1992-03-30

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil -Papineau) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of creating the Societe Immobiliere Oka-Kanesatake (SIOK) and to transfer to the Socidte the budget already allocated by Treasury Board for the purposes of negotiating the reunification of lands at Oka-Kanesatake.
She said: Mr. Speaker, when I tabled the motion to create the Societe immobiliere Oka-Kanesatake, there were and, in fact, still are many problems with the difficult negotiations on reunification of Indian lands at Kanesatake and also with the agenda now being discussed with federal negotiator Bernard Roy. Things have come a long way, but even today, the process that was designed to find a comprehensive solution to this very complex problem is terribly slow, which adds to the lack of understanding that prevails between both communities.
Perhaps I could put things into perspective and introduce the many parties that are concerned about the eventual outcome. First, the municipality of the parish of Oka, where about 50 or 60 non-aboriginal families live within the Mohawk lands of Kanesatake.
For the municipalities in the parish it is a very special problem because these families no longer wish to live on federal Indian land. These families are faced daily with the fact that, unlike other Canadians, they do not have peaceful enjoyment of their property, they constantly
feel and are often told, unfortunately, that the place is not theirs, that they are living on Indian lands and that those lands are being claimed and belong to the aboriginal people.
So these white people, these non-aboriginals would like to see this rather unusual situation cleared up as soon as possible. For the municipality, it means losing 50 ratepayers, so it is a rather unusual and in fact unique problem, both for non-aboriginal and aboriginal people in the parish.
In the municipality of the village of Oka, aboriginal people, between 50 and 55 families, live in the village surrounded by non-aboriginal lands. It is more or less a checkerboard situation. We have aboriginals living within lands owned by white people and non-aboriginals living within aboriginal lands. So there is a very real problem.
What jurisdiction applies to an aboriginal person living on federal land in the municipality of the village? Do provincial and municipal laws apply? Does the municipal building code apply? According to a recent judgment in the Jean-Roch Simon case, which is being appealed, the judge said that in the municipality, provincial and municipal laws applied, and just because it was federal land did not mean that these people could build homes that did not conform to the municipal code.
We have the Kanesatake Band Council, whose members were elected by their peers for the first time. This provisional council is supposed to set up a more permanent election procedure, based on their own by-laws, by the end of June 1992. The Band Council is responsible for day to day administration, for all land claims negotiations, for the agenda now being negotiated with the federal negotiator, land reunification, and economic development. In other words, they have a lot on then-plate.
There is the federal-provincial negotiating committee which includes the mayor of the parish, Mr. Patry, who was appointed, if you recall, during the crisis in 1990. Mr. Roy had been involved at the time, and was appointed

March 30, 1992
Private Members' Business
federal negotiator in charge of negotiations with the aboriginal people. Subsequently, of course, there were a number of problems which held up the committee's work for quite some time, and a number of meetings could not be held. Obviously, without meetings the parties cannot discuss the concerns of both communities.
Furthermore, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development maintains its fiduciary role visa-vis the aboriginal people. The department is therefore very much in the picture, because to the aboriginals, the department is their federal counterpart, since they will only negotiate from government to government. This means the entire regional office of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is still very much involved in this matter.
A number of associations and groups were formed since the events in Oka in 1990. To name only the larger ones, there is the Association of Property Owners inside Kanesatake, also known as APIK. These people represent the interests of about 60 families which live in the aboriginal checkerboard.
They did a simply outstanding job and I must take the opportunity again to congratulate the leaders of this association who with their well-prepared and articulate presentations were able to convince the government that their problems were real. I can tell those who live in this area that I am particularly concerned about their daily problems and they know that I am looking after their situation regularly.
The Oka Chamber of Commerce, through its president, Michel Bond, is very concerned about economic development in the region. Everyone is wondering what parcels of land and houses might be bought for the reunification of the natives' land holdings. People wonder if it might be their own house. For the whole business community in the area, it is a big problem and they want it settled. They have continually shown leadership. The Chamber of Commerce recently formed a coalition of local non-profit organizations including the Oka farmers' wives, the united craftswomen and the owners' association, in short, any charitable or other group in Oka.
Mr. Speaker, I have left the most important for last. Mentioning it last in no way affects its importance. The citizens of this great region live in a unique territory which is unmatched. Quite legitimately, they want to
know what will happen to them tomorrow. Will their house, street or neighborhood be considered for the land reunification? Can they enlarge their house? Can they demolish it? Can they build a swimming pool? Can they rent their house? Can they enjoy their property in peace? Those are legitimate questions that any home owner has. In that area, they raise them all the time. I say again that we must make a very big effort at communicating with those people, because the citizens of Oka want their community to be as it was before. They want to live in peace in that wonderful region, Mr. Speaker, which you should visit one day.
Now there is a last offer. The Kanesatake Mohawks always said that the Oka pine grove was sacred land and that any negotiation with the federal negotiator could succeed only if the Mohawks recovered that part of the territory adjoining the famous parcel of land bought from Mr. Rousseau, and the Jardins d'Oka. It is now a municipal park which is not used by non-natives, it must be said. I think that the Oka council is quite aware of it, and many people with whom I have spoken are well aware that the pine grove park is a wonderful spot, but is used by the natives for various ancestral reasons.
The home owners south of highway 344, who you recall were the first to be thrown out when the armed warriors took Oka on July 11, 1990, a date now famous in the minds of my constituents in that part of the riding, lived and still live in a rather unusual situation. You see, the pine grove is on the north and these home owners are on the south, so the government cannot create a reserve behind, which I think neither the native people of Oka nor the whites want to have. This is what the government has done. It asked whether the village of Oka would be interested in a transfer of property. To solve the problem of those living south of highway 344, the government would buy that land, between 12 and 15 properties, and in exchange, the village would turn over the pine grove to the negotiating committee so that the federal negotiator could see the light at the end of the tunnel and finally conclude what I would call a peace treaty, Mr. Speaker, which is what everyone wants.
What we did not know but have since learned is that the residents of Girouard Street, the owners that are neighbours at the back of the residences south of highway 344, are very concerned. They say this: "If the federal government transfers the properties south of highway 344 to the municipality, the latter could lay out a
March 30, 1992

park or do anything it wants." The owners have told me: "Madam Bourgault, we do not want someday to find ourselves, through circumstances, with a park adjacent to our backyards, a park that could eventually belong to aboriginal people." This situation presents a particular problem for those residents, a problem that the government, as well as the municipality and the federal negotiator, must take into account.
Those are only a few of the problems. Of course, all those people and organizations have retained the services of lawyers. There are several lawyers from various firms involved in this issue who try, as best they can, to protect the interests of their clients. There is all kinds of speculation; there is a lot of hearsay, "I heard that", "maybe that", and "possibilities that". In fact, there are so many rumors that we must absolutely establish a communication process as soon as possible.
The Hon. Monique Landty has two big responsibilities since, on the one hand, as minister of state for Indian affairs, she is responsible for aboriginal rights and, on the other hand, as a minister for the region of Laval-Rive-Nord, she is the regional responsible minister. Therefore, she finds herself in a rather difficult position, but I must say that she works very hard. She has never stopped working on this issue, and she was always available when people wanted to meet with her. She has done all that she can and I must say that she does not always get the necessaiy support, including from myself as well as from aboriginal people that do not necessarily support her efforts. This issue is so unique and so complex that we must look at it in a unique fashion. It is not easy for a government to find a unique solution to a unique problem.
It is for all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I propose the creation of the Societe Immobiliere Oka-Kanesa-take, of which I would like to enumerate some objectives: to transfer the reunification of lands process, as well as the budget allocated by Treasury Board for that purpose, to a local authority; to allow more open negotiations, by establishing a legitimate intermediary between the two communities; to reduce the over-all costs of the reunification of lands; to accelerate negotiations at every level by reducing to a minimum the present delays; to bring together the two communities; to ensure stability and continuity to the negotiation process;
Private Members' Business
to create a favourable climate for the economic and social development of the communities, and so on.
The government has decided to open a local public works office to accelerate the process as regards anything that can be negotiated at the table. When negotiators come to the conclusion that a piece of land is necessary for unification purposes, rather than wait until the end, and in order to solve the problem of non-aboriginal people that are like hostages in those negotiations, Public Works Canada will act immediately. The office just opened and there have been problems because aboriginal people have demonstrated to keep that office from opening. Once again, this was because of a lack of communication and because the aboriginal people did not know the role of that office. This office is there to answer legitimate questions from the people, such as: "Is my house being considered? Is it going to be bought or not?"
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the coalition and the Chamber of Commerce are still holding meetings and I think that it is not only up to the federal government or the provincial government to settle the problems of these two communities. They will have to learn to compromise in order to live together. They have no choice. Nobody is about to be deported and the federal government will not expropriate. One Mirabel was enough. We do not want to create another similar situation.
Therefore, it is a matter of mutual agreement. But again, there must be consistency. We cannot buy up all of Oka. The federal government cannot acquire the ownership of the whole area and the Mohawks from Kanesa-take must understand that white people are living there too and will continue to do so. That is the way it is and there is nothing we can do about it. The two communities must immediately start to look for local means to help one another understand their respective specific needs and interests.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the government made the right decision when it decided to open an office there, although I have to admit that, personally, I would have preferred all matters to go through a Societe Immobiliere Oka-Kanesatake. We did resolve the sensitive issue of Mirabel expropriations with the Societe Immobiliere du Canada in Mirabel, and things went just fine. The local people dealt with the government offi-

March 30, 1992
Private Members' Business
cials in charge of buying and selling the land. This leads me to believe that, had we put one single local unit in charge of the entire process, there would have been no problem. There would not have been such a big problem due to lack of communication, misgivings about what a mandate is, the perception some may have regarding the sale or transfer of the lands known as the pines for the property south of highway 344, all legitimate questions the people have after going though the dreadful crisis they experienced.
Let us not forget that the events of the summer of 1990 have left indelible scars on these people's minds. Of course, each time a problem arises in Oka, the people who have not yet recovered from that crisis will get very insecure. It is only normal that they ask questions and want their concerns answered.
In closing, I wish we had created that agency, but the government decided otherwise and I am prepared to work with Public Works, Indian and Northern Affairs and the negotiating committee. However, I would really like to know when the negotiations will be over. When are we going to see the light at the end of the tunnel at the negotiating table. It looks so complicated to many people, but it seems to me that, with a little good will, considering the serious unemployment situation in Ka-nesatake, considering that economic concerns must be resolved without delay, it would be time to set aside all those animosities and act to restore good relations and put an end to those negotiations which are dragging on and are not conducive to bringing the two communities closer together.


Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the private member's motion put forward by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, my colleague from the area that is involved in this particular motion.
Her motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of creating the Society Immobiliere Oka-Kanesatake and to transfer to HueSocMU the budget already allocated by Treasury Board for the purpose of negotiating the reunification of lands at Oka-Kanesatake.
I would like to establish three important points that this House and the Canadian public need to be aware of. First, this motion is irrelevant since the member's own government has already objected to the idea in a letter which was sent to the chief of Kanesatake.
Second, the member is in conflict of a responsibility to all of her constituents and to the members of this House.
Third, the precedent set by establishing this process in Oka would be unwieldy and costly in all other regions of Canada where land claims processes are being negotiated.
This motion is an example of a waste of time and taxpayers' dollars. The government has already opposed the idea in a letter that the Minister of State for Indian Affairs wrote to Chief Jerry Peltier on March 11,1992. In that letter the federal minister gives very clear assurance that there will be no acquisition of properties by the special office proposed by the member opposite before any issues are addressed at the negotiating table.
The minister also stated that she believes in the current negotiating process. The Mohawk Council of Kanesatake already has a negotiating process in place with the federal government for the transfer of land. The federal negotiator is Bernard Roy who has developed the process in conjunction with the Mohawk Council. The negotiators are progressing. If they are to succeed, it is essential that these parties are allowed to proceed.
This motion is an attempt to undermine and destroy the negotiating process between the federal government and the Mohawk Council. You cannot look to a business deal, a real estate office, for a very complicated political problem that needs a unique solution, as she puts it. You need to deal within the realm of politics because it is not a business deal that will deal with this particular issue or that will resolve it.
In my view, the member is in conflict. She is not only proposing a motion that her own government has already rejected, she is also working against her own constituents whom she was elected to represented in this House, not work against. They are the Mohawk residents of Kanesatake. Whether she agrees or disagrees, they are also her constituents. She has shown no respect for the Mohawk government of Kanesatake.
March 30, 1992

Private Members' Business
I am a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which held months of hearings as a result of the Oka crisis. Both the member and I worked on that committee together, at odds at times but together nevertheless. In the end we came out with a report in the summer of 1990 which makes some very specific and constructive recommendations.
The member should bear in mind one recommendation. We produced a set of recommendations to the government. The member, by way of her motion, is also conflicting with the very report which she endorsed.
Let me read the recommendation which the members of that committee agreed to: "Recommendation No. 6: The land views conflict resolution at Kanesatake. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs recommends that the government approach the parties regarding the advisability of putting in place a process to deal with conflicts between municipalities and Mohawk authorities over land use issues affecting both communities without prejudice to the land claims. The committee recommends the appointment of a mediator, upon the joint approval of the parties concerned, to facilitate discussions over land use matters such as zoning and other municipal concerns. The committee also recommends that the appointment of an arbitrator jointly agreed upon to make binding decisions where negotiations and mediation do not resolve the conflict".
I also want to point out to the members of this House that by supporting this motion, a precedent would be established whereby such an office could be established in every municipality in Canada where land claims were being negotiated, where there are difficulties and complexities that do take time, that do take consideration and extra work, that do take the expertise that is being put forward by the mediator and the Mohawk Council at this time, and also by the federal government.
For instance, does this House believe that the town of Inuvik should receive funding from the federal government to establish an office because of the negotiations of the Gwichin regional claim? Will the government be establishing such an office in Iqaluit because of the TFN plan it proposed to create in Nunavut. How much would these offices cost and what would be their purpose other than to undermine the land claims process agreed upon by the federal government.
All Canadians remember the tragic summer of 1990.1 agree with the member opposite that we have to come together and look for a resolution. This motion is clearly provocative in light of what has occurred over the last couple of years. The conflict between the government and the people of the pines provokes emotional and psychological trauma for all involved. It is beyond me why anyone in Canada, much less the member of Parliament for the region, would want to jeopardize the system which has been established by the people since that tragic event to deal with land transfer processes.
I beg members of this House not to put our country into this volatile situation again and to not support this motion.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the motion that has been put by my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau.
Members on all sides of the House know what a delicate issue land unification is for Kanesatake. Despite what the newspapers are reporting, negotiations are continuing among representatives from the province of Quebec, the federal government, municipalities in Oka and the band council. Indeed Grand Chief Peltier has already let it be known that he is unequivocally opposed to the proposal. He proposes instead a return to vigorous discussions at the negotiating table in order to make progress.
The efforts of the hon. member who put this motion to resolve the issue are well known and she deserves the support of all members of this House. However, certain important aspects of her proposal are unacceptable to the Government of Canada because unanimity has not been achieved among the principal parties involved.
The federal government and the residents of the two communities do not want a repeat of the events of 1990. We must enable the two communities to work together at re-establishing harmony.

March 30, 1992
Private Members' Business
I want to recap quickly a few facts to demonstrate for members on all sides of the House the progress that has been made since that time. Indeed during the summer of 1990 the government purchased, in two stages, the entire 106 acres of land necessary to launch the lands unification project at Kanesatake. The government acquired the land to put an end to the crisis and to demonstrate its good-will with respect to the principal claims of the Mohawks of Kanesatake.
In October 1990 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development held a series of talks with representatives from Kanesatake to discuss ways of settling the issues that remain unresolved in their community.
In November 1990 the minister announced the start of negotiations with the Kanesatake negotiating committee, negotiations that were aimed at establishing a unified territory for the community of Kanesatake, solving long-standing grievances concerning the seig-neury of Lac de Deux Montagnes; ensuring housing, the necessary community infrastructures and economic development and formulating an agreement concerning self-government.
In February 1991 the Government of Canada and the Coalition of Mohawks of Kanesatake agreed to the schedule for land negotiations. The following April, in view of the growing dispute over whether the Mohawk Coalition of Kanesatake represented the community, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced that a plebiscite would be held to determine the type of government the community wanted. After the plebiscite an election was held and Jerry Peltier was declared the Grand Chief. Upon being elected, he was given the task of developing an elections code that would serve as the foundation for electing a permanent council for Kanesatake.
The Minister of State then asked the federal negotiator to meet with members of the new council as soon as possible to discuss the procedure for resolving grievances concerning land.
In October the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled in the House the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs called The Summer of 1990.
In April 1991 the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a royal commission on aboriginal peoples. At the same time he announced new initiatives on specific land claims shortly before the publication of the report. With respect to the policy on land claims, significant changes have occurred aimed at accelerating the process of settling both specific and comprehensive claims.
The specific claims commission was established as part of the initiatives announced by the Prime Minister and will provide an independent mechanism for resolving conflicts. The commission was also given the mandate to handle arbitration at the request of the parties concerned.
Specific land claims whose origins predate Confederation have now been approved for review and a process for expediting the settlement of small claims has been set up. With regard to comprehensive claims, the government has lifted the limit of six for the number of claims that could be negotiated simultaneously.
These are some of the measures taken by the government to clearly demonstrate that aboriginal issues are at the forefront of governmental concerns.
Colleagues will also recall that the committee recommended that the Government of Canada ensure that the Six Nations Confederacy be involved and consulted in seeking a solution of the issue of administration at Kanesatake. The committee indicated, and rightly so, that it was primarily up to the citizens of Kanesatake to resolve this issue.
The Government of Canada is promoting mechanisms through which residents of the community can make their own choices concerning the type of political representation they want.
The committee also recommended that the government consult with the parties about the creation of a process for resolving conflicts between municipalities and Mohawk authorities over land use issues. It recommended the appointment of a mediator to facilitate discussions on land use, and among other things, zoning, and the appointment of an arbitrator to make binding decisions where mediation and negotiation have failed.
At the end of the 1990 conflict, the federal government appointed a negotiator to resume negotiations with the community on land issues. The negotiating table
March 30, 1992

remains the forum where the Canadian government will negotiate with the band council in order to consider and resolve the community's other concerns.
Colleagues will recall that one of the main causes of the dispute in the summer of 1990 was the Mohawk claim to land known as the pines. The land was part of a municipal park and was adjacent to a municipal golf course which the municipality was planning to expand. This land was not for sale and up to that point the municipality had no intention of parting with it. In order to address the issue we have sought innovative solutions.
Last month the Minister of State announced details of the federal proposal aimed at resolving certain concerns of the residents of Oka and Kanesatake regarding lands. Under the proposal, the government is recommending the purchase of property south of highway 344 which will be exchanged with the municipality of the village of Oka for wooded land belonging to the municipality located west of the existing golf course and which was at the heart of the 1990 conflict.
This constitutes a fair and equitable solution likely to satisfy all parties involved. On the one hand, Mohawks will obtain land situated in the pines which are of great cultural importance; on the other hand, the municipality of the village of Oka will take possession of land which it could use to benefit the community. The initiative is one which is very likely to advance the issue of land unification at Kanesatake.
It is essential that the land at Kanesatake be continuous and not contain any enclaves. Only a few examples exist of aboriginal land that is so spread out. This type of land configuration makes both community living and economic development difficult. Joining the pines to the land already acquired by this federal government is in step with unification of this land.
Among the key elements of the proposal of the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau is the creation of a body that would be responsible for informing the entire population, native and non-native, of the federal government's plans on all issues of interest to the two communities, principally that of land acquisitions.
I would join colleagues on both sides of the House in applauding the recent announcement by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau concerning the establishment of the federal information office in Oka-Ka-
Private Members' Business
nesatake. The presence of an office such as this in the community will contribute significantly to improving relations between the region's native and non-native communities.
The office will fulfil two objectives of the federal government. First, Public Works Canada officers need a location to conduct business when they are discussing purchases with land owners. Second, a liaison officer will be on site to inform all parties concerned of the advances being made by the government in the land unification project.
This information will be provided once a decision has been made at the negotiating table. Certain segments of the population of Kanesatake have called for the office to be closed. Following discussions the band council agrees that the government should act openly and promptly with the residents of both communities on the land issue. We believe that this office can play an important role in this regard. It must therefore remain open and proceed with its mandate.
In conclusion, after hearing this brief overview, I am sure colleagues will agree that significant progress has been made on the Oka-Kanesatake issue. But negotiations currently under way must continue. There must be no new delays; the entire population is calling for action. People in the area are anxious for the land unification project to be completed, as this will end the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the community.
The government has made a commitment to move ahead while taking into consideration the interests of aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginals in the region. We must continue in the direction in which we started. The future of an entire region of Quebec and Canada is at stake.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the proposal presented by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, especially since I was astonished when I heard the hon. member for Western Arctic accuse my colleague of having a conflict of interest. That is the kind of comment which since 1990 and shortly before has led to the endless wrangling that has been going on in the area. I would have expected the hon. member for Western

