.
Stelco chairman Fred Telmer says that problems in the steel industry are symptomatic of larger concerns. He notes there is a list of trade disputes with the United States "as long as your arm, covering a whole raft of products including automobiles, wine, beer, softwood lumber and furniture" because the Canadian government has failed to make good on commitments to solving trade disputes.
Even the member from Burlington who is chairman of the non-partisan all-party steel caucus has failed to seize the opportunity to take the steel caucus to Washington
on behalf of Canadian producers where a dialogue and possible solutions could be found to the trade disputes.
In the absence of government action on promised negotiations Canadian steel producers have submitted a proposal for a steel accord between Canada and the U.S.
In the words of Stelco chairman Telmer: "It would be a tragedy of monumental proportions if the government sacrificed such a proposal on the altar of a lack of political will".


PREMIER RALPH KLEIN
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night the Alberta Conservatives paid tribute to retiring Premier Don Getty and elected Ralph Klein as the new party leader.
In the most open and democratic process ever used in Alberta all members of the party were allowed to vote at polling stations across the province. Over 72,000 Albertans took advantage of the opportunity and the people confirmed the caucus choice for leader.
As mayor of Calgary, Mr. Klein had welcomed the world to the most successful Winter Olympics ever. His success this week at gaining supporters from all corners of Alberta proved that his popularity with the people continues. If he can build on successes like that Alberta is going to be in good hands.
I join all Albertans in extending congratulations and best wishes to Ralph and his wife Colleen as he prepares to assume duties as the 12th premier of the province of Alberta.


GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last week's announcement of cuts in foreign aid and environmental spending is another in a long line of broken promises from the Tories.
They clearly do not understand global security. The Tories find money for their pet projects like the $4.4 billion on military helicopters and they cut foreign aid spending. Population, poverty and debt are very real threats to our common security. Poverty is not sustainable.
December 7, 1992

Perhaps if this government had spent 0.7 per cent GDP on foreign aid as the environment minister promised yet again at the earth summit, there would be no need to send troops to famine-stricken Somalia.
The Conservatives also cut environment spending here at home instead of investing in a long-term, environmentally sound economic strategy.
They have demonstrated appalling deception by promising all kinds of action at the international level knowing they will renege, retreat and reveal their true Tory-blue nature.
I have some advice for this crisis-mismanagement government: scrap helicopters. Finance environmental security both here and abroad.


MEDICAL RESEARCH
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the University of Alberta, which is situated in Edmonton-Strathcona, is the second largest university in Canada. It is renowned for its excellence in medicine, pharmacy and chemistry. The University of Alberta's Health Sciences Centre is a leading edge hospital. Alberta is also home to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Medical Research Foundation which funds medical research out of the earnings of its $600 million fund.
Recently Glaxo Canada announced it would spend $15 million over five years on research leading to potential cures of hepatitis B and AIDS. Its partners are the University of Alberta, the University of Alberta Health Sciences Centre and the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Medical Research Foundation.
This is a powerful combination of commitment, equipment, research capability and knowledge. Over 40 Ph.D.s will be involved in this project.
This is all possible because of Bill C-91, an act to extend patent protection to brand name, innovative pharmaceutical manufacturers.


PREMIER RALPH KLEIN
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, on December 5, Ralph Klein, former mayor of Calgary and
environment minister, steamrolled passed the establishment to win the race to become leader of the Alberta Progressive Conservatives and the province's 12th premier.
For the first time, Albertans of all political stripes were entitled to cast their ballots for the premier. This is the first step toward the primary voting system in Canada. Albertans want more open and democratic institutions. They will continue to lead the way for change.
As well, Albertans would like to know why the House Special Committee on Parliamentary Reform has held 21 secret and only 4 open meetings. This committee of Conservatives, Liberals and NDPers exemplifies the archaic attitudes of this institution.
Albertans want an elected Senate. We urge the Prime Minister to listen to the people and call for elections to fill the current vacancies in the Senate.
Congratulations, Premier Ralph. I wish you and Colleen success in your efforts on behalf of the people.


CHRISTMAS TREE INDUSTRY
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon a ceremony will take place that recognizes excellence in one of Canada's renewable resource industries, the real Christmas tree industry.
This year's national winner of the annual competition to determine Canada's outstanding Christmas tree grower is Mr. Bruce TUrner of New Ross, Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia. Bruce will present a winning tree to the Prime Minister.
Cultivated real Christmas trees are grown to be harvested. They represent one of the most important centre-pieces in the celebration of the Christmas season. Real Christmas trees are a renewable resource produced by an environmentally friendly industry. They are beautiful and they even smell good.
I urge all members and all Canadians to include a real Christmas tree in their plans this year. None are better than the balsam firs produced by Bruce Turner and his fellow growers from Lunenburg County and the South Shore of Nova Scotia.

December 7, 1992


WATER QUALITY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, water is Canada's most valuable resource. Improving the quality of water is one of Canada's most pressing issues.
Lakes and rivers are damaged by air pollution. In many cities rivers are used as sinks for dumping waste. Underground water is polluted by pesticides and other toxic chemicals.
Seven years ago the Pearse inquiry recommended a comprehensive water policy for Canada. Seven years have gone by and still the government has not produced a much needed water policy for Canada.
We urge the government to pay attention to how water quality impacts on public health and the economy.
Canadians expect action from the provinces and the municipalities, but the initial step must be taken by Ottawa where the political will is lacking.
Will the government wake up after seven years of inaction? Will the Minister of the Environment discharge his responsibilities on water on behalf of all Canadians?


CHRISTMAS SEALS CAMPAIGN
Mr. Allan Koury (Hochelaga -Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Lung Association's annual Christmas seals campaign is now under way.
The Canadian Lung Association was the first national volunteer organization. It was founded in 1900 to fight tuberculosis, which was then a major health problem. Since then the association has attacked lung cancer, asthma, chronic bronchitis and emphysema, in particular.
We all know Christmas seals, but we may not all be aware that this campaign is the lung association's main source of funds. Every year, some 11 million seals are sent to five million homes. The funds collected are used for basic activities: research, education, services, patient care and the health promotion campaign.
I congratulate the Lung Association and I hope that its Christmas seals campaign is a great success.


EMPLOYMENT
Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's edict that Canadians who quit their jobs or are fired for cause is one of the most vicious decisions ever made by a Government of Canada.
At best, it says work or starve. At worst, it violates the basic democratic and legal principle that a Canadian citizen is innocent until proven guilty.
A company can dump pollutants into our oceans and be fined a mere $2,000 after due process. A Canadian under the new proposals of the government who quits his or her job or is summarily fired is in reality being subjected to a fine of from $7,242 to $21,300 without due process, without the right to defend the case before the penalty is imposed.
I call upon the government and the minister to reconsider this vicious proposal.


MISSISSAUGA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: For the past 10 years the Mayor's Youth Advisory Committee of Mississauga has provided a forum for young people to address issues concerning their future and provide input to all levels of government. As well, members of the Mississauga Youth Advisory Committee are active participants in projects throughout the city of Mississauga.
In recent years the committee has fostered discussions on racism and discrimination, the environment and youth crime. Members of the committee assist in Earth Day celebrations and Canada Day festivities. As well, they have been active supporters of Our Place Peel, Mississauga's only youth shelter.
During this 10th anniversary year, the Mississauga Youth Advisory Committee sponsored a successful youth conference. They talked about drug abuse among youth, as well as issues relating to the future of Canada.
December 7, 1992

As I extend my congratulations to the Mississauga Youth Advisory Committee I would also like to encourage other young people across the country to be active participants in addressing the difficult issues facing the youth of our country and the nation as a whole.
 * *


INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL WELFARE
Jack Iyerak Anawak: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
The recent advertising campaign of the International Fund for Animal Welfare is totally misleading and irresponsible. The fund says it wants to have some honesty and clear thinking on harvesting issues.
Let us have some honesty by giving Canadians the facts that animal rights groups do not tell Canadians.
What about the fact that the anti-sealing lobby destroyed the economy of the eastern Arctic? What about the fact that aboriginal unemployment in the eastern Arctic is now about 80 per cent? What about the fact that since it is no longer possible for families to make their living by hunting, the social welfare rolls have soared and social problems have increased?
What about the fact that manufacturers of fake fur coats cause more serious environmental consequences than wildlife harvesting ever will?
The fund and other animal rights groups say continued hunting will drag down Canada's reputation in the eyes of the world.
As the world heads into 1993, the International Year for Indigenous Peoples, let the truth be told about how these groups continue to drag down aboriginal peoples by exploiting domestic and international ignorance of wildlife and aboriginal peoples.


ABORIGINAL PEOPLE
Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from travelling with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in my riding.
What the commission heard regarding the high rate of teen suicides in northern Ontario is quite shocking to say the least.
Since 1986 there have been 49 suicides and nearly 800 suicide attempts by teenagers. This is nearly seven times the national average. It is clear from the statistics that the government has failed to provide adequate policies and financial resources to deal with the issue of suicides in aboriginal communities.
It is time for this government to move very quickly, first, by committing the financial resources to help these communities deal effectively with the problem of teen suicide and, second, by conducting an inquiry to look at the long-term issues relating to suicides.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENTS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, Manitoba Premier Gary Filmon refused to attend a PC fund raising dinner with the Prime Minister. Despite the fact that Filmon's finance minister, Clayton Manners, had endorsed the federal government's economic statement, Filmon was reported as being miffed that Manitoba did not receive its fair share in the mini budget.
Why have these two Conservative governments not renewed a number of federal-provincial agreements that the former NDP government of Manitoba had initiated?
Why has the inner city core area initiative been allowed to die? Why has the northern development agreement not been renegotiated? Why is there no new agreement on the bay line in the port of Churchill? Why have affirmative action education programs for natives been dropped? Why have land entitlement negotiations, which are so important for the economic development of native people, been put on the back burner?
Why have any number of federal-provincial agreements, including tourism, mining and forestry been either downgraded or dropped?
Why can these two Conservative governments not work with each other?

December 7, 1992
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Fact: the recession has been going on for 30 months. Fact: by the government's own admission it is a made-in-Canada recession. Fact: 1,600,000 Canadians are not working. Fact: 2,300,000 Canadians are on welfare. Fact: one million Canadian children are living in poverty. Yet the pre-Christmas message of the Minister of Finance last week was: stay the course, our economic policies are working.
If this government is doing such a good job, why does Canada have the highest unemployment rate in the western world? Why is our jobless situation worse than that in the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Japan and even Italy?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that the hon. member would have been pleased and satisfied to note that the prime interest rates fell today. The Bank of Montreal lowered its rate to 8.75 per cent, as did the Royal Bank and the Toronto-Dominion Bank. It is a very positive outcome arising from the economic plan I announced in the House on behalf of the government last week.
The economic plan I announced is about creating jobs, creating new opportunities, investing in growth, investing in people, investing in infrastructure, investing in new efforts to trade and investing in partnerships.
In the small business sector alone, which is the most important engine of economic activity in Canada, we took several steps; freezing UI premiums, a premium holiday on new employees, a 10 per cent investment tax credit, improved access to capital, improvements in R and D, improvements in the treatment of capital cost allowance. All of these are positive measures that will generate growth and job activity.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the number of welfare recipients in Quebec alone is rising by 3,000 a month. Six hundred thousand people
just in Montreal live in poverty. However, the policies announced by the minister last week will force more unemployed people onto welfare as of April 1. The government will therefore claim that the unemployment rate has gone down, when in fact the minister is not solving the unemployment problem but is putting more people on welfare, which costs the provinces and municipalities more.
Does the Minister of Finance think that by reclassifying people who are out of work they will disappear?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, given the country's economic situation, we should instead look at the measures put forward by the Minister of Finance and the government and how we can help these unemployed people.
As a government, we decided that we had to invest massively in developing human resources, both in Quebec and in the rest of the country. That is why, for example, $400 million was spent in the past three years to train the unemployed and jobless. This amount was raised to $2.2 billion this year and tens of thousands of unemployed people will have a chance to acquire skills with which they can return to the labour market.
We must consider how we can help people. To encourage investments, we need a skilled work force, and that is where the emphasis was put in last week's statement.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, last week, the minister said that these policies, which would put the unemployed on welfare, showed that the government had balls. I, for one, am glad I do not have any. Today, more than two million people are on welfare, and these policies will put even more people on welfare.
Why does the Minister of Employment and Immigration keep hurthing the neediest in our society? Why are his policies so unfair?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that since the last recession in 1981-82, people who exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits and go on welfare represent about 10 per cent of the total. To hear the hon. member talk, you would think everybody was going on welfare. The statistics are clear. They show that 70 per
December 7, 1992

cent of these people are back on the labour market within six months. What matters is how we are going to help people get back on the labour market. We on this side of the House say that the key is training. That is why we have increased our resources for training the unemployed and other Canadians to a total of $3.8 billion this year, something unprecedented in Canada's history.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand -Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth.
When the minister took over the youth portfolio in April 1991, 390,000 young people were out of work. Nineteen months later that figure has increased to an incredible 438,000 people. Over 40,000 more young people have joined the ranks of the unemployed since this minister took office.
Specifically, what is the minister going to do to get these young people back to work?


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):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member and everybody in this House knows, we have been living through a recession. Unfortunately young people have suffered from the effects of the recession like the older people, that is people beyond 24 years of age.
The hon. member should recognize that the economic statement of last week is the instrument to permit everybody, including youth, to get back to work and to benefit from the situation that is going to prevail in 1993, including the creation of 300,000 new jobs.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, when the minister was talking on Friday about creating jobs, he gave no specific details on job creation for Canada's 438,000 young people out of work. In fact, the economic statement of the Minister of Finance makes no mention of any job creation program directed at youth.
Why is there no specific job creation program to get our young people back to work today?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that the
Oral Questions
hon. member reread the economic statement, which I am sure he has not done yet. The statement clearly identifies the initiatives with respect to partnerships and to small business, which creates 80 per cent of the jobs in this country.


SOMALIA
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We are all deeply affected by the tragedy in Somalia. I think Canada's participation in UN activities in this country is appropriate in that we are using Canadian troops for humanitarian purposes.
However, a decision to send troops into a war zone is a major one that should be debated by Parliament before the fact. This decision was made without consulting Parliament, without debate.
I would like to put the following question to the minister: Why was this intervention not debated in the House?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is the government's responsibility to formulate and make decisions on major issues, such as the situation in Somalia. However, we have offered, first of all, an opportunity for discussion or debate in the House and that opportunity will be given this evening. We also offered to brief members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party on the details this afternoon, before the debate.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. My first question asked why, on such an important matter as sending troops-not that I have an objection to that-was there not a debate in the House of Commons before the decision was taken, with all of the reasons presented to the Canadian public so that we can have a real debate. It is an abrogation of the democratic process for the government to say: after we have taken the decision, we will have a debate on it.

December 7, 1992
Oral Questions
I want to ask the minister this. The role of Canadian troops is not entirely clear. When will Canadian troops be leaving? To whom will the Canadian military forces be accountable? What precisely will be their role and who is paying the cost?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, much of this will come out in the discussion tonight.
As I said to the hon. member, it is the responsibility of the government to take decisions in a timely way. It was important that we respond to the request immediately. It is our responsibility and our prerogative to do that.
In the initial announcement we said that we would look forward to a parliamentary discussion of the issue, so we have been very forthcoming from the beginning with information.
The unified command held briefings in New York on the weekend and all of these things are emerging. We will make them as clear as we can tonight in the debate and before the week is out.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Clearly the government does not care about the democratic process. The minister made statements outside the House on what the decisions of the government would be and did not make these statements inside the House.
Surely the Government of Canada has a responsibility to seek the wisdom of all sides of this House on such an important matter.
As we read in the media-not discussed here-we realize that this is a short-term exercise in Somalia. We know that it also needs a long-term solution.
What initiatives has her government taken to ensure a long-term solution after the military relief effort is over, and what assurances do the people of Somalia and the world have that the situation existing now will not simply continue as it is?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in announcing our decision on Friday, I said that we would be taking part in this first phase but that we would not remain to perform a peacekeeping function.
I informed our Ambassador to the United Nations last night on the telephone that obviously there will be a need for other things afterward besides peacekeeping forces. There will need to be assistance in building some of the democratic institutions, the infrastructure and so on, bringing some kind of orderly economic development into Somalia. We are a very aware of that.
I have asked her to tell the Secretary-General that we will be working on some ideas and some proposals with the United Nations for what comes afterward.


ATLANTIC CANADA
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe -Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In 1984 the Prime Minister of Canada promised to inflict prosperity on the Atlantic region. It has been eight years since that commitment, and it is not prosperity with which we have been inflicted but rather unemployment which has afflicted the people of the Atlantic region.
Last week in his budget the Minister of Finance made a bad situation worse by announcing cuts to the Atlantic freight rate subsidy, cuts to the Atlantic inter-regional subsidy and cuts to the Atlantic selective westbound subsidy.
How does this government expect to inflict prosperity or even bring a measure of prosperity or even nudge Atlantic Canada toward prosperity when it continues to cut the region adrift from the rest of this country?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows-and many members on his side of the House have pointed it out-that there has been upward pressure on the deficit due to the very dramatic decline in revenues. We have gone through a process of broad based belt tightening all across the board in order to get a better handle on the deficit and to contain it as best as we possibly can.
We took a number of measures to reduce expenditures, but we also took a number of measures to invest in growth, jobs, people and economic activity so that we could generate jobs and growth. We emphasized training and we emphasized a number of infrastructure projects like the fixed link and improvements in the road system which will be very important to the Atlantic region.
December 7, 1992

In order to do that and to create that job activity in the very short term, we had to go through a process of reallocation. It is important that be pointed out because we have gone through a process of reallocation to put money in those areas that would generate the kind of economic-activity and the job creation activity that the hon. member, I am sure, recognizes and that needs to be fulfilled.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the freight rates for the Atlantic region have been in place since 1927. This government has arbitrarily cut these subsidies, without consulting any of the provinces, without consulting the Atlantic provinces' economic council or the Atlantic provinces transportation commission. They will primarily impact upon manufactured, value added industries, and the minister knows that.
Is the minister prepared to stay these transportation subsidy cuts, to consult with the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada and to consult with the transportation commission to realize a sensible approach to these transportation programs and not to destroy arbitrarily a program that has been in place for nearly 60 years in Atlantic Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when governments are faced with the difficult choice of having to contain spending.
We are at the point where because of the dramatic decline in revenues we have to take extraordinary steps to bring our spending and our revenues more in line. We are asking Canadians across the board; it is not only that there is an attack on the Atlantic region or any one region of the country.
What we are proposing here are across the board reductions for a period of time. It is an exercise in belt tightening so that we can preserve in the future those programs that are so important, have been so important in the past and will be in the future as well.
Oral Questions PHARMACEUTICALS


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In a radio interview this weekend on CBC commenting on the government's drug patent policy, the minister said: "It is not a health issue. Whether it is a bicycle, whether it is a song, whether it is a drug, it is all just intellectual property".
This policy is all about health care. It is all about Canadian consumers and Canadian health care systems having to fork out billions of dollars more to multinational drug companies.
How could the minister possibly make such a ridiculous statement which effectively equates the integrity of Canada's health care system to the patent on a hockey helmet?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the hon. member is now listening to me. It is the first time in the last three years he has even listened to me.
What I mentioned was that obviously this legislation was about intellectual property. Patented drugs represent only 3 per cent of total health costs in this country so the 97 per cent are other matters such as hospital costs, surgery and all those things, as well as generic drugs.
What we should do with that is look at whether Canada wants to be in line with the rest of the world as far as intellectual property is concerned. This is what this bill is all about.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The Minister of Health of British Columbia, Elizabeth Cull, stated clearly; "The British Columbia health care plan will pay out over $145 million more for just two drugs as a result of this government's patent policy".
When will the minister stop working for the interest of multinational drug companies and start working for the interest of Canadian consumers, the people he was elected to serve?

December 7, 1992
Oral Questions


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think that in the past several months, we could have really discussed the facts instead of fears and instead of frightening Canadian consumers. I believe that the figures speak for themselves; the most accurate estimates we have now show that the increase will not be more than $125 million over five years. That is a dollar per Canadian per year. Beyond that, we have already obtained $1.1 billion in investment since 1987. We will get $500 million more in the coming months so that Canadian researchers, physicians and universities throughout Canada can be in the major leagues of research. I think we owe that to Canadians.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of a letter dated February 26, 1992 from the U.S. multinational drug companies to U.S. trade negotiator Carla Hills, which states:
In clear, straightforward language, the NAFTA must require
Canada to dismantle its discriminatory compulsory licensing regime
for pharmaceutical products and to suspend the granting of any
compulsory licences from December 20, 1991 forward.
My question is for the minister answering for the minister of trade. Will the minister confirm that Bill C-91 accomplishes both of these U.S. goals and confirm that with the NAFTA Canadian governments will lose sovereignty and will not be allowed to bring back compulsory licensed low cost generic drugs?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions and the answer to both is no.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, it is now clear that the December 20, 1991 retroactive date was not required by GATT but was directed by the U.S. pharmaceutical industiy and resulted in 24 drugs receiving up to 13 years additional patent protection.
In view of this, will the government do the honourable thing in the face of this corporate greed and withdraw Bill C-91?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague is leaving something out. December 20, 1991 was the date Mr. Dunkel, GATT Secretary General, tabled his report and all industrialized countries that make pharmaceutical products and do basic research accepted this date. I do not see why Canada should have a date different from the rest. It is not by choice or related to trilateral or bilateral negotiations but because we live in a world where more and more barriers are coming down. Canada wants to be a leader in basic research, which will help Canadians and Canada enter the 21st century not as copiers but as a country that does basic research.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The North American free trade agreement involves a thorough restructuring of our economy. From now on Japan, through Mexico, will be within driving distance of our domestic markets.
Why does the government keep repeating the same mistakes it made in the free trade agreement with the United States? Why, in last week's minibudget, did the minister refuse to prepare Canadian workers and businesses for this unprecedented level of international competition?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take the trouble to read last week's statement.
If we look at the statement over all and the major investment in human resources, in training, there we have Canada's key to success on international markets, the key to being competitive and productive.
The hon. member has been asking us to invest more in human resources, and now that we have, I am waiting for a token of approval.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, the fund went broke last June and what the government has put in place will not carry it through the last summer. The fact is that it is substantially short of the mark and it is going to bear a terrible penalty for it.
December 7, 1992

There can be no worse time to enter into a free trade agreement such as the one this government wants with Mexico than during a period of crippling unemployment. Those who are at the greatest risk are the middle aged who are without training and the young who have no employment history. NAFTA as it is is a bad deal for Canada.
Why is this government compounding its failure? Why is the government refusing to bring in adjustment measures now to help those for whom Mexico represents the greatest threat? Or, was last week's budget indeed the government's final response to NAFTA? That would be the unkindest thrust of all.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said that the moneys we had raised for training unemployed Canadians would not last. I do not know how long he said, but it is not enough. This is the party that opposed the activation of this passive fund within UI.
If the Liberals and the House are ready today to pass a unanimous resolution to increase that activation of the UI fund, I am ready to do it today.


MANITOBA
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Last week, as the minister will know, the Prime Minister took his travelling show out to Winnipeg, but instead of being greeted by rousing crowds of enthusiastic supporter he was greeted by very angry Manitobans, including the premier of Manitoba who could not even be bothered to stay for dinner.
Given the opposition in Manitoba to the scorched earth policy, again reconfirmed in the Wednesday mini budget, could the Prime Minister not come back and instruct his minister to rewrite the budget and give something, one little thing, to Manitoba?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, there is something in the economic plan that I outlined last week for every province and every region of the country.
Oral Questions


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
So far this government has not committed itself to a proper highway construction project in Manitoba, has not confirmed that it is going to support the core area initiative despite three years of promises, and has not even found a site for the virology lab which was first publicized four years ago.
When are these promises going to be lived up to? When is the government finally going to do something for the province of Manitoba?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the member is dead wrong. It is in his riding. It is at the corner of Tecumseh and William. If he does not know where Tecumseh and William is, I will take him to his riding some time.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
Last Wednesday after the finance minister's mini budget, one of the delegates at the B.C. Federation of Labour Convention explained that he had been fired for representing a union member in a grievance. It took months, with the help of the union, to reinstate him.
During that time he survived on UI. When he won reinstatement, he was granted $20,000 retroactive pay from which he repaid UI. Under the proposed new rules, he would be unable to collect that UI. Will the minister acknowledge that the disqualification of those fired for cause is unjust, unfair and will he reconsider this cruel proposal to ensure that people have an opportunity to appeal their firings?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in 1991-92 there were
225,000	Canadians who quit a job without reason. They are the only people who will be affected by these changes, those who voluntarily quit a job without just cause, not those who have a good reason, those who have a just cause. This government in amending the Unemployment Insurance Act put those reasons in the act.

Oral Questions
The process for determining just cause is not touched at all. It will not change the situation from what it was before. The only difference is that employers and employees, hard working Canadians, will not subsidize paying benefits to a person who quits a job for no reason.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, if the minister wants to talk about those who leave voluntarily as opposed to those who are fired-my question was about firing-I will talk about those who leave voluntarily.
At that same convention a woman delegate got to her feet and, fighting back tears, explained to the delegation that as a non-union worker, she left a non-union job because she had been sexually harassed. She told of how humiliated she was, how frightened of her employer she was and how emotionally she could not face taking him on. She also said that in her industry, if she had taken on her employer, she would never have worked again.
She quit and searched for another job, knowing she would have UI. What will this woman and hundreds of other women in Canada do if they will not be eligible for UI under this process? Will the minister, knowing that women cannot take on the system, rethink this wrongheaded policy?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the NDP keeps insisting that sexual harassment is not a just cause. I am telling them it is and they, as representatives of the people of this country, should stop arguing.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is aware that during this coming week the government must decide whether or not it is going to renew our peacekeeping commitment in Cyprus. Although we have been in Cyprus now for some 28 years, and the government is being pressed to undertake new peacekeeping commitments elsewhere, surely the minister will agree that Canada should stay in Cyprus, finish the job and bring' it to a successful conclusion before we leave Cyprus and risk another war. Or, is this decision to be
made solely on the basis of cost at the same time we are undertaking other commitments elsewhere in the world?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the decision will be made very shortly. I should say it will not be made solely on reasons of cost. In fact, in this case that is a relatively small matter compared with some of our other operations.
I should say that after 28 years, Canada feels that it has done an excellent job in the region. We are very disappointed that up until now, negotiations have not been successful. In fact, the negotiations that have been going on this year have gone on partly because Canada last January raised this with the Secretary General and indicated at that time that we would pull out if there is not progress.
I should say as well that whatever Canada's decision, it does not necessarily mean an end to peacekeeping in Cyprus. There are countries that can be called upon and it is the responsibility of the Secretary General, if he feels that peacekeeping should continue, as long as the Security Council continues to appropriate itself to him, to fill that role.
The House will know very shortly what our decision is.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. What are the latest developments in the GATT Uruguay round and what repercussions will they have on the Canadian agricultural industry?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, the initial agreement reached recently by the Americans and the Europeans obviously brought the subject back on the table. As you know, the Europeans reacted in various ways. For us it was good news because as far as Canada's exports are concerned, it is important to stop these outrageous subsidies which have destroyed agriculture in many parts of the world as a result of the billions of dollars spent on subsidies.
December 7, 1992

However, negotiations are expected to resume, probably next week which is expected to be very busy, and Canada will be well represented at the talks to ensure that as far as the marketing boards are concerned, which are represented across Canada, and especially in the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario, the position on article XI is maintained. We will do everything we can, together with the people in the industry, to defend Canada's position.