March 30, 1992
Private Members' Business
Arctic to be more diplomatic and more aware of what is going on in this part of Quebec.
The motion presented by the hon. member for Argen-teuil-Papineau reads as follows:
- the government should consider the advisability of creating the Societe immobiMre Oka-Kanesatake (SIOK) and to transfer to the Societe the budget already allocated by Treasury Board for the purposes of negotiating there unification of lands at Oka-Kanesatake.
As a member of this House, I feel I must congratulate the hon. member on her efforts since 1990 to find a solution to the problem of land reunification in Oka-Kanesatake. Her proposal includes a number of very interesting aspects which deserve further study. For instance, I welcome her suggestion to create a unit that will be responsible for informing the people of Oka-Kanesatake about the federal government's plans.
In fact, since the end of the crisis, the people in these two communities have had no mechanism for getting information on what is happening and how their interests are being defended. As a result, there is a lot of misunderstanding and disagreement which is certainly not conducive to restoring good relations between aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities in the region.
In fact, I was delighted when the hon. member announced a few weeks ago that an information office, staffed by Public Works Canada, would open its doors. I think this office will be extremely helpful in disseminating information to both communities. In this way, any false rumours that might upset the normal negotiating process for the reunification of Kanesatake lands could be defused immediately.
By opening this office, the government has made it clear it is concerned about the well-being of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal population. Last year the health minister announced several initiatives that would be helpful to the local economy. Funds were allocated to stimulate the region's tourism industry.
The proposal by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau to create a unit consisting of representatives of all parties concerned to manage the land acquisition process would nevertheless cause serious problems. It would also cause additional delay in settling the land claims issue.
The lands reunification and acquisition process is starting to show some interesting results. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has asked Public Works Canada to start negotiations with non-aboriginal property owners who want to sell their property. A number of purchase offers have already been made and others will be made very shortly.
Incidentally, the entire process is based on mutual agreement, and no property owner will be expropriated by the federal government.
Members on both sides of the House are aware that the piece of land referred to as the pines is very important to the Mohawks. It is important to them both culturally and as part of their heritage.
For the village of Oka, however, this happens to be a park next to the municipal golf club.
We know that ownership of this land was the focus of the various events of the 1990 crisis. The Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development recently made a very important and innovative announcement concerning these lands.
Under this proposal, the village of Oka will acquire certain properties south of highway 344 in exchange for the pine grove. This is a fair and reasonable solution that would enable the municipality to acquire land to use as it sees fit. At the same time, it will allow the Kanesatake Mohawks to obtain the pine grove that they say they want so much. That is another important step in resolving the grievances related to land unification in Kanesatake.
As I said before, more progress is being made at the negotiating table. It is up to the parties involved to inform the public about it. That is why I believe that the proposal from my colleague, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, is unacceptable in its present form. Furthermore, it implies that the municipality and village of Oka would have their say in managing the land that the Kanesatake Mohawks consider their own.
I am convinced that this proposal is completely unacceptable for the native people concerned. Everyone yearns for the land unification issue to be settled quickly. We must all ensure that this matter is resolved as soon as possible. We cannot afford more delay in unifying the land at Kanesatake, and the negotiating process begun by Public Works Canada must not be impeded. We must
March 30, 1992

not encourage real estate speculation in Oka, nor can the negotiating process be dragged out because property values for the present owners would go down even more.
The federal government is committed to offering purchase prices that would reflect the circumstances that these property owners had to face. They will receive fair and reasonable offers.
Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our constituents to work to restore harmony between the two communities. Let us therefore give the present process time to take its course.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since no more members wish to speak, the time provided for Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given verbal notice to my colleagues in the respective parties with regard to a point of order concerning Bill C-63.
It was given first reading on March 10, 1992.1 believe that this bill is out of order, and as the Chair hears my submission I think it will become obvious why I am making this particular point.
I do so before the bill is introduced for second reading, Mr. Speaker. I will allude to remarks made by one of your predecessors who indicated quite clearly that perhaps when making an intervention of this nature it ought to be done shortly after the first reading but certainly before second reading of the substantive part of the bill.
Standing Order 68(3) states:
No bill may be introduced either in blank or in an imperfect
shape.
I suggest that Bill C-63 is in breach of that particular standing order.
Point of Order
In the budget the Government of Canada announced that for reasons of economy it planned to close a number of government agencies. A number of these are merely of an administrative nature and lend themselves to being folded into other agencies doing similar work. Others, however, are distinctive agencies performing distinctive public functions.
Bill C-63 is intended to give legislative authority to the government's announcement with regard to six agencies performing, in my view, distinctive functions.
Bill C-63's long title, an act to dissolve or to terminate certain corporations or other bodies, is intended to mask the real complexities of the bill. It puts forward the fiction that the bill is merely a cost cutting measure eliminating a bunch of redundant or archaic agencies while in fact, when one examines the bill, it reveals that while it does wind up some agencies thereby saving some money, it also makes major substantive changes to public policy with regard to the role of government.
Very briefly I think it should be noted that one of the agencies in Bill C-63 that I referred to is the Canadian Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, and obviously the minister responsible therein would be the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It has consequential effects with regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The statutes would be amended there.
The second agency which has been referred to is the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. The minister responsible would be the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Again that particular section would have consequential effects on the Access to Information Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Privacy Act, and the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Another agency is the Economic Council of Canada. The minister responsible there would be the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. It too has a number of acts which would be affected in consequence thereof: access to information, schedule II to the Financial Administration Act, schedule III of the Municipal Grants Act, and the schedule to the Privacy Act is amended.

March 30, 1992
Point of Order
The fourth agency is the International Centre for Ocean Development. Again the minister in this particular instance is the Minister for External Relations, which is different from the previous one.
The fifth agency is the Law Reform Commission of Canada. I might add that under the International Centre for Ocean Development, when one reads that statute, the consequential effects are to the Financial Administration Act, particularly part 1 of schedule III, as well as the International Centre for Ocean Development, the act itself.
Under the Law Reform Commission of Canada there are a number of statutes, some of which I have already referred to, that would be duly affected as a result. The minister in this particular instance would be the Minister of Justice.
The final one is the Science Council of Canada. The minister responsible would be the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. Again a number of statutes would be affected, namely schedule I of the Access to Information Act, schedule II of the Financial Administration Act, schedule III of the Municipal Grants Act, the schedule of the Privacy Act, part 2 of schedule I of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and part 1 of schedule I of the Public Service Superannuation Act.
The bill amends or repeals statutes affecting six agencies. If properly drafted, the long title would indicate its purpose of terminating specific agencies by name. This would of course uncover the real purpose of the bill: in the guise of cutting costs and eliminating some redundant bodies, to eliminate a number of government agencies that in the course of effectively carrying out their responsibilities have become thorns in the government's side.
I refer to your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Lucien Lamoureux, who was reported at page 284 of the House Debates on January 26, 1971. We were talking about an omnibus bill, and this clearly is an omnibus bill affecting six different agencies. I quote:
However, where do we stop? Where is the point of no return? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I believe the hon. member for Edmonton West, said that we might reach the point where we would have only one bill, a bill at the start of the session
for the improvement of the quality of life in Canada which would include every single proposed piece of legislation for the session. That would be an omnibus bill with a capital "O" and a capital "B". But would it be acceptable legislation? There must be a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint.
As I alluded to at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Lamoureux said that the most appropriate time in which to raise a point of order of this nature was after first reading but certainly before second reading. I believe in that same judgment you would hear him say the following words:
-it is much easier for the government to go back to the legislative mill, to the judicial luminaries of the Department of Justice where the bills are prepared, for the consideration of Parliament. If I may say so, I think that even those very learned gentlemen should take into account the fact that this aspect of legislation is of interest to all hon. members, of interest I am sure to the government, and certainly of interest to the Chair, namely, that there must be a point where an omnibus bill becomes more than an omnibus bill and is not acceptable from a procedural standpoint.
Superficially the principle of the bill, as the government purports, is to reduce the cost of government. In reality, however, it raises the principle-and I want to underline this-of maintaining the Economic Council as an independent advisory body on economy planning, the Science Council on scientific planning, the Law Reform Commission on the administration of justice, the Employment and Immigration Council, the Peace and Security Institute, and the International Centre for Ocean Development within their own areas of specialization.
It raises the question of the role of government in developing independent points of view to assist in long-term policy development. These are principles, I suggest, which are far different from that of the economic operation of the Government of Canada. Furthermore, each agency differs in its scope from the next, which means that the considerations involved are certainly far different.
Thus, in effect Bill C-63 raises not one but at least in my view six different principles. The umbrella of cost cutting may well apply to a number of agencies involved, but there are at least six agencies that raise such independent issues of public policy that they ought to be considered in separate bills.
March 30, 1992

The objection to the omnibus bills is based on the fact that it is repugnant, confusing and unparliamentary to ask the House to declare itself in one division on a motion that in effect embraces many principles.
Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 703, which is now citation 626 of the sixth edition, talks about the form of a bill. It reads:
Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of the bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.
I suggest that these are sue separate, and I use the word with great respect, distinctive mandates. How anyone could think that there is a realm of relevancy when one reads the long title of the statute is beyond the comprehension of this particular reader.
On May 6, 1971, as reported in the Journals at page 532, the Chair went on to say: "It follows of course there should be a theme of relevancy between the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to the subject of the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title. It is of course a matter of judgment", and I underline that for the Chair, "in each case as to when a bill offends to the point that it should be ruled as unacceptable because it contains disparate matters in the same bill".
My colleague, the distinguished member from Calgary, the government House leader, on a previous occasion in March 1982 rose on a point of order on a similar matter. I wish to quote him from Hansard at page 15481 where he rose on a point of order with regard to the omnibus bill, Bill C-94, which was introduced by the government of the day. He objected to it and rose on a point of order. I wish to quote some of the things he said, as reported on that particular page at March 1, 1982:
The government might argue, Madam Speaker, that this bill flows from the National Energy Program and that provides the necessary relevancy. To begin with, that would not strictly be true. While most of the items were mentioned in the National Energy Program, there are parts of this bill which do not flow from the National Energy Program. They are separate.
Secondly, and more importantly, if that argument is to be given any weight then one clearly would have to accept the principle that a single bill could be brought in covering all intended legislation for a
Point of Order
session, rationalized on the basis that all its component parts flow from the throne speech which commenced the session.
That was the government House leader on March 1, 1982. Then he goes on to say:
Presumably the government will also argue that the component parts have to do with energy and thus that provides the theme of relevancy to the bill. Well, Madam Speaker, to begin with, all the component parts do not deal with energy. However, if that argument were put I would only say that to accept it would be to accept that would be satisfactory to bring in a single bill covering income tax, excise tax, appropriations, borrowing authority, and for that matter unemployment insurance, since all of these deal with money. If that is the theme, then we could have that kind of grouping.
So you see, the government House leader in a previous incarnation rose in this House and stated some very important aspects of the omnibus bill in terms of its being acceptable to the House.
Just because some of these agencies have been cut as the government says for monetary reasons-and I do not necessarily concur-you can clearly see that it certainly interferes greatly with the public policy process. It interferes with how government interfaces with different agencies and how government obtains its information in order to make the decisions which it believes to be important.
Another aspect that I want to raise with you is that if this Bill C-63 is going to be accepted at second reading, one has to remember that in paragraph 659 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne, it says:
The second reading is the most important stage through which the bill is required to pass; for its whole principle is then at issue and is affirmed or denied by a vote of the House. It is not regular on this occasion, however, to discuss in detail the clauses of the bill.
So you see, we are going to be dealing with a bill covering six substantive agencies, all of which are very, very different. They are different in their mandate and different in terms of the ministers they report to. We will have a debate on second reading on six different principles. I suggest that amendments would be very difficult to put in place in terms of making them acceptable at the report stage thereafter. So I bring that to the attention of the Chair as well.
I want to conclude by quoting the government House leader again, this from page 15482 of Hansard on March 1, 1982.1 might add this is the very distinguished member from Calgary. He is the government House leader and the individual who many of us, particularly on the government side, look to for leadership in terms of the

March 30, 1992
Point of Order
legislative agenda. But this is what the hon. member said on that particular day:
The fact that the principle of the bill is established and concurred in at second reading very seriously proscribes the types of amendments which might further be put to the House. Hence, we have the double dilemma of the impossibility of having a second reading vote on a bill which contains so many disparate principles, as well as the very serious difficulty in which the Chair would be placed in trying to ascertain what types of amendments are acceptable or not during further stages of a bill's consideration.
I think the hon. member opposite when he made that intervention in March of 1982 was not thinking of what would happen on March 30, 1992 in terms of this particular bill.
In summary, and I hope others will make interventions, I would argue that Bill C-63 has six different agencies, substantive agencies, all of which provide information to the government through different ministers, whose role and mandate is to interface with the Government of Canada, to provide it with information and, at times, opposing information to the views that the government may be pursuing. I suggest that it would be very difficult under the auspices of relevancy to be able to carry on a substantive debate at second reading. I suggest that it would be very difficult, if not next to impossible, to implement or put forward amendments which would be acceptable to the Chair.
Finally, I think it is time, if I may be permitted to use some personal language here, that the Chair recognize what is going on here. The government is holding Parliament, not up to ransom, but certainly holding us in somewhat of a disrepute in the sense that it just thinks it can come in any old time, slap a bill before the House for first reading, whether it covers four, five or sue different agencies, and expect those of us in the opposition to merely nod our heads and proceed as usual. I do not think that is fair and I do not think that is appropriate. I would say to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, who has tried to carve out a reputation and, in some instances, he has been successful as a reformist within Parliament and as a procedural person, that it is not fair or appropriate for the government to proceed with Bill C-63.
I want to thank the Chair for giving me the opportunity to make this intervention. I hope the Chair will reflect upon what I have said and perhaps will give due consideration, as the Chair always does, to colleagues on the other side as well as my distinguished colleague from Kamloops who no doubt will be making a reasoned, thoughtful, persuasive argument as he normally does.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will listen to the hon. member for Kamloops on his persuasive argument.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say right from the outset that I think this is a most critical issue that my hon. colleague has raised this morning. For many of us it is a bit of deja vu because, as my colleague has indicated, I remember back in 1982 when our friend from Calgary was in the opposition and led a very, very tough debate and discussion around this issue dealing with the National Energy Program. As a matter of fact, it was the infamous 16 days of bell ringing and so on. It was one one of those special debates on these special issues.
Here we are once again attempting to make the point with the Chair, which at that time was made in the end successfully, to suggest that Bill C-63 is a bill that is very difficult to deal with as we would normally deal with a bill today at second reading because, as my hon. friend has indicated, second reading is the time when we discuss the principle of the bill.
When I saw this, I asked myself what is the principle of this bill. Is it dealing with employment and immigration matters because when you abandon the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council of course that is a major policy shift on the government in terms of changing that. Or is it to deal with Science Council issues? Again, when you wind up the Science Council of Canada you are making a major policy decision in the science area. Is the principle of the bill dealing with international peace and security which of course it does deal with. Does it deal with a whole variety of economic issues that the Economic Council of Canada has dealt with over the years?
It is perplexing because, as a responsible member of Parliament, one wants to debate the bill at second reading. One wants to debate the principle of the bill. I cannot determine what the principle of this bill is because it deals with a whole pot-pourri of different areas.
March 30, 1992

Point of Order
This poses a dilemma. This, obviously, is an omnibus bill. It deals with employment and immigration, international peace and security, economic issues. It deals with ocean development. It refers to the Law Reform Commission and all of the work that that commission does, as well as the Science Council of Canada.
To proceed at this point, at second reading, obviously poses a serious dilemma. My hon. colleague has referred back. I will not refer to the references that he has quoted. I do not think it is necessary. I want to cast our minds back to that very critical debate in 1982 regarding energy policy.
There the position was made very clearly that unless we break up an omnibus bill of this nature and deal with the component parts independently and properly, this will set a very, very important precedent. If we are simply saying that in one bill you can deal with immigration issues, employment issues, ocean issues, science issues, economic issues and so on and so forth, are we not getting perilously close to the day when we simply say: "Here is the omnibus bill of the session of Parliament dealing with taxation, agriculture, forestry and a whole variety of areas. We will debate this one bill, and that will be it".
In other words, Parliament might last then for a whole session for a matter of hours or days, depending on the interest of the government in using closure.
I look across the aisle and I see the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader who I know, on balance, is a reasonable individual. I am sure he will participate in this debate. When the government introduced in the budget the fact that it was going to close these agencies-it is the right of the government to do that-we thought it was wrong-headed at the time and we still do. Again, this government has done a number of things. Most of the things it has done are wrong-headed in our estimation, but it has the right to do them. It indicated that it was going to close these government agencies.
Little did we ever anticipate that it would do this in one fell swoop. It minimized the debate. This is where I appeal to my hon. friend across the way, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader who knows how important it is that we debate issues thoroughly and properly in this House and that to do the job under the normal time allocations we have to debate issues. We know that his hon. friend, the House leader
for the government, is going to suggest that we deal with this within a day or two.
We are winding up some very critical agencies. If we are going to do that, the government ought to at least have the courage to debate openly the wisdom of winding up the Science Council of Canada. Scientists and others who are knowledgeable about the way the economy is going in the 1990s and toward the year 2000 tell us that science and science policy will play a critical role.
Is this the time to wrap up the Science Council of Canada? Is it the time to close down the Economic Council of Canada? The government says "yes". I suspect that unanimously, the opposition will say "no". That then, should be the basis of a thorough, open and complete debate.
We all know that this will not take place. If this omnibus bill is allowed to proceed as it is presently composed, that debate will not be forthcoming. It will be muzzled. There will not be adequate opportunity for people to participate in sharing their views on these critical areas.
I join with my friend, the House leader for the Official Opposition in saying that we too would support the notion of dividing up Bill C-63 to allow open, proper and complete debate on the winding up of these critical government agencies which we think is a serious departure in terms of past government policy. We feel that it deserves that type of open debate.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to basically add a few remarks in support of the point of order by the previous speakers. The budget, by way of an example that is useful, proposes to amalgamate two agencies called the External Review Committee of the RCMP and the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. To do that by way of an omnibus bill would really be a detrimental situation. The RCMP Public Complaints Commissions is an agency that has just commenced. It is an extremely busy agency. In the area I represent, it has had a large number of complaints put forward against a very small number of individuals. Yet those complaints are occurring across Canada. We have the situations of David Marshall, Wilson Nepoose and David Milgaard. We have had numerous examples of where the public must have access to the complaint system. There must be a mechanism to debate any of those changes in the RCMP Act in the House of Commons.

March 30, 1992
Point of Order
The commission has asked for 41 changes to the legislation to strengthen and improve the national police force in Canada. It would be a serious error to jam this through without debate by way of an omnibus bill.
Hopefully the government will reconsider this position and allow these issues to be debated individually because of their importance to Canadians.


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to respond to the interventions of my friends opposite. They have made some interesting, not particularly new arguments but arguments that I think are worth spending a little time on.
I am advised from across the aisle that these were arguments that were used by the government House leader on a previous occasion. I am sure he would be very much flattered by the fact that his arguments were once again presented in this House and people quoted them with great authority and great enthusiasm.


David Charles Dingwall: But in a much more coherent fashion.


Albert Glen Cooper: It is certainly arguable as to whether or not the original argument was better put than the references made to them today. I leave that in your hands, Mr. Speaker.
However, the intriguing thing is, no matter how good those arguments were that my colleague the government House leader made several years ago, they were not good enough. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that what happened was that the Speaker of the day ruled that in spite of the compelling arguments that he made, he did not win the day.
We are in a similar circumstance today. There is nothing precedent setting about the discussion here today. In fact, one of the Speakers said in the past, Madam Sauve, I believe it was, in a very brief one paragraph ruling: "There is no point in me going through all the precedents we have here. The bottom line is that the tradition on a bill if it is called an omnibus bill is that
the House has been able to proceed with that particular piece of legislation".
Therefore, there is nothing new here today. There is nothing new at all. What I need to do, just to make sure the record is set straight, is to spend a few moments refuting some of those arguments.
First of all, this is the particular bill we are talking about, Bill C-63. My friends have described it as an omnibus bill. It is not a great big thick document. It is eight pages long.


An hon. member:: Short and sweet.


Albert Glen Cooper: Short and sweet. It accomplishes a veiy simple task. If we look at Beauchesne's sixth edition, page 192, citation 626, and I quote:
(1) Although there is no specific set of rules or guidelines governing the content of a bill, there should be a theme of relevancy amongst the contents of a bill. They must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill.
The umbrella of this particular legislation was made very clear in the budget. It indicated very clearly that the government planned to dissolve or terminate a number of corporations and other bodies for a central theme, being the ability to cut government expenditures and, therefore, as much as possible relieve the burden on the Canadian taxpayers and to reduce the stress and pressure of the very difficult debt situation we are facing in this country. That is the umbrella.
What is the title of the bill? What does the title say? It is very simple: an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies. Citation 627 of Beauchesne's sixth edition states:
A bill may have two titles, one long and one short. Both the long title and the short title may be amended, if amendments to the bill make it necessary.
(1) Long title-The long title sets out in general terms the purposes of the bill. It should cover everything in the bill.
I think it is very clear that the title of this particular bill does just that. It says very clearly, "an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies". The title is consistent with Beauchesne and with our practices in the past and I would argue so is the bill.
March 30, 1992

I want to refer again to Beauchesne's sixth edition, the most recent edition of our procedural bible, if I can call it that, citation 634, page 194:
Nevertheless, the practice of using one bill to demand one decision on a number of quite different, although related subjects, while a matter of concern -
As has been generated by arguments that we have heard today and other arguments in the past, and this is the operative part:
- is an issue on which the Speaker will not intervene to divide the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, there is a long tradition, there is a long history, and the Speaker's position has consistently been the same; the Speaker will not intervene.
I do not think we are dealing with an omnibus bill here. We are dealing with an eight-page document that is designed to terminate certain corporations and other bodies.
Even if it were an omnibus bill, Mr. Speaker, and as I say, I am not prepared to concede that it is, I want to refer you to the Lamoureux decisions, page 434. The question before Speaker Lamoureux that day was: can an omnibus bill be considered by the House or should the Speaker order that it be divided? The decision was veiy clear. The bill can receive second reading in its existing form. In other words, Mr. Speaker, even if it were an omnibus bill, it could proceed.
I want to refer to the reasons given by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux because I think they are very important. I quote:
The government has followed a practice that has been accepted, rightly or wrongly, in the past.
This ruling was given on January 26,1971, 21 years ago, Mr. Speaker. It is already saying very clearly the government has followed a practice that has been accepted from our past:
The bill will be allowed to proceed despite the possible difficulties presented by omnibus legislation. Although a legitimate complaint or grievance can be raised with respect to omnibus bills, it is not clear that a legitimate procedural argument can be made.
It states:
The House should note, however, that there is a third reading stage -
And it goes on and on. The bottom line is very clear. Speaker Lamoureux and other Speakers before and after him have made it very clear that they cannot or will not intervene to stop a bill or to divide a bill because there is in this House a long tradition of accepting those bills.
Point of Order
I want to read into the record a ruling by Speaker Fraser on June 8, 1988 on an omnibus question when he was faced with a similar argument and I quote:
In conclusion, the Canadian practice regarding the authority of the Chair to divide questions has been reserved solely for substantive motions which contain more than one proposition, where members object to their being taken together, and the Chair has determined it is possible to divide the motion into more than one distinct proposition.
He then goes on to refer to Speaker Sauve's ruling. This is her ruling:
For my part, in the present circumstances, there seems little point in offering yet another opinion on a question so well addressed by my distinguished predecessors. The matter is there for all to see. It may be that the House should accept rules or guidelines as to the form and content of omnibus bills but in that case the House, not the Speaker, must make those rules.
In other words, she gave a short, one paragraph argument saying no. There is ample precedent for omnibus bills in this House and the Speaker has never ever intervened to split them.
He then goes on to say:
The Chair therefore must rule that Bill C-130 is an omnibus bill. It has the single purpose of enacting an international agreement amending several statutes. As such it conforms to our practice and should be allowed to proceed.
Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus bills, the Chair's role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue.
We have taken a fair amount of time from the House today, not to hear a new argument but to hear an old one. Mr. Speaker, I argue before you that the conclusion should be the same as it has always been. First of all I do not accept that this is an omnibus bill, but that is almost irrelevant because in fact even if it were an omnibus bill, it is a bill that is totally within the guidelines of the House of Commons and we have every right as a House to deal with that issue.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I would not have expected the government to use such clumsy arguments to defend a proposed bill, Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and other bodies, namely the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada, the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, the International Centre for Ocean Development, and many agencies and commissions which we feel, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
March 30, 1992
Point of Order
Speaker, all fill different needs. There is nothing in common between the work of the Employment and Immigration Advisory Council and that of the Economic Council or the Science Council.
But now the government is putting forward a bill to simply eliminate these institutions, which is a rather broad and indefinite principle. This initiative leaves a lot to be desired because, if we refer to the parliamentary rules of procedure, we can see that on second reading only the principle of the bill can be debated. In this case, the principle defined by speakers from the government side to date remains rather blurred and unclear.
I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to Speaker Lamou-reux's rulings, on page 107.