MUNICIPAL TAXATION
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Buried in the fine print of last week's mini budget is a sinister policy change which potentially could increase taxes at the municipal level and ultimately to homeowners, renters and small businesses.
The federal government is freezing its grants in lieu of taxes program at the 1992 levels, a reversal of its commitment to municipalities. How does the minister expect municipalities to make up for this 1993 budgetary shortfall other than by raising property taxes and why should municipalities be forced to fund this government's mismanagement of the economy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again we are talking about a freeze here. I should advise the hon. member that there have been discussions going on with the various authorities to get abetter formula with respect to this.
I think it would be fair to say that this would not come as a great surprise. It is a $400 million bill and we are constraining expenditures in various ways. We expect other governments to do the same.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Mr. Speaker, this policy is just another example of how this government pretends to solve its problems by dumping them on to other levels of government.
The changes to the unemployment insurance benefits will download millions on to the municipal and provincial governments. The freezing of the federal government's
Oral Questions
payments to municipalities will also result in budgetary shortfalls at the municipal levels.
I want to ask the minister how the over-all health of the Canadian economy, which he likes to talk about all the time, will be improved by forcing homeowners, renters and small businesses to pay, not less taxes, but more taxes to municipalities?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in response to a question, this is a general belt tightening right across the board and we are asking all Canadians and all governments to participate in this exercise.
The hon. member knows very well that the federal government has had to constrain expenditures in order to keep the deficit under control, and it is still rising.
The hon. member is suggesting that we should not implement any cost savings and, at the same time, the members of his party are advocating the expenditure of some $15 billion on infrastructure. I ask the hon. member where he would get that kind of money without some corresponding reductions or reallocation. That is what we are attempting to do. He is either going to borrow more or he is going to tax more. What is he going to do?


DAIRY INDUSTRY
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In his mini budget last week, the minister announced a 10 per cent cut in industrial milk subsidies paid to dairy farmers. Since the Minister of Finance is the former Minister of Agriculture, is he not aware of the harm he will do to dairy farmers?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet milk producers last week, on Thursday to be precise. Yes, they are rather disappointed, but when we look at it in perspective, this cut is only 1 per cent of the cost of a hectolitre. Since a hectolitre sells for $50, it is only 60 cents on $50, which is quite little, all in all.

December 7, 1992
Oral Questions
Under the formula used to set the price of industrial milk in Canada-and my colleague must know how it works-the milk producers' costs are assessed every six months. The farmers are therefore able to establish their production costs. This means that this amount of 60 cents will be evaluated every year and they will be able to get all or part of it back when the price of milk is set, twice a year.
I think that the milk producers are reacting a little too strongly to the news, which is quite a small cut, all in all, under the circumstances.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the minister is quite right when he says that farmers are reacting violently to this cut. He knows that during the past couple of years farmers have had their quotas cut by 10 per cent. On April 1 the minister is proposing to slash that income support program by another 10 per cent. When there is such great uncertainty in this industry already because farmers do not trust this government in the GATT negotiations because of what happened in the FTA, why is the government chopping this income by millions and millions of dollars to Canadian dairy producers? Why?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the member is not accurate when he says this is an income program. It is a subsidy that has been paid to producers because of the cost of production method that we have at this time. The subsidy is there, like all grants and contributions, throughout the whole of the government. We are talking about an $8.5 billion reduction in expenditures by the Government of Canada and agriculture is paying part of that.
Mr. Speaker, we have as you know over $20 billion in debt in the agriculture sector. The interest rate fluctuations we have seen over the last number of weeks, because of the view of the international market of Canada, cost agriculture hundreds of millions of dollars. Just 1 per cent in our debt costs agriculture $100 million.
We know it is difficult, but all parts of the government with the exception of those cost shared income programs, safety nets, have been reduced.


TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Culture and Communications. The father of a 15-year old boy contacted me in my office recently. It had to do with the 1-976 sex lines. The phone bill was substantial. It was the first inkling that the boy was phoning these numbers. His concern was how this this number can be kept from the use of young people. There are plenty of ads today. There is a full-page ad in one of our Ottawa papers of these 1-976 telephone numbers.
My question to the minister is, what does the government intend to do to take care of this type of situation for a 15-year old and other young people?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I fully share my hon. friend's concern. When we have a situation where young people are enticed to call and receive sexually explicit material and when this is automatically added to the phone bill, it is a situation that is not acceptable.
I have spoken to the chairman of the CRTC with regard to this and I will be writing to him to ask the CRTC to look into this matter to see if there are ways in which families can be given better protection.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday of course was the National Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Violence against Women. All Canadians joined in an outpouring of feeling that we should do all we can to end the scourge of violence against women.
Within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for External Affairs comes the issue of humanitarian relief, particularly in Bosnia-Hercegovina. At this time, the world is witnessing the systematic rape and assault of Muslim women and girls under the direction of the armed forces of the Serbian government and its surrogates.
December 7, 1992

Will the minister agree that at least some of the humanitarian funds designated by Canada in the same fashion as is being done from Germany will be set aside for those women, victims of sexual assault and rape in Bosnia, as a mark of our concern in honour of the national day of remembrance in this country?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at a number of ways in which to make our aid to that region as effective as possible. I know there were some suggestions on this subject which came forward from the human rights group that was headed by Mr. Broadbent.
I should say that we do this in some areas in the world. We do it in Africa, for example, where there is specific funding targeted toward women in development. We have done it for women in other areas.
I am certainly open to the idea. We want to use our funding for humanitarian aid in that region as well as we can.
There is no question that what is going on there with regard to the Muslims and the atrocities committed on all sides are in many ways particularly hard on women. I would be quite happy to see if there is something we can do along these lines.


POINTS OF ORDER
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, my first question to the minister of employment was regarding a worker fired with cause. The minister responded twice that this policy only applies to voluntary quits. In the economic and fiscal statement it states: "Persons who voluntarily quit their jobs-"


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I have to advise the hon. member that is a question of debate. She may wish to pursue it further, but it is not an appropriate point of order.


BILL C-93 -SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I have a judgment to render. On Friday, December 4, 1992, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rose on a point of order relating to the omnibus nature of Bill C-93, an act to implement certain government organization provisions of the budget tabled
Points of Order
in the House of Commons on February 25, 1992.1 would like to thank him for the succinctness of his presentation. I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for his intervention.

I have reviewed the matter and am now prepared to rule on the point of order.
The purpose of Bill C-93 is to wind up and transfer or merge the functions, and in some cases the staff, of nine government organizations to other government agencies or departments, and provide for the continuation and ultimate dissolution of the Canadian Commercial Corporation.

The objections raised by the hon. member were that the bill not only would wind up some agencies, but it would also make major changes to public policy with regard to the role of government. The House leader of the Official Opposition stated that if properly drafted, the long title of the bill would indicate its purpose of terminating specific agencies by name, revealing what he felt was the real purpose of the bill. He also argued that it is an omnibus bill and ought to be sent back to the drafters to be divided.
These points are very similar to the arguments presented by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond concerning the omnibus nature of Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, on which I ruled on April 1,1992. As noted at that time, one of the purposes of omnibus bills is to group together multiple statutory amendments so that discussion in the House may be focused. It was also pointed out that the Speaker has not been given any specific authority over the form or content of omnibus bills.
I would refer hon. members to the ruling of April 1, 1992, which dealt in some detail with the very points raised on Friday last by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond. The arguments presented in relation to Bill C-93, while put forward with skill, have not convinced me that the Chair should deviate from our practice. Accordingly, I must conclude that it would not be appropriate under these circumstances to accept the objections raised.
Therefore, the bill is properly before the House.

December 7, 1992
Routine Proceedings



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to rise today in the House and table, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), in both official languages, Order in Council RC. 1992-2519 which places members of the Canadian Armed Forces on active service for the multinational military effort in and around Somalia.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 40 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1992 a report of the subcommittee of the standing committee on health, welfare and social affairs tabled a report in this House on hepatitis B. The report called upon the government to initiate a national hepatitis B vaccination program.
To date, 10 months later, the government has failed to respond to this report. In view of that some of the provincial governments have had to start initiating programs on their own. This means we are now developing a patchwork instead of an integrated public health program that would protect all Canadians.
The government has had 10 months to respond to this report. When does it intend to file a response to the hepatitis B report?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have heard my friend's representation and I will undertake to respond to him as soon as possible.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: On the
same point, Mr. Speaker. There are 17 reports awaiting a response from the government, 17 reports of standing committees of this House that have not received an answer in the appropriate time. Seventeen is a lot of reporting.
I know the parliamentary secretary is a fair and serious man. Will he give us an undertaking that we will have an answer by tomorrow as to why these reports are not in the possession of the House?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware all of us were preoccupied for some weeks with the referendum question. That now being behind us, these reports are now emerging.
While I cannot guarantee they will be available tomorrow, I can tell my hon. friend I have given assurances and I am sure myself that a large number of them will be deposited during the course of this week.
I cannot promise a deluge, but there will certainly be a flurry.



TOBACCO RESTRAINT ACT


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-382, an act to amend the Tobacco Restraint Act (persons under the age of 18 years).


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


Arnold John Malone: This bill is part of a series of initiatives that needs to be undertaken to enhance the health of Canadians. The bill yields two significant achievements. First, it raises the legal age for the purchase and use of tobacco from 16 to 18. Second, it increases the penalty for retailers who sell tobacco or tobacco products to minors.
The present legislation was enacted in 1908. It established that a person under the age of 16 convicted of smoking will be reprimanded upon first offence, be fined
December 7, 1992

not in excess of $1 upon second offence, and be fined not in excess of $4 on third or subsequent offences.
These amendments will allow an outdated and therefore useless law to become effective.
Tobacco use in Canada is our greatest health problem and each year 35,000 Canadians die because of smoking. That is more than the combined deaths caused by drug abuse, AIDS, murder, suicide and motor vehicle traffic accidents.
These amendments will correct an otherwise ineffective and inappropriate law.


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


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


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order of this House, on Monday, December 7,	1992 immediately after the supply
proceedings have been disposed of and after the deferred vote on second reading of Bill C-98, this House shall continue to sit and proceed with a special debate;
That for the purpose of this special debate the question before the House shall be:
"That this House affirm its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted with regard to the present situation in Somalia and for Canadian participation in the multinational effort to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia";
That no member be permitted to speak more than once and that speeches be limited to a maximum of 20 minutes;
That under the provisions of this order, the Speaker shall not entertain any dilatory motions or quorum calls;
That when no further member rises to speak, but no later than three hours after the commencement of this special debate, all
Routine Proceedings
questions necessary to dispose of the motion shall be put and if a
recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred until Tuesday,
December 8, 1992 at 3 p.m.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions with opposition parties with regard to the substance of the motion.
We are prepared to offer our consent to the motion. I do want to make the caveat that during debate, there may be occasion when members on our side will utilize the provisions of the Standing Orders and speak for ten and five, if that is in accordance with our understanding.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate our support for having a special debate tonight. My only regret is that we did not have a debate before the action was announced by the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in the petition I am presenting, the petitioners ask the government that the merger of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council with the Canada Council be halted until there is appropriate consultation.
They point out that Canada's major challenges today: the level of poverty, the level of unemployment, people being fed by food banks, people receiving social assistance, are really of the domain of the social sciences and humanities. They plead that to proceed as the government has indicated it wishes to is a step backward.

December 7, 1992
Routine Proceedings
They ask that it be deferred, that there be consultation before a decision is made. I concur and I hope that the government will support these petitioners.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in which the petitioners ask the Parliament of Canada to ensure that the CRTC carefully regulates the language used on radio and television programs.
They point out that on many occasions they have noted that the kind of language used is contrary to the efforts being made in homes throughout Canada.
They add that it is not necessary to use such language, which is a form of violence, and since we are very sensitive to violence in our society, there should be unanimous support for this proposal.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present.
The first one is from a group of my constituents in the Portage district who petition the government to find ways to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I also have five other petitions, not uncommon to this House in recent times, about changing the Criminal Code so that the Young Offenders Act would be updated and the Juvenile Delinquent Act be amended to a lower maximum age of 13 years.
These petitions come from Portage la Prairie and surrounding communities and I present them to the House today.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House today.
The first is from residents of Victoria, Sidney and the Gulf Islands. It is from concerned citizens who care about Canada losing a first class telephone system. That risk will increase if the CRTC accepts the proposal by Unitel and B.C. Rail to enter the telecommunications market.
The petitioners ask the government to consult with all affected parties, especially rural residents who risk substantially increased costs for telephone calls. I present that petition. It is a domestic issue.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the other issue on which I have a number of petitions to present to the House concerns something more distant.
It is the Three Gorges hydro project in China. These petitioners are from as far away as Toronto, Regina, Saskatchewan and all over Ontario. They ask the government to refuse to participate in or provide technical assistance, loans, grants, guarantees or subsidies in any form for any aspect of the Three Gorges dam project from this day on.
I urge the government to hear these petitioners and to act accordingly.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from residents of Cadillac, stating that films depicting violence on television are dangerous and unacceptable because they encourage further violence.
It says that all toys that are an incentive to violent games are unacceptable and that production of such toys should be banned. Freedom of the press should be restricted when reporting acts of violence. The repeated reporting of acts of violence on all television channels and on radio may encourage similar acts of violence.
Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass legislation dealing with the above, to wipe out violence in our society, protect our children and guarantee everyone in this country a better quality of life.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a host of petitions with thousands of names from residents of Nipissing Band No. 10, Sudbury, Hamilton, Blue River, Harrison Lake, Penticton, Lewis Creek, Clearwater, North Bay, Courtenay, Toronto, Kenora, Yellowknife, Charlottetown, Sturgeon Falls, Garden Valley, Sioux Valley, Kingston, Sioux Lookout, Kamloops, Barriere, Mine Centre, Kipawa, Mission, Victoria and Saskatoon.
December 7, 1992

All of these people support Bill C-268 which is an act respecting a national solidarity day for the First Nations of Canada. The record will show that when the bill was presented, the Progressive Conservatives in the House of Commons did not support it and consequently it was defeated.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of Canadians from Winnipeg, Manitoba and Dundurn, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners urge the government not to proceed with Bill C-91 and to repeal Bill C-22, passed in 1987, so that Canadians will have the full benefit of lower priced generic drugs. In this way, provincial and private drug plans can serve Canadians without being forced to charge higher fees and/or provide less service.
They do this because after 1987 when Bill C-22 was passed, drug prices did increase. Bill C-91 extends the time from 10 years to 20 years for the prohibition of generic drug manufacture in Canada. The drug companies simply do not need 20 years of exclusivity for their drugs.



POINT OF ORDER


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I notice that there is no one from the government side to move the usual motion that the questions stand. Perhaps now someone could respond.
I notice that question No. 406 has been on the Order Paper since September 16. You will know that the 45-day limit has long passed, Mr. Speaker. That question was in regard to the use of government aircraft by the Prime Minister.
Routine Proceedings
Question No. 407 of September 16 was in regard to the number of secure telephones that the Government of Canada has purchased.
Neither of those questions has been answered. In particular, the first one is a very easy one to answer. It is now about 65 days since I asked the question. The government, according to our rules, only has 45 days to answer.
I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the parliamentary secretary would be in a position to give us at least a commitment that these questions will be answered before the adjournment at the end of this week.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to apologize to you and to the House for being a little tardy in responding to your call. I would beg your indulgence, Sir.
I can get to my friend's question if the House would allow me to revert to responses to Questions on the Order Paper, and then I would be prepared to proceed, if the House would agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: We will then resume consideration of Questions on the Order Paper.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 410 and 412.


Mr. Barrett: Does the Minister of International Hade have a list of "third party support" for the North American free trade agreement and, if so, what are the names of these companies and individuals and what materials, if any, have been sent to them in relation to NAFTA?

Routine Proceedings


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TFade):: list of NAFTA "third party" supporters does not exist. However, what does exist is a computer list of public statements on NAFTA and/or trade which have been gathered from the press. Indeed, I myself am included in this list.
The list tabled November 23, 1992 under Question No. 409, assits us in both identifying public information needs and co-ordinating our trade communications. David Helwig, a journalist from St. Thomas, Ontario, writing in the Toronto Star (September 19, 1992) stated that: "the computer disk lists 200 letters to newspaper editors and articles judged to be favourable or neutral toward the NAFTA compared to only 79 negative".


Mr. Angus: Does the government, under the Department of National Defence, own and operate a vessel called HMCS Protecteur and, if so, (a) has the HMCS Protecteur visited ports of call or travelled through inland waterways west of the Welland Canal (b) what were the dates of any such passage through the Welland Canal (c) what were the problems associated with HMCS Protecteur moving through the Welland Canal system?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: The Department of National Defence owns and operates a vessel called HMCS Protecteur.
a)	HMCS Protecteur has not transited through the Welland Canal system and has therefore not visited any ports of call west of the canal.
b)	See a).
c)	Passage of HMCS Protecteur through the Welland Canal system was regarded as a safety risk to both the ship and the locks themselves owing to the very narrow clearances between the vessel and the canal walls.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I appreciate my friend from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell asking about questions Nos. 406 and 407. I can assure him that the response to question No. 406 is in the final stages of preparation, and that the response to question No. 407 should be ready shortly. I have been chasing this one for my friend and I will give it a little more diligence and see what we can produce for him.


Don Boudria: Thank you.


Ron J. Duhamel: I believe that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, will remember that it was almost a year ago that I asked a question that went somewhat as follows: How many dollars in taxes have been collected from the goods and services tax and which amounts, if any, of that have been given toward the deficit and the debt. To my knowledge that has not yet been answered. Apparently I am not in error. About three weeks ago I asked again in this House when this question would be answered. Two weeks ago I asked once again. I gave my colleague one week's rest so that he could be absolutely certain to get me those answers. As he can well appreciate, constituents are really concerned about the goods and services tax money and where it is going.
I wonder if we can get a commitment today that this series of questions will be answered by the end of the week before we recess.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend from St. Boniface well knows, the question has been answered in a different way. Nonetheless, he deserves a response to his questions.
He will recall that on Wednesday last the Minister of Finance confirmed what Canadians all happily know and that is that every net nickel raised by the goods and services tax goes to debt and deficit reduction by law.
However I can tell my friend that his prodding and my inquiries have resulted in this file moving upward and that it is in sight. I think we can promise that there will be something, I hesitate to say a specific day, but very, very soon.
December 7, 1992



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. Copps (p. 14701).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: After consideration, the Speaker is ready to declare that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor is in order.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to the motion tabled by the Liberal Party and its spokesperson and to the amendment moved by the NDP.
In a debate like this, I think it is important to consider what the situation was like in the past, what it is like now, and what we would like to see in the future. In this context, we must talk about productivity growth. It is not a new phenomenon, and I think many people in this country are familiar with the word. However, if we look at the statistics, we see that in this country, we need to improve our current level of productivity if we are to progress. As I say this, we are aware, of course, that Canada is recovering from a world recession. Although you may hear the opposition parties say this is a made-in-Canada recession, you and I know perfectly well that is not true. Most countries in the world have experienced or are experiencing economic problems.
If we look at world growth, in 1988 it was 4.3 per cent, while this year, in 1992, it will be about 1 per cent. The United States, Japan, Great Britain, Germany and all other industrialized countries, including Canada, have had a very difficult year as far as the economy and growth are concerned. Furthermore, Canada is now undergoing major industrial restructuring. We all know about the liberalization of trade with the United States, Mexico and the rest of the world. We also know that technical
Supply
and technological changes are accelerating in this country. We may not come first. We may not lead in that field. Maybe we should step up our efforts.
Our productivity, technological changes, the global recession, all have to be taken into consideration when the Minister of Finance comes up with an economic plan. The opposition takes the plan and throws it in the garbage. It says: "It is no good" without even having looked the whole thing over, as I just said, and without suggesting alternatives either, which is unfortunate.
You know, Mr. Speaker, when you are talking about this or that with your colleagues and you disagree with one of them, you normally say something like: "I do not agree on this or that and I think this is what we should do. I think that the answer is No. 4".
What we are seeing here is the opposition saying: "What the government is suggesting is no good". That is all we have been hearing for three, four days now-I am not sure exactly how long any more. They keep repeating this without offering sound, practical alternatives. We have to be realistic here.
The members opposite talked about a $12 billion road infrastructure project across the country. It might be a fine idea, but it is just not practical in the present Canadian economic context with the debt we inherited from that government in the context of 1980-81. We all know the difficult times we have gone through then. Inflation was 10 per cent. Interest rates were running as high as 22, 23 and 24 percent. They are suggesting we increase the deficit and allow inflation to rise again. Automatically, interest rates will start rising too. Then what? You end up with job creation projects for six or eight months, a year if you are lucky, without the real issues, the problem with productivity, new technologies and the global recession having been dealt with.
That is what we have to work with, the basic factors, and the Minister of Finance has done just that. That is why his economic plan is sound. It is hard to stomach. Not everyone is happy with it. I for one. But this plan is set in a Canadian and global context.

Supply
We talk about the current debt exceeding $400 billions, but where does this debt come from? It was $206 billion when we were elected in 1984. Add to that interest on $206 billion since 1984 and you get the amount of the current debt. This means that since 1984, this government has managed to no longer borrow to pay for programs, government operations, government spending, except for debt charges.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, our accumulated operating surplus since the fiscal year 1987-88 is nearly $34 billion, which means that had it not been for the debt charges we have had to pay on the debt we inherited, we would now have a $33 billion surplus in our coffers.
Again, the opposition will argue: "No wonder. You have raised taxes umpteen times since". This government's operating surplus since 1987-88 is due in part to a 30 per cent tax hike and in part to 70 per cent cuts in government spending. We have administered, we have managed this country as well as it could be. There is still room for improvement. There is no doubt in my mind about that. However, we have taken big steps to ensure that on every tax dollar paid to government, not one per cent goes toward the interest on the debt, not one per cent has to be taken to borrow to pay for the day-to-day stuff, the equivalent of groceries for a family. The money which comes in here stays here and pays all the government's expenses and some is left. Unfortunately, the problem is that there is not enough left to pay the huge amount of interest on the immense debt we inherited.
In that context, the finance minister's economic plan is important. In a difficult period of global change, we must have a vision of the future. The Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada must take measures that may seem Draconian but are important in the long run for the well-being of a community and a country called Canada.
Again, I challenge the opposition. Instead of a motion condemning the government, which is easy to do-The motion of the hon. member for Hamilton East has two lines: That the House of Commons condemn the government for its economic policy which is no good. Two lines. Where are the suggestions? Where are the improvements to the system which the opposition could very well suggest and which we would be ready to listen to and work on for the good of Canada? Again, I did say these
should be valid, feasible suggestions. Do not ask us to spend more and more; the government has none. Forget about spending projects. We must act and as we said in 1984, we are acting and will continue to act to reduce the deficit. Canada must not end up totally in debt. That is why the measures taken are not easy.
I think that we must honestly see the positive points. In the third quarter, housing sales and starts increased over last year. This is partly due to a measure that the Minister of Finance put in the 1992 budget allowing the use of RRSP money for the purchase of new homes. Domestic demand in Canada and purchases have increased and 77,000 new jobs have been created since April. I am in a good position to tell you and to know that that is not enough in Canada, in the Tbois-Rivieres region or in Quebec. But when do you hear about the
77.000	jobs created since April? When, in this House, does a member of the opposition rise to congratulate the government for the 77,000 jobs it has created? After all,
77.000	new jobs is better than nothing. But no, when a member rises it is to talk about all those who are unemployed, again without necessarily suggesting solutions, or else to propose solutions that would make the inflation rate go up. We know that if inflation goes up, interest rates will also go up. Consumers, small businesses and large companies will not be able to improve technically, benefit from the new technology and be competitive if interest rates go up to 20 per cent or 22 per cent and inflation is 10 per cent. We know that because we experienced this situation in 1981-82. It simply does not work.
I also want to talk about the famous GST. The GST replaced the federal sales tax which had been in existence for 65 years and which taxed people at a 13.5 per cent rate, unbeknown to them. A 13.5 per cent tax was applied on cars and numerous other items, but nobody knew about it. Everybody was happy; everybody was paying taxes, but nobody knew about it.
This government wanted to implement a taxation system that would be more visible, fair and equitable; it wanted a tax system based on consumption. If you earn $200,000 a year, you consume and pay tax, a tax you see and know. On the other hand, some money is given back to low income people who must also pay the GST but who are financially less secure.
December 7, 1992