I go to Mr. Lamoureux's statement in regard to the principle of a bill at second reading and I read "the issue at second reading can by particular provisions in a bill be debated and if a decision is no, the principle of a bill can be debated but not particular provisions".
The reasons given by the Speaker is that when a motion for second reading is before the House, the House may debate in a general way the principle of the bill but not the clauses in detail. They and the schedules should be debated at another stage.
Mr. Speaker, it is going to be quite difficult to debate the principle of this bill which is strictly to terminate certain corporations and other bodies.
In debate will we be able to give our viewpoint on the Economic Council of Canada and try to make the case that the principle of abolishing, disbanding that council is wrong? Mr. Speaker, you will have to make up an imaginative debate to try and prevent some of us on this side of the House at least from doing that. Otherwise it will for nought.
The parliamentary secretary said that this is not an omnibus bill. I do not know what the heck an omnibus bill is if this is not an omnibus bill. It covers a whole series of things. It has an approach which is common to a series of uncommon and unrelated agencies. The only common thread to the whole bill is that they are abolishing them, they are closing them down, they are, in
their own words, terminating certain corporations. So the termination is the principle of the bill. The others, whether they are important or not, are not to be discussed.
When the parliamentary secretary for the government House leader spoke, he read from page 194 of Beau-chesne, citation 634. He did not read the first phrase, he missed it. He read the last phrase. I want to put into the record all of the citation:
Speakers have expressed deep concern about the use of omnibus bills, and have suggested that there must be "a point where we go beyond what is acceptable from a strictly parliamentary standpoint". (Debates, January 26, 1971, p. 2768.)
There is a point beyond which this House must not be taken for granted in debating bills at second reading. I was here when the Tories objected to the energy bill. I was here when they rang the bell for two weeks in protest. I was here when they contested, opposed and protested the decision of the government and of the Speaker to deal with the bill in 1982.1 did not think the opposition was making a very convincing argument at the time. They opposed at that time something which today they are doing. They are not being very consistent.
I do not want to prolong the debate, but let me say that there are certain things in our rules and procedures that need to be looked at. Whether this is called an omnibus bill or not I do not think is relevant. This is a bill touching on a variety of agencies and institutions of Parliament. The only purpose of the bill flows from a budget announcement some months ago where the government announced that it would abandon or close or terminate the existence of these corporations, these bodies.
I take exception to that. I do not think this bill is appropriate in its present form. I do think that every one of those agencies, whether it is Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council, the Public Service Staff Relations Board, or the agency that collects facts and figures for the government so that it can negotiate decently with the other agencies, the Pay Research Bureau has merit. The Pay Research Bureau is something which, in my view, we need. How can I argue for the maintenance of the Pay Research Bureau-
March 30, 1992


An hon. member:: How can you make amendments?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How can I make amendments to that, short of proposing that the Pay Research Bureau be deleted from the bill? That is the only thing I can do. I cannot talk about the merits of the Pay Research Bureau although I think the government needs a Pay Research Bureau to give it up-to-date negotiating information in terms of compensation packages that are paid in the private sector. So it is going to be very difficult. How do I amend, for example, the fact that I believe that the Economic Council of Canada was doing a good job? I cannot amend that because all it says in here is that we are passing a bill to terminate certain corporations and other bodies.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the point to be made is that it restricts the opposition, it restricts parliamentarians' rights to really go into the substance, the principle at hand and to go into debating rationally and logically the principle before us.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will take this under advisement and come back to us with a ruling at some time and that you will rule in our favour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to rule now but I am afraid that I cannot. I think there is a lot to consider here. I first wish to take the opportunity to thank the hon. leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for North Island-Powell River, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier and the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for their arguments.
I think there is a lot to consider here and I would like to take it under advisement. If you will permit me I shall do that and we will carry on with debate today on C-21.
Before I call C-21,1 would like to say to hon. members that motions Nos. 4 and 6 are grouped for debate and a vote on No. 4 applies to No. 6.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 27, consideration of Bill C-21, an act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-21 be amended by adding immediately after line 17 at
page 3 the following new clause:
"7. To the extent that there is a credit balance in the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account, there may be charged to the Account in a fiscal year an amount in respect of any budgetary expenditure that, if it were not charged to the Account, would increase the deficit of the government in that year."
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-21 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 18 at
page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"8. Except as provided by section 5, 6 or 7, no".-
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to participate in this debate. I suppose anybody listening would wonder what on earth this was all about with cutting out lines x and y and so on. Let me simplify this and put it into normal language.
This bill is what we in the opposition have been calling a smoke and mirrors bill. This bill gives the illusion that the government is concerned about how this GST is being utilized and the selling off of Crown corporations. It is trying to create the image that this is being used to pay down the deficit and reduce the debt in order to regain some popular support.
We all know around here and anywhere else in the country that you do not need a special bill or special legislation if you want to pay down the deficit and the debt. It is simply a matter of having the political will to do that and taking the necessary steps. However, I understand my friends on the government side. If I was taking all that heat on the GST while knowing how

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
Canadians feel about it, I suspect that I would be trying to pull some kind of smoke screen. Well, that is probably not true, but I can understand why government members would do that.
The government is saying that if there are net surpluses as a result of the GST at the end, which of course there will be, this will be automatically applied to deficit reduction and debt reduction. A surplus would be when all the money from the GST is collected and all the rebates are paid out and all the costs and so on are paid back.
If governments want to do that, are certainly capable and able to do that without special legislation, but let us pause for a moment to look at the role of government. The point of government is to collect revenues from a variety of sources through taxes, excise taxes and so on, and then invest them in ways to enhance the country and the lives of its citizens. We call things like that unemployment insurance. Traditionally, we call it unemployment insurance. We also call these things pensions, hospitals, medicare, education, highways and so on.
In other words the reason why we have millions of people wanting to become Canadian citizens is because of the kind of society and the kinds of agencies and organizations that have been created over the years. I cannot think of a single progressive economic or social policy that did not originate with either the CCF or the NDP. They have been introduced by other governments, to be fair, such as Liberal governments and Conservative governments. The ideas, however, came from the New Democrats and the CCF and it is what makes Canada a special place today.
We have seen the erosion of that over the last number of years. The point being debated by this motion was put by my hon. friend the member for Essex-Windsor. Unfortunately, because he was busy elsewhere on Friday, the amendment came in my name and was introduced. I must give him credit for having thought through this in significant detail to enable us to have this debate today.
What we are simply saying is this. If there are net revenues after the GST, should 100 per cent of these revenues be used to pay down the deficit or the debt?
We are simply saying that we should keep some options open. I could make a very strong case today, as others have, that some of that money could be used for retraining programs for those individuals in the country who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs because of the free trade agreement, because of the GST
and other federal government policies. They have lost their employment and their source of income for their families and they ought to be retrained. We ought to be doing an awful lot more in this area.
Why not use some of this money to facilitate people taking courses and retraining programs? I do not hear any reasons why not. I say that might be a particular use of some of those GST funds.
We might consider the fact that there are 1.5 million people out of work today who could be using financing and funding for retraining and upgrading their particular skills. Also, what about giving some support to various enterprises and co-operatives, and so on, to create new enterprises and new employment. There is all sorts of material that we have elaborated on before: reforestation program, silviculture programs, bank stabilization programs to list only a handful. These are meaningful areas into which people could be put to work.
Perhaps the most obvious one that has been put forward by the Canadian Association of Municipalities and by the premiers now of most provinces is that we have deteriorating roads, bridges, water and sewage systems that need to be repaired or upgraded or created. My friend from Manitoba just returned from a major tour throughout northern Manitoba visiting Indian reserves. The appalling situation is that that virtually all of the native people living in that part of Canada have no water system or sewage treatment system. That is absolutely disgraceful in a country as rich and wealthy as Canada.
We are saying why not use some of that GST money to assist the provinces and the municipalities of Canada to develop that municipal infrastructure that has to be done. This is not a sort of make work project when you have to rebuild a bridge or a road or a water system. It is something that has to be done. Can you think of a better time to do it than right now?
It would put people to work, encourage manufacturing, and send a very clear signal that this government is concerned and prepared to take action on a fairly major scale.


Mr. McDermid:: We are doing that.
March 30, 1992


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend says the government is doing that. I see woefully little evidence of that. I am saying what the premiers said: "Let us fight this war on unemployment. Let us fight this war on poverty by taking some major action".
This is one use of this GST surplus fund that could be directed in that direction.
We could talk about child care and the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of children in this country who are in desperate need of decent child care. Single parents have to work. Both parents have to work. Parents have to work late in the day and commute long distances and so on. Children are at home on their own. We all know the scenarios. We need to have more emphasis put on child care to allow those families to move forward positively.
I could stand here and go on all day listing point after point of all of the things people feel we ought to be doing today. I could go on saying that the revenues from the GST could be earmarked for those kinds of programs. It is sort of evident and rather obvious for most Canadians. I think Canadians, on balance, would buy the fact if we said: "Listen, the government has decided in its wrongheaded way to collect this GST. At the moment we in the opposition cannot do anything about it other than point out the folly of that decision". But the government at least for the next few months while it is in power is going to go ahead with that. I might say that the minute the NDP gets into office we are going to stop that tax completely. At the moment, however, we are stuck with the situation.


John Horton McDermid: What will you replace it with?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My hon. friend asks a fair question: "Replace it with what?"
Why not start off with a minimum corporate tax? That is something that the United States has introduced and we could do that. Let us start off with a wealth inheritance tax for those families that inherit, let us say, $20 million. Let us have people pay a little bit of tax on that.
We could go on and on with a whole set of initiatives that have been made clear time and time again that we could use in lieu of the GST. But if we are going to have that, why not use some of the revenue generated by the GST to help Canadians, to help get the economy stimulated back into life, to bring some peace and security to Canadians and to Canadian families and to
Government Orders
enable families to progress in a more positive way by having a decent child care system.
What about what is going on in our hospitals across this country? The federal government has decided to off-load its responsibility on to other levels of government. We are seeing hospitals closing down holus-bolus or closing wards and beds. This is a serious situation.
Finally, what about education? I think we are all in agreement and it is universal in the country that the best investment we can make is in retraining and education to ensure that our Canadian people have the best skills and expertise possible to face the demands of the knowledge-based economy of the 1990s.
All this amendment really says is that rather than locking us in so that all of that money has to be spent only on debt and deficit reduction, let us keep the option open so that some of that GST money can be put into worth-while projects, into investments into the future of Canada, and into investments into the future of Canadians.
I think people would support that notion and I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this amendment.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased to get up and speak to this bill and to this amendment.
Before I get right into the amendment and exactly whether I believe that it is a necessary amendment or not, let me remind everyone that all moneys that come into the government go toward the deficit and then the debt. All programs go into creating the deficit. Because what it means is that we are spending more than we are taking in.
It makes no real difference what account you place the money in. If you are not bringing in enough then you are going to have a deficit no matter what kind of games the Conservatives want to play. That is what the deficit means. It just means there is not enough money coming in.
On the other hand, to relate to the amendment of my colleagues, I do not believe that this in any way prevents the government from spending moneys in other areas. All it says is that we will take the moneys, the net proceeds from the GST, the sale of Crown corporations and the fire sale of the Conservative government on Canadian properties and we will place them in this other account. We are going to call it a deficit reduction account.

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
The only real deficit reduction is going to be when we stop spending more than we take in. You might want to spend on other projects such as job training. Look at what is happening with this government that says to everybody: "We are the model of good management".
If it is such a good model of management then why it has to create this kind of account is beyond me. A good manager'would know that money is fungible and it goes wherever it is needed. If it cannot control itself then that is why it has to create this kind of account.
It is saying it is managing so well and it is going to do all of these wonderful things with this deficit reduction account. But it is not preventing it from going on with its programs.
I believe just last week I heard of one. I think the Minister of National Defence announced a $100 million capital project for Montreal. It is building a new warehouse for military goods. That is not to say that I think Montreal does not need the jobs. I am sure Montreal needs the jobs.
What I am saying is that I wonder if this the right time to be building and spending money on capital projects such as this when the stated objective of this government is to downsize the military and cut back the budget.
It goes on its merry way pretending in its sanctimonious fashion that it is above and beyond all this.
It carries on with its own agenda. So I am convinced that this particular bill is a total loss of time and that we in this House of Commons have far more better things to do. In other words, we have to save our country. Let us stop this absolute nonsense.
I am not going to carry on any longer. I want to give the government a chance to bring forward some real bills to help this economy.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting opportunity this afternoon to speak on the goods and services tax once again by way of the amendment to the bill.
As has been stated previously, the amendment to the bill is simply smoke and mirrors. For Canadians, it has no relevance. What has relevance is the fact that our leader, the member for Yukon, has indicated that if the New
Democratic Party is elected at the next federal election, the goods and services tax will be eliminated.
That is a commitment to the Canadian people; this party in government would eliminate that tax. It is interesting that the Conservative Party, which will not form the next government, would keep the tax. The Liberal Party has clearly indicated it will keep the tax as have the other fringe parties, the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois. There is a clear choice in the next federal election to end this odious tax by voting for the New Democratic Party or to keep this odious tax by voting for one of the other parties in Canada. It is a clear, unequivocal statement at this point. It is a clear and unequivocal choice at this point.
There is a political solution, not the smoke and mirrors solution before the House today. Nothing will make this bill more palatable in the eyes of people.
Through this past summer I managed to travel through most of the communities in the area I represent. One of the greatest surprises I had was the reaction of the small business community, the chambers of commerce and each of the small businesses. Make no mistake about it, the vast majority of the people in those small businesses in each one of those communities do not vote for the New Democratic Party. Most of them did not vote in the last election for the Liberal Party. They are the supporters, the backbone of the Conservative Party of Canada. They donate, they vote, they get out to the meetings and they do the job.
They have made it absolutely clear they will not be there this time. Their cheques will not arrive, their support will not arrive. The Conservative Party has killed its welcome within that constituency.
I met with the manager of a hotel who is a very strong and prominent Conservative member in one of the Island communities. The individual happened to say that he did not mind paying tax but that the goods and services tax had killed his business. It destroyed business opportunities.
We should not be discussing today what we to do with the proceeds of this odious tax. Clearly we should be talking about the destruction and removal of the goods and services tax. It is a business opportunity destruction tax and I am proposing an alternative. Let us vote against this bill. Let us once again vote against this tax and get it away from Canadians.
March 30, 1992

It destroys business opportunities. It destroys business incentive. It destroys initiative in the business community. It has had a general dampening effect on the local economies of the communities I represent and indeed communities across Canada. It has had a dampening effect politically on the fortunes of the Conservative Party of Canada.
We should not be dealing with amending this legislation as smoke and mirrors operations suggesting that the surpluses will be put into paying off the deficit. Recent articles in the newspaper indicated recovery, which is often predicted but certainly we have no substantial indication. If its arrival were to come, the Conservative Party of Canada and the Government of Canada would have an enormous war chest to attempt to buy back votes. This hoax of indicating that the money will be used to pay off the deficit is absolute nonsense.
The goods and services tax kills consumerism. There is a very definite cooling out of peoples' willingness to purchase goods, particularly in Canada. They are, in many cases, prepared to shop across the border. This tax is an incentive to do that. The goods and services tax cools out the consumer optimism and consumer confidence in small communities.
I feel that most Conservative members on the other side of the House, on walking into any small business in their communities, are told by the proprietor that if they had their first choice of things to do, it would be to get rid of the goods and services tax and possibly get rid of the proposed trade agreement with Mexico and the trade agreement with the United States. Certainly the goods and services tax is right up there on their minds. With the Conservative Party of Canada, the goods and services tax is going to be an anchor around its neck in the next federal election that will take it out of office.
My suggestion today would be that this government could do a great service to the men and women across Canada who operate small businesses by removing this tax. In fact, by removing this tax, it would enhance the business opportunities in those communities and it would see the growth of economic activity and economic well-being. It would also create employment and help confidence within the small business community. If it
Government Orders
was to remove the goods and services tax it would be a healthier thing for all Canadians. It is ironic.


John Horton McDermid: And cut the credit to the low income people.


Raymond John Skelly: It is interesting how the Conservative Party of Canada, in a very skilled manoeuvre, attempted to appeal to Canadians to take on the goods and services tax, to support it. What a hoax. What a sleight of hand and smoke and mirrors operation.
To the consumers of Canada, especially those consumers in the lower income level, this is one of the most regressive taxes that could be imagined. It is the worse place to put a tax, at the consumption end. Then the purveyors of the trickle down philosophies say: "Here we are. We will give you a goods and services tax rebate. We will take $100 of your money and give you back $10." This is nonsense.
This tax is harmful, not only to small businesses but to the economy of local communities and employment opportunities. It is a destructive, regressive tax against lower income Canadians. This tax should be placed at the income earning end.
As I mentioned at the opening of my remarks, the manager of an important hotel complex in the North Island-Powell River riding indicated: "Let me have an opportunity to make some money and then I will gladly pay tax. I will gladly pay more tax on an earned income rather than having the goods and services tax destroy the opportunity to make money. It cools out consumer confidence. People do not come to eat meals in this hotel". It is ironic. He says: "I believe in the trade union movement. My employees are organized. I run a restaurant with organized employees and the small snack shop down the street does not. They have an advantage over me, but I believe in that. But the minute you put the goods and services tax on meals then I have greater difficulty handling that".
I cannot respond in any positive way to the comments of the Conservative Party on this bill that is before us today on the proposal to spend some amount of surplus against the deficit. This is not a realistic approach to handling the deficit. It is an attempt to justify this tax. It is too late. Canadians know this cannot be justified. Conservatives have made a terrible mistake. It is time

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
they pulled this tax and recognized the needs and wishes of Canadians.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about a bad tax that was brought into effect at the worst possible time. It has seriously damaged the economy and has significantly worsened the recession in this country. It has put not only the small businesses my colleague was talking about a few minutes ago in trouble but has also put thousands of Canadians out of work across this country.
We have seen the economy driven downhill by the negative impact of this tax. We have seen the unemployment rate mount. We have seen this government, despite its constant preaching that prosperity is just down the road, unable to lead Canada out of recession. We have seen the government attack provincial governments to try to give them the blame for a recession in which a poll this morning showed over 70 per cent of Canadians clearly understand is the fault of the federal government and the fault of serious policy mistakes like the goods and services tax.
However, this bill is a shell game. It is a camouflage attempt to try to somehow desperately after the fact add a little bit of sugar, a little bit of honey to this GST that the government has rammed down the throats of Canadians. The government is saying to Canadians that this bill can perhaps be justified, this terrible tax and the unfair way in which it falls on people can somehow be justified by the fact that we are going to use it simply to pay the interest on the national debt and to pay off that national debt. It holds out the prospect to Canadians across this country that the GST is actually going to pay off the national debt.
For people who are terrified by the fact that this government and the Liberal government before it have brought our national debt to the level of $420 billion, the idea that the GST might somehow solve the increasing level of national debt is something which the government hopes people may respond to positively.
Let me be very clear. The interest payments on the national debt each year cost over $40 billion. The increase in those interest payments, as the debt continues to rise, will see to it that in the future interest payments alone will go to $45 billion, $50 billion and the GST brings in what? It is going to bring in a total of just
over $16 billion in this present fiscal year. It is going to bring in a total in the next fiscal year of something over $20 billion.
In other words, the GST makes absolutely no contribution to reducing the national debt. Instead, according to this legislation, the GST is being used not to reduce the national debt, but to pay the interest costs on the national debt.
That is simply one part of the whole range of expenditures which the government makes. It spends money on interest payments for the national debt. It spends money on unemployment insurance. It spends less money than it promised but it still spends money on transfers to the provinces. It spends money to try to do something about help for science in this country.
Why should we take this one area of expenditure on the interest payments for the national debt? It is not the national debt itself but just the interest payments. Why should we take that area of expenditure and single it out for special treatment? There is no logical, rational or sensible explanation for that in terms of saying that spending money on the interest payments of the national debt is more important than spending money on help for science, training people or seeing to it that the provinces keep our health care and education systems going across this country.
Yet that is what this bill before this amendment seeks to do. That is why I urge government members to support it. This amendment seeks to make it possible for the proceeds from the GST to be spent not just to pay interest costs but also to pay for more beneficial and constructive activities like improving training for people in our country. This could be so until a new government is elected and we can get rid of the GST in this country.
It could improve the transfers to the provinces so that our health care system is not under threat. It could improve help to education so that our young people get the kind of educational support that they deserve and that they require.
This amendment simply says that this bad tax is nevertheless generating a good deal of revenue. Let us see to it that this revenue, until we can get rid of the tax, is used to help support things which will build our country for the future like training, education, health care and the improvement of municipal infrastructure.
March 30, 1992

It is a sensible amendment. It is an amendment which will make it possible for governments in the future in this country to see to it that they will start off with a better situation than the situation that the Conservatives are going to otherwise leave the next government in Canada.
Conservatives in this present government are creating incredible damage to our health care system, education system, training systems, regional development programs, resource strategies and farm communities across this country.
In area after area across this country this government is destroying the basis for future economic growth. What we are saying with this amendment is that until this government is replaced, and we hope we replace it so we can get rid of the GST, let us at least see that the revenues from this tax are used for something more creative than simply paying off interest costs.
Let us see that the revenues are used to help people. Let us see to it that people and the problems they face across Canada get the kind of attention which they should be receiving from this government. I cannot understand why the government would bring in a bill like this and waste the time of the House with respect to it. But if it at least accepts this amendment and permits the revenues from this bad tax to be used for something constructive, creative and useful until we can get rid of the tax then this would be something of a positive step on the part of a government which has taken far too many steps backward instead of forward.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we have been sitting here listening to a string of socialists speak this morning on the goods and services tax. I think the Canadian people know full well that the NDP members of Parliament and their party are opposed to the goods and services tax.
When we ask those in the NDP how they will replace the income from the goods and services tax, my hon. friend from Kamloops says: "We are going to increase taxes in other areas to replace it". They are probably going to tax the corporations out of existence because they will not be able to compete with other corporations and their tax bases around the world. Those in the NDP are going to tax inheritance and they are going to tax this,
Government Orders
that and the other thing. If Canadians took the time to assess this, they would find very quickly that in no way, shape or form would those types of taxes make up the difference required for the goods and services tax. It would not even come close. They would just be passing the tax burden on to one very concentrated part of the economy. This is foolish.
We have three provincial governments now made up of New Democrats in this country. If those in the New Democratic Party are so dead set against sales taxes, why have they not rid themselves of provincial sales tax in their recent budgets?
Let us do a review for just a moment. The manufacturers' sales tax which we had in this country was a hidden tax placed at the manufacturing level which everybody in our society paid, without a doubt. This included businesses. They had to pay tax on their business income and in their business input costs. Four Crown corporations and two studies of Parliament recommended that we get rid of our manufacturers' sales tax and go to a consumption tax. That is exactly what the goods and services tax is. That was recommended for years.
Our government absolutely knew the political risk we were taking. We knew that it would not be popular. No tax is popular. But at the same time people said to us in no uncertain terms: "We want to see where that tax money is going. We want to be able to see on the ledger exactly where the GST is going". That is what they told us in no uncertain terms from coast to coast. In every community that I visited that was the message that was given loud and clear: "We want to see the money you receive and where it goes. It is fine to hide it in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. You put it away in there". I can tell you that that is what people have told us and that is why we have this bill.
I listened to the New Democratic Party this morning very quietly without interrupting them and I made a few notes on some of the comments that were passed. They said that maybe we should take some of that tax money and put it toward this or that. One item was retraining. The government in the last couple of years has put $800 million extra into training and retraining in this country. We have done that. We talked about sewers and water for Indian reserves. It is an absolute disgrace in this country. When it comes to drinking water and to sewage

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
systems, we take them for granted in our municipalities. But on some of these reserves it is a disgrace. Our government has increased spending to bring those water and sewer systems up to an acceptable standard. We are spending $130 million a year over the next five years to try and bring that up to standard. We have augmented that through the green plan as well. We have added to that. We are taking care of that type of thing.
I sit here and listen to those in the New Democratic Party saying: "Don't worry about the deficit or the interest payments. Put the money somewhere else". I have news for you. When you borrow money from Canadians, as we have done, they expect the interest payments to be made. A lot of people in this country depend on those interest payments for a living. Those in the NDP here today are saying: "Don't worry about the interest payments". You have to worry about them. That is one of the responsibilities of a government. I know NDPers have not been in power at the federal level and maybe they don't understand these things but I can tell you-


An hon. member:: Call an election.


John Horton McDermid: They say: "Call an election". They have been saying that for four years. They sound like a broken record over there. You will have your chance. You will have your opportunity in an election campaign and I look forward very much to campaigning in that campaign. I will assure you of one thing right now. The New Democratic Party of Canada will not form the next government. That is guaranteed. I will even bet on that. I am not a gambling man but I would bet on that.
In any event, I think it is very, very important that people understand why we are doing this in this bill. They asked for it. That is why we are doing it. They will be able to see very clearly where the money from the goods and services tax is going. There will be an audited statement that will be presented to the Canadian people each year. It is very, very important.
I challenge my friends in the New Democratic Party who this morning said that they would cancel our trade agreements and the GST. They would cancel all these things that the Conservative government brought in over the last seven and half years. You know what? They do
not tell the Canadian people in any detail what they are going to replace it with. We are going to cancel the trade agreement with our largest trading partner. Even the Liberals came to their senses and said: "We may renegotiate it, but we are not going to tear it up like our former leader said we were". They have come to their senses. They realize that you cannot destroy a trade agreement that is doing good things for Canada. We never see them on the front pages of the papers. That is why they no longer are going to tear it up. They know it is doing good things for Canada.
Those in the New Democratic Party will tear everything up that they can get their hands on. We have seen what has happened in Ontario over the last year and a half with the New Democratic Party in power there. We know what is happening there.
The other point I want to make this morning is that 48 countries that we compete with have got a value-added tax. Many of them are socialist, democratic countries. They realize that it is a sensible and fair way to get a broad taxation base for their countries. They understand that and so do those in the New Democratic Party. For them to stand up here and say: "We are just going to cancel it" is nonsense. They know they would never do it. The only reason they say that today is that they know they will never be in power.
We are going to oppose this amendment. We think it is a foolish amendment and we will be voting against it.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.
March 30, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
The motion is negatived on division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore motion No. 6 is on division also.


John Horton McDermid: that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


John Horton McDermid: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on Bill C-21. It is interesting to note that the government has decided that it is not going to get up and preach the gospel on Bill C-21. What is Bill C-21 doing? Bill C-21 is setting up-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Sudbury.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I ask how this happened that the NDP was recognized before we were. Was there no speaker on the government side prepared to defend this bill? I am just shocked.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid he was the only member who was rising. Therefore, the hon. member for Nickel Belt has the floor.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, how can one defend the indefensible? It is pretty difficult to defend Bill C-21.


An hon. member:: I just finished speaking.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, that was no defence. That was an apology for an appalling bill.
What does this bill do? It sets up a special account into which revenues from the GST and the net revenue from
Government Orders
Crown corporations that are sold off are deposited. Why does the government want to set this up? Because it says that it wants to reduce the deficit.
I have a really difficult time understanding the rationale for establishing such a special account. Canadians understand that we have the Consolidated Revenue Fund. All the revenues of the government go into that fund and all the expenses are paid out. Then at the end we get a consolidated figure.
The fact of the matter is that on the operating account of the government it has been running surpluses of between $11 billion and $13 billion. That is, on moneys that have been taken in and moneys that have been spent, it has been running a surplus. When one applies the interest on the national debt it takes that surplus, that operating surplus and the government has to go out and borrow another $17 billion, $18 billion or $19 billion to pay the interest on the debt.
It seems to me the real problem is that we have to get those interest payments down. It seems to me the government is playing with smoke and mirrors and trying to assuage its own conscience because it brought in a very unpopular GST. It is trying to persuade and to lead Canadians into believing that somehow or other they are better off by setting up this account. It says: "Look folks, you are going to gain from this pain because we are taking this money and we are putting it into a special account. See, here we are doing it. You can see it and we are paying down the deficit and the debt."
It seems to me that if the government really wanted to do something about the deficit it would have to do something about the interest rates charged in the country.
The real rates of interest in this country as compared to the United States are still running 3 to 4 percentage points higher than our major competitor, the United States. The real interest rates in this country are a little over 4 percentage points and real interest rates in the United States are under 1 per cent.
In fact, the difference between the rates in Canada and the rates in the United States has been a traditional 2 percentage points. So we have room to lower the interest rates in this country. If we lower the interest rates it will have a direct effect on the deficit and on the debt.

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
In fact, we are told that for every 1 percentage point we reduce interest rates it will mean a little over $2 billion less in interest payments in the first year alone. That would increase in subsequent years.
It seems to me that if we really want to deal with this question of deficit reduction we have to deal with interest rate reduction. It is not the NDP alone that has been telling the government that interest rates have to come down further. Doug Peters from the Toronto-Do-minion Bank, the chief economist, has said to the government that it must get the rates down. Business people have been saying to the government that it must get the rates down.
It is quite an irony when you think about the utilities of this country, the utilities in the provinces, going into the United States and borrowing money, using Canadian banks as a conduit because they pay less in interest rates. All that does is exacerbate the balance of payments of this country and further contributes to this national casino-type mentality.
This is a problem and the government can play all the shell games it wants letting Canadians think about how serious it is in setting this up. "See? See now? You see how much we are putting in the special account? Do you see it?"
I want to say that a government has to look at the national interests of the people of this country. For example, we are told-and this is not the NDP alone- that we have a very serious problem with respect to unemployment.
We have 1.5 million people officially unemployed. There is a drain on the economy because in fact these people draw down from the life support systems of the nation and of course there is no contribution in terms of productivity.
The government has not made that a concern. All of the premiers were consulted before the budget. I saw a graph of the suggestions they had made and they all identified the need to kick-start the economy with a municipal infrastructure fund. Spending a little over $1 billion in the first year on municipal infrastructures would directly create 63,000 jobs in the first year.
I want to suggest that this government spends all the time of Parliament playing games with people's emotions
out there, having children go on paper routes to collect money, having a time clock for the deficit, and putting their little pennies they earn on their paper routes in there. At the same time, the Reichmanns and everybody else get away with paying little or no tax at all, instead of closing the loopholes.
The minister in his budget had the effrontery and the gall to suggest that since 1969 some of the insurance companies, large and profitable ones, have paid little or no tax at all in this country.
Confederation Life in 1990 made $106 million net profit and paid not one penny of income tax in this country. That was 1990. That was a poor year. That was a recession year, and it paid not one penny.
What does the minister in his budget say? He says: "We have to plug that loophole now". Instead of playing these shell games like you see at the fair, identify under which shell is the pea. I want to say: shell on those games.
What we want is something really meaningful with respect to reducing the deficit. The place to begin is number one: get the interest rates down.
Number two: imagine if you can put 500,000 unemployed Canadians back to work. I have not figured it out, but I am sure somebody listening will figure it out. They will be paying income tax directly, paying indirect taxes on the things they purchase. They will be productive. Imagine how much the deficit could be reduced. Imagine if that unemployment rate could be reduced to 4 per cent, would it not be wonderful? We would have no deficit at all. It would wipe it out.
This is a shell game, and I believe that this government has not made one attempt to deal with the real problems. It can deal with those without even abandoning its own Conservative ideology. All of us can agree that the whole idea is to get Canadians back to work.
The municipalities across this country are not NDPers. They represent people at the grassroots level of this country and they have said to the government: "Look, there is a need for revitalization of our infrastructure". In fact, you could see that not only in terms of kick-starting the economy and putting people back to work, but you could also see it in terms of making us more competitive down the road.
March 30, 1992

That should appeal to the mentality on the other side because those members now have a new altar at which they worship: competitivity. They even bring in guys from Harvard. They are paying them $1 million to put in print all the things that we have been saying over the years.
Now all of these prosperity committees have been set up. They have them running around the country at a cost $15 million. They have little coffee Hatches to hear the same. They are washing their laundry, drinking coffee, washing it and drinking it and washing it. Do not ask me how to get in the cup after.
Instead of doing these kinds of constructive things, what we are spending time debating is Bill C-21 which says: "See, we are going to stick our finger in. We are going to pull out a plum and what good boys and girls we are over here in the government".
This is nothing but smoke and mirrors. We ought not to be spending our time dealing with this kind of nonsense.
What are some of the other things that our country really needs to put us in a position when the recovery comes, when the bugle call is out and when the cavalry comes over the hill to rescue the economy, what do we need to emphasize, apart from ensuring that our infrastructure at the municipal level is there? We need a trained work force. All the Tories ever do is talk about training.
They eliminated the Science Council of Canada. That was a body that could take the pulse of where we are in terms of scientific training and technological training. That is gone. They have eliminated that, they do not want to hear bad news. They should be taking a good hard look and putting some money into training Canadians so that they can be better equipped to deal with the changing economy. They have not done that. They do not want to talk about that and we are going to talk about it over and over again interminably.
There is also the question of the social programs of this country. Unlike the Tories and their mind-set on this matter, I believe that the social programs of this country make the workers and the people of this country more competitive. It is certainly a competitive advantage.
I will tell members of an experience I had. I was with the consumer and corporate affairs committee in Washington to look at credit card interest rates. While there, I got talking to a worker who was serving a luncheon. I
Government Orders
asked the worker: "Tell me, do you have medicare coverage?". He said: "No, sir, I do not have medicare coverage. I cannot afford it.". It costs them something like $350 a month to be covered. He said: "I cannot afford $350 a month to be covered.". I said to him, because now I want to prove the psychological effect of this: "Do you worry about this?". He said: "Sir, I worry about it all the time because if I get injured, if I get hurt, if I get sick, it would wipe me out completely.".


An hon. member:: What about his children?


John R. Rodriguez: This was a single person. How can any person, working on a job that requires attention, requires commitment, be worrying about his health coverage and his health care and be able to be productive in the accomplishment of the tasks that he has to do?
That is one of the advantages our system has and every one of these programs, whether it is old age pensions, whether it is family allowances, whether it is unemployment insurance, are all designed to be a safety net for people.
These things have to be seen for what they are. They are competitive advantages. Not only are they protection for Canadians, they also provide an advantage. Instead of bolstering and strengthening these programs, this government is out to destroy them. This election cannot come too soon because they are on the road to destroy medicare. I want to tell Canadians that.
You just have to watch Don Getty in Alberta and what is happening to the medicare program in Alberta. The Tories are going to extrapolate that from the provincial level right across the country.
We have the spectre of the Liberals. We saw a Liberal in New Brunswick suggesting that maybe universality and medicare are something we can no longer afford. We have a Liberal government in the province of Quebec that is attempting to bring in user fees. The Liberals have no more commitment to the universality of social programs than the Tories have. Let us not kid ourselves.
My fear is well grounded because we have seen them doing it. We seen them do it with family allowances. They attempted it when they first got into office by trying to deindex old age pensions. We saw that with the clawback of the old age pensions and we see that all the way. They are eroding the design to make us more like our cousins to the south. We must have their consumer patterns. We must have their music and their cultural

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
patterns. Their big Hollywood movies are going to be our big Hollywood movies.
They will not even protect our cultural heritage in this country. Try to get a Canadian movie shown in our theatres. Hollywood made sure of that. Jack Valenti made sure that the government got lobbied. Flora MacDonald promised that she would bring in legislation that would ensure that Canadian-made movies about Canadian life would be shown in Canadian theatres. In fact, we have no more Canadian movies than we had before she made the promise.
They are selling out all the time. Why? Because they worship at an altar that is different. It is an altar that is not rooted in the people of Canada. It is foreign to the people of Canada. It has its roots in the boardrooms of the nation, not in the bedrooms of the nation.
That is where that whole neo-Conservative agenda this government has been taking the Canadian people. They want us to be more like our cousins to the south where the only thing that matters is the buck you can make. They do not give a damn about the person who lives beside them or the person who sits beside them. They will look after themselves and the devil can take the rest of them.
That is the attitude, a selfish atavistic attitude. That is returning to the past. The movement that I am part of, the New Democratic Party, recognizes that we are our brothers' keepers and therefore we have a responsibility to our brothers and sisters. We are the keepers of each other's concerns.
That is what we have built in Canada. We have built a society. Look at all of the things we have built; the social programs, the credit unions, the co-op movement, co-op housing, the way fishermen work in co-ops, the farmers, this is the kind of society we have built.
This government is chipping away at it, gradually destroying it, day by day. It has brought in Bill C-21 that says we will put all the money we make on the GST into servicing the debt. Of course, the next line it will sell to Canadians is: "You can reduce the deficit even further if you let us increase the GST". That is the next step.
We have argued against the GST. We have always said that these consumer taxes should be left to the provinces since the federal government has a greater ability to tax and the provinces are restricted. After all, the provinces gave up income tax to the federal government. If you recall it was only on a temporary basis during the second world war. What was temporary then became permanent.
We recognized that the provinces' way of raising money would be through consumer taxes. We call them provincial sales taxes. There was an understanding that that area would be left to the provinces. What happened? The federal government moved right into that area and has its own sales tax. What has it been doing to the provinces? It has been blackmailing them, threatening them that if they do not integrate the provincial sales tax with the federal sales tax, it will not collect the sales tax on consumer goods brought across the border.
Ontario loses anywhere from $300 to $400 million because the federal government will not collect the provincial sales tax at the border. This government says to the province: "If you want us to collect it you have to integrate the rest of it."
What a way to run a Confederation. What happened to the co-operative spirit of Confederation? Is this the kind of spirit that breeds harmony when you sit around the table to discuss the Constitution? Is this the spirit that motivates give and take at the constitutional negotiating table? Is that the spirit?


An hon. member:: Do as I say, not as I do.


John R. Rodriguez: It is the old Trudeau approach. The confrontation of federal-provincial relations is being continued. It is not an amelioration of differences. It is not give and take. That was Trudeau's approach and here it is being continued by these neo-Conservatives. It is a sad commentary.
Here is the province of Ontario and all the other provinces in very rough economic times. I do not buy this garbage when they now run around and say: "This is an international recession". When we had Dr. Crow and Dr. Wilson before us, the Conference Board of Canada said that this was a made-in-Canada recession.
March 30, 1992


An hon. member:: It is the only thing they have made since they have been in power.


John R. Rodriguez: Look what the government did. It squeezed, taxed, purged, bled and gouged until now we have an inflation rate of less than 2 per cent. It is a very successful operation but the patient is dying.
We have wrestled inflation to the ground and it is less than 2 per cent, which means there is no growth going on. Yet we are playing these little games with Bill C-21, telling Canadians: "See, look, we are responding to what you said." We know that 11 per cent of you said: "Well at least if you are going to put a GST on, it should be used to reduce the deficit". That is the 11 per cent you know.
I am hearing the Ayn Rand from the Conservative Party saying something. She should get up and make a speech. The "Dorothy Rand" of the Conservative Party should get up and make a speech. I have never known her to be speechless.


An hon. member:: Very right wing.


John R. Rodriguez: There they are, playing with Bill C-21 because their 11 per cent says to them: "We will accept the GST if you put it into deficit reduction." Remember, the operating accounts of this government run a surplus and that means every year this government takes in $11 to $14 billion more than it spends.


Mrs. Dobbie:: Good for us.


John R. Rodriguez: It is the interest.


Mr. Barrett:: The interest?


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, that is right. But in fact, because the interest rates are kept high, and I said at the start that we can drop those interest rates another 1 to 2 percentage points, and it would reduce the deficit, but I do not see how this is doing anything at all to alleviate people's problems.
In fact interest rates have to come down. You cannot escape it by saying: "Well we do not interfere with John Crow. He is independent."
It is an interesting fact that John Crow is more popular in economic circles in Europe than Brian Mulroney. Did you not know that? They love him. He walks on water. They hold him up. They love him. Why? Because they can trust that he will stay the course, keep those interest rates high, keep the Canadian dollar high, so all of the international casino gamblers can come here and play
Government Orders
the "Rantier" economy in Canada. We do not need to legalize casinos in any province, they can play them right here on the money markets.


David Barrett: Pay for their villas in Switzerland.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. That is the farce of it all. They love this guy Crow in Europe. They think he is the best thing since sliced bread.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: They crow about him.


John R. Rodriguez: Finance ministers can come and go. Prime Ministers can come and go, but keep Dr. John. Okay? Keep him there. Keep the crow flying. That is right. This is the result of it, so this government ends up just fiddling around the edges. It is playing shell games, smoke and mirrors, now you see it now you don't.
In conclusion, I want to say that this government cannot escape its responsibility. You can try to fool some of the people some of the time but that other 89 per cent you cannot fool. They are going to come back to haunt this Tory government.
I appeal to all the Tories in the back benches, at least in their self-interest to get back here. You cannot get back here if you keep supporting these cockamamie ideas that come out of your front benches. I am saying to all of you, and I know you are not here but you are watching me, all those Tories who are good friends of mine in the back benches: Come down to the House.


An hon. member:: Explain yourself.


John R. Rodriguez: I am going to explain myself.


An hon. member:: You are a real Christian.


John R. Rodriguez: I try to do missionary work among the unconverted.


An hon. member:: I know that.


John R. Rodriguez: I know that I have good friends in the back benches of the Tory caucus and I want to say to them it is time they started exerting some influence on what the front bench is doing to them.
It is bills like these that keep you mired at 11 per cent. It is the lack of any kind of affirmative action with respect to the economy of this country, bringing interest rates down, kick-starting the economy with the municipal infrastructure, refurbishing the municipal infrastructure. That seems to me where we have to go.

March 30, 1992
Remember, as Michael McCracken says, the cost of doing nothing is not zero.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Has the hon. member finished his debate?


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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. 0.31
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, March is the month of the Canadian Dietetic Association's national nutrition campaign. Its 1992 theme is "Challenge the Nutrition Myths".
The goal of this year's campaign is to help consumers sort out facts from the fictions behind common nutrition myths. During the campaign consumers will be given reliable information to assist them in making positive choices for healthy eating.
I am delighted that the healthy eating messages of the campaign are based on collaborative work initiated by the Department of National Health and Welfare to develop and implement guidelines for healthy eating.
I congratulate the Canadian Dietetic Association and its provincial and territorial associates for their work on behalf of national nutrition month.
Mr. Speaker, let us all junk junk foods.


FISHERIES
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, today Canadian fishermen are making an important declaration on the nose of the Grand Banks. They are saying that Canada should manage all fish on the Grand Banks, no matter where they swim.
This is a courageous act, bom of desperation. The fishermen know that the promise by the Government of
Canada to put fish on the table at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro next June will do little to protect the northern cod.
Global resources can no longer be managed according to artificial political boundaries.
If future generations of fishermen of all interested nations are to have a chance at earning a living off the Grand Banks, Ottawa must move swiftly to convince the international community that the fishery must be protected.
We can do it alone or we can do it jointly. This is an emergency. It calls for emergency measures. The survival of the northern cod stock and the economic survival of Atlantic Canada is at stake.
Is the Government of Canada prepared to fish or just to cut bait?


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, within nine weeks the largest ever summit will take place, bringing together more than 100 world leaders in Brazil in June to look at the planet's future, the future for the 5.4 billion inhabitants who are already here and almost double that number that will be here when my 12-year old son reaches my age.
Last Friday the Prime Minister announced that he would attend that summit and lead the Canadian delegation in dealing with a number of issues, including the one just raised by my colleague, the member for Davenport.
We should remember that as Canadians we are trustees for the largest land mass in the world, the largest coastline, the largest supply of fresh water and 10 per cent of the world's forests. We have a great deal at stake in the Earth Summit to be held shortly.
Right now, in New York, we are in the final days of negotiating a new global bargain and partnership. It will require vision, it will require courage and it will require dedication.
We trust that Canadians will support the Prime Minister and the other members of the delegation in achieving this new global pact.
March 30, 1992


EXPO '98
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the world has come to recognize Canada as being a generous host of world expositions.
Last Friday I met with a group dedicated to bringing Expo '98 to the city of Toronto. The project already has the backing of four levels of government, the support of labour, private enterprise and approval by the local community.
The Expo '98 Bid Corporation is proposing to host the event on a spectacular waterfront location in the Park-dale region, just a hop, skip and jump from the amenities offered by downtown Toronto.
Toronto offers hotel accommodation for 68,000 visitors per night; a safe and comfortable public transit and subway system; a highway network which provides road access to 140 million people within a one-day drive of the city.
I call on the members of the international community to strongly consider the beauty and the benefits of Toronto and support Canada's bid for Expo '98.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, today I am leading a delegation of New Democrat MPs to Washington, D.C. to tell the Bush administration that the U.S. tariff on Canadian softwood lumber is unfair, unjustified and hypocritical.
We are meeting with the leaders of the campaign to keep our Canadian lumber out of the U.S. market. We are going to tell them that their campaign does not help their industry, hurts American consumers and threatens to deepen a recession affecting all of North America.
We are meeting with people south of the border who are being directly hurt by the tariff to enlist them in our fight against this vexatious harassment. We are taking the message that this attack on Canada is unacceptable because the Tory government has not been able to get that message through.
When you want something done, call the New Democrats.