The GST puts Canada on the same level as some 50 other countries in the world. No country in the world has a federal sales tax like we had. Some 50 countries have the GST, which is called the TVA in France. You might say that we should have eliminated the federal sales tax and not replaced it with the GST. I agree. The problem is that we would have had a major shortfall and we would have had to find this money elsewhere, namely by raising income taxes and excise taxes. We would have had to find the money to replace the revenue generated by this federal sales tax which is now the GST. We simply did not have the means to abolish the federal sales tax without replacing it. As an elected politician, I would obviously have preferred to tell the people of Trois-Rivieres that we were eliminating the federal sales tax, that we had lots of money and therefore would not have to replace that tax with another one. But given the context that we know, given the financial situation that we inherited, it was impossible.
Thanks to the GST, Canadian exporters have so far saved $3.5 billion. This is not often mentioned, but it is also good news. Since the GST replaced the federal sales tax, which was obsolete and which no longer met the economic and practical needs of our country, our exports have increased by $16 billion. This increase of $16 billion in exports represents roughly 200,000 new jobs. That is not bad news either. In fact, it is good news. That must be said. Before I became a member of Parliament, I was a lawyer in Trois-Rivieres and I worked with an accountant who used to say: "No coin is so thin as to have only one side". The GST is the other side of that coin. This is the positive side of that tax. I believe we must emphasize this reality.
All this is part of the economic plan which has been put in place by our government since 1984. Look at the different stages since 1984 and you will see that there is a plan, a philosophy behind this all, and that all the pieces of the puzzle are gradually being put together. Sometimes it is more difficult. We have to look for the right piece, but then we find it. So it is with the economic plan of last week.
The motion of the hon. member is unfortunately yet another action just like those taken by the opposition in the last eight years, namely to condemn the government without once again proposing any fresh ideas. We are
Supply
open to new ideas, but let us not forget that these ideas must be new, valid and feasible.
Those are my comments on the motion of the opposition, and of course I urge the members of this House to vote against this motion which brings absolutely nothing positive, which makes no suggestion whatsoever, and which leaves us in a state of limbo just like the opposition has been in for the last eight years.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member and I noticed he was looking for congratulations. He said that this side of the House never gives the government congratulations. I think that is not totally accurate. Many times on this side of the House we talked about this particular aspect of the Small Businesses Loans Act. That is a good initiative that the government has put forward. I am disappointed that it has taken nine months to put it through the House because we are all pretty amenable to that particular piece of legislation. It will help many of the million-odd small businesses in the country.
I think it is important that the government communicate that piece of legislation not just to the bankers but also to the small businesses. I think the minister responsible for small business and tourism would concede that in some of his discussions with small businesses in the past few days, many of them had not heard about the piece of legislation the government had designed and amended.
The point I want to make is that quite often on the government side of the House you do not do things perfectly and here is a specific example. It is our responsibility as opposition to speak for the people who are disadvantaged.
I have said that many times before.
You cannot expect us to stand up all the time and pat the government on the back. The fact of the matter is that the GST was a poorly designed tax at a very poor time and one of the things we know for certain now is that it has created a massive underground economy. If we were to just sit over here and not point this out to the government, we would not be living up to our responsibility as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

December 7, 1992
Supply
The same goes for inflation. This government is so possessed by inflation that it forgets that the people who should be congratulated for inflation are not the government, but the 1.5 million and 2 million and many more who are bearing the brunt of the aggressive inflation policy of the government.
I think it is overly fixed on inflation. I think it could let up a little bit.
My question to the member is-and I have tried to be constructive in my tone and specific on one particular area-does he not feel that it is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to point out to the government when it sort of makes errors in its economic policy?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I must say that the hon. member is always present and available to ask or answer questions during a debate. I appreciate his question.
The hon. member will allow me to make a brief comment on the Small Businesses Loans Act. In his budget, the minister said that the act would be amended. However, I have to agree with him that the tabling and the passing of this legislation is taking a very long time. I would hope that the minister responsible will speed up the process as much as possible.
When the hon. member says that a lot of small businesses are not aware of these amendments, I can tell him that I mentioned these changes in my parliamentary bulletin and I received many calls in my office from people inquiring about when this legislation would be passed, how to apply, et cetera. I think that it is the duty of all members, regardeless of their party, to keep the people informed of the government's actions. I saw quite a few householders put out by my Conservative colleagues in which they mentioned this particular legislation. But I saw an equally good number of them, not necessarily from members of his own party, but from the opposition, which did not mention these amendments.
There is no doubt in my mind that members, even if they belong to the opposition, must keep their constituents informed of what the government is doing through their householders. They may not agree with what it is
doing but I think that, in any case, it is their duty to mention it. Sometimes I think that some of them are remiss in that department.
This creates a problem since there are 130 ridings in Canada which are not represented by government members. Therefore, if in these 130 ridings, constituents do not receive through their householders information regarding what is going on here for all intents and purposes, they are not informed. The government cannot step in a riding and tell people that it is going to inform them and then proceed with giving them a householder different from the one they received from their member. I do not think that this would be appropriate either. We do seem to have a communication problem at this level.
He said that as far as the GST was concerned, it was bad timing and that it was poorly designed. I agree with him on the time chosen to introduce the GST. It is never the right time to introduce a new tax, no matter the date, the day, the hour or the year. Mr. Speaker, neither you nor I like taxes, neither does my colleague or anybody else for that matter. There cannot be a good time to introduce a new tax, I must agree with him.
When he claims that it was poorly designed, I think that it is normal for glitches to happen at the beginning; when you alter a system which is 65 years old, you expect that it will take one year before everything is in place. I think that it is normal in such a context. One has to be realistic.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is up, I will therefore conclude with a comment on my colleague's remarks regarding inflation. In my mind it is of paramount importance for a government to deal with the inflation issue since, if it fails to do so, it will have a whole bunch of economic repercussions.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker,
I welcome this opportunity to speak today on this motion which really talks about the economic direction of this government.
I must say that I agree with the motion that this House condemn the government's continued adherence to its failed economic policy.
December 7, 1992

Obviously, this country is facing an economic crisis; 1.6 million Canadians are out of work and there is little indication that this will go down any time in the near future.
In the last year thousands and thousands of businesses have gone bankrupt. Agriculture in this country is in decline and cities and towns that desperately need infrastructure work are literally falling apart.
I think it is fair to say this is all a fair indication of the failed economic plan of this government. We can no longer put the blame on past governments. We have to face the reality of today's.
I know that sitting on this side of the House it is easy to criticize. As a member of the Official Opposition, my role in many ways is to criticize government policy in an attempt to make the government responsible. At the same time I do realize, and many here on this side realize, that we too have to offer constructive criticism, that we have to offer alternatives. I believe that my colleagues on this side of the House throughout this morning and this afternoon have been outlining these positive alternatives for Canada.
To start off, it is really fair to say that the jobs, jobs, jobs strategy of the government has really been a failure and that these jobs have not materialized. If they have materialized they have really been short term jobs and they really have not been able to lead Canadians into futures, into careers that they can feel comfortable with and feel that they can be with for some time.
Unemployment is a staggering 11.3 per cent and close to 19 per cent of Canadian youth are unemployed. I think that we can say with much certainty that the economic policies of this government are not working for Canadian youth. They are not putting them back to work.
The point is that we are in a recession and we all agree that the world is in a recession. This recession has hit Canada harder than any other G-7 country. It has hit us hard when we look at our youth and at our high unemployment rates.
I can safely say that this government policy direction has done nothing to get us out of this recession. I think most hon. members would agree. The government has to admit that our unemployment rates are higher than anywhere else in the G-7, that we have failed Canadians by not putting them back to work.
Supply
We know that with the government's economic policy the consumers did not start spending again. We know that people did not start building houses. We know that businesses did not start investing. It is certainly fair to say that industry did not modernize its plants or expand production because of the government's economic policies.
The point is that because of low interest rates there has been no economic growth. We all called for low interest rates, but we also called for other action by this government and the government has refused to take that action. On Wednesday the minister reduced the economic growth that he had suggested only in February would be 4.5 per cent down to 2.5 per cent. Most other analysts predict it will be somewhere around one per cent.
What kind of economic growth is that? The simple fact is that we have to make economic growth and job creation among Canada's top priorities, especially as they relate to our younger people. This next generation sees no hope or no future in this economic plan of the government.
Strangely, we hear from this government that Canada has to be more competitive, more challenging on the international markets and be willing to be more forward looking, better skilled and more educated. The government talks well and it brought out a good study on competitiveness. It talked about a lot of the problems.
It did not give us any solutions. The Minister of Finance in his economic statement has essentially told Canadians that he is not listening to his own study.
I have always said that in order to become more competitive in Canada, we must be committed to new initiatives to promote labour force training, research and development and marketing support. I know members opposite would agree to that. Ultimately our commitment to that has to be unequivocal. We have to be willing to put our resources there, no matter what the problems, and direct what limited resources we have in that direction.
Unfortunately, nothing in the minister's economic statement addresses this area in any meaningful way. What we have are promises to fulfil old promises and to fulfil previous promises. The promises are not being fulfilled. In fact Canadians are not buying it any more. Canadians want action and they want action today.

December 7, 1992
Supply
This government has to give Canadians hope. Wednesday's statement did little to do that. Contrary to what the government thinks, Canadians can be the engine of economic growth. If we want Canadians to start spending again, if we want the private sector to be ready for the challenges of globalization, we have to show them that the government is willing to invest in Canadians and to take this initiative.
We need to kick-start the economy. It is only common sense that we need to get the economy rolling again. This government's paltry commitment to that of some $500 million just does not wash.
One approach to get the economy working again is to implement a comprehensive infrastructure program. We on this side of the House have been calling for this for some time now. Unfortunately the government's proposals in its recent economic statements really are inadequate. Hundreds of towns and cities across this country have infrastructure projects ready to go. The amount of $500 million promised in last Wednesday's mini budget only amounts to about one-quarter of the $2.4 billion taken away from the unemployed in the economic statement. That supposedly will create some 5,000 jobs. With 480,000 young people out of work, big deal.
Recently the Canadian Federation of Municipalities estimated that at least $20 billion must be spent to maintain our existing bridges, highways and sewage treatment plants. Obviously $500 million is not going to go a long way.
To conclude I would like to offer some advice to this government. Fiscal responsibility means more than cutting and slashing. It means more than just the bottom line. In fact this countiy has had enough pain from this government.
I believe the economic crisis we face today necessitates the government take proactive measures on the economy. I also believe there is a difference between spending and investing. Let us invest in Canadians. This shortterm measure can be done discriminately and responsibly by ensuring that every line item of spending is scrutinized.
This government has to concede that its economic policy has not worked and that a new action plan is needed. To provide leadership a government must be
willing to do what is best for the people it purports to serve. It cannot be constrained by what it says is its ideology and in this case tired economic theory. We have to get things back on track and we have to get Canadians working again.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the very thoughtful remarks of my distinguished colleague from the riding of Haldi-mand-Norfolk. In particular, today he was asking a question of the government on the important issue of unemployment among Canadian youth.
I want to ask my colleague two questions. First, we are living in very difficult economic times for our youth. He has mentioned, very eloquently of course, what the government has failed to do to assist our youth. But another thought comes to mind, the present policies of the Ontario NDP that have increased tuition fees for our youth in our universities and have at the same time cut back on student loans. This is from a party that had promised to abolish tuition fees, if we can believe it.
I want to ask my colleague which he thinks is the worse: this federal Conservative government or the provincial NDP.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, that has to be one of the toughest questions I have had to answer in the House.
Granted, the country is going through a recession. We have admitted that. We have also admitted that the recession is world-wide. However, there are specific ideas and specific proposals put out by us and by different student groups and groups of unemployed that suggest certain ways in which the hardship of our economic times can be alleviated in certain sectors.
Obviously the provincial NDP has moved in certain areas. I will give it credit for some of the areas it has moved in. It has invested some money in infrastructure in order to put some people back to work immediately. Unfortunately it has failed in the over-all picture of dealing with the problems of university students, students who have no jobs and must spend time in university until there is an opportunity out there for them.
I will give credit to this government in certain areas. Under the youth portfolio it has good programs to keep people in school. I think that is great and we need to invest in that area. I am glad the government has looked at the longer term picture.
December 7, 1992

Right now, immediately, there are 480,000 people out of work. That cannot be ignored. We cannot say: "We are going to wait for the U.S. economy or the world economy to turn around and these people will eventually get a job. They may lose two, three or four years of their lives because of it, but we all have to take the pain and we all have to take the hardship". That does not wash. There are certain things this government can do today to invest in our young people, to invest in Canadians and to give them something to bridge the hard economic times they are facing today.
To answer my hon. colleague's question, both of them have done a minimal amount to help our young people but both of them sorely lack and have failed to address the main problem of 480,000 young Canadians who are out of work.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the opposition motion today. I will try to put it in the context, as everybody else has done, of the utter disgrace we witnessed last week with the Minister of Finance and something he called an economic statement.
Personally, I was rather looking forward to it. I thought it would be some kind of blueprint and that Canadians could look forward to hearing something positive in it to address the problems they confronted at this time. Once again we saw the government failing Canadians, failing to focus Canada toward something that was positive and something that was renewable, something we could look forward to in the way of sound economic principles. It was totally lacking in what the Minister of Finance had to say.
Instead of taking measures which would instil confidence in Canadians, the government did nothing more than increase the levels of fear and the levels of apprehension in the minds of Canadians. The country is begging for leadership and integrity in leadership. It is not and has not been getting them from those opposite.
We spend a lot of time in the House talking about our internal problems, our social problems, violence in society, homeless people, the needs of the poor, food banks and the ever increasing number of people with a growing dependence on food banks. This is Canada, one of the richest countries in the world. Something is not
Supply
meshing here. There is a great correlation between those problems we dwell on so often and in such great depth.
Employment opportunities, there seems to be a correlation there. If you increase the one, you will decrease the other. I do not think anyone would argue with that. If that is true, and I think most people would agree that it is, why was unemployment not addressed in the mini budget, the economic statement or whatever it was? It was not addressed in a serious way.
The best context in which you could put this is, I am told, that it costs Canadian taxpayers about $15,000 to keep a full time equivalent person on unemployment for a year. There is $15,000. If the person was working and making the average Canadian wage, he would not need the $15,000 naturally. In turn, he would be putting back into the economy in the way of taxes paid $7,000 or $8,000, depending on the wage scale.
With employment opportunities, Canadians would rediscover themselves. It would put some stability into those families once again, put some stability into our communities once again, make taxpayers out of the unemployed. It would have made sense if our finance minister had seen that correlation between employment or unemployment and the ability to pay taxes.
We are in tough times in Canada right now. I think Canadians were in the mood for a tough time strategy at this time in our history and we did not get it last Wednesday. The government tinkered and fiddled around a little bit with UI benefits when what we needed actually was an attack on the conditions that cause unemployment.
We did not need an attack on those who find themselves unemployed. They have been attacked for long enough. In this country, we need a revamped infrastructure. I am not suggesting that we should put people to work and call it work if it is just busy work. I do not think anyone would want to address the problem that way.
However, if you drive on the major highways in Canada today, you see that they are becoming dilapidated and worn out. Most of them were designed to carry a load for about 20 or 25 years. With little left of them, we are going to be confronted very soon in this country with a major bill for restructuring the major highways of this country.

Supply
What was in the finance minister's statement about major highways in Ontario? Absolutely nothing. We need a retrained work force in this country. Canadians will only rediscover themselves when the government shows some vision, when it has given them an opportunity to get back to work. The government had that opportunity last week and once again it disappointed the majority of Canadians.
There is an inscription about 100 metres from here on the west arch of the Peace Tower that reads: "Where there is no vision, the people perish". That is the stage at which we seem to be in Canada right now with a lack of vision on the part of this country.
I think becoming the Prime Minister of this country should never become someone's obsession, where he must become Prime Minister. Forming a government in this country should never become an end in itself, as it seems to be with the current government.
Put that in a more practical way. The signing of the free trade agreement should never have been an end in itself. The signing of the free trade agreement was just the beginning. It should have been followed by a massive restructuring of skills development so that Canadians who wanted to go to work would have had the skills in a much changed world economy which we are supposed to be embracing. I am not condemning the embracing of it, but I am condemning the lack of ability of the government to get on with it.
The Prime Minister said that anyone displaced by the free trade would be retrained. Canada is waiting. A vibrant, zealous work force that was offered meaningful opportunities for Canadians was called for at this time. This tax and spend mind set of the current government has to be replaced by an investment in growth mind set. We have done it before in Canada.
We moved from an agricultural base after the Second World War to an industrial base. That was a massive thing for Canadians to do. The difference was that at that time we had leaders with vision, leaders with integrity, and we are lacking in that department so obviously that we have brought ourselves almost to our knees by that lack of vision which is so apparent today in the benches across the way.
In those years there was excitement. There was a kind of an exuberance and a vibrancy among Canadians. They had confidence in what they were doing. Those ideas were promoted by men and women who had vision and knew where they wanted to carry this country.
I do not think that the needs and the challenges of today are any more than they were in those years. However, the difference is that there is no leadership, no vision from the present government. That is the major difference. It seems to be paralysed and it seems to be fossilized in its present locked-step method. It is either not prepared or it is not capable of giving the required leadership. The government seems to be caught up in its own importance.
Now its total obsession is when would be the most opportune time for it to call an election? Never mind what it would do to Canada. Never mind what a delay would do or what stepping up the date would do. What would be the best position for us to get a fix on for a date that would make sure that we again try to fool Canadians? I do not think that Canadians are going to be fooled this time. They are looking for direction.
This government has done nothing to expand the economy of the country. If you are going to continue to try and draw revenues from a stagnant economy, all you are really doing is digging yourself into a bigger hole and compounding your problems. Promises are no longer valid when they come from the government across the way because it has seen so many of them so quickly vanish, with no attempt whatsoever to see that they were carried through.
In closing, if someone asked me what I would have done, I would have announced grandly that we were cancelling the $4.5 billion helicopter order. Every Canadian from St. John's, Newfoundland to the west coast to the north would have applauded the government and even this government might have retained or regained a little bit of integrity with that step.
There something at play out there. It is called mass hysteria; trying to equip us with 50 helicopters at a time when unemployment rolls are extending more and more. Bread lines are extending more and more.
December 7, 1992

I see my time has expired.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his insightful observations. I am only sorry that he did not get a chance to continue.
We are discussing today the failed economic policies of this government. I wonder if he would like to make some commentary on the following examples. I will quote the examples of this failure.
In 1984, at the end of the fiscal year, I have a signed letter from the then Minister of Finance indicating that the debt was $167.8 billion. It is now in the neighbourhood of $450 billion. The deficit at that time was in excess of $30 billion and it is now as well. There is no improvement there either.
If one looks at the revenues at the end of 1984, they were in the neighbourhood of $70 billion. Now they are roughly $130 billion. Government has almost doubled its revenues and yet on the deficit there has been no real substantial improvement and the debt has deteriorated significantly.
Let us look at the situation. Unemployment is over 1.6 million and roughly half a million of those unemployed are young people. Over two million Canadians are receiving social assistance as we speak now. Over two million Canadians will be fed at food banks this year. Surely there has been no progress in that department.
If one looks at the level of poverty in Canada, we note that people living at the poverty level or below are almost five million. The majority are women, and over one million of those are children.
The government has been downloading as well to colleges, universities, provinces, municipalities. It attempts to suggest to Canadians that it has made some progress, that it has had some success. I wonder if my colleague would care to comment on those examples. Those are examples of failure. Are there other examples that he would like to share with us, and does he want to add some additional commentary?


Jim Jordan: I want to thank my colleague for the excellent question.
He mentions that we went from roughly a $168 billion deficit to something like $400 billion. That would not be
Supply
so bad except through all that the standard of living for most Canadians has dropped. You would expect if you were going out and getting that far in debt that you would have surrounded yourself with some luxuries. The statistics will show that just the opposite is happening, which indicates to me that there was no strategy whatsoever. There seemed to be almost a determination that we would go farther in debt and more Canadians would see their dreams, if they are entitled to have dreams anymore, shattered even more.
I think there is no way that it was expressed more clearly than in one of the national dailies. The headline reads: "The Tories may be proud of juggling the numbers, but Canadians see only the wreckage left over". It goes on to say: "Leadership means more than managing the economy competently. It means giving the nation a reason to pull together, a sense of direction, a vision. The Tories have lost their ability to call forth the best in Canadians and the people have lost their will to listen to them".
The last thing I wanted to say with the language of an economist-and they will use this-is when you do not go in the hole quite as far as you thought you would, they call it a surplus. I have seen them do that on another occasion. They plan to put more debt on the Canadian people, and if in any one year they have not gone quite as far in debt as they said they were going to go, they will call it a surplus. I was always rather surprised at that term. It is obviously an attempt to mislead the Canadian people, that is all. That is what this article in the daily suggests, that the Tories are juggling the numbers. That is the numbers game that we are into now. Canadians are not going to buy it.


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I just heard the hon. member say that there had been a deliberate attempt by this government to mislead the Canadian people. I wish that remark to be withdrawn.


Jim Jordan: I was quoting when I said a deliberate attempt to mislead the Canadian people. I will have to check the "blues" on that.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, it was very clear. The member was not quoting and I would appreciate it if he would withdraw the remark.


Jim Jordan: If the member is that sensitive, in spite of the fact that most Canadians would not object to that statement, it really shows you the state that the govern-

December 7, 1992
Supply
ment is in when that comment bothers him to that degree. If he is that sensitive about it, if it makes him feel any better, when most Canadians, particularly those who are unemployed, would agree with me, we will do what we have to do to satisfy the gentleman because he probably will not be sitting in the House too much longer anyway.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I thank the members from both sides of this House for their co-operation.
[English \


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat difficult to stand in this House and respond to the kind of remarks we just heard because it is difficult to know where to start. The twisting of facts by the hon. member who just spoke is almost incomprehensible.
The situation with the debt and the deficit is concerning. I think we had better take a couple of minutes now just to try and run through it in a factual way so we can perhaps correct some of the misapprehensions, the misstatements of fact that the hon. member who just spoke has put forth in this House.
My constituents in the riding of Halton-Peel have consistently demonstrated to me that they have not only a good understanding of our financial situation as a nation but real and honest concern, bordering sometimes on horror, for the state of the country's finances, particularly with respect to the debt and the deficit we have now.
I may remind the House that I did stand in this House some days ago and make an apology to my constituents because I have been telling them over the last couple of years that this government had certain deficit targets and the government would meet those targets.
We have found out it is going to be impossible for that to happen and I felt duty bound to apologize to them for having told them something was going to happen that did not.
Having said that, I also need to explain to my constituents why and I think this is the most important point. I have tried to use various ways of involving my constituents in this debate about the debt and the deficit and the choices that any government in Canada has to make now at federal and provincial levels to deal with it.
I put out a brochure called You Be the Finance Minister in which I listed every single expenditure that the federal government makes and asked people to draft their own budgets and submit them back to me, and thousands did.
I have done a number of surveys in my riding and I have one out right now which basically asks people a number of very detailed economic questions and asks again for the kinds of decisions they would make in terms of running Canada's financing.
I have had approximately 40 townhall meeting in my riding since I have been elected and most of those have dealt with economic issues because those were the questions that came up from the floor.
My correspondence is extremely heavy with letters from people who are concerned about the debt and the deficit, whether the government is taking appropriates actions to deal with it.
There are many points that have been brought up in this debate so far that we should examine. We should try and understand the nature of the problem that Canada faces and I guess what the alternatives are on this side of the House and the other side of the House for dealing with those problems.
As hon. members opposite have mentioned over the last few minutes, Canada is not alone in having a recession today. There are many nations across the western industrialized world finding themselves in similar situations. A number of these countries have also seen their currencies under attack partly because they have been weakened. They are sort of wounded animals in the economic landscape and a lot of speculators, vultures, will come in and try and take advantage of those wounded economies.
We have seen currency speculations trying to destroy the French franc. We have seen currency speculation in terms of some of the Scandinavian countries and we saw it most recently with the Canadian dollar. A global recession breeds weak economies which breed volatile currencies. We know all of those things, they are facts.
December 7, 1992

The recession has lead to low growth and high unemployment in a lot of countries, Canada included. Part of the reason we have such difficulty right now is our mounting debts. This is what the member who just spoke concentrated on. He tried to pin exclusive blame on the government for the fact that the country's debt has literally doubled in the last eight years, and he is perfectly correct.
He is absolutely correct and I am not going to dispute it for a minute and this is one of the reasons I had to stand in this House and apologize to my constituents. That debt has doubled. It is a matter of fact, it is there, we have to deal with it. At the same time we need to make sure my constituents and all Canadians are informed about how that happened.
In terms of our debt our fiscal position is the second worst among the G-7 countries, among the seven largest western industrialized countries.
On a national accounts basis, our deficit last year was
6.1	per cent of our gross domestic product. That is totally unacceptable.
The figures for Canada's total public debt now add up to 48.5 per cent of our gross domestic product on a national accounts basis. Again, we are second worst among the G-7 countries. Only Italy has a worse record than Canada right now.
I would like to go back and tiy to understand how we got into this pickle. Why is the country in such a mess? A lot of people do not like it when politicians stand up and blame other politicians, blame history, or blame past governments or governmental actions for the situation we are in today. I tend to agree with them. It is a bit annoying.
I do want to stress that actions taken today have consequences for tomorrow. It is true today, in 1992. It is true for 20 years ago and it is true for 25 years ago. The actions we take in one day have consequences far down the line.
When I was a journalist I covered an economic summit conference of the G-7 countries in Venice. At the time the finance minister of Canada was Allan MacEachen. I remember chatting with him in Venice as a journalist. He had just unveiled a budget which had a very sizeable deficit for those days of $8 billion.
Supply
A lot of us in the financial press were scandalized that the Government of Canada had brought in a deficit that was that high. I remember asking MacEachen-this was about 14 years ago-whether he was concerned about the consequences in the future of the deficit in the budget he had brought in that day. The finance minister at the time said: "No. We run deficits as a normal course of events. We subscribe to deficit financing".
Was he right, and did they ever.
During that period of time that I was a journalist I was trying to get the finance minister to explain how Canada was going to be helped by running an operating deficit. In the 15 years before 1984 program spending in this country increased by an average of 14 per cent a year, which was nearly two full percentage points faster than the economy was growing. Spending was growing faster than the economy.
At the same time the tax base had deteriorated because of tax exemptions.
By 1984-85 when this government came into office, when we inherited that $168 billion deficit the members opposite have just been talking about, program spending exceeded revenues by $16 billion a year and the government was spending $1.33 for every dollar it was collecting in tax revenue.
The growth of the government debt had become self-perpetuating by that point. Those deficits that the finance minister told me at the economic summit he was not worried about had suddenly accumulated to the point where the deficit itself was growing cancerously.
The compounding nature of the debt ensured that it would only be harder to deal with in the future. I have just quoted right out of Investing in Growth, which is one of the documents tabled last Wednesday by the Minister of Finance.
What the minister was talking about was what the Minister of Finance was not talking to me about 15 years earlier, and that was the magic of compound interest. It is true that the $168 billion debt in 1984-85 has become one of more than $400 billion today.
All of the additional debt that has been added since 1984 has been through compound interest. There has been no new debt added because of any actions taken by this government. Not a cent has been added to the debt by this government adding on to it.