BILL C-13
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, in an article under the heading "The So-Called Strike Against Provincial Jurisdictions by Ottawa", published in La Presse on March 28, 1992, reads in part: "As regards bill C-13 on the environment, the federal government has as much right as the provinces to legislate in that area of shared jurisdiction."
Then further on: "Moreover, I think that this bill is not so much the result of an irrepressible urge on the part of Ottawa to interfere in that area (it is no more dedicated to that issue than other levels of government) as of a ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada recognizing its right to get involved in that area and pressure from environmental groups. It must also be mentioned that federal environmental assessments can only be carried out when a project involves one of these two jurisdictions or when the federal government provides financial assistance for a provincial project. Why would Ottawa try to stop a project it is prepared to support with money provided there is no evidence of the provincial government being too lax with environmental issues? Would the fact that Quebec's record is far from ideal in this respect have anything to do with it opposing that bill?


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in September 1991 I tabled a private member's motion urging the government to recognize the efforts of past Prime Ministers by placing a marker at their place of burial. Since that time I have received numerous letters of support from members from all sides of the House and many Canadians.
Today I am pleased to advise the House that the first step has been taken by the government to advance this proposal. In recognizing the valuable contribution that this project would make to public education, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board has recommended that the proposal proceed.
I would like to thank the Hon. Jean Charest, Minister of the Environment, whose personal intervention and commitment made this decision possible. The commitment to Canada by members from all three parties has

March 30, 1992
been demonstrated in the generous and non-partisan support obtained for this proposal.
I believe it is important to recognize those whose leadership has made this country one of the most desirable places in the world in which to live.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, once again I rise in this Chamber to ask our colleagues to join us in congratulating Canada. Canada was represented by the men's fastball team which won the world championship on the weekend, winning all 10 games played in Manila, Philippines. This repeats Canada's world title of 1972 which was also won in Manila. Canada, as represented by figure skaters Kurt Browning, Elvis Stojko, Lloyd Eisler and Isabelle Brasseur, also won world championship medals in Oakland, California. We are proud of all these athletes, their coaches, managers and officials. Like the Alberta Ladies Hockey Team that won the Canadian championship in Edmonton, they are all truly outstanding Canadians.


LANGUAGE MINORITIES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to eliminate barriers to minority language education. It puts all language minorities in Canada on an equal footing, safe from the abusive action of provincial legislatures, and gives all language minorities access to education, so as to resist assimilation. Nevertheless, right here in Ontario, not far from the national capital, some children aged five to nine must travel four hours by bus a day, Mr. Speaker, because the Lanark-Leeds-Grenville school board refuses their right to attend school in French where they live. This kind of treatment is unjust, unacceptable and outrageous.
The Conservative federal government, this false protector of language minorities, abolished the Court Challenges Program, which would have given these children's
parents a chance to exercise their legal and educational rights. As Canada is preparing to renew its Constitution, here are two shabby and painful examples of the place that the provinces and the federal government reserve for minority language rights. Corrective action must be taken right away, Mr. Speaker.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, a federally funded apprenticeship course is starting today at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology, but women need not apply. Apparently, Premier Getty's Tory government decided to target men between 20 and 24 as one of the fastest growing groups of welfare recipients. So 30 men will receive 18 weeks of training in cabinet making, welding, appliance repair, cooking, baking and auto mechanics.
Ironically, federal employment equity legislation requires employers to hire women in some of these kinds of jobs. Some would say it is hypocritical of the government not to be leading the way by training women for non-traditional occupations.
Perhaps it is realistic. Some would say it is pointless for the minister of employment to train women on welfare for jobs they will never be able to take because the minister of health and welfare has ensured that there will be no child care spaces.
Maybe someone should explain to the champion of Triple-E, who is trying to make Alberta equal to Prince Edward Island, what equality really means.


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth Tbrner (Halton -Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I recently asked my constituents for their ideas on how Canada's future could be made brighter. Chris and Louise Sharpe of Acton wrote:
Devise a method to make the system more accessible to the truly needy, and filter out the people taking advantage of the system. We don't mind paying so many taxes, as long as the money is being used to good ends. Show that the government is willing to build a strong Canada and increase loyalty.
March 30, 1992

Mr. S. C. English of Bolton wrote:
Settle the Quebec and aboriginal questions and get on with running the country. Rule out-of-order any MP making ludicrous, irrelevant statements instead of asking legitimate questions in Question Period.
Finally, Hugh Fraser of Georgetown writes:
In general I think the future is bright and exciting for our country. The opportunities are great-it's just up to each one of us to take advantage of them. You can make the future brighter by making sure we stay united.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of bringing my constituents's voices to Parliament.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the front line safety personnel in the aviation industry. The flight attendants, the men and women who provide the services on the aircraft, are there not to bring us coffee and tea but to make sure that we are safe all the time we are in that aircraft.
Justice Moshansky recognized that in his report released last week. That is why he called upon the government to bring forward legislation or regulations to protect their hours of work so that during the whole course of their time on the job they are alert and able to serve us in the safety aspects.
Unfortunately, instead of enacting regulations which it now has the power to do, the government chose to shift responsibility to the Dryden Commission Implementation Project, a good way of burying the problem in bureaucracy.
I call on the government to change its mind, to put together a ministry-union group right now to draft those regulations so that those flight attendants have some protection.


TELE-CANADA NEWS INC.
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, a young Canadian company, Tele-Canada News Inc., has launched a daily news service for Canadians. The company is based in Montreal and produces a half hour TV program that is beamed to Florida by satellite seven days a week. This program entitled The News from Canada opens with the first four bars of O Canada and gives our
Florida snowbirds the day's general business, sports and weather news from Canada.
It is good to see Canadian initiatives responding to and succeeding in the international marketplace.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last month the unemployment rate in Canada was 10.6 per cent, up 3.1 per cent from two years ago.
The Department of Finance says that a 1 per cent increase in the rate of unemployment increases the federal deficit by .6 per cent of the value of our Gross Domestic Product because fewer Canadians are paying taxes and more are receiving unemployment benefits and welfare payments.
Since our Gross Domestic Product is $700 billion, a 3.1 per cent increase in unemployment increases the deficit by more than $13 billion.
By instituting a $13 billion municipal works program for much needed infrastructure such as transit, roads and sewers, we can cut unemployment by 3 per cent without increasing the deficit. This is another way, as the Minister of Finance said in his budget speech, we can create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner while at the same time recognize the important contribution that adequate infrastructure makes to our competitive position.


ENTERPRISE CAPE BRETON CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance announced in his last budget that Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation would be eliminated. This has left employees and all Cape Bretoners wondering what will be left once this corporation is eliminated.
The demonstration farm owned by Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and located at Point Edward has proven to be extremely valuable to Cape Breton farmers. With minimal cost to the taxpayers of Canada, studies done at the farm focus on crops, equipment and animals and their suitability to the Cape Breton climate. Let me assure the House that the experience gained at this farm cannot be duplicated on a mainland farm of the same type.

March 30,1992
Oral Questions
Cape Bretoners have borne the brunt of the cutbacks and lay-offs implemented by this government. Surely they cannot expect us to accept that the closure of this demonstration farm will have a positive impact on Canada's fiscal situation.
I would urge the government to examine the social and economic benefits of this project and assure Cape Breton farmers that this farm will remain as an integral part of the economy of Cape Breton Island.


CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, March 28, the premier of Alberta, Don Getty, outlined his government's position on constitutional reform.
I would like to quote from that address: "I will not endorse any concept where everyone else's interests are looked after and the west gets shafted. I won't agree. I just won't sign. People had better understand that when they threaten Alberta, when they insult us because we are sticking up for a Triple-E Senate, those people had better understand that Alberta will have the nation at heart but Alberta will also stand up for itself".
Mr. Getty referred to a constitutional elite that wants a pre-ordered package of reforms entrenched in Canadian law. He continues: "I fear that at times the national debate in Canada has been taken over by people who think they know best and don't trust the real people of Canada to participate".
I fully support Mr. Getty's position that the principle of equality be reflected in Senate reform as well as in the constitutional amending formula.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today seven trawlers with 150 fishermen are sailing to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks to tell the fishermen from the European countries, the 95 ships
that are taking cod there, that they should not do that. The fishermen will do to them what the government could not do internationally: to say that it is in the best interests of everybody to preserve the cod stocks in that area.
Is it the intention of the government to introduce a piece of legislation soon to extend the custodial management responsibility of Canadians to the nose and the tail of the banks as we are the custodians of the stock within the Canadian waters?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister of fisheries will be in the House at a little later time.
All I can say at this particular time is that the position of the government remains the same. Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition may want to defer his questions until a little later on in Question Period. I am sure he will be here.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was ready to answer the question and we are willing to take her answer. If she wants to say yes, there will be no problem, we will move on to something else. But I can see that she is afraid because the minister of fisheries is in the House. I will repeat my question to that minister.
I just want to know from the minister of fisheries if he is embarrassed a bit to see the fishermen having to go to the Grand Banks to do what the minister has not been able to do: to tell the Europeans that it is the responsibility of everybody to protect the cod stocks there, and if this government has the intention of introducing a piece of legislation that will extend the custodial management responsibility of the Canadian government to the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks so that we will have fish for our Canadian fishermen in the future.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman certainly finds solutions to be much simpler when he is in the opposition, because when he was in government it took that government about 12 years to achieve the Law of the Sea Convention. During that whole period it never unilaterally extended the economic zone out to 200 miles, but now that they are in opposition the solutions are very simple.
March 30, 1992

Since January 1989 I have been and the government has been bringing this matter to the attention of the governments of the European Community, Spain, Portugal and around the world. We are continuing our efforts.
We congratulate those who are making this demonstration. I have written them of my support and have given them some tangible support as well, something to help the crews along when they get back to shore. I suggest the hon. gentleman do the same.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister that it is very easy for him to do something very simple: to sign this international agreement, which is something the government has refused, to make sure we have jurisdiction there.


Ms. Copps:: The Law of the Sea, which you still haven't signed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to tell the minister that the government should do that. I want to ask him if he is aware that in 1971 we were the only ones to recognize that there was a danger with pollution in the Arctic and unilaterally we passed a law in this Parliament extending our jurisdiction over Arctic waters. Since that day the international community has recognized that we were right.
If we were to do the same thing today with the cod problem at the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks, the international community would recognize that we are doing what is needed to protect the stocks not only for Canadian fishermen but for the fishermen of the world.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in 1971 the government took an initiative to extend jurisdiction with respect to pollution in Arctic waters. There were no other ships of any country in those Arctic waters at the time that was done. The only country that could possibly be affected was the United States. They were spoken to first and arrangements were entered into with them so that they would not object too vigorously.
The situation is not comparable to an international area where many nations are now fishing on the high seas in that zone there already. It is not comparable, but
Oral Questions
I remind the hon. gentleman that in 1972 his government signed a treaty with France which gave it fishing rights forever, without any time limit, within Canadian waters. We are still suffering the results today of that treaty signed in 1972. In 1977 the hon. gentleman's government signed an arrangement with the European Community and gave it the right to fish thousands of tonnes of cod in our waters until we let that die, until we finally got rid of it in 1987.
I would not refer to his record, if I were him, without checking the record first.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister's ignorance is showing. The fact is, whether he likes it or not, the French have territorial rights in the gulf, and the Portuguese and the Spaniards do not. I would ask the minister to act responsibly in order to preserve the resource within Canadian waters. At this very moment, Canadian fishermen cannot fish for cod, while 95 foreigh ships are taking the stocks Canadians will be unable to catch this summer.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have to keep this in perspective. There are foreign vessels fishing cod and other species outside the 200-mile limit, and no country that I am aware of recognizes as yet the rights of a coastal state to exercise any jurisdiction over fishing beyond the 200-mile economic zone.
We now have a resolution before the United Nations environmental conference to that effect backed by 40 other nations. We are pushing that vigorously, which is the proper way to go. If all these efforts do not result in meaningful progress then we will examine what other options there are.
In the meantime I remind the hon. gentleman that in 1982 his government allocated to the European Community 8,000 tonnes of non-surplus 2J,3K-L cod; 6,500 tonnes of 2G-H cod; and 7,000 tonnes of squid. We were lucky there was anything left out there by the time his government was pushed out of office in 1984, and he gets up in the House and question our policy.

March 30, 1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, why is the minister so tender on this issue? Why is he dragging in all those red herrings? He is the one who has those fishermen out there twisting in the wind. What has he done? For example, has he today seen to it that the ambassadors in Brussels, Lisbon and Madrid are meeting with their opposite numbers to reinforce the urgency of this situation? Instead of bafflegab, why does he not tell us what he is doing for those fishermen?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see the renewed interest in this question by the hon. gentleman. I appeared before the standing committee on fisheries a week ago last Thursday. There was not a Liberal member for Newfoundland who turned up, so I am delighted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. minister knows that it is improper to announce that to the House.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister is improper. He says he has been on to this issue since January 1989. The foreign fishing had been going on for four years before he opened his mouth on the issue. Where was he during all those committee meetings for those four years?
He talks about a resolution in June down in Rio somewhere. What will this resolution do? If the resolution does not succeed in getting the international community to come to its senses on this one, would the minister now give notice that he intends as a government to take unilateral action to save those stocks while there is some left to save: take the action, go out there and take over management of the nose and tail of the Banks? Will he answer that question?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this government has taken unilateral action after unilateral action in this matter and will continue to take unilateral action.
Here is a unilateral action: this is the resolution we have before the United Nations. It was conceived at St. John's, Newfoundland two years ago when the hon. gentleman was not thinking much about this issue. It was not popularized so much. This gives the principles that we say should apply to straddling stocks so that the
coastal state has management rights over the straddling stocks.
If this is accepted by the international community, and any action can only be effective if it is accepted by the international community, this problem will be resolved. We cannot answer whether or not it will be accepted, but the Prime Minister himself is leading our delegation to Rio to make sure that it gets full attention at Rio.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentlemen have been pleading that the Prime Minister get personally involved, and I can assure them he is personally involved.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
During the Canada-U.S. free trade talks, Canadians were very concerned about a plan to send great quantities of fresh water to the United States.
The current draft agreement, however, includes pipelines which could carry water to the United States and Mexico. Obviously, Canadians do not want to pump great quantities of fresh water from Canada.
Is it the government's policy to make it easier to send great quantities of fresh water from Canada to the United States and Mexico?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: No, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend is very much aware of the water policy of the Government of Canada which does not allow that. It does allow for the export of water in containers, water in bottles and that sort of thing, but not diversions of water or the sale of water in great quantities, to use her words.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, if this is the case, it is going to be hard getting all those little bottles of water into those pipelines which are non-energy pipelines which are proposed in the draft text we have seen of the NAFTA trade deal.
March 30, 1992

When it came to culture the government also said that culture was not on the table. When it did not give away culture through the front door, it seems clear from recent reports that this government facilitated getting it through the back door.
I want to ask the minister, in the case of water exports is the government's policy to facilitate water exports? If it is not, what is the government's response to the section of the draft proposal that proposes non-energy pipelines? Are these pipelines for bottled water? Are these pipelines for orange juice or in fact, is this government looking at pipelines through the back door to transport Canadian water in large quantities to the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me caution my hon. friend about pulling things out of a text that is two months old.
What I said in my first answer is the position of the Government of Canada and the policy of the Government of Canada that governs the export of water. Water in bottles is allowed to be exported. Water in large amounts and particularly diversions, is not allowed to be exported.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, to the Deputy Prime Minister, while the government has said during previous trade talks that it would protect auto workers through trade deals, it did not; it would protect forestry workers, it did not; it would protect Canada's culture, it was not protected.
Therefore, I want to say it is clear on every account and evidenced by the fact that the government has not put forward any impact studies on either of the trade deals, that these trade deals have failed.
Will his government stand up for Canadians for once, act in the interests of Canadians and stop the talks on the Mexican trade deal? If not, stand aside and call an election on the issue.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is talking about industries that have not been protected. She knows that what she has said is not true.
Oral Questions
She spoke about the automotive industry. The auto pact is still in place. She knows perfectly well that culture is protected under the free trade agreement. In forestry she is worried about the softwood lumber issue. She knows perfectly well that is subject to the memorandum of understanding which was not part of the free trade agreement.
I listened to my hon. friend from British Columbia, the trade critic for the New Democratic Party. He said he asked the previous minister on many occasions whether there was any company that had invested in Canada as a result of the free trade agreement. This was on television last night. He knows. He has heard my predecessor as well as me, read off the names of companies that have been investing in Canada as a result of the free trade agreement, companies that have benefited. Let me read them-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Willowdale.


PRINTING INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, printing is Canada's fourth largest industrial employer. Since free trade, U.S. customs harassment based on country of origin markings has cost our printers $160 million in lost exports and 1,700 jobs. Canada's printers cannot wait for a North American free trade deal, they need action now.
I ask this minister, will this government act immediately to toughen Canada's customs enforcement regime against American printers? Will it act now to give Canadian printers a level playing field?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take that matter up with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue.
My hon. friend is aware that this is an issue that we have been looking at and there may well be ways that we can enforce our customs requirements in a more aggressive fashion. But one of the things that we have to be conscious of here is that customs requirements work both ways. There are a number of our printing companies that are endeavouring to get into the United States as well.

March 30, 1992
Oral Questions


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the minister says he has been considering this issue. This government was first informed of this problem four years ago. Furthermore, in the government's industry study signed by this minister it was admitted that the free trade agreement has caused problems for Canadian printers.
So I put it to the minister: just how much longer are Canadian printers going to have to be beaten up by the Americans before this government acts?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I propose to raise that with my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, who, as he knows, is out of the House today on government business.
In answer to his question, my first answer still stands.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, with the United States clearly controlling the timetable of the trade negotiations with Mexico and Canada, the ratification this year of an agreement now seems increasingly unlikely.
Is the government prepared to leave the negotiations in limbo until the issue is decided by some future U.S. administration? Or given the work already completed, would the government participate in a separate Cana-dian-Mexican deal as a senior Canadian trade official said last May?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, our objective and the objective of all three countries is to proceed quickly with negotiations.
We are going to be having a meeting of the trade ministers from the three countries next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. At that time, we will be reviewing the status of the main outstanding issues. This will not be the final meeting of the negotiations by any means. That will give us an up-to-date status of the negotiations. At that stage, we hope to give direction to the negotiators.
The timing of this as it relates to the disposition of the U.S. Congress to deal with the matter is still very much
up in the air as my hon. friend probably saw in The Globe and Mail article this morning. It is something that we are following very closely.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the question of timing raises a further question, as the minister knows full well, of what happens if the trilateral negotiation remains in limbo.
Last year the Mexican Ambassador to Canada raised the possibility of a separate Mexican-Canadian agreement in the event that the trilateral deal is stalled in Washington. A Canadian trade official endorsed that proposal and noted that in Canada it would be received with interest.
Is the minister saying today that he regards that as an option if the trilateral agreement becomes caught up in the U.S. presidential election?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. presidential election is in early November. The conclusion of the fast-track authority that the U.S. Congress is operating under is February 28,
1993.	So my hon. friend has asked a somewhat hypothetical question. I just draw to his attention that there are a few months within that period where the matter could be dealt with if there is an initial agreement.


FISHERIES
Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, it does very little to help the fishermen who are going out beyond the 200-mile limit to try to impress upon the world the ecological disaster that results from this foreign overfishing. The Liberals blame the Tories and vice versa. The Liberals know about the Economic Council of Canada report in 1980 and the Kirby report in 1982 with which they did the same as the Tories have done, nothing.
The question is where do we go from here? Has the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans considered going to the North Atlantic Fisheries Organization meeting and proposing some measures that would strengthen that organization and give it the teeth that it needs to police its own members?
March 30, 1992

Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see this interest from the land-based New Democratic Party on this issue.


An hon. member:: What about B.C.?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not like being interrupted; I know the House wants to listen to me.
In the past, we have already put suggestions before NAFO that the objection procedure which allows the member to object to a decision which does not apply to him be changed.
We have before NAFO now many suggestions including suggestions to improve surveillance and enforcement and the placing of observers in every vessel that fishes the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We have proposed an international observer force. We have proposed a hail system under which all catches would be reported when the vessel left from one zone to go to another zone, aerial surveillance, and a whole host of other measures.
We already have before NAFO many suggestions that would put in place an effective surveillance enforcement system which is badly needed because the EC does not know what its own member nations are doing. They do not properly report to the EC as it revealed in a report on its own internal waters just a week or two ago. It simply does not know what its member states are doing.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister answering the question, when he did get to it.
With respect to the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, I understand the Prime Minister intends to appear at that conference. In the event that the resolution the minister talked about earlier this afternoon is not accepted at that meeting, is the Government of Canada prepared to ask for international co-operation for a unilateral campaign by Canada to save those stocks beyond the 200-mile limit?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we proposed. We think that the only effective way to achieve results is to get at least a good majority of the world's nations on our side with respect to the need for
straddling stocks to be managed by the coastal states. That is the way we are proceeding, by persuasion, which is the diplomatic way of proceeding.
If all our efforts bilaterally and multilaterally, which have been under way for two or three years, do not result in effective progress in that manner, then we will have to consider what other options we have.
Quite obviously, no one country can force all of the other countries of the world to change their position with respect to the right of navigation in the high seas and the present international regime took many years for us to reach that point. We are trying to proceed by persuasion. If we are able to show the rest of the world in a few months time that we made every effort to do it this way and still nothing happens, then we may have to have recourse to other methods.


AVIATION SAFETY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Is it the view of the government that concerns within the Department of Transport about its ability to ensure compliance with safety legislation, regulations and standards should be brought to the Minister of Transport for review and action or is the government prepared to leave safety to lower levels of concern?