Supply
Furthermore, if the government had not run an operating surplus over the last three years the debt would be higher today than it is now.
The members opposite do not want Canadians to know that the actions of the government itself have not added to that debt. In the future, whatever party forms the government is going to run into exactly the same strait-jacket. That is what we all have to understand on all sides of the House. It is not just a Tory problem or a Conservative debt. The government that is formed after the next election, whatever it is, will have exactly the same problems as the government today. There is no magic solution. There is no magic bullet. There is no way that we can snap our fingers and ease the problems.
The interest on the debt this year will require $42 billion in tax revenues to finance, and about one-third of that is leaving the country in interest to foreign bond holders. In other words, we are going to be putting $8 billion, $9 billion or $10 billion into the pockets of German, Japanese and American bond holders. That is about the worst economic policy that we can have because it hurts Canada's sovereignty.
A lot of the other interest is flowing from the pockets of taxpayers. Whether they are old folks, single parents or families they are all contributing tax dollars that will end up flowing into the pockets of investors who bought Government of Canada bonds. I do not see how members opposite can approve of that. We are taking money from people in all social and economic categories and putting it into the pockets of people who are generally better off, the bond holders of Canada. It is not good social policy.
The New Democrats should be on their feet screaming to end the deficit because it is making the rich richer and the poor poorer. That is what it is doing. It has to stop.
This economic situation that the Minister of Finance found himself in last Wednesday was not a happy one. It was an inevitable one. I guess we could have done what Allan MacEachen did when he was Minister of Finance, which is crank up the printing presses more, spend more than the economy is growing, and forget that today's actions have future consequences.
The finance minister of today did not take that course. He did something a lot tougher, something that is going to draw a lot of fire from the opposition, something that is going to be misinterpreted by those who continue to
deny reality and do not want to face up to the facts. The	fl
finance minister found himself in a situation in which he	H
has to find $42 billion this year to pay interest on the	H
debt.	I
He found himself trying to craft an economic state-	B
ment and guide a country in a world that is restructuring	fl
in terms of its whole economy. Low wage jobs are	fl
flowing to low wage countries. High-tech, high value-	fl
added jobs are the ones being sought by our competitors,	H
who are also high value-added, high wage countries like	H
Germany and Japan.	H
The finance minister found himself in a situation in	H
which competitiveness and productivity are the chal-	H
lenges of today. He did not have to find new ways to turn	H
on the printing presses but ways to be competitive	H
through deregulation, sane taxes, and integrated eco-	fl
nomic policies so that Canadian companies can compete	H
across the world.	fl
The finance minister stood here and found himself	fl
trying to craft a budget at a time when investor confi-	fl
dence and consumer confidence are very weak. One of	H
the reasons is that every day in this House of Commons	fl
members opposite stand up and give a tale of woe and	fl
doom about the economy. They do everything they can	fl
to try to accentuate the negative and they are reinforced	fl
by the media. The Official Opposition is doing a lot in	fl
this country to grind down the feelings of people about	H
the fact that their country is one of the best in the world,	fl
as judged by almost every international agency that looks	fl
at us from afar.	H
As a consequence, the Minister of Finance stands in gfl this Chamber and deals with certain realities: a drastic $8	H
billion annual drop in revenues because of the recession;	fl
an unacceptably high 1.6 million	people	unemployed that	fl
we need to do something for; slow retail sales; this frenzy	fl
of negative news that surrounds us; the deficit rising	fl
beyond targets; the dollar under pressure because of	I
speculation on a weak currency from a weak economy;	fl
and interest rates having to rise to defend that dollar.	fl
Those are the realities, the economic realities, almost	fl
all of which the Minister of Finance had no control over. fl Yet he has to deal with them. What would the opposition fl do, given the circumstances that I have just described	fl
with a global recession and a debt that is cancerously	H
growing by itself? What would	the	opposition	do?	fl
December 7, 1992

The New Democratic Party is on record as saying what it would do. It would scrap the GST without telling us where and how $15 billion would be found to replace the revenues being lost. It would just scrap the GST and throw it away.
The New Democratic Party says that it would rip up the free trade agreement, the very free trade agreement that has increased our exports with the United States by
10.5	per cent this year alone, that is responsible for $16 billion in additional trade with the United States. Exports right now are the strongest segment of our economy and are dragging this recovery right along. The New Democratic Party would just rip it up, build a new wall around Canada, keep out the prosperity and keep out the wealth.
What would the NDP do? The NDP says: "Well, we will just tax the rich". I think my constituents have a sinking feeling that the NDP are referring to them as rich. Maybe hard-working folks, middle class folks who own their own homes and who work hard to try to put their kids through school are the people the NDP call the rich. I think it would target my constituents.
What else would the NDP do? The NDP would probably try to do what Bob Rae has done in Ontario. Bob Rae is the man who leads a government which in four years will add more debt to the province of Ontario than was accumulated in the 125 years that preceded that four-year period. Bob Rae is the same man who would start making us pay to drive on the roads that we have already paid to have paved. Bob Rae is the man who says he is ready to raise new personal income taxes. About the last thing this economy needs is more taxes. More taxes make us less competitive, but that is what Bob Rae would do. Bob Rae is the man who has just introduced labour law reform in the province of Ontario, which would handicap employers during a strike and drive investment away from the province of Ontario, which scares people who now are maybe going to Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania or other places where there is right to work legislation diametrically opposed to the right to strike legislation in Ontario. This is the same Bob Rae who leads a government that is now being roundly criticized in international markets, who leads a govem-
Supply
ment that investment newsletters in the United States are now making sure they warn Americans away from.
For example, a recent edition of Grant's Newsletter, published in the United States to give some tips to American investors, states: "And what is happening to Hydro's credit"-Ontario Hydro-"and what is happening to the credit of the province of Ontario? Briefly given, the answers are decay and decline respectively". There it is, decay and decline. That is what has happened to Ontario, the engine of Canada's economy, driving 40 per cent of our economic activity. The Americans are being told to stay away, decay and decline has taken over Ontario. That is what we can expect out of the NDP.
How about the Liberals? It is really fortunate, Mr. Speaker, that you have just told me that I have only about one minute left because in that minute I could probably run over the Liberal economic policy 60 times because there is no policy. The only thing we have heard in this chamber is: "Well, Mr. Speaker, we think the Government of Canada ought to spend more, spend, spend, spend".
I just discussed my conversation with the Minister of Finance 14 years ago when I was a journalist. In that conversation that is what he said they were going to do. In 1974 he said: "We are going to spend". He sure made good on that one. Here we are today with a $450 billion deficit, which is a legacy of the government opposite. God help this great country, which is going to get out of this hassle, if they are ever returned to this side because we are in for a lot more pain and no gain. Canadians can see through it and those guys are staying over there.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague across used to work for the Sun chain of newspapers. I wonder if he agrees with today's editorial. Let me read some of it to you, Mr. Speaker:
For those of you who are still wondering what Finance Minister Don Mazankowski actually said last week in his economic statement to the House of Commons, we offer you this partial text.
Our most recent economic progress has been. . .blah, blah, blah -slowed by a stubborn world-wide recession -blah, blah, blah-economic	restructuring-blah,	blah,	blah -trade
uncertainties, confidence and to rekindle hope-blah, blah, blah - Canada's experience -blah, blah, blah -lasting jobs-blah, blah, blah.

December 7, 1992
Supply
It ends with "You're welcome".
This is from the newspaper that my colleague across was a well respected journalist for some years ago when he interviewed the previous Minister of Finance, as he so eloquently put it to us earlier today. Does he agree with his former employer that all we heard from the Minister of Finance was blah, blah, blah and no substance at all to solve the economic problems of this country? In other words, does he agree that his government is just as inept at solving the problems of our country as Brother Buffalo Bob and Pink Floyd are in the province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, no disrespect intended here for comrades at Queen's Park because we must always use the proper nomenclature whenever we talk about our socialist friends at Queen's Park as well.
Mr. Turner (Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, I did not always agree with all the editorials written in the newspaper for which I did toil from time to time. I think it is interesting that in this Chamber during this economic debate that the members opposite have basically stood up and said: "Blah, blah, blah" in terms of their economic policy which goes something like: "Spend, spend, spend-blah, blah, blah".
The important point for me, and I would like to put this into context because I spoke a few minutes ago about when I was a journalist and when I did interview ministers of finance, is at that time I remember saying consistently and as often as I could that as many times as this Government of Canada ran a deficit, it was creating problems for our children. We have already spent all the way through the kids and we are into the grandchildren. That is how serious the problem with the debt and the deficit has become. The "blah, blah, blah.. .spend, spend spend" policies opposite are exactly the ones that have sown the seed for the harvest we are reaping now.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker to my hon. colleague on this side of the House talked about a government having an obsession with governing.
I would like to ask my colleague who has just spoken whether he could possibly identify a government that for 15 years seemed to have an obsession with governing. It
spent and spent and spent and if it seemed to be good, it bought it. I wonder if he could tell me what government that was and if he can remember a single, solitary program in government at that time that was actually cut to save money and thus not get into the $16 billion a year operating deficit that my colleague just spoke about.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the excellent question. I certainly can remember a government that was in office for some 15 years and during that period of time added substantially to the country's debt through a program of spending which I do not think was exceeded in any other time except during wartime in this country. During wars, when we were running up deficits and debts to equip our troops and send brave Canadians off to face adversaries across the seas, was the only time that we exceeded the spending record of the 15 years prior to 1985.
During that period of time, the 15 years before 1985, program spending not including servicing the debt increased every year by 14 per cent, 2 per cent more than the economy was growing. It would not have been quite as bad if we had had spending somewhat consistent with the expansion of the economy, but we did not see that.
On average, for every one of those 15 years, one after the other, there was 14 per cent added on. You can imagine at that period of time the situation that Canada was in. Canada in the 1984-85 fiscal year had $168 billion in accumulated deficits. At that period of time, the interest on those accumulated deficits of $168 billion was onerous, particularly because the Liberal government had allowed interest rates during the last period of that 15-year time span to rise to more than 22 per cent.
I will give another little story from my days as a journalist. In 1981, when mortgage rates were 22.75 per cent, I was not in the Chamber. I was outside. I was there with about 1,000 other Canadians, middle class people, who had travelled from Toronto because their homes were in danger. The Liberal government allowed interest rates on mortgages to hit 22.75 per cent. In fact, the situation was so dire that the banks and trust companies in this country were not even lending five-year money.
December 7, 1992

The most you could get was a 12-month commitment and these poor middle class home owners were thrown out on these terrible economic policies of run-away spending, run-away deficits and run-away interest rates. It is hard to imagine a more difficult situation to inherit than that. Within that situation, with high interest rates and $168 billion debt, we had the seeds of the problem today.
We have not added to the debt of this country. The Government of Canada today has not added to the debt. The compound interest that was on that debt has been responsible for a situation where $42 billion this year, or almost a third of all the taxes that my constituents pay, is going to service that debt.
Furthermore, my constituents are seeing more than $10 billion this year that is going in interest payments to foreign bond holders. That is a real crime. It is a real crime that my constituents have to cough up that kind of tax money so that it can be flushed away into the pockets of bond holders in other countries. I do not think they are going to stand for that.
They definitely know that the way to get off this treadmill is to cut back on government spending, to live within our means, to get the fundamentals right of low inflation, low interest rates and a low Canadian dollar that allows us to export more and bring more wealth and prosperity into this country.
They are not stupid. They have a lot more sense than the members opposite give them credit for. They see companies in my riding like Husky Injection Molding and Mold-Masters. They are high-tech, high value-added, high wage jobs that are bringing wealth into my riding. They know what is happening. Their friends and neighbours are working for companies that are on the leading edge of today's technology, companies that have not been afraid to invest in the future, just as this government is investing in the future.
The government is getting our debts under control by bringing our spending down, by stimulating investors to create jobs in the private sector, by not creating temporary make-work jobs with my constituents' money. That is the way of the future and I think my constituents will see very clearly that the ideas opposite are bankrupt of
Supply
common sense. The ideas that will save Canada are on this side of the House.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in the House to speak on the supply motion put forth by the Liberals:
That this House condemn the government's continued adherence
to its failed economic policy of trickle-down misery.
Just by way of starting, I guess the best description I have ever heard of the trickle-down theory of economics is certainly what we have been operating under in the last 10 years or so in this country. It is eight years, although it seems like a lot more than that. Of course, in North America and most of the English-speaking world, it is for even longer than that. The best description I have heard of it is that if you feed the horse enough oats, the sparrows will eat. Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you the sparrows are getting mighty tired of the fare they have been munching on these last number of years, particularly under this Tory government.
The promise when these sparrows-these turkeys- came to power was prosperity. Prosperity was the promise of the day. They sounded so good and so convincing that the Canadian public fell for it and elected them.
Certainly, experience has shown that they have lost their credibility altogether. There is no way that the Canadian public is going to take a chance on these trickle-down economists again. Of course, by the time the election comes around there may be little left of the country for them even to consider.
What happened to the prosperity? There is certainly evidence that it is not there. There are different ways to look at it. Certainly there are good explanations of what has happened. Primarily what has happened is that over the years, even preceding this government, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have simply foregone collecting taxes from those who are well able to pay. Statistics Canada research has shown that the source of the debt is precisely that. Tax breaks to the wealthy plus the very high interest rates leading to the debt which we have is a problem of course. It has also been the doom of any prosperity in this country, except of course for those whom the previous speaker so rightfully condemned, and I agree with him. There is probably no better description in the House of those who clipped the bonds and reaped the interest of this $400

December 7, 1992
Supply
billion debt from which Canada is suffering than to simply call them vultures.
There is evidence that the prosperity certainly is not there and has been going down. In the 1950s the disposable income of Canadians grew by about 34 per cent. In the 1960s it grew by about 22 per cent. In the 1970s it grew by about 22 per cent and in the 1980s, an appalling .5 per cent.
The government wonders why prosperity has not arrived. Canadians know very well it has not arrived. Canadians know that they certainly do not have the disposable income which they had in previous times. As someone who worked through the 1960s and 1970s, I can certainly attest to the demise of disposable income, that income which Canadians spend and consumers spend, which fuels the economy and leads to prosperity within a country.
If consumers do not have the money to spend, the economy is certainly going to suffer. The government has certainly done everything it can to limit that.
I would also like to refer to the vicious provision of the mini budget which was brought down last week whereby those who are fired or quit their jobs are excluded from being able to collect unemployment insurance.
The fact of the matter is that people who find themselves in that position immediately lose their source of income. It is not a matter of a seven to 12 week heist of the ability to collect unemployment insurance anymore. They will not get it until they prove that they quit for cause if they just quit their jobs. There may be any number of reasons why people would quit their jobs and any number of reasons which they would not necessarily want to make public. Much reference has been made to sexual harassment. I can understand why women particularly would not want to make this public and thereby would exclude themselves from the ability to collect unemployment insurance after having removed themselves from an intolerable situation.
The minimum amount of weeks which a person can qualify for is 17. The maximum number of weeks which a person can qualify for is 50. If collecting the maximum, which I believe is $426, in either of those two situations, these provisions mean that without any recourse to protection, without any recourse to due process, those people are potentially facing a fine of $7,242, which in
our society is a very sizeable fine for any number of offences, civil or criminal.
In a similar situation at a maximum of 50 weeks where a person may possibly not be able to get a job having left it, because heaven only knows there sure are not many jobs out there to be had, the maximum fine is $21,300. I maintain it has to be looked at as a potential fine which someone could veiy well have to suffer for having quit their job.
We have corporations in this country that have been charged for polluting our oceans, that have gone through the whole process while being able to defend themselves, and been fined $2,000. However, if you quit your job you could be fined $21,300. You pollute our waters and you are probably not going to have to pay any more than $2,000.1 would suggest that that exemplifies the absolute crooked thinking that this government seems bent upon.
It shows a disdain for people which is certainly exemplified in spades in these provisions. People will be excluded from collecting unemployment insurance under those conditions. It is not satisfactory. It is not tolerable in our society that people have to suffer that kind of economic loss without the benefit of due process, without the ability to defend themselves before the fine is paid.
I know of no instances in this country where under the normal process of jurisprudence, if that is the right word, people pay a fine before the system has decided what the fine should be.
I reiterate that this is one of the most vicious provisions that any government in the history of country has ever brought forward and shows the absolute disdain, I would suggest probably even bordering on hate, which this government obviously has for people.
The minister is very quick to mention the numbers of people who quit voluntarily. I would suggest that he ought to be coming up with the numbers of women who quit because they cannot tolerate the situation they find themselves in due to sexual harassment or other forms of harassment within the workplace. He cannot do that because so many of those women will not divulge that kind of information, will not make those kinds of personal situations known and the minister never will be able to find those out, nor will society. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that happens over and over again. I would suggest it would be well worth while for the minister to spend more time trying to alleviate that kind of situation than to be so quick coming forward with the number of people who voluntarily quit.
December 7, 1992

Mr. Speaker, we have our time divided into two parts and I would like to thank you for the time that I have had this afternoon.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of our colleague. Sometimes in the cut and thrust of debate we use a few words that are either misunderstood or we do not put it quite the way we want to.
I heard him refer to bond holders as vultures and I want to take exception to that. Bond holders are varied. Of course, there are a few very large ones, but the principle applies equally whether buying a Canada Savings Bond as a person who is only slightly involved, or one of the large purveyors of funds for the government. I have before me the Ontario Economic Outlook which describes the picture of the provincial economy and how the provincial government is selling bonds to finance its operation. That is a New Democratic Party government.
Is he saying that it is wrong for the people to finance the operation of the government and that the government should be discouraging people from buying its own bonds? If that is what he is saying, is he not asking for higher interest rates?
Perhaps what he stated was not exactly what he wanted to say, at least I trust that that is the case.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for asking the question. There certainly has been a misunderstanding. I was quoting the previous speaker on the government side.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the member opposite refer to my speech and allege that I used the word vulture to refer to bond holders.
I did not, Mr. Speaker. I used derogatory terms when I talked about currency speculators, people who have attempted to destroy the currency of Canada. I never used the word bond holder and vulture synonymously. The hon. member opposite did and I think he owes this House an explanation.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, if I used the term bond holder-and I am not entirely sure that I did-the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is quite right. In the cut and thrust of debate sometimes we do say
Supply
things. If I referred to bond holders, and I doubt if I did, the "blues" will show it and I certainly do apologize for that.
Certainly I would agree that money speculators are vultures. It distresses me no end that in the economics of the world today, with the swift movement of funds by computer and so on, and the ability of the speculators to really suck the life blood out of many of the economies of the world, and certainly Canada's being among them, to be among the most despicable types of money changers, I guess you would say, on the face of the earth. The word vulture certainly is applicable.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on this motion of the Official Opposition in which Tory policies are referred to as trickle down. Of course, they are trickle down. I want to try and make the case of how they have, in effect, a trickle down approach to economics in Canada.
First of all, this government came into office in 1984 with the firm statement and firm belief that the private sector was the engine of the economy.
When you think of the private sector, of course, I think of all the small and medium-sized businesses which employ 80 per cent of the work force in this country but, unfortunately, the Tories do not think that way. When they were talking about the private sector they were talking about big business. The Tories like big business.
For eight years the Tory government has been really an economic constitution of the Canadian corporate welfare state. There are six pillars of Tory hell in this new economic constitution.
How did they go about establishing the trickle down approach? The first thing they did was to nullify the effect of Parliament. In other words they gutted Parliament. They eunuched Parliament.
People are watching. People watched that exercise last Wednesday. They watched the Conservative government in operation. Every time the government uses time allocation and closure to shut down debate, the people of Canada, who may not be in agreement with Tory policies, have no opportunity to use Parliament to buy time for

December 7, 1992
Supply
reconsideration. They have deliberately used time allocation as a method of proceeding.
No wonder people think that Parliament is irrelevant. No wonder they believe and show cynicism about politicians and the use of this place because the Tories have given Parliament a bad name. That is the first thing they did. We have seen lots of examples of that, especially in recent times, of how they just simply drive their plans home and give no opportunity for people to be heard. I do not have to tell you about that. I will deal with some of the specific examples.
What is the first pillar of Tory hell in this new economic constitution? The first thing they did was deregulation. Look at what has happened with deregulation. With deregulations we see the big fish eating all the little fish. We saw examples of that with the airline industry. They were not satisfied that we had a regulated airline industry. Let us deregulate it and this way we will have more airlines coming into market, we will have more competition and we will see prices come down.
I can give members an example. Before the Tories came into office and brought in this deregulation pillar, put this pillar in place, we had three airlines that were flying. Three airlines were flying between Sudbury and Ottawa and prices were pretty competitive.
What happened with deregulation? Today we have one airline flying Sudbury to Ottawa direct and the cost of a return flight from Sudbury to Ottawa is $480. You can fly around the world for that. We have one airline.
After deregulation there was a proliferation of airlines for a short while until all the big piranhas just went around and gobbled up all the little mullets; just ate them up. Today we have an airline industry that is in total chaos. Some large American airline will just come in and provide the competition and control the whole operation. I would not be at all surprised if it ends up with one big airline operating in Canada. I will predict that it happens.
That is part of the trickle down. The hope is that wealth created by that one is going to trickle down and somehow get to the people at the bottom. It means less
employment. It means less economic investment. It means less service. That is coming. That is part of it.
They did the same thing with banks. They did the same thing with financial institutions. At that time I predicted that one morning we would wake up, open our eyes and there would be one superbank.
All the big banks are going to eat up all the little banks. If we look around today we will see it. It happened with the brokerage industry. Now it is happening with the trust industry. Toronto-Dominion just got Central Guaranty Trust. Watch what is on the horizon. That is part of deregulation.
We had an example of it in the past three weeks with Bill C-91. We have had compulsory licensing for drugs in this country since 1969. From the evidence presented that has allowed the competition between drug manufacturers and the copycats.
What have they done? To whom are they kowtowing? They are kowtowing to large multinational drug companies. Now they are going to increase the protection of patents from 10 years to 20 years.
Dr. Schondelmeyer gave evidence before the committee the other day-and I happened to be in the committee-that over the next 15 years it is going to cost Canadians $7 billion. For that $7 billion we are going to get $500 million of research and development. It will be mostly clinical development, not basic research.
Who is benefiting from that? Certainly not ordinary Canadians. It is the trickle down theory at work again. If we keep feeding the lion then hopefully there will be something out of the other end of the lion to feed on. That might work fine for lions. It keeps lions healthy but it sure does nothing for sparrows. They have to eat an awful lot of that stuff and it is not even healthy for them. That is the same way it is working with us.
I have referred to the way in which this government introduced Bill C-91 without giving Canadians an opportunity to be heard. The opposition, in its attempts to put a brake on the speed which which this government was moving, found themselves against the Juggernauts of the Tory majority.
December 7, 1992

That is not the way Parliament should work. The hon. member from Peel spoke earlier. He is always an admirer of a system that is democratic in process. What is so democratic about that? First it did not want to allow witnesses and we had to force witnesses on to this government. Then it limited the witnesses. All the witnesses were heard within one week. Then majority rules. That is part of the column. That is part of the six pillars. That is part of it.
The second pillar is privatization. No more is there any faith in those enterprises that Canadians built with their own initiative and with their taxes. The industries they built were all sold off. All of those will end up either off the books or in some large corporation's belly.
The third pillar was the attack on universality, the entrenching of selfishness. The recent UI change-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is time for the five-minute question or comment period.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the remarks of my colleague and want to use this occasion to ask him a question about fairness in government policy.
A little earlier this afternoon I had to absent myself from the Chamber, having received a phone call from a constituent in distress. This woman living in my constituency phoned me. She is the mother of two children, unemployed and the sole support. She makes from a combination of mother's allowance and the child benefit, baby bonus for lack of a better name, something like $17,900 a year. She was telling me today that she had not received the advance child tax credit this year because she makes "too much money". I verified this with Revenue Canada and in fact that is true, not that she makes too much money but that is in fact the correct interpretation. Apparently someone who makes more than $17,200 a year as a sole support mother with two children, someone who receives straight mother's allowance, in other words someone on social assistance, is apparently too rich to get this government benefit.
Would my colleague not agree with me that this has to be the height of unfairness, that nothing could possibly be worse than to tantalize someone on social assistance by telling them that there is a program for them, only then to tell the poorest of the poor that they are too rich
Supply
to receive the program which apparently was designed for them to start with?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. That is the fourth pillar of Tory hell: the question of taxation.
Notice how very tough the Tories are on the poor: the member's constituent is making too much money, but lo and behold she does not have a box at the SkyDome for which she is paying rent and which she can write-off on her income tax. She does not have, I will bet dollars to doughnuts, a three-martini lunch. I am sure she does not have an overseas shell operation of her corporation where she can avoid paying taxes in Canada. I am sure she has not set up a trust under the 1971 trust protection fund whereby she can protect all the profits she has made in a trust for future generations of her family. I am sure she does not have all that. If she were very wealthy then she would be the friend of the Tories and therefore she would be protected. However she is poor so she has this trickle down approach. Hopefully if they can feed the lion up at the top then some of this might trickle down to her.
In the meantime, all the forces of Revenue Canada make an interpretation of things like she makes too much money, just cause and all other things that are applied to the poor.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, when I heard my colleague from the New Democratic Party talk about the SkyDome boxes, I could not resist the opportunity to put in a pitch for all of us from Toronto who are opposed to the NDP selling off the stadium at a price that is really about one-fifth of its value.
By the way I share his view on the SkyDome boxes. I understand where he is coming from there, but the SkyDome itself is a tourism instrument. We use it for trade shows. People come into our city from not just from the Toronto area but from Buffalo and all over the United States. Right now they go into restaurants and hotels and there is lots of spin-off business. This can all be quantified.
The danger that we see in privatization is that all of a sudden we are going to go from a $5 Coca-Cola to a $10 Coca-Cola because the people who are going to end up taking over this SkyDome are going to be more interested in getting their money out right away. I was wondering if the NDP would use its influence to slow that process down a bit.

December 7, 1992
Supply


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to say briefly that the previous Peterson and Davis governments worked out one of the worst business deals for the taxpayers of Ontario. It is costing those taxpayers $63,000 a day. Of course Floyd Laughren had to jettison something that was disadvantageous to the public of Ontario.
I also want to point out that my friend from Peel asks the House: "Where are going to get the money?" Why do we not go to that trust fund? There is $70 billion to $75 billion sitting in the trust fund and not one penny of tax is paid on it. Yet the Tories are going to bring in a bill to protect them for a further 20 years.
When are we going to get the best benefit for the taxpayers of this country? When are the rich going to start paying their fair share of taxes? Let us see the Tories actually stop this trickle down approach to economics in Canada.