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and I welcome the hon. member's question and his continued concern for and commitment to safety in transportation in Canada.
For the record, the minister publicly acknowledged the Moshansky report last week in several answers to the member and others. There were 191 recommendations in that report. The minister set in place an implementation team, which includes industry, to ensure prompt and decisive action with regard to that report.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, Justice Moshansky in his report identifies a series of reports, memorandums and so on that identified concerns about the ability of the department to ensure the safety of the travelling public. My question for the government is very specific. At what date were these concerns brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport?

March 30, 1992
Oral Questions


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the minister is continuing to receive reports and recommendations to enhance transportation safety in Canada.
In addition to the report and as Mr. Justice Moshansky has said: "I think it is safe to fly in Canada. I think we have one of the safest transportation systems in the world".


TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In an article which appeared in The Toronto Star on March 28 the minister clearly concedes that his government has not worked hard enough in the area of training. I agree with the minister's admission of his government's failure.
He stated that Canada should be training one million workers a year. Last year it only trained 350,000. The minister clearly accepts that the onus for restructuring the job market is the responsibility of the government. I congratulate the minister for accepting the blame. What is he going to do about?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, what an entree by the hon. member. I guess if he cannot find arguments against the strategy of the government on adjustment and restructuring he might find solace in that article. But perhaps he should go on reading it.
I know that the Liberal Party opposed this vehemently, both here and in the Senate, but when we tried to activate these passive funds under UI to enable unemployed Canadians to get better skills they were opposed to it. This is Bill C-21. This is the Labour Force Development Strategy.
Last year we trained 350,000 people. This year $1.8 billion will be spent on training unemployed Canadians and close to 650,000 Canadians will benefit from training.
Part of the article also tells about partnerships. That is why we are working with the private sector, labour and business, and provincial governments so that every one
in Canada will put more resources toward training people which is the key to success in a competitive world.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
The minister with his answer has admitted that his government has failed Canadians in the area of training. Unfortunately his response is inadequate.
First the government is going to study Canada's 28 economic sectors to identify gaps in training. Then it is going to bring together experts to develop a national training program, but so far only two sectors have been studied.
I ask the minister why it has taken him so long to realize that training is so vital to the future prosperity of this nation.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is ridiculous. The hon. member should look around and see what is happening in Canada.
When he claims that only two industrial sectors have gotten together, he should maybe talk to the Minister for International Trade.
Stop reading articles in the paper and go to the book and look at the government boards, the Labour Force Development Board. Talk to the private sector. He will find that not only two sectors have gathered together and are looking at how they can be more competitive in Canada, there are tens of sectors that are doing that.
Obviously the hon. member needs briefing. I would welcome him and we will take him through everything that is done under the Labour Force Development Strategy and then he will stand up in the House and thank and congratulate the Conservative government.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
With the deepening debate about Senate reform and a Triple-E Senate, many of my constituents, and I am sure many Canadians everywhere, are wondering if there is not a better or different way.
March 30, 1992

We have had and been well served by a process called the first ministers' conference process in this country. When the Prime Minister and the premiers get together they truly are elected, equal and effective.
My question is this. If the subject of Senate reform develops to be an obstruction to constitutional renewal in Canada, is the minister and the government prepared to consider the alternative of abolishing the Senate and pursuing the Council of the Federation concept as was contained in their original proposals?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certainly abolition is one option if other things do not work. Our strong preference is for a profound change in the other place that would involve election, effectiveness and as close to equality as we can find.
I think we all know, sir, that this Canada round requires flexibility. We have seen flexibility from Quebec, we have seen flexibility from aboriginal leaders, we have seen flexibility from the proponents of the social charter. We are going to need that throughout the piece if we are going to make progress.
If any Canadians stick with extreme positions, we run the risk not only of losing the cause they are interested in, but we run the risk of losing this country. No responsible elected leader anywhere in Canada would want to accept the responsibility for that.
We had proposed, as the member says, the use of a federal-provincial device, the Council of the Federation. That was discussed at a Calgary conference, the same conference that found that the Triple-E Senate did not enjoy broad support. That was put aside.
Beaudoin-Dobbie has come in with another proposal that would make use of federal-provincial relations. We certainly would look very seriously at that.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Oral Questions
The government's green plan extols the virtue of a well-informed public in environmental decision-making. Yet in spite of government statements to the contrary, a loud public outcry and vigorous internal scientific opposition, the International Joint Commission has announced the closure and dispersal of the largest, most valuable environmental library in the country. This is supposedly for budgetary reasons in spite of repeated surpluses in that budget.
What action does the government plan to take in response to this arrogant disregard for the public interest or is what the IJC is doing consistent with government policy? Is it government policy to see a diminished IJC, a discredited IJC?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the decision taken by the IJC was taken in fulfilment of its mandate, which is to provide public information, but not necessarily to provide access to a library. It has kept the useful parts of its library for its own purposes. It will continue to respond to public inquiries that have to do with its mandate, but its mandate does not include running a library.
Indeed it is a strong IJC that we are looking for, particularly in connection with pollution in the Great Lakes and other files that they are working on. I believe we are going to have that. It has nothing to do with whether it has a library or not.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. In fact, the very respected environmental group, Great Lakes United, which fights very hard against pollution across the Great Lakes basin, has said that the library is crucial, public access to the library is crucial and if the IJC does not reverse its decision, there is going to be serious consequences for scientific advance in the fight against pollution.
I want to ask the minister if this government will listen to these environmental groups that are fighting for the Great Lakes and will tell the UC to reverse a decision which so dangerously threatens the Great Lakes security of thousands and thousands of Canadians.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, no I am not going to ask the UC to reverse its decision. Certainly there are many groups that are interested in information on the environment and both the Department of the Environment and

March 30, 1992
Oral Questions
the IJC will be happy to provide information that falls within its mandate.
I would suggest that if there is a need for a library and some other organizations want one, they should start one.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. We now know that the male-female wage gap is at an unacceptable 32 cent differential. Moreover, the government's proposal to eliminate the Pay Research Bureau, a branch that collects information to set pay and benefits within the Public Service, will further widen that gap.
In light of these statistics, will the minister immediately reinstate funding for the Pay Research Bureau, thus guaranteeing retroactive pay equity settlements within the Public Service?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that this government is committed to pay equity and it has shown it by making the largest settlement ever in the history of any government in the world.


Bernard Valcourt: How much?


Gilles Loiselle: It is $370 million plus $80 million a year.
I agree that we need to keep careful watch over this and make sure that over the coming years, the situation is improved where warranted. We are very proud of our record on pay equity.
As far as the management of pay within the Public Service is concerned, there are many ways of having access to information about pay in all sectors. We do not need to establish a pay research bureau.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from a public servant who is not too proud of the government's record on pay equity. She has a masters of library science, the lowest paid of all scientific and professional job classifications in the Public Service. This woman loves her work but is forced into taking a masters in public administration in order to break out of the pink collar ghetto.
The future of millions of Canadian working women rests in the hands of this minister. I ask that given that equal pay for work of equal value came into law in 1977, that this minister and this government agree to meet its own pay equity obligations.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I have said we are committed to pay equity. We are acting in the most responsible manner and I do not accept the view expressed by the hon. member.
I would add further that through PS 2000 we are making changes which will be very favourable. Classification removal, for example, will give access to women to a greater number of jobs, better training and very full access to equity.
This government has a very good record. We are going to continue to be attentive to this, but we feel that we have respected the law fully.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Last week the government announced a 37-cent increase in old age pensions. This is on top of a whopping 75-cent increase in January. Thirty-seven cents will not buy a glass of milk or a postage stamp.
When is this government going to give seniors the proper funding they need in order to have a decent standard of living?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I never believed that the Liberals would like to have more inflation, but that is exactly what will happen. The member should know that the formula we use is based on protecting the capacity of senior citizens to spend at the same level at which they spent the year before. That formula is calculated every three months.
The question is not the 37-cents on the cheque. This year, with the low rate of inflation, we have protected seniors' capacity to spend money as they did one year ago. I am surprised because I expected that for once the
March 30, 1992

Oral Questions
Liberals would congratulate me, but it will be for the next time, Mr. Speaker.


Lawrence MacAulay: My supplementary question is for the same minister.
No progress has been made for seniors in the fight against poverty since this government came into power. There are more single women over 65 living in poverty today than there was 10 years ago. The last time pensions were raised above inflation was by the Liberal government in 1984. When is this government going to take serious action against poverty among seniors?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I am going to be honest with my friend. I will always stand up for seniors. But as long as in this country people have to fight to protect their jobs, as long as working people have to accept the lowering of their salaries to save their jobs, as long as children as you ask me every week need to be helped, I will stand by the policy I have for seniors, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence who last week announced the fact that the Toronto military supply depot was being moved to Montreal.
Metropolitan Toronto, the traditional cash cow of Confederation, is already reeling under an unemployment rate that is above the national average. Will the minister, as was done in the case of Summerside, Prince Edward Island, set up a committee to find compensation for the closing of this base?
Will the minister also advise the House whether the decision to move to Montreal is contingent upon Quebec remaining in Canada?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, during the last fiscal year, the Minister of Finance announced a $2 billion reduction in defence expenditures over the next five years, in addition to the $4 billion reduction announced in 1989. With such a contribution to deficit reduction, the Department of National Defence obviously had to take steps. For instance, the Canadian forces establishment will be reduced by 11 per cent. Our depots-one in Edmonton
and one in Montreal-will be unified, which means savings of $35 million a year. I think that was a logical and fiscally responsible decision. I think under the circumstances it was the right decision to make, Mr. Speaker.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. The softwood lumber market in the United States is so brisk that the 14.48 per cent interim countervailing duty on Canadian imports has been almost completely absorbed by American consumers. In Colombus, the aggregate price of lumber increased from $290.20 U.S. per 1,000 board feet, on March 6, to $325.74 U.S. now.
In view of these latest developments, can the minister confirm today that the stream of sawmill closures in Canada now seems to have been contained? What does he intend to do next on that issue?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend is right. The price of lumber has indeed risen by almost $100 as a result of the U.S. government decision. I think that he is right when he says that the better part of the increase in countervailing duties was passed on to the American consumers. Our position, at the present time, is to present a very strong position to the American administration, with the support of the provinces as well as that of the industry in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. I think that once the process regarding the countervailing duty is completed, we will have a finding in favour of the Canadian industry.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Today we read about another tragic event with regard to child poverty and the death in 1987 of a child from God's Lake Narrows in northern Manitoba. I just toured those communities and of the 11 communities I toured last week not one of them has water and sewer systems. These are areas with total population in excess of 10,000 people.

March 30, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Why is it that the federal government's plan is to bring water and sewage into those communities; not to pay for the hook-ups into the houses, not to pay for toilets, not to pay for sinks but to insist that bands which just do not have the money use their very limited capital funds?
Does the minister not realize that with that approach native people will not have water and sewer systems in their homes?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly know that there are a small number of aboriginal communities remaining in Canada with water and sewer systems that are not yet up to the national standard.
That is why the government approved new funding of $250 million. It was announced a year ago. Upgrades in those affected communities, which are a small number of all native communities in Canada, are under way.
The question of the hook-ups has to do with distinguishing between the band support financing and their capital planning for which most bands receive budgets well in excess of $1 million, up to $5 million or more per year in many cases, on the basis of a long-range formula financing arrangement and the bringing of the main infrastructure services into those communities.
If the hon. member has a specific aspect of this problem he would like me to look into further, I would be most pleased to do so.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the fourth year of the free trade agreement and yet there is no definition of a subsidy.
Given that the government and the minister are fully aware of the impact of this definition on the Canadian economy, is he willing today to commit his government to withdraw from the North American free trade talks and not to sign the agreement before this definition is agreed to?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is aware that in the Uruguay round negotiations there has been a good definition of subsidy. It is more extensive than I think had been considered by my hon. friend and his colleagues prior to the announcement of the December 20 Dunkel paper. It affects subsidies by other countries that affect our markets in third countries. I think that is a substantial step forward.
It also affects subsidies that are provided by state governments in the United States that again adversely affect our markets in the United States. There is a major step forward here if we are able to get a successful Uruguay round negotiation.
I can assure my hon. friend that if we get that we will be carrying it through as much as we can into the NAFTA negotiations.


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ahmed Hassan Diria, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation for Tanzania.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate tomorrow, Tuesday, March 31, 1992, as an allotted day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 81 petitions.
March 30, 1992

[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the fifth report of the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations.
This report recommends that the Public Service Commission adopt regulations under the Public Service Employment Act to protect the rights of parties to appeals under sections 21 and 31 of the act. The report reaffirms the committee's earlier recommendations contained in its ninth report in 1988.
The committee finds that for our public servants there is an absence of procedural safeguards to ensure that the appeal process contains the basic requirements of fairness and equity.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Alan Redway: for leave to introduce Bill C-340, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (disqualifications of electors).


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


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, historically those sentenced to imprisonment in penitentiaries have been prohibited from voting. Recently, however, the courts have cast some doubts on this historic penalty. This bill is introduced with the intention of clarifying this fact and provides that any person convicted of an indictable offence and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a penitentiary is not qualified to vote in a federal election, unless the person is granted full parole or a statutory release or is no longer imprisoned on account of a remission.


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


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia.
They point out that a Vancouver based company has announced its intention to divert the water of a British Columbia river through a medium of canals, pipelines and other river channels into the San Diego, California area.
This petition is simply requesting the federal government to state categorically the terms of policy that our fresh waters will never be dammed and diverted into the U.S.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on an unrelated matter, another topic, the petitioners are again from Kamloops, British Columbia.
They call upon Parliament to take immediate steps to specify that accidental violation of the Canadian rail operating rules do not constitute employee misconduct under sections 28 and 30 of the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by residents of Calgary, Toronto, Halifax, Edmonton, Montreal, Ottawa, Bowmanville, Deep River-


Mr. Boudria:: Any from Hawkesbury?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I do not see any from Hawkesbury but they are also from Vancouver and Kelowna, B.C. and from Thornhill and Unionville, Ontario. I may say that this petition clearly has been round the country.
These petitioners are concerned about crimes of violence against the person. They request that Parliament recognize crimes of violence as being serious and abhorrent to society and request that an amendment to the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act be made by this House to reflect that concern.

March 30, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Edna Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present this petition on behalf of my constituents who urge the government to recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act, 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of First Nations, many of whom have signed this particular petition against the dreaded GST.
It asks that the government be responsible to the citizens of First Nations in Canada by taking immediate steps to rectify the deficiency of the policy guidelines, including changes which will protect the taxation immunity of First Nations both on or off reserve lands and those citizens who do not as yet have recognized reserve lands.
The First Nations of Canada are immune from such taxation by virtue of their aboriginal treaty right and the GST affronts that right.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House today that deals with the question of the transportation safety system on the coast of British Columbia. It involves the lighthouse system.
The petitioners urge that the government, now that it has cancelled the ill-founded program to destaff lighthouses, begin the process of lighthouse program upgrading.
This petition comes from a large number of people from Port Hardy, British Columbia, and has resulted from meetings in Prince Rupert, Port Hardy, Campbell River and on down the coast of British Columbia.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 223.
I ask that this response be made an order for return and if so, this return would be tabled immediately.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

*


Mr. Flis: With respect to Canadian participation in the trade show held in Monterrey, Mexico in January 1992 (a) who were the participants (b) were any of their air tickets paid for by the government, and if so, how many (c) was External Affairs involved in the purchase and distribution of tickets and, if so, for what reasons (d) how much was spent on accommodation, air fare, floor space and signs (e) were profit making companies attending the show subsidised by the government and, if so, for what reasons?
Return tabled.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. You will know, sir, as will all colleagues in the House that a question has been standing in my name dating back to last September. The question asks for the expense accounts of deputy ministers.
I would ask my colleague across the way, given his undertaking of some weeks ago now, that the matter would be addressed in the near future, whether or not he will undertake to respond to that question no later than tomorrow?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised this question on a number of occasions as you well know. I have given him an undertaking to check this answer out and to see what I could do to speed it up.
In that vein I had two or three conversations last week asking that the answer be finished and delivered to the hon. member as quickly as possible. I had hoped I would have been able to table the answer today. I am not able to do that obviously, and I cannot commit to tomorrow. I
March 30, 1992

can assure him I will do everything in my power to get him an answer as quickly as possible, because he does deserve it.


Don Boudria: I thank the member for his answer. The member and the House will know that as long as that question is on the Order Paper I cannot ask another one, that is to say that the Order Paper is loaded. We are only entitled to four questions each.


An hon. member:: Let us change that.


Don Boudria: I am not in any way blaming the member across the way. But I do want to state that had I asked that question of ministers, I know I would have received the answer a long time ago. I find it particularly puzzling that an answer that is requested of deputy ministers takes such a long time to come.
Again I do not blame the member across the way. But I would invite those who read Hansard to bear it in mind.


Albert Glen Cooper: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-21, an act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada, be read the third time and passed.
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Nickel Belt concluded his remarks right at two o'clock and I wonder if it is your intention to offer a period of questions or comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments are for the first two speakers. I am sorry.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-21, an act relating to the account-
Govemment Orders
ing of certain payments for the servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada.
This bill is very important for our country and it is very simple. Mr. Speaker, this morning and last week you heard, unfortunately, the opposition criticize this bill as usual.
In practical terms, the purpose of this legislation is to establish a special account in which the net revenue generated from the GST, from privatization and from the donations made by Canadians will be accounted for. When we talk about net revenue generated from the GST, we mean all the revenue that the government gets from the GST, minus the moneys given back to low income Canadians, through the annual tax credits that we know, and that Canadians know. This is what we mean when we refer to net revenue generated from the GST. When we talk about net revenue generated from privatization-that is the sale of corporations that belong to the government-the sale price, minus the expenses linked to the sale, gives us the net amount.
The opposition is criticizing this special account. One of the comments made against this good piece of legislation is that the government does not have any money, whether the revenue generated from the GST is in a specific account or in a general account. When we implemented the GST, the people in my constituency of Trois-Rivieres and across the country wanted to be sure that this government, or another one in five or ten years-maybe, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think so- would not be able to use the revenue generated by the GST for purposes other than the payment of interests on our debt and the payment of the debt itself. Canadians wanted to make sure that this revenue would not be used to set up new programs and spend even more money. That is the primary reason for this special account.
The opposition always wants more money, more programs and more spending, because it has no idea of the economic reality of this country, no awareness of the national debt that we inherited from the Liberal Party. That is why they want us to continue spending. The purpose of this bill is precisely to ensure that the net revenue generated from the GST will be used only to pay interest. The same goes for the revenue generated from the sale of Crown corporations.
Last week the opposition criticized the sale of government owned corporations. I can tell you that in 1984 as well as in 1988, in my constituency of Trois-Rivieres, people approved the federal government decision to cease competing, through corporation XYZ, with the

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
private sector. The federal government is there to manage a country, not to compete with the private sector. The only negative comment that I heard from my constituents regarding privatization is that maybe we have not sold enough corporations since we were elected. I had to explain to my constituents that the former government left us with corporations that were in the same state as the government, that is they were in debt and it is not always easy to sell companies that are in debt and that lose money. You have to first set them back on their feet, so that they have a positive financial sheet, and then try to sell them.
The third element in this bill is donations from Canadians. I want to emphasize the fact that since we first announced this legislation some 10 months ago, the federal government has received $375,000 in donations from Canadians. Those Canadians sent money strictly to help us pay the interest on our debt and, eventually, to pay the debt itself. Mr. Speaker, it is important to mention this fact: to this day, the government has received $375,000.
I want to take this opportunity to invite Canadians who believe in Canada and who have the financial means to make a little donation to help our country pay that high interest on our enormous debt. I can hear my colleague talk about the debt that we have created. Allow me to remind him of the economic realities.
When the 1974-75 budget was tabled, the debt stood at $27 billion. That was the national debt and the party of my colleague, the Liberal Party of Canada, was in power.
In 1984-85, the fiscal year during which we were elected, the debt was $206 billion. What did they do in 1984-85? Well, it was easy. They had an operating deficit of $16.5 billion, in other words, the Liberal government at the time spent $16.5 billion more than it received in revenue. On top of that, the Liberal government paid $22 billion in interest. For every tax dollar received, the government had to pay $1.33 to service the debt. That was the kind of fiscal management we got from the Liberal government in 1968, 1974-75, whatever, until 1984-85.
This year, we will have an operating surplus of $10 billion, which means, for the benefit of the people watching us, that in 1984-85 we took an operating deficit of $16.5 billion and in eight years turned it into a surplus of $10 billion. In eight years we actually were able to turn a $16 billion deficit into a $10 billion surplus, which means a difference of $26 billion. How we did it? The opposition will say we increased taxes. Yes, there have been some tax increases since 1984, but there has also been some real management in this country.
The average increase in program spending by the Progressive Conservative government has been 3.9 per cent annually. The average increase for the Liberals was
13.8	per cent per year. In other words, the Liberal government increased its expenditures and increased budget spending but ignored the other side of the balance sheet. There are two sides: expenditures and revenue, but it conveniently ignored the revenue side and in the process left the country with a debt of $206 billion.
Members are going to say: you Conservatives doubled the debt. That is just not true. If we look at what the debt was in 1984, and it was $200 billion, and if we calculate the annual interest this government has had to pay on the debt, and if we add the interest paid annually, we have today a debt that has doubled, but 50 per cent of that amount is interest, interest on the debt we inherited.
Mr. Speaker, you will often hear people say the GST was not a good idea, and that it should be suspended for a couple of years. Or the Liberal Party says it would get rid of the GST and tax something else. What would it tax, Mr. Speaker? Nobody knows.
I say the GST was not necessarily popular, but something we needed. I do not think this government was elected to be popular. It was elected to make economic and administrative decisions that are right for this country. In 1992, being a politician and a federal member is not a popularity contest but a contest in effectiveness. Unfortunately, the opposition seems intent on making it a popularity contest. It does not understand the problems involved in managing and putting in place an
March 30, 1992

economy that is sound, that will attract investment, and that will create jobs and prosperity.
That is important. The GST gives us significant income every year. It is also good for business. We know that both those who produce and sell in Canada and those who produce and sell abroad benefit with the GST compared to the former federal sales tax. Mr. Speaker, you will remember the old federal sales tax that was in effect for 65 years. For 10, 15 or 20 years, people had been saying that it was a bad tax for the economy. It helped imports and hurt exports, it should be abolished, it had 22,000 exemptions and applied to only 75,000 businesses across the country. It was a tax that had to be changed. We were the only country in the world that still had such a tax. We had to get rid of it. The best thing would have been to get rid of it completely and not talk about it. But due to the incompetence of the previous Liberal government, we had a debt to pay. When you have a debt to pay, you must have income. That is why the GST was implemented. It is a reliable source of revenue and needed to stop the haemorrhaging that we inherited in 1984.
I often hear people on the other side of the House say that we should stop talking about 1984, because it was seven or eight years ago. I would prefer not to talk about the debt if there were none, but there is one. We must tell the people where we are. To explain where we are, we must see where we came from. The starting point is what we inherited. Well in 1984 we inherited a huge debt. Over the years, we have had to pay interest on that debt. Over the years, we have turned a $ 16-billion operating deficit into a $ 10-billion operating surplus. Even if the opposition shouts and makes a fuss, that is a reality we have had to live with and this government is working on. It is meeting its responsibilities and doing things-
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is nearly up. But I would like to emphasize the debt problem and what goes with it. It means that this year the federal government will spend $41 billion on interest. On interest alone, we will spend $41 billion this year. The biggest expense item in the federal government's whole budget is the interest on the debt. Even with lower interest rates, it is more than total spending for old age security pensions, family allowances, unemployment insurance and veterans' pensions. My point is this: can you imagine how lucky and pleased we would be to govern if
Government Orders
we did not have the $41 billion interest burden to pay? Mr. Speaker, can you imagine how much more we could do for Canadians if we did not have to pay $41 billion in interest on a debt that we did not even create but that we inherited, and I do mean inherited?
Even if the hon. member opposite does not like it, in Trois-Rivieres where I come from, we have a saying, "The truth hurts." He looks offended, so that means it is true.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am shocked.