Mr. Clement Couture (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has delivered his financial and economic statement and now the members have the opportunity to make their point of view known regarding the future orientation of our country. I for one do appreciate such an opportunity.
One of the issues brought up by the minister in his statement is how important trade is for Canada. Let me take a few moments to demonstrate how important it is not only in Canada but elsewhere too.
Very often we hear how important international trade is. It is very important indeed. For Canada, it is vital. But interprovincial trade is just as important.
Since each of our provinces produces different goods, our standard of living depends just as much on the dynamism of exchanges among regions as it does on exchanges between Canada and other countries.
Interprovincial trade allows local producers to have access to a much bigger market than their own province, just as international trade gives them access to world markets. This is particularly important for the smaller provinces. These bigger markets allow for economies of
scale making businesses more efficient in their production.
Except in Newfoundland and British-Columbia, where inter-Canadian trade is a lot less important than in other provinces, about 40 per cent of all goods exported by provinces go to other provinces. Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba export at least as much to other provinces as they do abroad.
However, external trade is not as free as it should be. There might be strong economic links among provinces but there are also adverse provincial trade barriers which translate into higher prices for consumers and reduced competitiveness for our businesses.
Let me give a few examples. Let us start with beer. The preferred treatment granted local producers by provincial boards controlling beer distribution as well as other measures have fragmented the beer industry in Canada.
In the area of procurement, preferred treatment and local content requirements demanded by provincial government agencies and administrations for their purchases have lowered competition.
Most of us know that the price setting and distribution policies followed by provincially regulated marketing boards might distort interprovincial trade.
In yet another area, that of health regulations and standards, differences among provinces might prevent businesses from developing national marketing strategies in the food processing industry and in the drug manufacturing sector.
In his statement, the Minister of Finance stressed the importance of strengthening growth partnerships between the private sector and provincial governments. Let me quote him:
The time has come for comprehensive and concrete measures to reduce trade barriers between provinces by agreeing on a set agenda and time schedule. The federal government urged provinces to eliminate all internal trade barriers by 1995. Canadian agriculture ministers have taken encouraging steps in that direction. More progress in a whole range of areas can only reinforce our competitiveness at home and abroad.
December 7, 1992

Freer trade is important for the future of Canada. Freer domestic trade would certainly enhance our ability to attract investment in Canada and create jobs.
If it is in no way justified to let the United States become the only country with a free access to both the Canadian and the Mexican markets, which is one of our arguments for NAFTA, is there a single reason to give the American producers easier access to our whole Canadian market than to the Canadian producers? Surely the answer should be no.
The finance minister specified that the federal government was committed to reducing barriers to internal trade and will co-operate with the provinces towards this goal. In his statement, he reiterated the determination of his government to free the commercial markets.
Since the Second World War, Canada constantly strived for freer international trade. We did so through the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs and free trade agreements with our regional partners.
Thanks to successive GATT negotiation rounds, tariffs levied on our imports have been reduced and our access to export markets has been enhanced. The minister confirmed in his statement that this government will continue to work for a positive conclusion to the Uruguay round negotiations.
The free trade agreement is a concrete example of a regional trade agreement, and I dare say it is a success. Our exports in the United States increased dramatically and the free trade agreement spurred growth in foreign investment.
NAFTA is another component of our free trade policy. The minister has confirmed the fact that we are working to finalize that deal.
Let me say a few words on this subject. Canada is already competing with Mexico on the American market. In 1990, we exported goods and services worth $123 billion to the United States, whereas Mexico's exports to the U.S. totalled $45 billion.
Among other benefits, NAFTA will allow Canada to face increasingly strong competition from Mexico on the American market, which is crucial to our businesses. Without NAFTA, Canada would be faced with the possibility of uneven competition in the United States. With NAFTA, the three participating countries will be able to compete within the same basic framework.
Supply
An economic evaluation of NAFTA by the Department of Finance shows that the deal will also put us in a better position to increase Canadian exports to Mexico, which will further stimulate our economy.
The benefits of NAFTA for Canada will be modest at first because bilateral trade between the two countries is only about $3 billion a year, compared to some $236 billion between Canada and the United States, but they should increase with time.
NAFTA will not make Mexican businesses a lot more competitive in Canada since our customs duties are already low. However, Mexican customs duties on Canadian imports are approximately three times higher, so the reduction of duties brought about by NAFTA will open new doors to Canadian businesses.
Canada will be in a better position to compete with Mexico with NAFTA than without. The Department of Finance's assessment shows that while labour costs in Mexico are one seventh of what they are in Canada, Canadian workers' productivity is 6.5 times higher than that of their Mexican counterparts. Capital costs are lower in Canada while the productivity of capital is higher, thus giving Canada a competitive edge in the production high value-added goods by capital-intensive industries. Canada should also profit by the enormous Mexican needs for imported capital equipment. Our country actually has a comparative advantage in that area.
Further trade liberalization through NAFTA will see Canada's competitiveness improve and strengthen the economic and employment growth.
I would like to raise another sensitive issue concerning international trade. Even the Goods and Services Thx is having a major positive impact on trade. Contrary to what the critics opposite may say, the GST did promote competitiveness by replacing a tax that favoured imports over goods made in Canada. Therefore, Canadian products are not at a disadvantage compared to the competition on the domestic market. In addition, the GST improves our producers' competitiveness because they pay less tax on the inputs used to produce export goods. According to the Canadian Exporters' Association, the GST has reduced hidden import taxes from 3.4 to 1.8 per cent and what is left of it is due to provincial and municipal taxes, not federal taxes.

December 7, 1992
Supply
Mr. Speaker, if I may raise one last controversial issue concerning trade. Even the Goods and Services Tax generates substantial trade benefits.


Don Boudria: That is why it is so popular.


Clément Couture: Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Contrary to what our critics opposite would like us to believe, the GST did generate substantial trade benefits. The GST has replaced a tax that favoured imports at the expense of domestic goods. It ensures that Canadian products are not at a disadvantage on the domestic market. In addition, the GST helps us compete by lowering the tax on export good producers inputs. According to the Canadian Exporters' Association, the GST has reduced hidden import taxes from 3.4 to 1.8 per cent.
To ensure the economic future of our children and grandchildren, personally I want Canada to enter the 21st century as a fully competitive and productive nation. Our trade policies will promote this. Therefore, I urge all members of this House to support this initiative.


Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Canadians who have watched this debate this afternoon are going to be fascinated to find out just how empty this government is when it comes to trying to address the current problems of the unemployed and the poor.
All we hear is the government recalling the previous government. It was the previous government. It is going into its ninth year. Canadians are not going to buy that. The government did not start this year or the previous year. It is going into its ninth year and seems to be as void now of vision as it was then.
I think Canadians are going to realize that. My question is to my colleague who just spoke. Could I get his personal view, or perhaps he would like to speak for his party, on where he is going to find the $4.5 billion to buy 50 naval helicopters. Count them. Not 5,000, not 500, but 50 helicopters. Does he not think there are better uses to which that $4.5 billion could be put at this time
when so many people in this country are so desperate for help.
Does he not think it wise for the government to announce it has cancelled that order, or is it waiting until the eve of the next election. At that point I think it would be too late to announce it was cancelling the order and give the impression at least that it has the concerns of Canadians at heart.


Clément Couture: Mr. Speaker, my speech has really been put in terms of the actions of our government to reduce and eliminate completely the commercial barriers between the provinces.
The hon. member refers to our armed forces. Definitely they need a certain amount of equipment. It is imperative. If we want to have an armed force which is acceptably equipped, we must spend a certain amount of money to do so.
What is probably most important of all is to make sure that prosperity in Canada will permit our government to provide all the services and equipment that might be requested by our country. To do so we have put forward many good initiatives that are providing the prosperity we are looking for.
First, we have been talking about the elimination of the commercial barriers inside Canada. Second, I was talking about the GST which has provided much better capabilities for the Canadian government and manufacturers to export their product. I feel that all this justifies by and large the actions taken by the government.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I heard the hon. member correctly. Did I hear him praise the GST a few minutes ago? Is that possible? My colleagues and I have consulted each other about whether it was possible for someone to speak highly of the GST and say that this tax is good for us, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine that?
I told myself that this was impossible; I must have misunderstood. It is impossible for someone to say that, namely a backbencher who, no doubt, must have had to hear the not so positive comments of his constituents
December 7, 1992

when he supported the GST. Is it possible that the hon. member would have talked highly of this abominable tax?
We will give him the opportunity to redeem himself with his constituents by elaborating on this.


Clément Couture: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I will answer the hon. member's question.
In Canada we had a federal tax that applied to manufacturers. Many recommendations were made to the Liberal government of the time to eliminate this tax because it was very detrimental to Canadian manufacturers. This tax was imposed on exports. The Liberal government of the time never understood that this tax was negative and hidden and could not in any way help the Canadian government improve the situation. This tax had 22,000 exemptions. The government bureaucracy was managing the revenue shortfall.
If the hon. member will listen, I will explain to him why I am so enthusiastic about the GST. We replaced this obsolete federal sales tax with a modern tax which is naturally a consumption tax, a visible tax. This 7 per cent consumption tax replaced a 13.5 per cent tax.
All these things justify and confirm why, once Canadians reasonably understood it, the GST will become the tax par excellence in Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for my colleague on the other side who likes the GST and similar measures so much.
Was most of the electorate in favour of the GST? I must say that at least the constituents of Glengarry- Prescott-Russell were opposed to it. Could the member give us more details on his constituents' opinion on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but I
must interrupt the hon. member.
Supply
It being 5.45 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 81(15), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House.
The first vote will be on Mr. Langdon's amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the amendment lost.
The next vote is on the main motion.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
++YEAS
Allmand
Angus
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bellemare
Blaikie
Brewin
Caccia
Copps
de Jong
Dionne
Du ha me 1
Finestone
Flis
Foster
Gauthier
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harvard
Hunter
Karpoff
Kilger (Stormont-Du ndas)
Kindy
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
Lee
MacLellan
Manley
Martin (Lasalle-£mard)
Mifflin
Mills
Murphy
Nunziata
Ouellet
Parker
Plamondon
Prud'homme
Rodriguez
Skelly (North Island-Powell River)
Speller
Taylor
Vanclief
Walker
Wood
Members
Anawak
Assad
Belair
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Butland
Catterall
Crawford
Dingwall
Duceppe
Ferguson
Fisher
Fontana
Gagliano
Gerin
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Hovdebo
Jordan
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Langan (Mission-Coqu itlam)
Laporte
MacAulay
Maheu
Marleau
McLaughlin
Milliken
Mitchell
Nault
Nystrom
Pagtakhan
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Rompkey
Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stewart
Tobin
Venne
Whittaker
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-84
++NAYS
Members
Anderson
Atkinson
Beatty
Bjomson
Blais
Bosley
Brightwell
Cadieux
Champagne (Champlain)
Clark (Yellowhead)
Cole
Cooper
Cote
Darling
Desjardins
Andre
Attewell
Bertrand
Blackburn (Jonquiire)
Blenkam
Bourgault
Browes
Campbell (Vancouver Centre) Charest
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cook Corbeil Couture Della Noce Dick
[Stage Direction]

Dobbie
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Fontaine
Gibeau
Greene
Gustafson
Hawkes
Hockin
Horner
Hughes
James
Johnson
Jourdenais
Koury
Larrivee
Littlechild
Lopez
MacDougall (Timiskaming) Marin
Mazankowski
McDermid
McKnight
Moore
Oberle
Paproski
Pronovost
Reid
Ricard
Robitaille
Saint-Julien
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)
Siddon
Sparrow
Tardif
Thacker
Thorkelson
Valcourt
Vincent
Wilbee
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) Winegard
Domm
Duplessis
Epp
Ferland
Friesen
Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Guilbault
Halliday
Hicks
Holtmann
Hudon
Jacques
Jelinek
Joncas
Kempling
Langlois
Layton
Loiselle
MacDonald (Rosedale)
Malone
Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath
McDougall (St. Paul's)
Monteith
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Richardson
Roy-Arcelin
Schneider
Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Soetens
Stevenson
Tetreault
Thompson
Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Vien
Wenman
Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia)
Worthy-115

[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A)
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, laid upon the Table on Tuesday, November 24, 1992, be concurred in.


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


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order there have been discussions and I think the vote just taken could be applied in reverse to Supplementary Estimates (A).


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B)
Gilles Loiselle: that Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, laid upon the Table on Tuesday, November 24, 1992, be concurred in.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order there have similarly been discussions and I think you might find unanimous consent for the vote to be applied to this motion.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/au cun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


Gilles Loiselle: that Bill C-100 entitled an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1993, be read a first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed to be adopted.
Supply
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be now read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went in committee thereon, Mr. DeBlois in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 100,1 do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-100, an Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1993-Mr. Loiselle-Mr. DeBlois in the chair.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 4 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order I am wondering if the government can give the House its assurances that this bill is in its usual form with no deviations whatsoever from the normal form of a supply bill.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to give the hon. House leader of the Liberal Party and to this House the assurance that the form of this bill is the same as that passed in previous years.

December 7, 1992
Supply


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule A
carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Schedule A agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.
Schedule B agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported.
Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On division?


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, it was not the intention to have the motion pass on division. We wish to have a recorded vote. However, we are quite prepared to have the vote as previously taken applied to this motion as well as third reading of this particular bill.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, as long as the motion previously applied is the vote we took on Schedule A.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, there is something I would like to say to a number of members who sit on another committee where we believe it was rather difficult to receive services in both languages in a way that made sense. I simply want to draw your attention to the fact that at long last, thanks to the co-operation of our clerk, we have been able to have this document not only in both languages, as prescribed by law, but in alphabetical order as well, so that when you work in English, it's easy.

If you proceed in English it is very easy. You have your own alphabetical order. For those of us who have to follow in French it was total confusion and so it was corrected.
I would just like to draw to the attention of the member that we are working on a very important piece of legislation called the Electoral Act in which everything is in English. When you write during the election and you have to address yourself immediately to a problem, you have to go through the English alphabetical order and then you are lost. By the time you find it, the problem you want to resolve is already resolved by itself.
I want to show by this that if we look attentively we will save a lot of time and show that it can be done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is the Chair to conclude there is unanimous consent for applying the recorded vote taken previously to the various stages of this bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The next question is on the concurrence motion.



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday December 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1992, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economic envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to order adopted Tuesday, December 1,1992, the House will now proceed with the recorded vote on the motion for second reading of Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1992.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think there would be a predisposition to apply the vote taken on Supplementary Estimates A to this vote as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is their unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to a legislative committee in the Economic envelope.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to a legislative committee in the Economic envelope.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, the House will now proceed with a special debate.


SPECIAL DEBATE
[Stage Direction]
*Assiniboia)
Winegard

[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Members
Anawak
Assad
Belair
Blackburn (Brant)
Boudria
Butland
Catterall
Crawford
Dingwall
Duceppe
Ferguson
Fisher
Fontana
Gagliano
Gerin
Grey (Beaver River)
Harb
Hovdebo
Jordan
Keyes
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)
Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
La porte
MacAulay
Maheu
Marleau
McLaughlin
Milliken
Mitchell
Nault
Nystrom
Pagtakhan
Phinney
Proud
Riis
Rompkey
Barbara Jean McDougall: That this House affirm its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted with regard to the present situation in Somalia and for Canadian participation in the multinational effort to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia.

She said: Mr. Speaker, every day from around the world Canadians are confronted with images of conflict, human suffering and deprivation. Every day Canada and the international community have new compelling reasons to help wherever the human family finds itself in desperate need.
Nowhere are the reasons more compelling, the suffering more tragic than in Somalia. We must act now to stop the killing and destruction. We must feed the hungry. We must heal the injured. We must bring families together again. We must care for the children. We must help the proud and peace loving Somali people rebuild their own country and their own lives.

Special Debate
The process of achieving an international consensus to act strongly has taken a frustratingly long time, despite the urging of countries like ours. We were indeed among the first.
When that consensus was achieved by a unanimous vote in the Security Council last week, there was only one answer to the query of whether Canada will help. That answer was yes.
Before turning to our decision to join the unified force, I want to discuss with members of the House the circumstances leading to the decision of the Security Council last Thursday and the government's decision on Friday.
After the overthrow of former dictator Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991, Somalia has degenerated swiftly into violent and brutal anarchy. Tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have been victimized. The absence of civil order has created a vicious circle of violence, counter-violence, terror and counter-terror, pillaging and senseless killing. In some areas Somalis carry weapons as casually as we carry our bus tickets.
As things stand today, Somalia is a country only in name. Warlords who are more preoccupied with their hunger for power than the hunger of their people have created untold death and suffering in Somalia.

Canada fully endorsed the UN's action in Somalia. Last August, the Prime Minister wrote to the Secretary General, President Bush and Prime Minister Major to urge them to vote in favour of UN concerted actions and ask that such actions be paid for through contributions.
When the Security Council approved the deployment of four infantry battalions in the area around Mogadishu Canada was one of the first countries to respond to the Secretary General's request.
Canada has played a leading role in international humanitarian efforts to deliver food and medicine to the Somali people. We sent three military aircraft carrying food and other supplies; we provided nearly $22 million in humanitarian aid to Somalia and Somali refugees in neighbouring countries and we are now looking at ways to further increase our aid.

We and other members of the international community now know that sending food and medicine and other desperately needed supplies is simply not enough because warlords are snatching food right from the hands of weak and starving people to feed themselves and their armed soldiers.
As relief supplies began to arrive in Somalia, they were increasingly the object of theft and attack by armed bandits. It became dangerous, in fact impossible, to guarantee delivery of supplies to those most in need, though supplies did reach some people. Thousands of others were left to starve, cut off from supplies.
Faced with this situation, the United Nations approved the deployment of a peacekeeping mission known as UNOSOM. Its mandate was to protect the delivery of food and other humanitarian assistance, to promote national reconciliation and contribute to internal security and order. From the beginning, the peacekeeping mission itself was fraught with difficulty.
There were delays in achieving agreement among the factions for the deployment of the battalion into Mogadishu. When it was finally in place, soldiers were harassed and attacked to the point where they could no longer do their job.
There were similar delays in getting agreement for the deployment of peacekeepers elsewhere in the country and, in some areas, there still is no agreement.
Anarchy, the absence of civil authority and the breakdown of roads and bridges and water systems led to the need for extraordinary logistical measures in support of the peacekeeping operation.
Canada agreed to provide a full, combat-ready unit with the arms and equipment necessary to deal with the lawlessness. To overcome logistical problems, Canada supplied a ship, HMCS Preserver, to provide essential technical and medical support to the unit until UN arrangements could be put in place.

Canada has never changed its position on this question. In addition to assigning 750 soldiers to UNOSOM, we have urged the UN many times to take a comprehensive approach to the situation in Somalia that would cover security, humanitarian aid and political settlement of the conflict.
December 7, 1992



Sadly, over the past several weeks it became clear that humanitarian operations in southern and central Somalia could not overcome the problems of obstruction, looting and extortion by heavily armed bandits. The United Nations was unable to secure the concurrence of Somali factions for the deployment of peacekeepers in key areas of the country where the fighting is going on.
The size of the UN security force was inadequate to secure humanitarian operations. The United Nations Secretary General explicitly acknowledged these critical shortcomings in his letter to the President of the Security Council on November 24.

In this letter, the Secretary General gave three reasons for reviewing the premises and principles of the peacekeeping mission (UNOSOM): first, the absence of a government in Somalia; second, the extortion, blackmail and looting with which international aid workers were confronted; and third, the attacks against UN personnel and equipment and other organizations providing humanitarian aid.
In another letter addressed to the president of the Security Council on November 29, the Secretary General begged the council to urgently consider a number of options for dealing with the situation. One of the options was to maintain and reinforce UNOSOM. The secretary advised against this option because, as he said: "Pursuing UNOSOM operations in the present circumstances would not provide a satisfactory solution to the humanitarian crisis in Somalia".
The Secretary-General concluded that more energetic measures had to be taken as soon as possible.
Another option submitted to the Security Council by the Secretary-General and recommended by the latter was resorting to coercive action as provided under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. This proposal was approved unanimously by the Security Council last Thursday.

To request contributions of forces and funds from all member states was one of those four main elements. To establish an enforcement operation under American
Special Debate
command which has authorized use of all means necessary to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia.
Third, to authorize the continued existence of UNOSOM, which will be at the discretion of the Secretary General. He will decide when and where to employ UNOSOM peacekeepers, most likely only when order has been re-established in Somalia.
Finally, to ensure close and effective co-ordination between the United Nations, UNOSOM and the unified command led by the United Nations.
When this government originally decided to contribute 750 peacekeepers to UNOSOM, we felt not only that such a contribution was consistent with our peacekeeping tradition, but that it would be constructive in helping to relieve the misery in Somalia.
Thus, in spite of the serious financial and personnel implications, we believed it was important for Canada to support this UN mission.
Last Friday, my cabinet colleagues and I had to review our original decision in light of recent developments. After full consultation with the Secretary-General, we agreed to participate in the enforcement mission.
We did so because we concluded that only such a mission as this can effectively put an end to the rule of warlords. Only such a mission can restore sufficient order that the hungry can be fed, the sick can have medicine and the injured can have treatment.
Only such a mission can create the kind of environment necessary so that work can begin toward a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the internal political conflict and toward the reconstruction of this nation by the Somalis themselves.
There is an international consensus that such a mission can yield the desired results in a timely way. Speaking to the Security Council last Thursday night, the representative of Morocco thanked the council for passing a resolution that meets the fervent request of so many African and Muslim nations.
By responding to the Security Council in this way, Canada is building on its traditional peacekeeping role. At the same time, we are helping to develop as we said we would the capacity of the UN to meet threats to international peace and security in new ways.

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
Peace enforcement is, in fact, one of the tasks set out for the organization by the Secretary-General in his report last summer "Agenda for Peace". We applauded that report when it was issued and we have been trying ever since to ensure that the Secretary-General's ideas get wide circulation and thorough analysis.
Now, under tragic circumstances, we will be putting some of those ideas into practice.
In the final analysis, what really counts is to put an end to the banditry and the lawlessness that makes the delivery of food, medicine and essentials impossible to those who need them. Thousands of men, women and children are dying of starvation. The Secretary-General and the United Nations decided rightly that vigorous action is required and we support that course of action.
We realize, just as the Secretary-General does, that military enforcement to secure humanitarian aid is not an end in itself. The enforcement action in Somalia must ultimately facilitate a process of political settlement under the auspices of the United Nations but brought about by the people themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you and all the members of this House that beyond this military operation Canada will work with the Secretary-General and with others in the international community to help find a durable political solution to this conflict that is in the interests of the Somali people, through diplomatic means and through direct assistance.
Rebuilding civil society and national government in Somalia is not going to happen overnight. The devastation has been far too great. Sadly, it will be a long-term process, in which Somalis themselves will have to take the initiative, together with patient and substantial international support.
It is essential that the military action in Somalia that we have undertaken to join be balanced by UN efforts to promote peace and reconciliation. In some parts of Somalia, such as the northeast, conditions are relatively stable and co-operation does exist for peacekeeping, relief and rehabilitation efforts, so that they may begin.
It is the season when we celebrate peace and when there are so many holidays and celebrations around the
world of joy, of a family nature and of a religious nature. Most Somalis also long for peace. They desperately want civil order, and they are willing and prepared to seek a long-term political solution to their internal differences. They also do not want to face weapons and rifles every day as they walk down their streets and paths.
In this regard I am encouraged by the results of the just concluded UN meeting on aid to Somalia that was held in Addis Ababa.
In what is a very bleak and disturbing situation we find one inspiring example after another of courage and devotion to humanity, some by the Somalis themselves, who must have more courage than anyone else. However, I am referring as well to the many international aid workers who have been braving the violence and horror in Somalia, some of them Canadians, to bring relief to the innocent victims of this conflict. They are also uppermost in our minds as we undertake this operation.
I fully support the Secretary-General's position, and I know that members of this House do, that military action must take into full account the security of international civilians and that their safety must be a primary consideration in the enforcement action.
This is, in the season of peace, more than a mission of enforcement. It is a mission of peace. It is a mission of mercy for tens of thousands of our fellow human beings who are living in terror, who are too weak and are moving toward death.
Once again, Canada has been called upon to do its part. Canada must do its part. Canada will do its part. Make no mistake about it, we are determined that this mission will succeed. We will show the people of Somalia that we are ready, that we are able to answer their desperate cries for help as they reach out to us, and finally that we are able to reach back to them.
In the name of peace and humanity, I ask this House and all Canadians to support our decision, as they have since we first moved into this phase of our operations on Friday. I have been touched and overwhelmed by the expressions of support, both from members of this House on all sides as well as from people across Canada who have been urging us and are now pleased that we are saying yes we can and we will do more.
December 7, 1992


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: December 7, 1992
Special Debate
In fact, and I say this with great regret, last Friday when the question was posed by a member of this caucus to the minister about what Canada's intentions were, she did not answer the question but went outside of Parliament to hold a press conference in which the very same matters were addressed.
Trust cannot be built if Parliament is disregarded. A new sense of understanding and comprehension and support and willingness cannot begin to develop if the government evades its own commitment in this Chamber. It is not the Chamber itself that is important, it is what the Chamber represents, which is 26 million Canadians who want to be involved and need to be involved in some basic way in helping to find this new world responsibility that Canada is undertaking.
Canadians have serious questions. Colleagues of mine today have come to me and I have also received calls and letters asking what does this commitment involve? Will Canadian troops be fully supported? Will they have proper equipment? Will they have proper backup of command and logistics and supplies?
These are questions, honest questions, concerned questions by relatives, mothers and friends about troops that are being sent over.
That is why it is absolutely essential and crucial that one of the changes required is the democratization of the way we make decisions, especially on crucial issues where we are committing our forces into risky, dangerous, new situations.
I would hope at some point we can get a commitment from this minister to do that, to begin to democratize the way decisions are made on these crucial matters and to use Parliament as the forum in which it was traditionally and originally intended, not to evade it or ignore, or go around it but to use it in faith as a way of developing a fundamental agreement, a contract if you like, between Canadians in these times of trouble.
Serious questions must be raised concerning the mixed signals that we receive from this government. Just last Wednesday the Minister of Finance brought down a mini budget which contained further substantial reductions in maintenance funds for the department of defence. It did not change the capital expenditures. It did not alter the purchase of helicopters or submarines or anything else, but it changed the operating method. Yet it was just the week before that that the minister of defence said the
Canadian commitment to peacekeeping must be pulled back, pulled in, shrunken because there was not enough money to support our efforts.
We have had Canadian generals saying we cannot do any more because there are not sufficient funds to do it. We have reached our capacity, the full scope of our actions, yet the government shrinks its budget and reduces that commitment even further.
We are making promises, commitments if you like, for a role that the world needs, wants and recognizes Canada as having a competence and experience to play. At the same time we are substantially hindering, restricting and limiting the capacity to author and mount a peacekeeping measure.
It means we fundamentally need to have closer synergy between our defence policy and our foreign policy. We have to change the priorities of our defence establishment away from cold war priorities to peacemaking priorities and make sure there is sufficient budget and resources allocated to make that happen. That is another set of questions that needs to be worked out in serious debate and dialogue in this Parliament as to what is this new role and how we properly reallocate and reassign resources to make it happen.
Perhaps a fundamental question is being posed across the country today after the announcement, as I believe is being asked in other national capitals and other countries: If we are prepared to break traditional peacekeeping roles to provide an armed force for the protection of humanitarian efforts in Somalia, when are we going to do the same in Bosnia? Are we prepared to do the same in Liberia?
In other words, there are other areas of intense conflict, human suffering, tragedy and hunger in which there is a compelling need for international involvement and intervention. Does this set precedent or are we picking and choosing between which tragedy we will attempt to respond to?
This morning we held a major round table of Canadians to deal with the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina representing a wide variety of interest groups and experts with incredibly different points of view. They did agree on one thing, that the present UN role in Bosnia has come to a stalemate and has to be re-energized, reset and re-established in a more effective way. That is
December 7, 1992

also an important subject for debate in this House. We must come to grips with the fundamental question of criteria. If we are going to establish a new role for peacemaking on what is it going to be based? What are the standards and judgments that will be applied? Will we do it on ad hoc basis, situation by situation? Will there be a new policy framework? That is something I think Canadians have a right to know.
When I read the minister's recent speech I must confess it gave me cause for concern. The minister addressed the question of criteria and went through the traditional peacekeeping responsibilities of meeting a threat to peace and security or whether a UN multilateral body had decided. She began to say that there should be new criteria such as costs, risks and potential duration of individual missions, Canada's historic, political and economic interest in the region, a bilateral and multilateral commitment.
It reads to me as a pulling in of criteria, as an attempt to begin to restrict the role, of limiting what our commitments will be. Now that may be a fair proposition. That one I agree with. It may be a fair one but it requires serious examination by the people of Canada, this Parliament and a vehicle of this Parliament.
In addition to the criteria put out by the minister on costs, historic interest, bilateral and multilateral commitments, what we should be asking is whether in the new criteria Canadians have a basic interest in alleviating extreme suffering, stopping extreme human rights violations, crimes against humanity or crimes of genocide anywhere. That should perhaps begin to be the fundamental criteria that we use and then worry about the other particulars, whether in fact there is extreme inhumanity of people against people. That should be the basis upon which we make that decision.
I am prepared to say that I do not think my criteria, the criteria of the minister or those of other critics in the House should be the final say or should be the limit of the debate. It is too serious and too broad ranging for Canadians. It is one of the most important decisions this generation of Canadians will make because it comes to grips with what our international role and responsibilities will be for years to come.
Special Debate
That is why I think it is necessary that we broaden this debate. I do not see the minister in the House at the moment but perhaps she is listening somewhere. The way of coming to grips with this matter would be to send a joint committee of the House and Senate across the country, beginning in the new year, to look at the new role of peacemaking for Canada: what criteria should determine it, what kind of resources should be applied to it, what kind of policies should be utilized for it. There could then be a full, open opportunity for all Canadians to be heard from coast to coast to coast, not just in the confines of the Ottawa region, to come to grips with this most serious of questions. In fact there are the three coasts and one continental boundary. We will cover the entire domain of Canada.
The Senate has already started to hold some hearings. The Standing Committee on External Affairs has begun to look a little at the agenda for peace. It should now become a major commitment and mission of this Parliament to authorize such an undertaking, to show Canadians that they have a right to participate and that this Parliament is coming to grips with these tough, difficult, complex issues.
I again raise a question about the role the minister describes as taking place after the warlords have been disarmed and the corridors have been opened up. In the statement the minister made on Friday she said: "We will participate in the enforcement action only. We do not plan to participate in any subsequent peacekeeping operations".
We may have heard something slightly different this evening in the debate, but frankly I am not sure the minister fully recognizes and accepts that this kind of action is a short-term quick fix and that the tough part, the difficult part, the serious part, will be coming afterward. There will continue to be a responsibility for peacekeeping in a country in which the entire civil authority has broken down. What is the point of moving in, taking the arms away and then moving out again and letting the same forces gather strength and go after each other again? What do we attain by that?
It is important now as a signal of hope to the people in Somalia and other places that the international community including Canada is prepared to stick in. If we are called upon for other commitments and other resources, we will do our best to answer that call. We will make sure that while the troops are in there taking the arms away

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
there will be serious examination at the United Nations about the rebuilding of Somalia, not just in terms of immediate humanitarian aid but in terms of the reconstruction of political authority, a rule of law, a system of justice and a system of economic development, something that will give some hope.
That just begins to touch on the kinds of questions I think Canadians legitimately have. There are many more questions that I think Parliament deserves to have answered. I would ask during this debate-and I hope we will receive an answer from someone in government- that in addition to this commitment to Somalia we will have an equal opportunity in the very near future to have a similar debate about the situation in Bosnia, what we should do about it, what Canada's role will be in it and what we can do at the UN to try to end the suffering and tragedy taking place in that country at this time. I think we will approach it with the same kind of willingness to co-operate and deal with the matter.
There is an old saying in the Talmud that to save one life is to save the world. Canada is called uniquely at this time to save not one life but many lives. It is an opportunity that may be unique in this generation's history, something that we can look upon as one of the turning points in defining who we are as a country and the kind of role we can play in the world. If Canadians are looking for a sense of mission, a sense of purpose and a sense of what holds us together, perhaps there can be no greater tribute than the call we receive from the world to be a major player and partner in these kinds of initiatives overseas to save lives and to solve tragedy.
If I might, just to add and to strengthen the motion, I would like to move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the
word "establish" and by substituting the following therefor:
- as soon as possible an enduring secure environment for
humanitarian relief operations in Somalia.
Clearly the purpose is to say that this is not a short-term quick fix. Canada is prepared for the kind of commitment that will not only give immediate relief but long-term hope to the people of Somalia and show that in these kinds of adventures, international initiatives, one must be prepared to play out the long haul.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The Chair will take under advisement the motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg-South-Centre and seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion before the House regarding the role that Canada should play in responding to the desperate situation facing the people of Somalia. It is fair to say that none of us over the past year has been untouched by the tragedy that we see unfolding in Somalia, the virtual breakdown of a society, the images of death, of starvation, the pain on the faces of the children, the children being victims of a system that quite clearly has gone mad.
There is also the tragedy that almost certainly we will not see and that almost certainly will be occurring on a daily basis, and that is the victimization of women who are always the most vulnerable along with the children in a situation such as the one in Somalia. I am sure that instances of rape and the brutalization of women continue and that we will not see them on television. It is clear that women and children tend too often to be the victims of decisions in which they have not participated. It is against this horror that my party supports this motion.
I want also to say a word of praise for the very brave relief workers who have worked and risked their lives to this date for their fellow human beings in Somalia. It would be very easy for us tonight as parliamentarians to feel very smug that we are somehow suddenly finding our conscience, but in fact it is the relief workers who have worked so hard in Somalia, and indeed in other countries, simply on a humanitarian basis and have been the force behind touching the consciences of this country and many other countries.
Much time has passed since we first learned of the famine in Somalia. It is not the time to feel that we have somehow just found a sense of altruism, but that we must give respect to those who have in fact brought to the attention of the world the situation in Somalia, those who have been workers with non-governmental organizations.
December 7, 1992

I would like to begin by expressing my profound regret that we are tonight debating a motion on a decision that has already been taken. I cannot say too strongly how anti-democratic I feel this is, how arrogant it is of this government to have taken the decision and then to allow elected members to debate a decision already taken. The democratic process and the parliamentary system in this country are under much criticism. This is why. One's temptation is to ask: "Why would I participate in such a debate?"
However, I and my party feel that the situation in Somalia transcends our own concerns about the inadequacy of this government in seeking out solutions and alternatives, not just giving information but trying to use the best resources in this House of Commons to find alternatives.
The question of when and how to use force is a serious decision, if not the most serious decision, that we as parliamentarians make. Clearly we are making decisions that affect the lives of young men and women. In the past, force has been used by the United Nations in cases in which international law has been broken. We are now being asked to give our consent to the use of force in order to ensure the success of international relief efforts.
In the case of Somalia, the New Democratic Party supports the proposed multilateral effort directed and authorized by the United Nations to establish a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia. We must also point out that this is a precedent. This is a new direction. We are supporting the participation of Canada in this effort because we do not live in a perfect world. We know that if aid does not get to those areas where famine has been occurring, millions of human beings could die.
As New Democrats, as Canadians and as internationalists we cannot sit idly by and allow this to happen.

Canada has a long tradition of participating in peacekeeping missions. We must help stabilize the hostile situations on our planet and we now have an opportunity to do so.
A year ago, I spoke to a group interested in world peace and security and talked about the opportunities for
Special Debate
the United Nations and for civilization in the aftermath of the cold war and in this period of transition toward a new world order.
I explained then that the new world order suggested by some was nothing new. It is a world order which will be controlled by the industrialized nations in their interest and at the expense of developing nations.
I said that the consequences of this new world order for the vast majority of people on earth would be continued poverty, greater instability and, of course, an everpresent climate of insecurity.
I then suggested that we should replace the concept of a new world order with that of a new world community in which all nations on earth could work together in a new era of international cooperation.

The number one threat to security in the world is clearly poverty. In that respect, the government's cuts to its official development assistance to the world's poorest nations is regrettable and offensive. It is clear to us on this side of the House that there will never be peace in the world until we address ourselves to the fundamental issues of poverty throughout the world.
The efforts taken in Somalia could be a real opportunity to forge a new world community, in which our interest in ending hunger means as much as our desire for maintaining our supplies of oil, in which our interest in ending hunger does not fade when we no longer see people starving on television.
To a large degree, the efforts in Somalia could be an important step toward a new world community. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out some of my fundamental concerns with the way in which our government has handled this situation. At the same time, I would like to offer possible alternatives.
First, I am concerned about the apparent lack of a long-term solution. I am concerned about the uncertainty over the role of Canadian forces, the uncertainty as to the role of the United Nations, the United States and to whom the military forces will be accountable.
I am also concerned with the uncertainty over the timetable for the deployment of Canadian troops and the question of who pays and, as I mentioned before, the delayed after the fact consultation with Parliament.

Special Debate

I want to emphasize one thing: although we agree that Canada should participate in this important emergency measure, we must remember that it is important to find a long-term solution.
If nothing is done to solve the basic problems and if we do not seek a long-term solution, the problem will resurface once the troops leave.
The long-term solution requires rebuilding of the local political structures. It is also dependent on the involvement of local people and clan leaders in development projects to rebuild infrastructure and restore confidence.
When UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali recommended sending a peacekeeping force to Somalia, he said: "We must also act to promote national reconciliation and thus eliminate the main causes of the humanitarian intervention."

The Canadian government has not given any real indication about its plans for ensuring long-term stability. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said today, when asked this question by me in the House of Commons, that the long-term plan would be looked at after the short-term plan was executed. It seems to me that surely we would not be sending young men and women into a very risky situation without some intervention as well at the diplomatic level and with other countries to work toward achieving a necessary and long-lasting solution.
This clearly is a deviation and a new policy for Canada in many ways. We have had a very long role in peacekeeping and clearly that role is now changing. The traditional peacekeeping is changing into what is being called peacemaking.
The humanitarian grounds that have occasioned this change in policy we certainly support. I think there is an extremely compelling reason to care for our brothers and sisters in all parts of this world. However, I do urge the government to come forward with proposals for a longterm solution, not simply to deny that can wait. These proposals should be debated in Parliament. They should be advocated within the United Nations. We should have a government that is activist in providing real alternatives that will bring long-term peace and stability in
Somalia and that will be a model for future crises in other parts of the world.
On the question of the role of the United Nations, I would like to make several comments. We see again for the most part that it is the powerful military dominance of the United States which is taking a leadership role in this effort. While I must commend the UN Secretary-General for setting up an important accountability structure, it is fundamentally not healthy for a country, which incidentally happens to be the single largest debtor to the United Nations, to act as the dominant force in such an operation.
On November 30 the UN Secretary-General wrote to the Security Council and said: "If forceful action is taken, it should preferably be under UN command and control. If this is not feasible an alternative would be an operation undertaken by member states acting with the authorization of the Security Council". However, last Friday the chief of forces said the Americans are going to run this operation.
The lesson of the gulf war and the lesson we are learning now is that the world governments must work to establish a UN command structure, perhaps in consideration of resurrecting the military staff committee of the United Nations. It is now imperative that such a system be established so that future conflicts will not have to be addressed through U.S. command and U.S. control.
Let me stress that it is essential that information be shared with this House of Commons in terms of what the role of our troops will be, how long it is anticipated they will be there and, as I mentioned earlier, the long-term plan. There has been as yet none of these details available to the House of Commons and more important to the Canadian people.
Our party supports the United Nations. We support a reformed United Nations as we feel it is the major hope for humanity in this world.
The Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali earlier this year tabled significant proposals for a strengthened and revitalized United Nations in his agenda for peace. The UN operation in Somalia represents the first significant test for these principles and I urge the Canadian government and other countries to do their part to ensure that these principles are implemented.
December 7, 1992

In conclusion, to the men and women who will participate in this mission, we wish them a safe return. There is probably no more noble effort that one can do in life than to help our fellow citizens. In this case we will owe a great debt of gratitude to the young men and women in our forces.
We thank them for their dedication and their commitment. At this time of year when so many families are looking forward to reunions, we also wish the families of those who will be going to Somalia our best wishes and to say to them that our thoughts are with them.
We support this motion because we believe that Canada, in our great tradition, can continue in a humanitarian way to help our brothers and sisters throughout the world.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is in order and debate is now on the amendment.


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister Responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of hope that I rise today to speak on the motion and I will be directing my remarks to the main motion in the large part.
The motion concerns the deployment of Canadian forces personnel to Somalia in support of the United Nations Security Council resolution 794, adopted on December 3, 1992. I believe that it is only befitting for Canada, a country that has always been known in the vanguard of peace, to act boldly to restore hope to the people of Somalia.
I wish to encourage my colleagues in the House from all parties to join me in supporting this motion and by so doing sending a message of solidarity to the population of Somalia.
Just a few moments ago I was outside the House for the lighting of the Christmas trees and this year the National Capital Commission dedicated the lighting to our peacekeepers.
It was a very moving ceremony and I was joined by a young paratrooper, paratrooper Vienneau who came from Petawawa to represent his colleagues as a peace-
Special Debate
keeper. He is scheduled to go to Somalia in a very short time. In talking with him I asked him how he felt, was he prepared. His response was he is ready and waiting to go. He wants to get there.
He typifies to me the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces who have done such an outstanding job. They are so ready and so prepared to help the world over.
Yesterday I was in Chilliwack meeting with the families of some of our peacekeepers at their little Christmas get together with the children and I had a chance to talk to some of our peacekeepers abroad. I know that hon. colleagues will be pleased to hear that they are doing well and are in great spirits.
One of the mothers told me that her son had asked her why his father had to go away at Christmas. They came from a presentation of some pictures of what was going on and the pictures showed the starving children. After the little boy had seen the pictures he said to his mom that he knows those children need his father more than he does right now.
I would like to thank those families and those children because they are also making important sacrifices as their loved ones serve on behalf of Canada all over the world and very shortly in Somalia.
Before discussing the particulars of our deployment to Somalia, I would like to speak about the situation in that country. I would specifically like to address the political context, the military threat and what the United Nations has proposed to do before the most recent Security Council resolution. I would then like to outline for the House the important aspects of the Canadian Forces' intended role in this operation, bearing in mind that this is a humanitarian exercise intended to create the conditions which will allow the delivery of much needed assistance to the people of Somalia.

This mission, which is somewhat similar to the military intervention in Korea and the Persian Gulf war, is an unprecedented effort by members of the international community to stabilize the situation in Somalia and ensure that relief reaches those who need it most.

December 7, 1992
Special Debate

The simple fact of the matter is that Canada, as a responsible member of the international community, cannot nor should not sit idly by and watch as the situation in Somalia deteriorates beyond hope.
Let me remind members of the House of some of the tragic political and military developments that have occurred recently in Somalia. Somali dictator Siyad Barre was overthrown in February, 1991 after a very brutal civil war. Since then the country has descended into chaos as over 40 clans, once united in their struggle against the government, began to battle for control of the country. An interim President, Ali Mahdi, was installed in Mogadishu and in May, 1991 the northwest region of the country declared its independence as the republic of Somaliland. No country has recognized that independence and neither government exercises anything more than very local authority.
Most of the country is now split along tribal lines with several so-called warlords. We have seen that name being used in the media quite a lot. There are different loyalties and interests battling for power and local prestige. Even within factions chaos reigns as the individual warlords have scant control over their band members.
Most vestiges of the country's social structure have been destroyed in this conflict, leaving a situation of near anarchy. It reminds me of a book I remember reading as a teenager of what happens when law and order breaks down. The pictures I have seen on television have really brought that memory back to me of what has happened there.
Drought and the destruction of the infrastructure have compounded the problem, creating appalling living conditions for the innocent people of this country.
The breakdown of civil order in Somalia has given rise to a situation in which local warlords have armaments of various capabilities. Ill prepared but fiercely proud, this collection of rag-tag bands has wrought havoc on the aid distribution efforts of the United Nations as well as the international agencies of non-government organizations that have been trying to help in Somalia.
We have all seen the images of the commandeered jeeps or the trucks laden with youths and armed with
machine guns or other weapons careening down the streets of Mogadishu. Other groups have heavier weapons. These armed thugs have interfered with delivery of relief on the ground, but even aircraft and ships have come under fire. It has become far too dangerous for relief workers. They are intimidated, threatened and prevented from doing the very job which they have been trying to do. Their vehicles have been hijacked and they have even been shot at.
Since the demise of Mr. Barre, 300,000 Somalis have died of hunger or as a result of the fighting. It has been said that four million of Somalia's seven million people need emergency food aid and that two million are currently dying of starvation.
Some will say that these numbers are exaggerated. It is hard to know, but whether they are precise is really beside the point. The fact of the matter is that more deaths in Somalia are too many. We must create a situation in which food is no longer a weapon in the battle for power in Somalia.
As we all know, the United Nations has tried without success to establish a significant and functional presence in Somalia. On July 27, 1992 the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 767, which called for the establishment of an immediate cease-fire throughout the country and prevailed upon the UN Secretary General and the international community to provide humanitarian assistance.
On August 28, 1992 the UN Security Council met and adopted resolution 775 authorizing the expansion of the UN operation in Somalia to a new total of just over 4,600 civilian and military personnel. Since then a Pakistani battalion of 500 troops was dispatched to the Mogadishu airport, but this battalion remains confined to the airport for all intents and purposes. It has basically been held hostage by the anarchy of the state of affairs in and around the city.
Canada has participated in two of the international community's attempts to bring relief to this devastated country. On September 11 we started bringing humanitarian relief from Nairobi, Kenya, using three Hercules transport aircraft and some 70 personnel. This international effort, which is being co-ordinated by the International Committee of the Red Cross, has successfully
December 7, 1992

conducted 314 flights and delivered more than 4,100 tonnes of relief supplies since early September 1992.
Nevertheless, these aircraft have come under fire while air-dropping supplies to remote parts of Somalia. Another instance of this violence against relief efforts occurred on October 5. While people were unloading the Canadian Hercules and a Belgian transport aircraft at the Mogadishu airport a shell landed between the planes. Both aircraft were forced to depart quickly, and pursued by small arms fire. Fortunately no one was injured.
The other aspect of Canada's contribution to the international relief efforts has been our willingness to participate in the United Nations Operation in Somalia, UNOSOM. On August 28 the Minister of National Defence announced that the government was offering 750 Canadian forces personnel to this multilateral peacekeeping operation. The Canadian Airborne Battalion, reinforced with engineers and support personnel from Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, was ready to deploy to the northeastern part of Somalia in the area around Bossasso. The supply ship HMCS Preserver was in the Red Sea en route to Somalia loaded with provisions to make our Canadian contingent self-sufficient.
It was at this point that the United States offered the United Nations up to 30,000 personnel to deal with the situation.
The United Nations Secretary-General considered the American offer and on November 30 presented the Security Council with options for a response to the present impasse. On December 3, the Security Council passed resolution 794 which authorizes: "Member states. . .to establish as soon as possible a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia".
As the Security Council resolution pointed out:
The situation in Somalia is intolerable and-it has become necessary to review the basic premises and principles of the UN effort in Somalia and -UNOSOM's existing course would not, in the present circumstances, be an adequate response to the tragedy in Somalia.
In light of the emerging situation the government was presented with essentially two options. Canada could either participate in this new UN operation to ensure the
Special Debate
delivery of humanitarian aid or in the peacekeeping mission that would likely follow.
The government decided to make the most realistic and immediate consideration that it could of our contribution. Given the fact that our airborne battalion was already equipped and prepared to go to Somalia as a part of UNOSOM and that HMCS Preserver was already in the area it only made sense for Canada to participate in the first phase. This is a meaningful contribution that we can make now, and with a minimal amount of adjustment to our planned deployment as part of UNOSOM.
Thus, Canadian forces personnel will work together with a number of other countries to ensure that the mission is accomplished with a minimum amount of risk and with the greatest benefit to the needy population of Somalia.
I want to make it perfectly clear that we are participating in this new UN action for humanitarian reasons. As a responsible member of the international community it is our duty to answer the call of the starving people of Somalia. Accordingly, up to 900 Canadian forces ground personnel, 350 personnel aboard HMCS Preserver, and some additional people assigned to various headquarters will participate in this new international effort.
We envisage contributing essentially the same force that we were planning to send to the northeastern part of Somalia as part of UNOSOM, which is a parachute battalion with wheeled armoured personnel carriers. However, this task force will take some additional equipment, such as more heavily armed wheeled fighting vehicles, in response to the changing requirements of the mission. This necessary equipment is now in the port of Montreal. The Chief of the Defence Staff has already instructed the commander of Land Forces Command to begin loading operations, so those ships will be loaded in the next few days and ready to sail.
While this mission entails some measure of danger- and no one has denied that, from the UN, the Chief of the Defence Staff, or the minister-we consider the risks to our personnel acceptable. Members of the Canadian forces have an appropriate mandate and the necessary equipment to complete their mission. As with all United Nations missions, contingency plans exist for commanders to take necessary action to protect their people.

December 7, 1992
Special Debate

Our commanders and personnel are competent professionals who have the government's full confidence. They will determine whether or not to use force in the context of the rules of engagement applicable to this mission. The government believes that our military will perform their task impeccably so that humanitarian aid is distributed to the starving Somalian people.

There will undoubtedly be those who cite our involvement in this operation as evidence of Canadian complicity in an American-run show. I should point out that this line of argument ignores several key points. First, there are over 30 other countries involved. In addition to the United States, France, Belgium and Italy will be providing forces. What is even more interesting is that countries like Ethiopia, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Yemen and Zimbabwe, to name a few, will be contributing in one way or another to this operation.
Second, and perhaps more important, this is a UN operation, complete with UN oversight and an ad hoc commission composed of UN Security Council members, the membership of which is drawn from no less than a dozen different countries. The Secretary-General, through a liaison staff, will submit regular reports to the Security Council on the progress of the operation, much as a United Nations military command was originally intended to function. In addition, the Secretary-General has been given a mandate to establish a fund to pay for the operation.
Indeed, the willingness of the United States to exercise its power through the United Nations in an operation of this type is something that should be welcomed. For years middle powers like Canada have sought to engage the United States in multilateral endeavours of just this sort.
We have come to learn, the hard way, that the end of the cold war does not automatically guarantee a more stable and peaceful world. As we embark on trying to address the new generation of security problems we should be pleased to be able to call upon the capabilities and resources of a country like the United States.
The situation facing the people of Somalia is neither simple nor unchanging. The international community has for some time now sought a solution to the war and famine that are wracking the country. The measures initially proposed by the United Nations this summer are clearly not enough. The situation has deteriorated further and only stands to get worse. Therefore, a more forceful response is essential.
The United Nations is having to face the challenges presented by the emergence of a new and more complex world. In response, nine UN members have again devised an innovative approach to address conflict and alleviate human suffering.
In summary, why is Canada in Somalia? Because our heritage as a multicultural country and a compassionate society has meant that Canadians cannot ignore human tragedy wherever it may occur. Beyond this, as one of the founding members of the United Nations, Canada has a unique responsibility to support the UN at this critical point in its history.
This is why Canada supports this enforcement action and will back its words with concrete action. Our objectives are clear and simple. We will go into Somalia with other UN members to ensure a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and we will pave the way for a subsequent peacekeeping mission.
Our personnel and equipment are ready to go. We are consulting with other UN member states and joint planning is under way as I speak. I think that all Canadians will share my conviction that this is a just cause and my confidence in the ability of our Canadian forces. As a result, I sincerely hope that all members of this House will vote in favour of the main motion and support Canada's efforts to restore hope to Somalia.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be taking 10 minutes of our party's time. My colleague for Northumberland will be sharing the 20 minutes with me. I would appreciate, Mr. Speaker, if you would indicate when my time is up.
I want to say, as my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre said, that we support the motion with the amendment that this should be a long-term plan and not just a short term quick fix. He has said very ably why this
December 7, 1992

needs to be done and why this party supports the action of the government.
He has questioned, quite rightly, what happens afterward and what are the long term consequences of what we are doing. He has said too that this brings into question the future of peacekeeping. Canada has been an historic player in peacekeeping. It seems to me that we are in what might be described as a sea change now. We are in a situation which requires not just peacekeeping, but peacemaking.
We have to ask not only what the policy is going to be in future for our forces but we have to ask also-and I want to use my time to ask the specific question -will the resources be available to our men and women overseas to do the job that they have to do? Not only have Canadians got a record in peacekeeping because they are credible, but because they are competent.
I along with other people was in the gulf and had a chance to see for myself that competence and the fact that the Canadian forces performed so well when called upon to do a job. The question is: Are the resources going to be available to them in future?
I remind the House that during the gulf war when our ships were going overseas, we took a gun out of the museum to put on the deck to make the armaments possible. That is not the kind of equipment that competent men and women deserve when they go into a battle situation.
I would remind the House it is not just the gulf where our equipment has been called into question. When General Mackenzie came back from overseas, he said: "Canada won't be able to participate in additional United Nations peacekeeping operations unless the Canadian forces get more money and troops. Our ability'', he said, "to respond to future requests has pretty much reached its limit". This was before we went into Somalia. This was pre-Somalia.
He said our infantry force is 1,200 members smaller than the metro Toronto police force and yet we are policing the world. He asked if we could not channel the peace dividend from the cold war into peacekeeping equipment and capability for Canadian troops. That has been echoed by others.
Special Debate
It has been echoed by Colonel Alex Morrison who was formerly of the Armed Forces. As a matter of fact, he suggested that the defence department is thinking of forming a special force specially designed to help meet Canada-UN peacekeeping commitments.
Analysts immediately noted, including Mr. Morrison, that the option is being considered at exactly the same time that the strength of the Armed Forces is being cut. He said: "It leaves me perplexed. On the one hand, the government is systematically decreasing the size of the Armed Forces, and now it is talking about setting up a special force. It indicates that the federal government wants Canada to remain a world leader in peacekeeping without going back on its policy to reduce the size of the Armed Forces".
These statements are from capable men and women, some of whom are serving now, some of whom have served previously. They call into question the irony of at the one hand increasing our commitments around the world, stretching our resources to the limit, and at the same time cutting back on our forces and cutting back on funds.
Recently we saw evidence again in the last economic statement that another $1 billion is being taken from the defence department in addition to the cuts that had been made already, without any indication of where those cuts are going to be made or what the effect might be on peacekeeping or where in fact peacekeeping might have a priority within the spending estimates of the department. These are the questions that the government has to answer. The men and women who are going overseas deserve some answers to those questions.
In this budget as in previous budgets, the Department of Finance is dictating the policy of the defence department. That is not good enough for credible and competent men and women going overseas. They want a clear indication from this government as to where it intends to take us in the future and how they will be supported.
At the same time as that policy statement was made by the Minister of Finance, the Auditor General was questioning the spending priorities of the Department of National Defence. Capital projects are vastly overspent; the reserves called into question in terms of their funding and their capabilities; spare parts are far too costly. We have the irony of increasing our commitments without a clear policy direction. At the same time as funds are being reduced, the spending that is going on of