Pierre H. Vincent: Truth is often shocking, but one must live with it.
That being said, we have taken difficult measures in almost all sectors, almost all departments, to streamline government operations, to bring government operations in line with Canadian economic reality. People often complain that the federal government spends needlessly and does things it should not. They are right, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, I defy any Canadian family or business to demonstrate that nowhere does their budget reveal expenditures totalling 1 per cent which are considered an honest mistake, an unconscious extravagance. One per cent is a very small sum, in a family or business budget which might have been used differently.
If one takes for granted a 1 per cent margin as acceptable, I would suggest that he or she refers to the federal government estimates which one might set, for our purpose, at $150 billion. Mr. Speaker, 1 per cent of $150 billion is $15 billion. I therefore say to Canadians that, unfortunately, 1 per cent of government expenditures probably escape our control for one reason or another, for lack of resources or because monitoring costs in the 40 departments, in all agencies and across Canada would be greater than the sums involved. We are still talking of $15 billion, a large sum for Canadian taxpayers. It is easy to spell out $15 billion, but if we were writing the figure, how many zeros would be required? It would be too long. So we agree that $15 billion is a lot of money.
However, it is a reality which one must accept. This is part of an enormous system in a huge country which must live within its means and make do with whatever good or bad we do have. In closing, I hope that my hon. colleagues from the opposition-whether from the Liberal Party or from the New Democratic Party-will think positively for a change, instead of criticizing all the time, while never coming up with a solution.

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, when you go to your doctor with the flu and he tells you: "Well, you should not have gone out without wearing something on your head. You should have put on your boots. You should have worn a coat but I have no pills for you, no remedy, nothing." Only a very peculiar physician would act like that! That is somewhat like what is going on with the opposition here. We never have the right cap, the right footwear, the right coat, but at the same time they never have remedies to offer, Mr. Speaker, no constructive suggestions to get this country moving again instead of advocating, as the Liberals do in particular, that the GST be abolished and that taxes should be collected from other sources. It is easy to say "we would collect taxes from other sources", but that is not what the Canadian people want to hear and it does nothing to help the government either, Mr. Speaker. What does help is constructive ideas.
The criticism from the NDP does not help either. They keep saying that many people do not pay taxes. That is absolutely not true, Mr. Speaker, and we know it, you and I. Companies pay their fair share of taxes-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry to interrupt.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I thought I was allowed more time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is a 10 minute question and comment period and the time allowed for the debate is 20 minutes. Is there unanimous consent to let the parliamentary secretary complete his remarks?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues. I must admit that I was under the impression that I had an unlimited time as second speaker.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The standing rules were changed for 40 minutes. In any event, you are not the second speaker, nor the first.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has only 20 minutes plus 10 minutes questions and comments. The Minister of State lost his turn. Then the number two speaker had 40 minutes. There were two 40 minute speakers and now you are the number three speaker which is 20 minutes plus 10 minutes questions and comments. I regret it but I think that is the way we are going to have to go. We will let you have two more minutes and then questions and comments.


Pierre H. Vincent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to conclude by thanking my colleagues for allowing me to prolong my speech and by urging them to vote in favour of Bill C-21.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the speech astounds me. If I can summarize quickly my understanding of it, it says everything in the world that is wrong has been the responsibility of the Liberal Party. Although there is some truth to that, the rest of the argument is: "I would rather be unpopular than follow any other advice that is given in here".
I have to say that the Conservative Party is truly unpopular and from that point of view it is an outstanding success. It would rather impose the GST than be popular. It would rather impose the Canada-U.S. trade agreement than be popular. It would rather impose the North American free trade agreement than be popular. It would rather be unpopular and not reduce the interest rates. It would rather be unpopular and not allow the dollar to go down. It would rather be unpopular and not put in a municipal infrastructure system. It would rather be unpopular and not put in an inheritance tax or a minimum corporate tax or a fairer corporate and income tax. These things were all positive ideas and suggestions put forward in the House. It does not accept them.
He wonders what we can offer from this side of the House to a party that has been as successful as the Conservative Party in this government in becoming the most unpopular government in the history of Canada.
March 30, 1992

We could offer an election and that will solve the problem. I wonder if he understands, and even the Prime Minister understands, what democracy is? Democracy relates directly to popularity which means enjoying the confidence of the people. This government does not enjoy the confidence of the people. It is four years into its mandate and it is time to go to the polls before it destroys anything else.
There was a beautiful line put forward by the member: "I look forward to campaigning against these people when they stand up and we would rather be right and unpopular". My God, they are truly unpopular, but the only problem is they are not right either. When one does not enjoy the confidence of the people then one is wrong by definition. The majority of people in this country do not want that trade agreement. They do not want the North American trade agreement. They do not want high interest rates. They do not want the dollar so high. They want to get rid of the GST. They want a municipal infrastructure system and they want a fair tax system.
This government has failed to deliver all of these which have been constructive suggestions from this side of the Elouse. The government has been a fiasco. Its operating principle comes from when the Prime Minister stood up and said: "I would rather be right than popular". Damn it, Mr. Speaker, he ain't right and he ain't popular.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, certainly I wish to reply to my colleague. He says the people did not want free trade. I would like to remind him that in 1988 we were elected on that very platform. My colleague says there is no minimum tax for companies. I must remind him that it is just not so; companies are subject to a minimum tax. He also says there is no minimum tax for individuals. I must also remind him that there is a minimum income tax for individuals; therefore, everybody in Canada, companies and individuals, must pay their fair share of taxes.
My colleague says it is abnormal and undemocratic to be so unpopular. A politician's mandate is to be elected in order to administer his country. We were democratically elected and we are managing the country; some of our measures do not necessarily please everyone. Mr. Government Orders
Speaker, a strong politician must do whatever is best for the good of the country and that is part of democracy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will state, in answer to my colleague saying he was eager to campaign against us, that I am eager to see how the New Democratic Party does in Trois-Rivieres. All I wish is that this time they round up enough players for a game of rummy.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to speak on this bill at second reading. I stated then what a silly piece of legislation it was. I am of course convinced that statement was true then and it is still true today.

I am surprised by the remarks of the hon. member who just spoke because I believe the bill to be great fraud. It is simply a document prepared for the next election campaign. It is very appropriate for the Conservative Party for there is not one ounce of sensibility.

It is a ridiculous bill, Mr. Speaker, and I invite you and the Solicitor General, who I know is very attentive to speeches in this House, to consider what this bill can be used for. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, if you were a person with a debt. You have a bank account. Your banker is deducting your monthly payments from the bank account. Suppose you go to the banker and say: "I can set up a special account at your bank, open a new account and deposit all my pension income into that account. Out of that account I would like you to pay the interest payments on my debt and in fact, retire the debt out of this special account that I am going to create". The banker says: "Yes, that sounds like a great idea. It is a duplicate set of bank charges, but no problem, we'll set up the account for you and you put your pension cheques into the account and we'll deduct the payments from it".
Suppose, Mr. Speaker, your payments are $1,000 a month. You open this account and you know $1,000 is going to go out to the banker every month. But suppose that you do not tell the banker in advance that your pension cheques are only $250 a month. Clearly there is not enough then in the account to pay the $750 balance that is owing to the bank every month. What will the banker do? He will take it out of your original account, the big one. You will not notice. He will just keep taking

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
it out of both. It will not have made any difference that you opened the account.
That is exactly what the government is doing in this bill. The only trouble is that the Canadian people are the bankers. They are the ones who are being hoodwinked by this nonsense. Even the Solicitor General is laughing. He knows this bill is a complete fraud.
It has been introduced in this House and Parliament is being used as a Tory propaganda printing operation. All the government is going to do is run around the country with this bill saying: "We have set up a special program so that all your GST dollars will go to reducing the national debt". Of course it will.
Let us listen to the figures. Here are the government's estimates for this year. This is the spending authority it has asked for from Parliament. How much does it want to service the public debt? Forty billion, 200 million dollars, $40 billion in round figures. How much has it raised from the GST this year, the money that is going into this special account to pay the debt? This is the deficit reduction account. Bill C-21 is entitled the debt servicing and reduction account act.
Well there will not be any reducing. There will be absolutely no reducing as a result of the passage of this bill. The debt will stay the same because there is not going to be enough money in this account to pay the interest, the $40 billion a year that the government has asked for in this year's spending estimates.
Let us look at the latest financial statement published by the Government of Canada, dated March of this year, for the first nine months of the financial year ending on March 31, 1992.
Goods and services tax revenues during the period, if I am reading this correctly, and the minister I am sure will correct me if I am not, is $11,000,000,190 and the government is going to spend $40 billion in interest. Where is the correspondence here? Where is the reduction of the national debt going to be from this account? Where is the other $30 billion coming from?
Let us be generous for a moment and assume that another $4 billion in the GST will come in in the first three months, that is, January, February and March 1992 which will bring us to the end of the financial year.
Unless there is a lot coming in tomorrow, I assume that the government is not going to get much more than $4 billion in that period. Maybe I am wrong. Perhaps there is some unexpected windfall on the way, but let us assume it is $4 billion. That puts it up to $15 billion, less than a third of the amount required to pay the interest alone on the public debt.
If we look at Bill C-21, it says that the amount from the sale of Crown corporations is going to go in there, too. That might last for a year, but given the way this government has been selling off our Crown corporations at fire sale prices thanks to the Minister of State for Privatization and his incompetent management of the sale of these things, we are ending up with less money than ever from the sale of Crown corporations. There are not that many left to dispose of.
A lot of them are being wound up. A lot of them are going bankrupt, just like this government is going bankrupt, both in ideas and in cash. It has overspent for seven years, and now what it is saying to Canadians is: "Let us try to hoodwink you into thinking that we are going to do something at last about the national debt".
It has gone up by leaps and bounds, ever since the Tories took office. They never got the deficit on an annual basis under control. They have doubled the national debt in their term in office already, and it is going beyond that now.
Now they come to Parliament and say: "Pass a special bill to create a special fund into which all the GST revenues will go. Then in the election campaign we can run around the country telling Canadians that we have committed ourselves to putting all the GST revenue to the national debt."
Great promise that is, when the GST revenues will not even cover the annual interest payments on that national
March 30,1992

debt. The statements amount to nothing but a complete fraud on the Canadian taxpayer.
This bill is being printed at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers in order to convince them that something is happening which is not happening. It is a game of smoke and mirrors. People are going to be duped by this. This will be an effort. The government will boast all around the country that it has done something with GST revenues to make sure they are not spent on other things.
What is the real restraint? Suppose the government tomorrow decides to go ahead with some new policy on handing out money as it does to its advertising agencies to advertise something about the Government of Canada. How much is it going to spend advertising this new fund? I wonder.
The hon. member for Calgary Northeast is familiar with government advertising procedures. He used to be a supporter of the government, and he knew what it used to do. He must realize it will commit all kinds of fraud with this advertising campaign. It will spend millions of dollars handing out advertising contracts to Toiy fat cats.


Mr. Lewis:: Naturally.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Naturally, says the Solicitor General. Of course they will. They have to advertise this bill. They have to convince Canadians that their money is being spent wisely and it isn't.
This is a sheer public relations exercise, a smoke and mirrors game that the government is involved in at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada. How much is the government spending to get this bill through this House? How much is it costing in terms of time wasted in Parliament dealing with such a silly bill as this?
It was months in committee.


Philip Derek Lewis: Sit down.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The Solicitor General invites me to sit down. I know that he will want to participate in this debate too, so I will wait until he is finished his notes.
Canadians realize that this bill is not something worth while and that money is being wasted in putting it through here. There will be a further advertising campaign as there was for free trade, for the GST and for all kinds of unpopular measures introduced by this government. We get it every time we turn around.
Government Orders
Canadians will say: "Why is this money being spent to establish a fund that does absolutely no good?"
I put a question on the Order Paper today asking how many person-years are going to be set aside in the Public Service to administer this fund which will do absolutely nothing to assist in reducing the deficit or the national debt of Canada. I will get an answer, I suppose, in due course.
But the government must have projected somebody to cook the books every year to figure out how this is to be done. There will be somebody from the Auditor General's office doing an audit on it every year to make sure that the government has lived up to the terms of this act by making sure the money is transferred into this phoney account and then back out again to pay the interest on the debt.
I suppose we will go through all this bookkeeping exercise in order to give the Conservative Party some kind of campaign brochure, some kind of document that it can run about with during the election and say it has actually done something about the national debt when in fact all it has done is make it worse.
When looking at the record, the litany, in fact, of broken promises of this government and thinking particularly of child care and the hullabaloo that was made about that, one can only imagine what this bill represents in terms of promise.
I well recall during the last campaign the Prime Minister ran around the country saying that we would have had child care if it were not for the evil Senate. It was the Senate, the Liberal-dominated Senate-and thank goodness it was Liberal-dominated at the time and it is a shame that it is not any more. I know the Solicitor General regrets that. The Senate at the time of course blocked the legislation, according to the Prime Minister, that would have implemented a child care scheme in Canada.
The Senate offered to sit all weekend to get the bill through but the Prime Minister would have none of that. No, no. He dissolved Parliament instead. He then went to the people saying that child care was killed because of the Senate.
Now we know it was never the government's intention to proceed with it. It has never proceeded with it and the Minister of National Health and Welfare just the other day said there would be no national child care scheme.

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
That had just been another fraud on the people of Canada. They had been deceived and duped by a government that never had any intention of proceeding with such a scheme. It simply used it as a convenient vehicle during the election campaign and then dropped the whole idea once it got into office again.
That is what this bill represents. It does nothing substantive. It does nothing whatever to reduce the debt. It does nothing whatever to ensure that Canadian taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely because the government can increase its expenditures in any area and then just claim that the deficit has gone up.
Whatever the GST revenues are, they will go into this special fund. But what difference does it make, because if the debt keeps getting bigger it does not matter how much goes into the fund. It has to match and it does not match. It will not match. If they doubled the GST it probably still would not match the interest payments required on this debt. This is not the solution. It is merely posturing for the purposes of an election campaign which Canadians want just as soon as it can be arranged.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I find this bill something of a real farce because when we talk about reduction of the debt, reduction means diminishing the debt. Our debt at the present time is around $420 billion. This year's deficit is over $30 billion.
So as the hon. member said, what does this bill really do? It opens another account, an account that will simply serve the purpose of paying out money. Instead of having one account, there will be two accounts. There will be auditors, jobs for accountants, jobs for bureaucrats.
The whole problem of this government is it never faced the problem of Canada's debt in 1984. Up to 1980 the net debt of Canada was very small. It increased after the 1980 election, but before that it could be handled.
Since 1984, one-third of Canada's debt is foreign-owned. This is another of those tragedies because before that the debt was owed to Canadians, now it is owed to foreigners. We have to follow orders from the International Monetary Fund and from the World Bank. We are no longer masters in our own house.
This bill is a ploy to win elections or the government thinks it can win an election with this bill. Can it? I do not think so. Canadians have been fooled many times, but this time they will not be fooled. They will be able to see through this bill and see that this money is simply more revenues for the government for more spending.
When the GST was introduced, at that time the compliance cost to small business was calculated to be about $4 billion.
Because of the GST we are now in a recession. I remember the Minister of Finance just a couple of months ago saying that there is no recession, that we are progressing, that we are doing very well. The reality is that at the present time in certain areas of the country we have unemployment of 20 and 30 per cent. Industry is not moving into Canada; it is moving out of Canada.
A recent report of a study done in Montreal shows that Canada is losing a thousand jobs a day. It is unbelievable. We are losing jobs that go out of Canada into the United States or elsewhere in the world.
Instead of addressing the problem of industrialization, of creating new jobs and new opportunities for young Canadians, we are simply bringing in a bill that says:
An act relating to the accounting of certain payments for the
servicing and reduction of the debt of Canada.
It is a simple bill, only four pages. This bill is going to create jobs for accountants, for auditors, but it will not reduce one penny of our national debt.
I believe that in the next federal election this government is going to go around the country telling us that the GST serves to reduce the national debt. But, as we know, the interest payment on the national debt is around $40 billion. How much does the GST collect? It depends on the activity of the economy, but let's say on the average around $15 billion, a little bit more than one-third. This money will go simply to service the interest on the national debt. Whether we put it in the general account or in a special account makes no difference.
March 30, 1992

I would like to go back to 1984. At that time we were collecting $70 billion from the taxpayers and we would spend around $110 billion or $40 billion more than we collected. Between 1984 and 1991 we took in $40 billion more through taxation, through the taxation of average Canadians. Now we are collecting around $110 billion, but we still spend $30 to $40 billion more a year.
This legislation will not serve the purpose of reducing our national debt. You know that, Mr. Speaker, because if you had the same type of administration in your house you would be bankrupt. But, no, what we are doing is that we are going outside the country to borrow money. We borrow money on the world market. I have to say that up to 1984 we used to borrow money, but we used to borrow money from Canadians, from their savings. Now Canadians do not have enough money. They cannot lend the money so we have to go outside the country. We are not masters of our own house any more. This is the tragedy of this administration.
It did not address the problems when it was first elected and now it tries to solve the problem through a system that is not going to work.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, when I examine Bill C-21 concerning the deficit, I was struck by the simple fact that the deficit has become an incredible burden for all Canadian taxpayers.
My colleague from Alberta mentioned that from 1984 to 1990-1991, the government of Canada had a revenue surplus from Canadian taxpayers. It is true that in a period of prosperity the Government of Canada could get much higher revenues that expected. Despite that, we found ourselves with an increased accumulated debt.
I am not trying to say here that the Conservative government is totally to be blamed for the deficit. That is not what I am trying to say at all.
There has been a lack of fiscal responsibility in this country for a good 15 to 20 years. I do not blame solely the Conservatives. I simply want to show that the problem is mainly in the way that Canadians are taxed. Is there something more fundamental in a democracy than the way in which we tax individuals and companies?
Twenty-five years ago, here in Canada, we had the chance to get a royal commission, the Carter commis-
Govemment Orders
sion. At that time, Mr. Kenneth Carter was the person responsible for that royal commission, which mandate was to modernize, if you will, the tax system in our country. That document was considered revolutionary in those days; it was even used as a taxation model for modem countries in classes at Harvard University in the United States. Afterwards, many parts of the Carter commission report were used by Scandinavian countries wishing to rejuvenate their taxation systems, to improve their fairness and equity.
And what did we do in Canada? We did not even publish the report. Why? The answer is simple enough: the financial elite did not find it favourable enough. Therefore we never heard about it. It was never published and Canadians never had access to a most remarkable document. Kenneth Carter, that great Canadian, offered a tremendous service to our country but, his work was still not published.
Where is the problem? It is quite simple: in this country the financial elite protects its own interests; good for them. It does not protect your interests or mine, nor those of most of my colleagues, but it protects its own. That is why the middle class must compensate, it must make up the remaining tax revenue the government needs to operate.
And then comes Bill C-21; some sort of camouflage which I fail to understand. We know quite well that all revenues are added to the Consolidated Revenue Fund at the federal and provincial levels. Will we solve the debt problem by creating this other fund? No way. What we need is a thorough reform of our taxation system to make it be fair and equitable. Naturally, such a reform would improve the people's confidence and I am sure it would contribute to getting us out of our present situation.
As my colleague from Alberta mentioned, it is very unfortunate that, in recent years, we have had to go abroad to borrow. It is most regrettable because ever since the Confederation, and that means more than 120 years, we always could count on Canadian savings to finance government operations. Now, as my colleague was saying, we are forced to go abroad and we are no longer even masters in our own house. That is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. There should even be a law preventing the government from going to the international market if it is unable to finance its own operating costs. It should be done internally. We are not a banana republic; we are a sophisticated country.

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
We have money markets in our country. We should not have to go to the international market, except of course for capital spending, which is quite different, because this spending would generate revenue. However, there is nothing forcing us to go to the international market.
Finally, this whole deficit issue is creating a climate of fear in the country and people are right to be worried. We have seen the effects of free trade on our economy and on industry in this country. The government is continually using the deficit as a bogeyman to frighten everyone. Instead of frightening us, it should submit concrete measures. As I said, such a concrete measure would be a real reform of our tax system. People have been demanding it for years. I believe that it is essential. Without it, we will not regain Canadians' confidence in this area.
Moreover, when we look at the deficit, we see that interest rates do a great deal to raise it. That is something else we should look at as a government, because we are part of it here. If we are not part of the solution, of course we create problems here. We must understand that. The deficit is not due to a single thing, as our illustrious Prime Minister often tries to have us believe. He blames us for the deficit and says that it was created when the Liberals were in power. But that is so simplistic it does not even deserve a reply.
The deficit problem is due to several things. First, there must be a real reform so that all Canadians, especially the middle class, who are paying more than their share now, know that they are not being victimized. We know that is happening now. We must deal with that issue because it is a matter of trust.
Second, we must at all costs protect the gains we have made here in Canada, especially our industrial infrastructure which has been very hard hit since free trade. I say that by the next election, this question of free trade will again be an issue, because many have suffered from this hurriedly signed deal. Recently I read that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, especially the Quebec branch, did a study and now says that after the
fact that it realizes that before we signed the free trade agreement, there should have been a transition period of at least five years so that we could adjust to it.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude my speech on Bill C-21. If there is one thing I would like to see instead of the fund mechanism, knowing that all revenue goes to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, it is to ask the government to deal with the problem that is undermining the confidence of all Canadians, namely the unjust and unfair tax system. That is what we should deal with first. If we show our good faith by making the system fair for all Canadians, we will see all taxpayers regain hope and confidence.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, like all members of this House I was very impressed by the hon. member's speech. His ideas were so well expressed, his arguments so incisive that I was amazed. I would like to ask him a question. On the subject of the deficit, does he think the budget brought down by the government about a month ago will increase or decrease the deficit? I would like to refer to a small item in the budget which consists of reducing the tax on dividends paid by Canadian companies to their parent companies abroad. The tax was reduced from 10 to 5 per cent for dividend payments paid abroad. Does the hon. member think this is fiscally responsible? Does he think it will increase foreign investment in Canada? If the answer to the last question is yes, does he think it is a good thing for Canadians to increase the level of foreign investment in this country?
Mr Assad: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's first question, I am not convinced-and my opinion is based on a number of articles that I read on the subject-that the budget brought down by the government will decrease the deficit. Certainly not. And that is because the expenditures it must cover are not capital expenditures. Since it is going to continue in the same vein, it seems to me there will be an increasing number of people who will find it difficult to pay their debts, and there will be less revenue going into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I do not see how that is going to help reduce the deficit.