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
present funds is being called into question by the Auditor General.
My time is limited and I did not want to be wholly negative on this because as I said at the beginning, we do support this action. These people who are going overseas and indeed all Canadians want these questions answered. They want the questions answered as to the future of peacekeeping. What is going to be the policy and will the resources be there for them?
We need a clear statement from the government on our future, not just in peacekeeping, but in peacemaking. We need a clear statement of what the priority is going to be in resource allocations. Canadians support peacekeeping, but they want a firm assurance that the equipment is going to be there.
I want to close by reading from a letter that actually was written to the Minister of Finance by Valerie Pike of Ottawa. It says what I have been trying to say.
I would like to express my concern with regard to the most recent, and seemingly endless, decreases in defence spending.
We apparently expect our military to undertake increasingly difficult assignments with not only less funding, but without the certainty of any increased support in the future.
If a commitment to a more peaceful world is still part of the stated foreign policy of this country, then we must be prepared to fully support our peacekeeping operations -
The federal government seemed eager to exploit the popularity of peacekeepers during the recent referendum campaign. While the ads themselves were excellent, one would think that a more concrete demonstration of support would be in order.
In the final analysis a nation should be judged not by the amount of its GNP but rather by the legacy of its contribution to humanitarian efforts. We are in a unique position of having peacekeeping expertise which is the envy of the world. While we may in the future establish an international peacekeeping college, we should in the present fully fund our military. Canadians are putting their lives on the line throughout the world and they deserve our total support. To do less is unconscionable.
We support the present action. We support the objective. We want that objective to be enlarged and to make it clear that it is long term.
It is time to give the men and women who serve in the Canadian forces some clear indication of what the policy is going to be in the future. Moreover, we must give
some indication that the resources are going to be there so that we will continue to be capable and effective, not only in this peacekeeping operation but in others that we may be called upon to do elsewhere in the world.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the resolution before the House this evening which with our amendment the Liberal Party is very pleased to support.
Who can look at the agony, the misery, the deprivation of tens and tens of thousands of Somalis and not long to personally be able to go out and do something to help them.
I would like to begin my comments by thanking all of those people, Canadian and non-Canadian, who for months and months have toiled under dreadful conditions to try and bring in our name, I would like to think, some help to these starving, violence-ridden human beings, victims of such a horrible situation in Somalia.
We support the United Nations resolution which has enacted an enforcement action, or peacemaking, to resolve some of the problems that exist today in Somalia. Although the peacemaking forces are going to be U.S. led, the United Nations will have an ongoing role in keeping track of what the situation is and the Secretary-General will have a role in continuing decision-making with regard to the situation.
It gives us some hope that finally human beings, innocent victims of violence and famine, are the focus and the target of an enforcement action and that we do not only respond when our own self-interest is at stake. This I believe is an important step for the United Nations and the world and something that can give all of us hope.
Another area to do with this whole operation that gives me some hope for the future is the fact that we are taking an enforcement action to disarm those people who are provoking violence against innocent people in Somalia. Those young people, 11, 12, and 13 years old and their warlord masters did not come into possession of those weapons through their own making. We in the western industrial nations of the world, in the north in particular, have profited greatly over decades by arming people throughout the world and those arms have fallen
December 7. 1992

to the people who now perpetrate this violence against the innocent of Somalia.
We are now going to have to pay the cost for what we have profited from in the past. Hopefully, through this action, as we pay the cost, I sincerely hope that cost will not be in human lives. As we pay the cost of this operation, I hope we will come to recognize that our profiting from arms sales world-wide is not worth the cost and that we will be more committed than we ever have been in the past to an arms control convention in the world, not just control of large weapons but conventional weapons as well. We will need to put a lot more work and effort into the conversion of our military industrial base and help other nations of the world to make that conversion as well.
Before I continue, I would like to express my dissatisfaction with what is happening in the House this evening. On Friday morning in Question Period I raised the question as to what recommendations the minister would give to this House for prior debate before a decision was made on what we would do in Somalia.
I personally felt that I was treated with contempt by that minister. It was not just that I felt that I was treated with contempt. I felt the people of Canada were treated contemptuously by this minister and worst of all, I feel that this House was treated with contempt by our minister.
She refused to answer the question in the House. She refused to answer to the people of Canada directly where there could be some debate and some discussion and she arrogantly dismissed us and went to hold a press conference to announce the government's decision.
The process cannot continue this way. The people of this country want to be involved. They do care about what is going on in Somalia and what our relationship is to that situation.
To give highlight to some of their concerns so that it is not thought it is just the opposition raising these arguments, I would like to quote from some recent articles on this issue.
I will begin by a quote from an article by Geoffrey York in The Globe and Mail this week. He said: "Some relief agencies are worried that the U.S. troops will cause more problems than they will solve. They expect that the Somalis will simply hide their guns until the U.S. troops
Special Debate
have departed. Then the same problems of violence and lawlessness could resume".
We have tried to raise this issue this evening, and our action in Somalia which the minister has said will be for a period of up to 12 months with no peacekeeping role after that causes a lot of concern not only to us on the opposition side of this House but also to Canadians. There has to be a long-term view of what we are doing in Somalia. Perhaps it would be appropriate for Canadian forces to be involved in peacekeeping as well as peacemaking.
In quoting Mr. Fennell the article goes on to say: "There are two fears: if the military involvement is too short, things will just go back to the way they are now. And if it's too heavy-handed and neo-colonial, it would just alienate the population".
There is another quote out of The Washington Post that says that things could unravel. We have heard from representatives, both in the U.S. and here in Canada, that we can expect casualties in this operation. That means we could have some Canadian casualties.
I would like to reiterate what my colleague from Labrador was saying. I have grave concerns about the cuts which have been made to national defence.
Rather indiscriminately they appear to be on focus. I had forces personnel speak to me after the gulf war project. They said that before they went to the gulf, they had to beg and borrow equipment and clothing from their colleagues before they could head out to the gulf because they were poorly equipped.
We will risk casualties and we will make higher risks than are necessary if our government is not committed to equipping and looking after our peacemakers appropriately.
We want to know if we are going to provide humanitarian assistance through enforcement action in Somalia whether this is a new principle of government policy. Where else might we expect to see similar actions taken?
I will quote from a New York Times article that says: "The problem is that if halting starvation or upholding human rights are now legitimate criteria for U.S. intervention abroad, as compelling as protecting traditional strategic interests, where does Mr. Clinton draw the new red line? How much starvation is necessary, or how woefully must human rights deteriorate, to justify U.S."-or we can say Canadian-"action? If Somalia,

Special Debate
why not Bosnia, and if Bosnia, why not Kurdistan, and if Kurdistan, why not Haiti?"
We listened this morning in the Liberal caucus to very dreadful stories that parallel those occurring in Somalia, but they are occurring in former Yugoslavia on this very day.
We must respond as well to the human misery there. We must try new ways to bring humanitarian assistance to the people who are being so violently deprived in that area of the world. We need an opportunity to discuss and debate what it is the government is setting as it takes these new paths.
What are our principles and is the Canadian action now limited as it is to peacemaking only? What is, in fact, in the best interests not just of Canada but particularly in the best interests of the Somalians we are trying to help? Helping them today, disarming today, then abandoning them to allow those with power through guns to re-arm tomorrow is really not helping Somalia.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise you that I will share my time with the hon. member for Rosedale.
I rise in this House as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for External Relations and International Development.
The subject that we are debating today is extremely important and historically significant. Indeed, the role that Canada will be called upon to play in Somalia, together with other member countries of the United Nations, goes beyond the roles of humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping that we have traditionally played in the international community.
That is why I consider it essential to examine the reasons for firm intervention by the international forces in Somalia and also the impact of the Somalian crisis on countries in the Horn of Africa and the whole African continent.
The Canadian government's decision to participate in this operation goes much further than the additional measures announced by the Prime Minister on August 21 to support the comprehensive security and humanitarian aid initiative taken by the United Nations in Somalia.
It goes much further because there is no alternative: every effort made so far and all the money spent by the international community to send relief to the sick and starving people of Somalia have not been enough to achieve the objectives.
This year alone, Canada has provided Somalia with food and humanitarian aid totalling more than $22 million, including the emergency aid for Somalian refugees in Djibouti, Kenya and Yemen.
It goes much further because the stability of the whole Horn of Africa is threatened. Although the civil war in southern Sudan continues, some countries are now on the road to recovery and reform. Ethiopia has also begun economic and democratic reforms that give hope. Kenya, which will hold elections on December 29, is moving toward democracy. Canada has given substantial support to the efforts of these last two countries.
The Somalian crisis and the massive movements of refugees in the countries of the region endanger this whole process. The growing insecurity and the drought afflicting the country have forced some 700,000 Somalis to seek refuge in neighboring countries, while 300,000 others are exiled in Europe, North America, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and other regions. Kenya alone has more than 300,000 Somali refugees. Canada will closely monitor these refugee movements and support UN operations in this regard.
We have used every international channel available to get humanitarian relief to various parts of Somalia. Several agencies in the UN network, such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF as well as the International Committee of the Red Cross, take part in the relief operations. A number of Canadian non governmental organizations supported by CIDA are also on location: CARE, Medecins sans frontieres, Oxfam-Quebec, Hope International.
During the 22 months since the overthrow of the Somali President, the situation has been constantly deteriorating in most parts of the country. Over four million Somalis are suffering from severe malnutrition and malnutrition-related diseases. The death toll since
December 7, 1992

November 1991 is over 300,000 and an estimated two million more lives are presently threatened.
The Somali crisis emphasizes the convergence of actions-on the humanitarian, political and military level-required to bring about reconciliation and to restore power and authority. You will remember that, following negotiations with the clan leaders last September, the United Nations had decided to deploy troops to increase the protection provided for the unloading and storage of emergency supplies as well as the protection of convoys in and around Mogadishu.
In response to the call from the United Nations, a Canadian airlift operation was undertaken at that time. Three cargo aircraft support the emergency relief effort under the auspices of the World Food Program and the International Committee of the Red Cross. The airlift is between Nairobi, in Kenya, and the southern part of Somalia.
In spite of all the humanitarian and diplomatic efforts on the part of the international community, the situation is still deteriorating, aggravated by numerous confrontations between the various opposing factions.
Just last weekend there were reports in the papers of this state of chronic instability jeopardising the food relief efforts in Somalia. Humanitarian organizations on location attempted a last-ditch on Saturday to ship 400 tonnes of supplies stored in the port of Mogadishu since the beginning of November out to the northern part of the capital under the terms of an agreement between the factions controlling the two sectors. For the first time in three weeks, the convoy was able to leave the port, but attacks on storage facilities in the provinces are now on the rise. There are over 40 more trucks loaded with supplies waiting to leave the port of Mogadishu for the northern part of the region.

The situation has become so volatile that firm intervention by multinational forces has become unavoidable, although the immediate risk of such an operation temporarily interrupting various efforts does concern us very much.
We hope that this intervention will be as brief as possible and that it will meet with co-operation on the part of forces now on the ground. Only the establish-
Special Debate
ment of civil authority will allow us to bring an end to this intervention.
Traditional diplomatic relations do not work in Somalia right now precisely because no civilian or governmental authority structures now exist in Somalia. Humanitarian intervention by stronger nations has therefore become more justifiable because the chances of negotiating order and a political solution are very slight given that the disputing factions have no real identifiable political objectives.
It is essential that the process of reconciliation be set in motion and that civil authority be established. Leaders of other countries in the region have a crucial role to play and I think that we should applaud the initiatives of the Government of Ethiopia to encourage reconciliation in Somalia.
Political instability, drought and civil war remain the principal obstacle to development in the Horn of Africa and they are behind this enormous demand for international humanitarian assistance. Over the last three years Canada has provided to the countries of the Horn of Africa food aid and humanitarian assistance worth some $200 million. It is in Ethiopia and Sudan that the need for emergency aid had been greatest.

lb manage a durable solution to the chronic crisis raging in the Horn of Africa, it will be necessary to deal simultaneously with the problems caused by heavily armed and militarized societies, massive population movements, ethnic conflict, collapsed economies and environmental destruction caused by human factors.
Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if I could go on for another two minutes. I don't know whether the hon. member for Rosedale would let me finish.


Mr. MacDonald (Rosedale):: That's fine.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: The countries in the Horn of Africa must set up governmental structures that are resolutely focused on peace, security and development. In Somalia, however, it is wishful thinking to even consider that a national government could emerge from the current chaos without outside help. It is equally Utopian to imagine, especially considering the current state of the world economy, that the international community could continue to provide humanitarian aid indefinitely,

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
without looking for ways to introduce conditions that are favourable to reconstruction and rehabilitation of the countries in that area.
The Somali crisis is one example of the need for better co-ordination of humanitarian aid. That is why Canada fully supported creating a department of humanitarian affairs within the UN, while contributing to the central emergency fund set up last December.
I could say a lot more, but I will finish my speech. It is in that perspective that we should see the decision made by the Government of Canada on December 4 this year to take part in operations approved by the Security Council for the delivery of humanitarian aid in Somalia. As a member of this government and as a citizen of a strong, free and democratic country, I fully support this delicate operation and I recognize its historic impact.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that although the attention of the whole world is now focused on the crisis in Somalia, other nations need international aid and original solutions. I am thinking, for instance, of Mozambique, Angola and the Sudan. Canada must continue to do its fair share within the international community and find long-term solutions to long, drawn out conflicts, especially in African countries.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate and, even more, I welcome the opportunity for the debate itself to occur. I have listened carefully to a number of the speeches. I must say that I am a bit concerned at the outset at the attempt to state that we are in some ways not allowing sufficient opportunity for this matter to be debated.
I have heard very few questions in this House raised over the past few months on this issue. It is not only in this House. We have many committees in which this matter could be more effectively and more consistently pursued. I would invite all members of the House to make further and greater use of that because the issues at stake in Somalia are not ones that by themselves can be simply sorted out in a few minutes in the general debate.
One of the things that I think is important to remember in all of this is that at the centre of the present
tragedy of Somalia today is the situation in which complete chaos has occurred in the context of high-tech weaponry. Somebody should ask the question: Where did all these weapons come from? They were not manufactured in Somali basements or in garages or somewhere within that country itself.
One only has to review a bit of the history to know that in the 1970s a major conflict erupted between Somalia and Ethiopia in an attempt by the Somalis to regain territory that they thought was rightfully theirs in the Ogaden. Unfortunately, and I will not go into the details this evening, the arming that took place of Somalia, first by the Soviet Union and later by the United States, has left its tragic legacy in that country. There has been increasing concern, particularly since the Iraq war, about the way in which the arms race seems to go on unabated with or without the cold war. We are again seeing the latest manifestation of that in Somalia.
I would hope that members on all sides would pursue this issue much more aggressively beyond this single debate this evening.
The situation in Somalia will not be resolved easily. My colleague from Winnipeg has proposed a slight amendment to the original motion talking about an enduring secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia. I am not sure that the amendment is quite what the member intends. If it is, I believe it is only going to contribute further to a fundamental problem that we face not just in Somalia but indeed throughout the Horn of Africa and in other parts of the world.
We have become very good, even though I say so myself, at humanitarian gestures and actions. We heard in the recent statement by the parliamentary secretary of the extent to which Canada has consistently responded with humanitarian assistance, but humanitarian assistance is not the solution to the problems of Somalia, Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Angola, any of the countries you want to mention where there has been and continues to be internal conflict. The problem in all of these countries is much more long term, much more associated with the fundamental and grinding poverty that existed for far too long and, I would have to say, by the patterns of international economic activity and sometimes external great power conflicts which do their own damage to the ultimate fabric of these societies.
December 7, 1992	COMMONS
I am most impressed, and it was referred to I believe in a speech earlier today, with the proposal from the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Agenda for Peace which he proposed to the United Nations earlier this year. Before I talk about that specifically, I want to say that the Secretary-General himself is to be given a very large amount of credit to the degree to which we have already been able to move. It is very little and it is very late, but the Secretary-General from his own personal knowledge of Somalia has risked his own stature of leadership to ensure that the Security Council and the United Nations itself would act in this instance.
In that context he has produced I think what may be one of the most important documents to come before the United Nations since its inception. It is an attempt to break out of a narrow definition of peacekeeping to a much larger definition of peace building, beginning with a whole process much in advance of when conflict finally erupts through what he refers to as preventive diplomacy and then in some cases preventive deployment. I suppose that is what we are into at this point. Then it is the actual business of peacemaking which again is part, I think at least, of this present initiative and then peacekeeping which is a traditional definition and a traditional activity that we have heavily engaged in as a country and, finally, building peace.
I am not going to elaborate on all this but I certainly would invite all members to look closely at the leadership that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has provided on these matters because they are quite crucial.
Just two or three weeks ago, along with several other colleagues from this House, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the member for Waterloo and I took part in a two-day meeting at the United Nations in which we looked at this document, particularly in the context of present day Somalia. It was a conference of parliamentarians organized by parliamentarians for global action which attempted to say: "Are there not ways in which we can somehow act more proactively, more constructively and more long term for peace building?"
I do not think the issue here, even at the moment with the extent of hardship and suffering, is simply or finally a matter of making sure enough relief food and relief supplies gets delivered from ports and gets transported to each and every Somali village. It is a question of

Special Debate
whether at the end of the day we can ensure that there is a different situation in Somalia so that this situation does not repeat itself again next year or the year after or five years from now. That is very different, if I may say so with respect to the member from Winnipeg, from the amendment he has proposed this evening.
This evening we are dealing in a sense with sending a very large fire brigade to put out the fire. Just like very large conflagrations this is a very dangerous enterprise. No one should be sanguine about the extent to which we are going to risk human lives, along with other aspects of our activity in this situation.
I regard this as a high point in the initiatives of the United Nations and the Security Council in effecting this international effort to try to establish some corridors of peace for humanitarian relief and assistance. In that sense this is an important motion which I hope will be supported by all sides of the House.
I hope we will continue to have not just debates in this Chamber or questions in this House but much more discussion in the committees of the House and in areas where we can do a lot of detailed and important work toward assisting and working with the people of Somalia and their neighbours to establish a just and lasting peace.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party support this resolution to send Canadian troops to Somalia as part of a United Nations sanctioned multinational force to maintain the security of humanitarian relief in that country.
When the hon. member for Rosedale who just spoke opened his remarks he questioned the Liberal Party's position that this matter should first have been announced in the House of Commons and first approved in the House of Commons. That is our position. We say that wherever possible these kinds of operations should be first brought to the House of Commons and approved here.
We say that because this particular type of initiative is of significant difference from the ordinary peacekeeping operations. In this case the use of force is authorized not only by the peacemaking force but obviously can be used against the peacekeeping force by the warlords in Somalia. Therefore Canadian lives are at risk. We believe that if we are going to send Canadian troops abroad where their lives are at risk there should be a broad consensus

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
in this country to do that, and the place to get that broad consensus is in this House of Commons.
I agree with him that there should be more discussion in committee. We are not against press conferences, but we believe that when Canadian troops, young men and women, are sent abroad on high principle, I admit, but with their lives at risk, that matter should be discussed and approved in this House of Commons. There may be occasions when the government will not be able to do that. We understand that, but in those cases it should come back to the House as soon as possible.
We must recognize immediately-and I referred to it a few minutes ago-that this initiative is an important breakthrough, another important breakthrough on the road to establishing more effective UN peacekeeping and in this case we could call it peacemaking.
Somalia is now a wasteland of warring clans. There is a total collapse of public order with random killing by tribal warlords and mass starvation. It is a situation of chaos. A few years ago there were seven million people living in Somalia-that is an estimate-and today we have already had one million of those seven million people fleeing the country as refugees, refugees from war or famine. We have within the country 1.5 million people on the verge of starvation and 3 million more in desperate need.
We all know that the United Nations has tried to come to the relief and the help of these people. It has approved humanitarian aid and food aid, but because of the warring factions in that country these relief efforts have been faced by extremely dangerous and difficult situations. It has been almost impossible in many cases to deliver that aid.
As hon. members know, UN peacekeeping started in the 1950s as an initiative of Lester B. Pearson, a former Prime Minister of this country who won the Nobel Prize for his proposals in setting up the first United Nations peace forces. Over the years, Canadians have played a prominent role in almost every peacekeeping operation.
Even during the cold war, new peacekeeping operations were approved but innovation or improvement was impossible in the system. However, with the end of the cold war during the last two years peacekeeping has been given a new life. We can see what has been done in Namibia, Afghanistan, Cambodia-that operation is in some doubt now but it is one of the largest peacekeeping forces ever mustered by the United Nations-and western Sahara and so on. There has been a new life, a new impetus for UN peacekeeping operations.
There have also been new innovations with respect to peacemaking and enforcement. While I did not fully agree with the multinational force that was approved for the Iraq-Kuwait war, the gulf war, because I felt it was not the last resort in gaining a peaceful settlement in that conflict, and while I believe that it was not fully responsible to the United Nations, it was still an attempt at establishing a new means of settling international conflicts.
After the war, the United Nations set up the safe zone for the Kurds within the territory of Iraq. That was another new development. Recently there was the dispatch of UN forces to the former Yugoslavia, which is a disintegrating nation.
In these new innovations there has been some difficulty with article 2, section 7 of the UN charter which says: "That nothing contained in the charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state". But it goes on to say: "This principle should not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under chapter 7".
A major issue for the countries of the world is how to balance the principle of non-intervention in section 7, which I just referred to, and the need to protect groups within nations who are the victims of genocide or mass violations of human rights, as has been spoken to by the United Nations in its convention against genocide and its convention for human rights. There is an obligation, as we have seen in countries like Somalia and Yugoslavia, for the UN to intervene and protect these people who are being destroyed, not only as individuals but as nations of people.
So far these new innovations have been ad hoc. But they are providing the groundwork for new approaches in preventive peacekeeping and in enforcement of UN
December 7, 1992

orders with respect to keeping of the peace and preventing conflict. As others have mentioned, the new Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros-Ghali, has published his agenda for peace in which he has quite specific proposals Jo bring about preventive peacekeeping and other measures for global security.
While we approve, in this resolution before the House, of yet another ad hoc measure we recognize that there is a need to formalize new rules with respect to these matters and institutionalize those new rules so that there will be criteria upon which the United Nations and the Secretary-General can intervene in accordance with the rules of law.
The two major questions that the United Nations and the people of the world must decide upon are: one, to what extent we must balance that principle of non-intervention with the duty to protect innocent people for humanitarian and other reasons; and two, to what extent will we go beyond peacekeeping into areas of enforcement and preventive peacekeeping?
As we approve this motion it is obvious we will have to consider its implications for the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, a very tragic war with its ethnic cleansing and genocide.
I also want to mention the whole problem of refugees. We were critical last summer when the minister of immigration announced a special program for Yugoslavia to reunite families; a program for 10,000 families amounting to about 26,000 persons and said if you are going to do that for Yugoslavia you must also do that for Somalia.
On November 13 the minister did go part way as part of the United Nations' 100 day action program for accelerated humanitarian assistance to Somalia. He did recognize or put forward a new program for family reunification for Somalians but it is on a much smaller scale than for Yugoslavia and he hopes, he says in the letter that he sent to the Somalian community in Canada, that he will consult with it on the carrying out of this program.
In conclusion, while we approve of this resolution to send our troops to Somalia, we recognize there are risks, that some Canadian soldiers could be killed and there-
Special Debate
fore, as I said at the beginning, it is essential in these situations that Parliament give its approval in advance.
We support the resolution. We hope our Canadian troops will be well supported in Somalia. We hope they will return safe and sound with their mission well accomplished.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding us that we are now debating the amendment to the motion. The motion as amended will read: "That this House affirm its support for all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions adopted with regard to the present situation in Somalia, and for Canadian, participation in the multinational effort to establish, as soon as possible, an enduring, secure environment for humanitarian relief operations in Somalia".
I do not know why the member for Rosedale had difficulty with our amendment. The last thing we want is UN troops going in, putting everything in order for a week and then as soon as they are out everything is back to chaos. That we do not want and that is why our critic put in that amendment.
My first contact with Somalians was in my own riding of Parkdale-High Park. Many Somalians are settling in my riding. They already have a Somalian community centre. Many of them are getting into small businesses such as food processing, the restaurant business and what have you. Many of them have their Canadian citizenship already and are permanent residents. I know this debate tonight is of great interest and great importance to them.
It is important to them because they have many families separated by this war. Just last Friday I tabled a petition on their behalf, urging this government to speed up the unification of families. Again, it has taken two, three, four years to unite families.
Whether it was people from Ukraine, Poland or wherever, when it came to reuniting families I do not know why it takes this government so long to reunite families. I urge the government to please speed up the reunification of these families. A separated family is not good for Somalia, it is not good for Canada.
My second encounter with Somalians was in the neighbouring country of Ethiopia when I was there with the hon. member for Rosedale observing its regional elections on its request. I must compliment the member for Rosedale on the kind of reputation he left for

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
Canada when he was its ambassador for two years and when he was in charge of distributing food to the starving in Ethiopia.
I hope Canada will get the same reputation in Somalia as we have in Ethiopia. It was very heart-warming when the embassy car would stop at the stoplights or if we were walking along the street the children and elders would be whispering or shouting Canada, Canada. I hope we will leave the same kind of reputation in Somalia.
Canadians have watched the scenes of horror in Somalia and I am sure that we all agree that something must be done to get humanitarian aid to the starving. The main question is what is the best course of action?
Last Thursday the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 794 which calls for an unprecedented effort to ensure the proper delivery of emergency relief supplies throughout Somalia. This decision is the first in which the United Nations has intervened in a country's internal affairs with a mandate to use offensive force if necessary. In my opinion, this is the most significant decision taken by the Security Council since the gulf war.
Since 900 Canadian lives are going to be placed on the front lines of this extraordinary relief effort, the decision to send our troops deserves close examination and debate by this House. Our task as members of Parliament is to reflect the concerns of all Canadians, especially the families of Canadian forces personnel who are sacrificing Christmas at home and who must accept the risk that our ground forces will be far more vulnerable to attack than our participation in the gulf war.
I am naturally concerned, therefore, that the Secretary oi State for External Affairs announced last Friday that Canada will participate in this U.S. led force without consulting Parliament first and not announcing it in this House when she had the opportunity.
The hon. member for Northumberland in Question Period on Friday asked the secretary of state whether we would be committing troops or not. The secretary of state had a golden opportunity to make that announcement in this House. What did she do? She ran out to the media and made the announcement to them. Despicable behaviour.
Security Council Resolution 794 is a significant departure from our conventional understanding of peacekeeping. In fact, we are breaking new ground with the risky and untried proposition of peacemaking. My party supports this decision of the United Nations to take firmer action in Somalia but we must be convinced that this is the best course of action to get food and aid to the starving and the ill in that country.
What about the promise by President Bush to pull U.S. forces out by next January? Where does that leave the multinational force? Where does that leave the Canadian troops? Where does that leave the neighbouring Ethiopian forces that, with limited resources, will also be participating?
We are intervening in a civil war without any guarantee that the prime motivator of this action, the United States, is willing to finish what it starts. We could be faced with another protracted conflict, the likes of which could go on for years. We risk diving into an open-ended conflict with no game plan after mid-January. Do we really think that we can solve all of Somalia's problems in less than two months? Is it fair to the people of Somalia to restore the peace for one day and then hastily retreat out the back door? I would like to know the government's game plan before we commit to a multinational force. Clearly there is a need to finish what we start in Somalia.
I agree with taking the first step. If we do so, we must be prepared to take the responsibility of ensuring longterm security in the region. Otherwise all our efforts will be wasted on the warlords who will resume the war as soon as the multinational force departs from the country.
It is also not clear to me who is responsible for the financial commitment to restore the vital infrastructure and the democratic institutions in Somalia. Is it simply expected that the United States will stick the international community for the bill as it always has done with the United Nations? The Secretary-General, I understand, is authorized to set up a fund to pay for the operation and that is fair. However, I must ask the United Nations, why are Canadian taxpayers paying $14 million per annum for our troops in Cyprus? I just visited these troops a week ago.
Is it fair that the countries who commit the troops and other resources are the ones that pick up the tab or
December 7, 1992

should it be all the countries that belong to the United Nations sharing the cost? I think the answer is clear.
The United Nations' charter calls upon the member nations to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. The charter calls for a deeper understanding for the rights of minorities, including protection for the more vulnerable groups in societies such as women and children.
How will the action in Somalia affect the way we handle the civil war in Bosnia-Hercegovina? Is the international community prepared to take the same risks on behalf of the innocent women and children in Bosnia-Hercegovina as in Somalia?
This morning our critic chaired a round table on the problems of Bosnia-Hercegovina and we had Canadians of Serbian, Croatian, Albanian, Greek and Bosnian descent there. It was a true Canadian way of debating, at the round table, not shouting at each other but giving recommendations. This is what the government should be doing, getting out and listening to Canadians. However, the government is not doing it so we in the opposition party will do it.
In my riding I have constituents representing both the Somali and the Bosnian communities. They are going to ask me if the Government of Canada is willing to act in the same consistent manner in each region.
At this time I am not sure that anyone can provide that answer, but I caution the government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we must at least have a game plan over the long term, lest we be forced to follow the whims of super powers and then suffer the consequences.
Last Saturday I attended the annual Christmas festival put on by the Parkdale Intercultural Council. The Parkdale Intercultural Council tries to invite Canadians who are newer arrivals to Canada. In addition to the Ukrainian performers and participants we had Somalis, Vietnamese, El Salvadorans, and people from Zaire and Thailand.
I looked up the national anthems of all these countries and they all had something in common. All the people of those countries wanted peace. It was so striking to me that at this time, the Christmas season, all the national anthems call for peace and development.
Special Debate
I hope through Resolution 794 that we will have peace not only in Somalia but in Bosnia-Hercegovina and all around the world.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with my colleague from Saskatoon-Humboldt and we will each be taking approximately 10 minutes.
I rise to speak on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party in making it clear that while we support the resolution which is before the House and support the amendment which has been proposed by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, we do have very grave concerns about the process which has led us to this debate.
Last week we in the New Democratic Party called on the government to recognize that before a decision committing Canadian troops to a very dangerous new mission involving the real threat to life was undertaken that Parliament should be consulted. There should have been an opportunity for Parliament to have input before that decision was announced.
Instead what we saw was the minister announcing the decision and now today suggesting that Parliament is in a position to debate a decision which has already been made.
This represents a fundamental contempt not only for this Parliament and members of this House but, as well, for the Canadian people who surely should be consulted through this House before a decision this fundamental has been made.
The member for Rosedale has pointed out rightly that Canadian lives are at risk. Nine hundred members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment will be in Somalia in the very near future. However, the minister suggested that in response to a question from my leader earlier today that governments have to make decisions.
I very much regret that in this particular instance the government has chosen to ignore the important principle of consulting with Parliament before this decision was made.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that we do support the proposed deployment of Canadian forces to Somalia in accordance with the provisions of Security Council Resolution 794. It should be very clearly understood that very dedicated members of the international
147%

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
aid community have expressed concerns about the potential impact of a massive military intervention on the safety of international aid workers, particularly one under the United States leadership.
I think it is important that we recognize the context here today, that some 300,000 people have died in Somalia this year alone from starvation, disease and warfare. Almost a third of the population, two million people, are threatened with starvation and 250,000 to
300,000	could die before Christmas without any help.
It is also important that we not forget our history, that we recognize for 10 years, from 1977 to 1987, the United States poured almost $800 million into this client state. There were massive weapons supplies dumped into that particular region. Of course, there was the propping up of a corrupt and increasingly brutal Siyad Barre. When he collapsed, they walked away but they left behind weapons.
There were massive quantities of weapons: mortars, air-to-ground rockets, plastics explosives, M-16 rifles and tens of thousands of mines. These weapons used against the people of Somalia by Siyad Barre had been supplied by the United States. Therefore, it is essential that we recognize the history, the fact that the international community has a responsibility here.
Certainly we would have preferred, as indeed the Secretary-General himself indicated in his letter to the United Nations, that there be a country-wide enforcement operation under United Nations command and control. Unfortunately, according to Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, the UN does not at present have the capability to command and control an enforcement operation of the size and urgency required by the present crisis in Somalia.
One of the reasons for that is the fact that the United States has not paid its dues. It has not paid its peacekeeping commitments for too many years, which is certainly an essential element of any lasting change in the approach of the United Nations. There must be a recognition that the principles set out by Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali in the Agenda for Peace earlier this year must become a reality.
There must be a United Nations standing army so that we do not have to depend on ad hoc decisions by the United States or by other countries. We must also recognize that there remain many questions about the nature of this operation. Indeed, it is essential that
humanitarian aid be provided to those who are starving literally by the thousands, but what exactly is the scope of this operation?
Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali has pointed out that in addition to getting humanitarian aid through, in his words it is going to be essential for "at least the heavy weapons of the organized factions to be neutralized and brought under international control and for the irregular forces and gangs to be disarmed".
That is a very dangerous and risky operation. The lives of Canadian men and women are clearly at risk and many questions remain unanswered about the scope and mandate of this operation. What is essential is that there be a rebuilding of civil society in Somalia. Somalia is basically a country without a government. It is a country in a state of anarchy.
Africa Watch has pointed out the importance of rebuilding a civil society and the importance of the United Nations working together with those elements of Somalia society that in fact have survived the ravages of Siyad Barre. They include the Somali Red Crescent, informal organizations of Somalis that have distributed food, cared for the sick, the wounded, for children, the elderly and the traditional clan elders.
I believe it to be profoundly tragic that the former United Nations special envoy for Somalia, Mohamed Sahnoun, who had been negotiating effectively with all elements of Somali society to secure an end to the conflict and to protect the relief effort and was negotiating with traditional Somali clan elders, was pulled out of that particular region.
It is essential that there be a resumption of political dialogue and negotiations under United Nations leadership. Canada can play an important role in that process. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that Canada will participate in the initial humanitarian intervention and then will pull out. We will not participate in the ongoing peacekeeping efforts.
What will our role be internationally after we have pulled out from Somalia? What will our role be in working with the NGOs which, under the government's recent economic statement, are going to have their budgets slashed? The very NGOs, Oxfam, Care Canada and other NGOs that are working in the field and to whom we owe an enormous debt of gratitude are having
December 7, 1992

their budgets cut by this government. Clearly that too is unacceptable.
I think that we as Canadians have the right to ask as well within the context of the United Nations: What about consistency? There is a human tragedy unfolding in Bosnia. Surely if the United Nations is prepared to act and to act vigorously and pursuant to an international mandate to the Security Council in Somalia, there are other crises including the crises in Bosnia, Liberia and elsewhere that must be addressed as well. There cannot be one standard in Somalia and another in Bosnia where genocide is unquestionably taking place.
In the longer term, we may very well have to look at a role for the United Nations in terms of some form of trusteeship in Somalia to help to restore civil society, to look at the possibility of an international conference under United Nations auspices to bring together the various parties to try to arrive at a permanent and lasting solution.
The final point I want to make is again to underline the risks in this operation. It was an old Somali proverb which stated that all Somalis will ban together against the non-Somali intruder. The fear of course is that if this operation goes wrong, what could happen is that the various warring clans might come together not only against the United Nations, but against the some 400 international aid workers as well with tragic consequences.
We join in applauding the courage and the dedication of the Canadian troops which will be working in Somalia, the Canadian Airborne Regiment. We wish them well. We think of their families at this very difficult time and certainly we hope for a solution that will not only bring badly needed humanitarian aid, food and drugs to that region but as well will involve the rebuilding of a civil society and a government for the people of Somalia.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is right to offer troops to the United Nations rescue operation in Somalia. The situation there is ghastly and the reality of the famine and the external wars has left limited choices and left the entire people in peril.
It is impossible to remain aloof while gangs of undisciplined bandits operating for their own profit only are
Special Debate
able to impede the delivery of emergency food and medicines to those Somalis who have need of that food and those medicines.
If we are to believe the reports that we hear, and we have no reason to disbelieve, we are told that thousands or more people are dying every day and that up to two million lives are at risk. Boutros Boutros-Ghali last week informed the United Nations that if food is to reach those trapped by the war situation in Somalia, there is no alternative but to use either the threat of force or to use actual force.
Much as many of us abhor supporting armed intervention, when it is the only way to save millions of innocents from death by starvation or disease, we are forced to support it. Now the government must do what it can to make sure that what the United Nations is doing and what we are taking part in is done right and that any action taken by the United Nations sanctioned force is not done in vain. We have a responsibility if we are going to be part of this intervention by the military that when it is over the country will not revert to its present chaotic state.
We also have a responsibility to do right for another important reason. Somalia is not the only humanitarian crisis in the world today. Others are, as mentioned by my colleague, Bosnia, Liberia, the Sudan. These are situations that are crying out for solutions. The United Nations is entering into the new era of peacekeeping and peacemaking. It would seem that we are moving into a more interventionist mode. A well-intentioned but badly conducted operation in Somalia could set a wrong precedent and make it more difficult or even impossible for the United Nations to intervene on the side of peace and humanitarian treatment of the people in the future.
It worries me that this initiative seems to be so U.S driven, so Bush driven if you wish. It seems to me that the need for the United Nations has never been greater in the world. Only through the collective initiatives of the nations of the world will we be able to seize the new avenues of opportunity to address the problems of today and of tomorrow; not just issues such as Somalia, Yugoslavia, the Middle East, but all of the tensions that are caused by poverty, by the population explosion,

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
degradation of the environment, social injustice and abuse of human rights.
A Bush/United States driven initiative in Somalia may not be the best entry into the new world community.
What is lacking from this decision? What is lacking for us here in Canada and probably for the whole world? What must we, as Canadians, be sure is in place if we are going to go on as part of this kind of intervention in the future?
First of all, it is necessary to define the principle of humanitarian intervention. What does it mean? Is military intervention justifiable in Somalia because civil order has collapsed, famine threatens the entire population and all other peacekeeping efforts have failed? Is rapid response absolutely necessary? Will those be the requirements of all intervention in the future? Or has the United Nations, in this particular situation, crossed the line in respect to sovereignty; is there need for a new definition of sovereignty which would not have allowed the United Nations to take this kind of action in the past?
Second, there must be a set timetable. To avoid a Vietnam syndrome sort of approach and to avoid the quagmire of continuing war, we should establish a deadline which will require the Security Council or at least the Secretary-General to have to renew the troops' mandate at some time in the future. That has not been done at this time but it should be recognized as a necessity in the future.
Third, we should sign up more allies. A U.S. operation, conditional on U.S. leadership, smells too much of Desert Storm. Europeans and other African states, as part of the intervening troops, would make the intervention much more palatable to many people of the world, and I am sure to the Somalians as well.
The leadership should be UN driven. Again, U.S. command does not sit well to many people. A multinational command would be more United Nations related and would not contribute to the United States global cop image.
Fourth, we should define the goals now. It is obvious that the short-term goal is humanitarian related and the disarming of the warring factions within Somalia.
What are the long-term goals and who will fulfil them? In every case is this to be the kind of intervention
that we can expect in the future? There must be long-term goals not only in Somalia but in other countries where the UN is operating. There should be action to help the Somalians build a new society.
A large number of NGOs from Canada has been operating in the Horn area. They met on November 26 and November 27 in Ottawa. The idea of intervention into this particular situation was brought before the meeting. They had great concerns. They suggested that the proposed massive intervention may jeopardize the long-term prospects of peace in the region, but they agree that intervention is possible and is probably absolutely necessary under the circumstances.
However they say the intervention should be limited. No more than is absolutely necessary should be put in and the intervention should be monitored. It should not be left up to the United States. It should be monitored by someone who can be objective about what is going on at a particular time. It should also be monitored within recognition of the regional realities of the particular area. In other words, although they think this is necessary they have a great concern that it must be done properly.
That is my message here tonight. If we are going to do this in the future as we have done in the past but under new terms, those terms must be established so that we do this right, that we do not add to the dangers of the situation but make them better for the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: The House will now hear two members of the Official Opposition for a 20 minute period to be divided equally. The next 10 minutes are for the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the motion before us this evening.
I have watched like all our colleagues the situation unfold over past months and indeed in the last few days since we have more or less had a commitment of troops to the area. I see many similarities in the situation tonight as had existed almost two years ago to the day with respect to committing troops to the gulf, young Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen in a situation of risk as is always associated with peacekeeping but in this
December 7, 1992

particular case and the instance in the gulf more risky than heretofore.
I feel very conscious there are many watching us in the emergency debate this evening, particularly the families and friends of those young Canadians who are about to embark on this operation. I express to them-and I know I speak for all of my colleagues on both sides of the House-the appreciation we have for the dedication of their husbands, wives and relatives and indeed for their professionalism. They go forward in the mission we are debating evening with our full confidence and I hope with unanimous support that they are doing for Canada what Canadians want them to do. This is the crux of the debate here this evening. We are debating this matter so that Canadians can approve or disapprove of this operation and of future operations.
This operation is not as large in scope as the gulf operation but in risk, it is at least as great. In the opinion of many, the risk is greater. We have to be cognizant of that as we debate this motion.
There are some similarities with the gulf operation. I hope we can learn from that experience. First and foremost, we have to be very, very careful that we understand why there is support for this operation. Why are we supporting participation of Canadian troops, young Canadians in a far off land for humanitarian purposes?
A lot of us feel more sanguine, more clear on participation in this than we did in the gulf operation. It is not because there is civil disobedience and civil breakdown in a country. It is not because it is perhaps less difficult to confront disorganized warlords, a lot of them teenagers, than it is to face Serbian-trained Bosnians, a situation we were involved in a few months ago. It is because all other peacekeeping efforts have failed. It is because an entire population of a country is threatened by famine and it is because there is need to act now.
I believe that Somalia should be seen as a testing ground for a better United Nations operation. My colleagues and I had a lot of problems with the previous operation. Strictly speaking, it was not in any sense of the words a United Nations operation. The command was different. The control was different and the reporting mechanisms were different. I hope in this operation at least more tools of the United Nations mechanism will be put in place.
Special Debate
I understand that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has accepted there will be United States command. No doubt that gives President Bush more leverage to commit up to 30,000 American troops. However, I hope the United Nations mechanism will be in place so that at least the reports will go to the United Nations. My colleagues and I hope there will be more of the United Nations military committee organizations set up so that the operation will come into force.
My third concern is that we not ignore Parliament. As I said, this operation is different from the gulf operation.
I certainly sense from Canadians a concern that we are getting into an area of peace building that is beyond what we were doing when we started in 1948 and progressed over these many years.
In the last two months I have communicated with four constituents who have been concerned about the safety of their children who are serving now. While there is risk, I assured them that the Canadian forces, because of their professionalism, the leadership of their officers and the understanding of their seniors, they will have the best support possible. Anything that can be done for them will be done, be it in Canada, afloat, in the air or on the ground.
I would like to assure them, in consonance with the concerns of my colleagues as espoused by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg-South Centre, because of the changing nature and the growth of this peacekeeping operation idea in practice there is a pressing need that there be something institutionalized to keep a watchful eye from a parliamentarian viewpoint.
We need to have either a combined committee of the Senate and the House or a combined defence and external affairs committee because as our troops embark on this operation, with Christmas coming, the House will unlikely be sitting for another month and one-half. I believe that calls into necessity more than any other time the need for a standing institutionalized system of parliamentary watch on this operation.
My next point is that we must have defined goals. Clearly the immediate goal is for humanitarian aid, to deliver medical and emergency supplies to those who are trapped without it. Otherwise we are looking at the death of two million people.

December 7, 1992
Special Debate
That will be achieved within a certain time frame, but beyond that, and this is why I support the amendment to the motion, where do we go from there? Do we get rid of all the arms? What about the refugees? What happens to them?
Are we going to develop a new society for Somalia? I do not want to cut into my colleague's time and so my final concern is that at a time when we are at the highest for peacekeeping, at the highest for risk taking operations in Canadian forces, the operations budget is being reduced: $225 million this year, $375 million next year and $740 million the year after.
I would not want to think that defence policy was being made by the Minister of Finance. I hope that this operation will not be impeded in any way shape or form by the reduction in the operation of the national defence budget.
In closing, I once again, as I said at the opening, share the concern of those loved ones who are sending then-husbands and wives, friends and sons and daughters on this operation, particularly at Christmas time. I can assure them that we will do all we can to ensure that they have the proper support and that the Canadian forces will, as usual, do this as a totally professional operation.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Somalia is very grim. The picture is very grim. This point has been made by other speakers and it does not need to be reinforced.
Let it only be said that according to reports coming from the International Committee of the Red Cross, Africa Watch and Physicians for Human Rights, the situation there is of such a nature that the world community must intervene and carry out humanitarian action.
The second point that must be made is that in supporting this initiative on the part of the Government of Canada, and as to the role that Canada should play in Somalia, something must be said about the fact that this is a new type of intervention. This is a major change in policy and therefore when this takes place, as it has been customary in Canadian politics and particularly in external affairs policies, the public should be consulted and involved.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not inform and did not consult Canadians. No debates took place before this decision was made. The issue is not a new one. It has been burning for a considerable length of time.
We have now crossed a threshold from peacekeeping to peacemaking. Having done so, we will be facing very soon questions as to what we do in the conflict in Bosnia or in Liberia or in Kurdistan, Haiti or in any other parts of the world. That question will have to be addressed by the present and subsequent governments of Canada.
The third point that needs to be made is there is a strange notion on the part of the government benches that this will be a brief intervention. Far from it. Peacekeeping has been engaging Canadian troops for sometimes 10, 20 years and even longer as the experience in Cyprus has shown, as the experience at the border between India and Nepal has shown. Certainly peacemaking can take up the same time, if not more time, than peacekeeping. Therefore we have to approach this new policy in a different manner than so far.
Fourth, the point has to be made concerning the budget. Are the funds available for a peacemaking action of this nature which may take much longer than anticipated? Only a few days ago the Minister of National Defence was expressing doubts as to whether he would have sufficient funds available to carry out a measure of this nature.
If the government cannot give assurance that there are enough funds, that the budget is not adequate, we are in serious trouble. The Secretary of State for External Affairs tonight did not touch on budgetary matters and did not give assurances, thus dispelling any sense of doubt on the ambiguity created a few days ago by the Minister of National Defence. The question of budget is very central and very important.
Finally, I would like to ensure that my colleague from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has time to make an intervention. Our thoughts also go to the Canadians of Somali origin in Montreal, Toronto and other centres who are very anxious to have family reunification brought about. They have gone through incredible hardships and sacrifices in the last year and even longer, sometimes two, three and four years.
December 7, 1992

The reunification of married couples has to be brought about by the Department of Employment and Immigration. We urge the government to take the necessary steps to bring this unification about.
To conclude, what we are witnessing tonight is an important step in the development of Canada's foreign policy. Having crossed the threshold from peacekeeping to peacemaking, we are seeing a new dawn emerging in international relationships. We are seeing probably the transfer of sovereignty from individual nations to a larger body called the Security Council in the United Nations. This may bode well for the world community but it is also fraught with uncertainty and hardships.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing -Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for Davenport for giving up some of his time, and I would like his constituents to know that I am very grateful to him for that.
I want to put a personal note on this debate tonight because I live three miles from the Canadian forces base gate in Petawawa where 900 troops are now ready to go to Somalia. It is just a short time ago that I went up to say goodbye to 150 that went off to Cambodia, another 50 off to Kuwait to explode the munition dumps and the shells lying around in that country after the gulf war.
Canadians have tremendous expertise to offer the international community. This exercise upon which they are about to embark is going to be a great challenge and a much different challenge than we have been used to having within the United Nations ambit.
I want to say something about our personnel in the Canadian forces and to follow up on the comments that have already been made. As Canadians we cannot continue to be the great moderation force and the people who go out and build bridges among groups, to keep peace in countries, to tone down international fires so they are not going to become big fires.
We cannot do that unless we have the numbers of personnel in the Canadian forces to do it. I want to say tonight, very strongly in support of the Canadian forces, that if there ever was a time in history, Canadian history and world history, when Canadians have the talents they
Special Debate
have to offer the international community and to tone down trouble spots in the world, it is now that we should be supporting a stable number in the Canadian forces to go out to do this job.
Our Canadian forces are professional soldiers. They are professional politicians because they know how to make deals, and they are professional diplomats because they can get along with almost anybody.
I want to say a word about military families. When we send these troops off to these various places in the world to keep the peace we forget about those who have been left behind. Our hearts must go out to the families of these soldiers who are going away at Christmas and others who are serving this country around the world in peacekeeping missions under the UN. Let us remember them. Those families are also contributing to Canada.
I want to say that this Parliament of Canada, tonight and in the days ahead, must support our Canadian forces in numbers, in morale and in realistic terms. Then we will have the ability to send soldiers out into the world to do the great things on the international scene that must be done to maintain peace in this world. We can no longer allow little battles here and there in this world to simmer into big battles and lead into a third world war. It is inhumane, it is just impossible to even imagine it.
If civilization is to survive we must cultivate the science of human relationships, the ability of all peoples of all kinds to live together in the same world at peace. That is what our Canadian peacekeeping forces and our Canadian military are all about. Let us all support them in their efforts across this nation and be proud of what they are doing for this country in every trouble spot in the world to which they are sent.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, since I was a child I can remember pictures of Ethiopia and Somalia, the two poorest countries of the world. I can remember those terrible pictures and those images. This is not a new problem. It did not start with this particular round.
In 1980 I was made aware by the Somali community of the crisis at that time. I got together with a non-governmental organization and we raised $200,000. We got some milk powder and we headed over to Somalia. We landed in Mogadishu and then we drove for eight hours

Special Debate
out through the camels and out over the desert. We bumped along until we came to 60,000 people huddled in little bush shacks. They had denuded the sparse desert to put these together around a little mud hut that was not higher than four or five feet tall. In these little huts were largely mothers and children.
We took them the food that we had, the powdered milk, and they started pouring out of these little mud huts. They lined up 10,000 mothers and children but we only had two trucks. That is all there was. So they weighed each child as the mother stood there hoping that her child would make the weight per age according to the standard, and the child was given back to the mother again, again and again. She took them back to die.
When I see these things on television day after day I have to turn away because that reality is so intense for me. I came back to Canada and said we must do something about it. I talked to CIDA and was told that it was not a program country. I talked in the committee and I questioned all the then ministers at the time.
I have to say that there were one or two compassionate ones on the immigration side sitting across from me who did their best to help but it was not a country program. We could not add another country. It was not French. It was not British. It was just the poorest country in the world. We could not add it to the country program. We have not added it since.
They were dying then and they are dying today, and they have died by the thousands ever since then. They will keep on dying.
What do we have to bring to them? We bring them weapons and soldiers. Probably we have to do this to make the peace now, when we should have made the development funds available 20 years ago.
It is a tiny little country. There are only five or six million people. It has some mining resources. It has some fishing resources. It had an opportunity. Sure it has a repressive government so nobody wanted to touch it with a ten-foot pole back then. I met that supposedly repressive president, President Barre. At 2 a.m. he scheduled his appointments. Corrupt as he may or may not have been at least there was a semblance of order
that could have started the process and could have meant some hope.
Maybe this is hope that we offer today in the form of trying to make peace.
If we move all of this big equipment in there, and all of these people from all over the world, if we make the peace and then move out what have we done? What have we done? I urge that this House think of the vision that I have, it is so indelible in my mind and I have never felt this way before, of dying children, of mothers carrying their children who have to die. This is the beginning of an enlightenment, a recognition of the future of Somalia, and the beginning of the planning for the development programs, the free market system and so forth, and even democracy, that can give hope to Somalia.
I thank the House for this debate. I thank the members for their participation. Now let us have a comprehensive look at Somalia in its present and its future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: It being 9.26 p.m., pursuant to the order made earlier this day, the three hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House have expired.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion. Accordingly the first question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
December 7, 1992

Special Debate


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Pronovost):: Pursuant to order made earlier this day the recorded division stands deferred until three o'clock p.m. Tuesday, December 8, 1992.

It being 9.40 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.40 p.m.