II i
March 30, 1992

As for the hon. member's second question, when we realize that every hour, twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week, $4 million is leaving this country in dividend payments and that the government has the nerve to reduce the withholding tax on these dividends, it is incredible. I think Canada is probably one of the few countries in the world where so many dividends are paid abroad, supposedly to pay for investments made in this country. Of course there is investment in this country, but certainly not as substantial as the dividend payments that leave this country. The government's way of dealing with these dividends is strange to say the least. You tell me the tax was reduced from 10 to 5 per cent. In the circumstances, this is unacceptable. I think all these factors would merely aggravate the financial situation in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The hon. member for North Island-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the debate today in this House has focused around the legitimacy of the objective in the Conservative bill that would see GST revenues allocated to debt servicing and hopefully the reduction of the debt. I think it has been clearly established from the opposition side of the House that that is a fiction.
I would like to expand the debate into the goods and services tax to talk about the impact on the debt. Of course we cannot examine that question in detail unless we take a look at the debt. In this country I think Canadians believe that the goods and services tax is a tax which destroys business opportunity, business enterprise, consumer confidence and is a deeply regressive, repressive tax on Canada's lower income Canadians. A consumption tax in those lower income brackets truly harms Canadians. It is extremely difficult to come up with the cash to make purchases when you must add an extra 7 per cent. It cools out the business activity in local economies right across Canada. It creates unemployment. It creates reduced business activity and over all it has been a very harmful and repressive tax in Canada.
Government Orders
It is not the only source of our debt. It is interesting to watch how that debt is mounting. The Conservatives assure us that they are taking measures that will reduce that debt but that is not the case.
I would point to the Canada-U.S. trade agreement as one of the great debt generators in Canada. That is an agreement to move Canadian factories to the United States from a high-wage area to a low-wage area. It puts Canadian workers on social assistance. It is so much harder now to collect unemployment insurance because the Conservatives, instead of assisting people through that mechanism, have actually just put it beyond their reach.
The Canada-U.S. agreement is an agreement to move Canadian jobs to the United States. We have now 1.5 million people out of work and it will continue to increase. In the area in which I live, we are going to watch newsprint be manufactured in the United States instead of Canada. We are watching harm come to us through the softwood lumber and the fishing industry. These are all Canadian jobs that have moved to the United States. That is a new source of debt, and an enormous one. That agreement is the agreement to make Canada the Puerto Rico of the north.
The debt in Canada is of course growing. The bill before us today to allocate GST revenues to service the debt is of course nonsense. This government is forging ahead with a North American free trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. That agreement is nothing more than an agreement to move Canadian jobs all the way to Mexico and not stop in the United States.
Those jobs in Canada would pay $14, $15 or $16 per hour with maybe another $8 to $10 benefit load for life insurance, medical and dental care. One expects this for producing quality goods. These jobs will go to Mexico where they will pay 80 cents per hour or about $6.40 per day if they manage to achieve an eight-hour day. There will not be any benefits so the load above that will not be very much. There will be no environmental or other standards or any health care provided.
At 80 cents per hour we do not have a chance as Canadians. More Canadians will wind up on social assistance because by that time it will be extremely hard to continue to provide an unemployment insurance scheme. It will also be very hard, if not impossible, to provide a health care scheme, social assistance and all

March 30, 1992

Government Orders
the other income nets and supports that we expect in this country. That is because of the Conservatives' goal to create a North American trade agreement with Mexico on a playing field that is extremely unfair.
It is those three things. The GST is a very harmful tax that this government has inflicted on Canada. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is a very harmful agreement that is gutting the economy of Canada and will continue to do so as long as it is in existence.
The true folly of this government is going to of course be the North American trade agreement in which it hands over the balance of jobs in Canada to Mexico at 80 cents per hour.
I consider that we are in a period of choice. We are virtually four years into the term of this government and people have to start making choices. The choice that is being offered by the previous speaker is as clear as I have ever heard it articulated. This is the choice of the previous Conservative speaker in this House who said: "Our government, the Conservative Government of Canada, in this Parliament would rather be right and unpopular". It was pointed out that being unpopular means that you do not enjoy the confidence of Canadians. Canadians do not believe you are right sending their jobs to the United States. They do not believe you right sending the factories to the United States. Canadians do not believe that you are right imposing a tax that destroys business opportunity and business activity and which is a repressive, harsh tax on Canadians.
The Conservatives are truly unpopular. Canadians do not believe that a government is right to join in a trade agreement which would export Canadian jobs in the forest, auto, or textile manufacturing industry, which pay $10 to $15 per hour, to Mexico to be worked at by Mexicans at 80 cents per hour without protection and without human rights. It is a disaster.
This government is not only extremely unpopular and absolutely committed to ignoring the will of the people, but it is absolutely wrong.
There is a fundamental flaw in the way the choices are being laid out at the present time for Canadians. I think that Canadians have to realize that this problem is also going to happen with the election or the choice of a Liberal government in the future. The Liberals believe in the GST. They have indicated clearly on each public
occasion that they will keep the GST which is a harsh, repressive tax which destroys business activity and opportunity-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. House leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken may be suffering from a timely illness and perhaps his medication has overtaken him. He should, in making interventions on the floor of the House of Commons, at least attempt to try to have one scintilla of truth in the remarks that he is making on the floor of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will listen to the hon. member for North Island-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I expect the Liberal Party to protest this matter loudly and across the country, but that is the state of the matter. It is that the Liberal Party will not reject the GST.
The second thing that has occurred concerns a matter of choice. When members of the Conservative Party stand up and say: "We support the GST, we support the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and we support a North American trade agreement," it is clearly on the record in the House of Commons and in every media outlet across Canada that the Liberals will retain the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. It is a harmful, destructive agreement that creates additional debt in Canada which this GST bill today is supposed to pay.
We have a situation where that destructiveness and that export of Canadian jobs is a policy of the Liberal Party.


David Charles Dingwall: Will the hon. member entertain a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think you will have an opportunity to entertain a question after questions and comments.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party, the one that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. There will be an opportunity for questions and comments. I would hope that the hon. member would give him an opportunity to complete his speech and then we can get into questions and comments.

March 30, 1992


David Charles Dingwall: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly oblige with the Chair's direction but perhaps the hon. member, in reflection when he is making his comments, could indicate to the House if he is deliberately misleading the House in terms of what he has just said.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, of course the acid truth of this is to have the leader of the Liberal Party stand up and say: "We will cancel the trade agreement, we will end the GST and we will not sign a North American trade agreement". That is not what they are saying publicly.
In this House of Commons the Prime Minister indicated during debate one day that no country which has a bad human rights record should receive Canadian aid or trade. The Liberals moved an amendment to delete that so that the trade agreement could go ahead.
We have a very clear choice in Canada today. As much as my colleagues in the Liberal Party protest it, their position is no different from that of the Conservative Party. Canadians wait with bated breath to hear them say that they will get rid of that trade agreement with the United States, that thing that destroys our sovereignty, hands control of our energy over to the Americans, allows complete buy-out of Canadian industries and watches Canadian factories and jobs go across the line.
It is clearly on the record. There is an understanding that the Liberals cannot give up the corporate donations. They are badly in debt and badly damaged from the last years wandering in the wilderness. They have no policy that appeals to Canadians. Unfortunately we have a situation where they say that they will tinker with it and make it better for people, but in fact they will keep the GST, the trade agreement with the United States and the trade agreement with Mexico.
Every Canadian stands and waits for members of the Liberal Party to stand up and say that they will abandon these destructive instruments of the Tory government. To date they have not done that. They say they will keep
Government Orders
them and use them as well as the Conservative government has done.
On the other hand, the NDP says that if we are elected they are over: the GST will end, the Canada-U.S. trade agreement will end, and there will not be a North American trade agreement.
It is a matter of fundamental choice for Canadians. We have the Conservative Party that says it will not be deterred by the fact that it is the most unpopular government in Canadian history and that it would rather be right than enjoy the confidence of the people.
Then we have the Liberal Party that told Canadians in 1974 that it would not impose wage and price controls. Then once in power it imposed wage and price controls. People in Canada know and understand the Liberal Party as the purveyors of untruth and fiction.
Today we have an opportunity for those who moan and bellow in the House, those who have been wounded by the truth, to stand and tell Canadians that they will get rid of the GST because of the destruction it has wreaked on Canada, they will get rid of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement because of the destructive impact it has had on Canada, and that they will not participate in a Mexican involvement in a North American free trade agreement because of the tremendous unfairness to Canada and Mexico.
Their leader runs and hides every time these critical questions come up. At least the leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister of Canada has no qualms about standing out there and saying: "I do not care what you think. I am right". But the leader of the Liberal Party waffles and shifts. Nevertheless, when his members are cornered they make the statement that they are in favour of the GST, in favour of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and in favour of the Mexican agreement.
On the other hand, the NDP believes that these instruments of the Conservative government are among the most destructive things that have ever been inflicted on Canada. Once elected, an NDP government will banish those from the land.

March 30, 1992
Government Orders


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, what a glorious opportunity it is today to hear an hon. member from that particular party stand on the floor of the House of Commons and quote from a bible, and it is gospel. The only one he has to refer to is the hon. member who happens to be the premier of the province of Ontario. I guess he wants those of us in this Chamber, on this side of the House as well as on that side of the House, to follow the prescriptions of the premier of the province of Ontario.
Perhaps he would be kind enough to indicate whether or not he concurs with the steps that have been taken by his colleague, the premier of the province of Saskatchewan, when large numbers of hospital beds have been closed as a result of the actions of that provincial government. It was not less than 48 hours ago, in terms of House time, that the hon. member and his party condemned other provincial governments.
Let us see if he has the intellectual honesty to stand in his place and throw blame at the provincial governments in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario.
To the three specific questions the hon. member posed, let me say to him that his medication-and it is obvious that he has taken an overdose today-has affected not only his brain, which one has questions about, but his thinking ability. The hon. member is dead wrong not on one issue, not on two issues, but on three issues. Whether you play for the Blue Jays or the Montreal Expos, you are out. We have said very clearly, I say to the hon. member, time after time after time that when it comes to the free trade agreement with the United States we will renegotiate it.
Now to the hon. member in the NDP it is called catch-up time. Bob White picked up the phone, called the leader of the NDP and said: "You really bummed up last time. You had better watch it. You had better be against this agreement. You have to tear it up and you have to get rid of it". That is the position of the NDP.
With regard to the GST, the leader of the Liberal Party responded very clearly on the floor of the House of Commons. I do not want to question the attendance record of the hon. member because I know he is probably here all of the time. Perhaps on that particular day he must have missed the interventions of the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada who responded clearly and unequivocally to whoever asked the question on the floor.
With regard to the North American free trade agreement, the hon. member must be in a trance. He must be completely out to lunch. We are the party that has been challenging the government opposite to produce the necessary documents, to provide us with the information, and to inform us as to what the substance of that agreement is going to be. We have set the preconditions it must meet before there can be a consummation. We have looked at this as an opportunity to open up the free trade agreement.
I say to my hon. friend that before he stands in his place on the floor of the House of Commons and deliberately misleads-and I use those words-the House, he should check the written word in Hansard to see what has been said not only in this party but on that side. Before you rise, Mr. Speaker, we know the real reason why the hon. member makes those assertions. It is because of the polls which he reads continuously. He sees that his own party in his own province is continuing to go down the tube.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I think what we have had is a demonstration of the proof that everyone is entitled to a defence. There is no better person than a lawyer to provide that defence, no matter how flimsy and ineffective it is.
I congratulate the hon. member on the bombast and the defence of the miserable position of his party. There is no unequivocal statement on the part of the member that they will abolish the GST. He did not stand in the House and say that. I would just have the public and the others reflect on the matter that he did not say that.
He did not say that they would get rid of the GST. Anyone would certainly want to negotiate a better agreement with the Americans, to terminate this disgusting agreement we have now. Of course the weak and miserable position of the Liberal Party, defended so eloquently by the counsellor from Nova Scotia, falls on its face. He failed to make the key point that they will get rid of that Canada-U.S. trade agreement.
They stood in the House in the debate. They changed the motion in order to eliminate the North American free trade agreement. They have joined with the NDP in this House asking for the Prime Minister to provide the details, the sectorial arrangements that have been made. We have all asked for that. They stand up, knowing the record of Mexico and knowing the destruction of Canada, and they will not take the position that they will not participate in that disgusting, destructive agreement.
March 30, 1992

In spite of the bombast, the member failed to deliver like his party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In his my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight as the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burin-St. George's-Fisheries; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Buy Canadian; the hon. member for Calgary Northeast-Thalidomide victims; the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast-Natural gas industry; the hon. member for South West Nova-Fisheries.
For those who are listening on television, perhaps their secretaries could advise members that it may be possible to enter into the adjournment debate much sooner than later. Maybe they could have members here as soon as possible so we can carry on.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is a wonderful opportunity here today. I am sure the hon. member will return to the Chamber, because he will want to ask me a number of questions in terms of public policy to which I would be happy to respond at any time anywhere in this country.
It is the height of hypocrisy of the NDP, particularly the hon. member from Saskatoon who is trying to leave the Chamber.


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know it is a long established practice in this House and I am hoping the member will apologize-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I really did not hear what the hon. member had to say but, whatever it was, if he wants to leave the Chamber that is up to him.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party is evidenced once again in this Chamber as we have seen across this country and in provincial jurisdictions. Its members are the first group to stand in their place to criticize each and every one who
Government Orders
occupies a position of responsibility, whether it be at the federal level or at the provincial level.
However, when it comes to its bailiwick in terms of provincial jurisdiction, we could take for instance the province of Saskatchewan or the province of Ontario. Look at the broken promises that have occurred in the province of Ontario under the leadership of Bob Rae.


Mr. Keyes:: It is a litany.


David Charles Dingwall: My colleague has made reference to it being a litany. There is no question that it is a litany of broken promises by the NDP. Its new-found interest in Atlantic Canada-and I am sure the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs will want to agree with me because he is a reasonable man-shocked me. It really shocked me to find that the NDP, a land based party as referred to by an hon. member on the opposite side, now has a new-found interest in Atlantic Canada, and in particular the province of Newfoundland and the fish stocks off its coast.
What a hypocrisy. It is unbelievable to think that New Democrats would raise that particular issue when they have been asleep at the switch for the last number of years as it affects the fisheries.
The hon. member talked about trade and our policy as it relates to trade and the free trade agreement. We have said clearly on the record that as a government, should we be given the opportunity to form the next government of this country, it will be our public policy to renegotiate the free trade agreement because that is in the best interest of Canadians.
It is not an irresponsible position like that of the New Democratic Party after the consummation of this agreement which many of us, in fact all of us, have opposed. Nevertheless it has been consummated by two sovereign nations: Canada and the United States. Business people have made substantial investments in order to try to gear their particular business and their sector to this free trade agreement. I do not like it, but that is the reality we have in Canada.
They say: "Now we are going to abrogate. We are not going to renegotiate". They are dreaming in Technicolor. We are dealing with the United States. We are not dealing with some banana republic where we are going to

March 30, 1992
Government Orders
waltz in and say: "No way, Jose, you have to renegotiate".
The Liberal Party of Canada has taken a responsible position as evidenced by the comments of our leader on the floor of the House of Commons as well as across this country.
That was his first point. With regard to the GST, what did NDPers do in Ontario? What have they done in Ontario? Where has the opposition been for Mr. Rae on the GST? Where is the opposition from honourable Roy in Saskatchewan, or Mikey in British Columbia? What have they done on the GST?
Have you seen ads on television? Have you seen ads in the newspapers? Have you heard radio clips? Have you heard them debate in the provincial legislature what they think of the GST?
In fact Mikey in B.C. would not even call the House back to listen to the views of members on the subject matters of the day.
Mr. Speaker, is that not hypocrisy? Perhaps it is not hypocrisy in the mind of the hon. member. That may be the case, but I suggest to him through you, sir, that it is hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy in its best as Canadians will demonstrate clearly when the next election rolls around.
We have said we will eliminate the GST and we will put something in its place. But when the New Democratic Party is asked what it will do in terms of eliminating the GST, the members hide underneath their desks. They run under the pool tables. They jump into the pool. They talk fast. They run away. They will not respond to the question.
But when you are an irresponsible third-party rump which is losing its appeal across this country, no wonder you would do that. And if any respectable individual would not accept what I have just said they should stand in their place and refute me in debate.
If not, they lack the intestinal fortitude and should not be afforded the opportunity to be re-elected to this Chamber of this House under the banner of a New Democratic Party member.
Finally, the North American free trade agreement. As I said earlier in my comments our trade critic, our associate trade critic, our critic for external affairs and our leader have clearly spelled out our position with regard to the North American free trade agreement.
What the problem is for the hon. member to the left is that he does not like that particular opinion but he knows that Canadians believe us and believe us to be responsible as shown most recently by the various polls that have been produced. They are quite nervous about it.
I can understand that because the leader of the NDP, notwithstanding the divisions in her own caucus, notwithstanding the attack from internal labour sources and labour representatives, cannot go down to the United States and meet with the President of the United States as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has done, and say "Mr. President, business is business and friendship is friendship".
That is what scares the New Democratic Party members because they know in their heart of hearts and in their minds that we have carved out the appropriate public policy measures for this country to pursue.
We do not have the answer to each and every question that may come up on any given day on any particular topic, but we are not the NDP. I do not want to be the NDP because as I said earlier they practice hypocrisy at its best.
So I am going to stop now and give the hon. member an opportunity to pose a question and I will respond in kind.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting thing that in this House noise seems to replace the truth at times. When the hon. member stands in his place and creates a noise at the decibel level that he did he certainly missed several points.
I for one would be extremely pleased to hear the Leader of the Official Opposition stand in his place and say that if his party is elected he will end this Canada-U.S. trade agreement. It will end. He has not said that. If it is irresponsible, as one of the Liberal members says, to end an agreement that is so destructive in Canada, then I think Canadians have a choice. I think the polls will actually change as long as the Liberal members say: "I believe it is irresponsible to cancel that agreement".
What I am proposing is a choice: stick to your position. Clarify your position. We are not overly concerned about the Conservative Party of Canada because it sticks to its position, as insane as it is. At 11 per cent in the polls the Conservatives are not a problem at this point in time.
March 30, 1992

Clearly the problem right now in the minds of many Canadians is a clarification of the Liberal position, a position that says that the next federal election will not be the last federal election, that by the process of an economic union with the United States through this trade agreement, by a trade agreement which replaces Canadian labour at reasonable wages with benefit packages at 80 cents an hour, that the Liberal Party of Canada will not let that happen.
At this point in time, in this House, in debate, member after member over there stood up and said they would continue on with those negotiations to an agreement with Mexico. A statement that they will renegotiate the agreement is not good enough in the minds of Canadians, they honestly need a statement that the agreement we have is unacceptable and must be terminated. The negotiations that follow could produce a reasonable agreement. We could deal with the trade imbalances by negotiation, but we cannot keep this agreement and keep Canada.
The GST must go, Mr. Speaker. If they make that statement publicly through their leader I think that we will all move forward a great deal.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, when they are throwing softballs across the way, you know you can hit them out of the park. I mean, this is just absolutely ridiculous.
As I said earlier in this debate, and perhaps there may be a new viewing audience who are watching television right now, but the hon. member's medication has taken hold. I am very certain that it has gone very deep into the mind and into the soul and into the heart, into very fibre of the hon. member, because he is living in a completely different world from reality.
On a Canada-U.S. deal, our party has said very clearly that we will renegotiate the deal. The hon. member says that that is wrong, that that is terrible. If the hon. member feels that way, I am confident of my leader, of my party, of my caucus, and those men and women who will run for us in British Columbia. I am very confident of them. Let's go to the polls. Let the voter decide. Let
Government Orders
your constituents decide which is the most appropriate measure to pursue at this point in time.
But to say that when an agreement has been consummated between two sovereign nations, has been put into place and is operating, much to the discredit if you will of Canadian industry, that we as a nation upon election will immediately abrogate the deal without attempting to renegotiate some of the more substantive parts, I will allow the average and ordinary Canadian in British Columbia, in the member's own riding, to determine which is the most responsible public policy to take. I am very confident of the outcome.
With regard to the North American free trade agreement, the hon. member must realize that this issue has been debated in this House time and time again and we have said repeatedly that this is an opportunity for Canada through that particular vehicle to renegotiate the free trade agreement. There are some major measures which I am sure the hon. member would want to see renegotiated, such as the energy provisions. He would want to see something on that. He would want to see something clarified in terms, I am sure, of monetary policy. He would want to see things clarified in terms of social programs. That is an opportunity.
The hon. member does not understand that because he does not want to understand it. He is part of the NDP, the typical old CCF-NDP, criticize, criticize, criticize until one day, because of a freak accident in Canadian history, you wind up and you become the premier of Ontario. What happens then? You break every promise that you every made and every position that you ever took. It is the same in Saskatchewan, the same in British Columbia.
I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member that the best test as to who is the best and who is right and who offers the best public policy is let us go to the polls and stop cosying up to your Tory colleagues across the way. That is the problem.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Made-leine):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the two opposition parties that are seen this afternoon on

March 30, 1992
Adjournment Debate
the floor of this House of Commons to be arguing over the government policy.
Fiscal responsibility, of course, is why we have been elected since 1984. The free trade agreement was negotiated to protect the workers. At least I respect the fact that the Leader of the Official Opposition says that he will renegotiate the agreement. But what parts of the agreement will they renegotiate?
The GST, which they wish to throw out, as Canadians know we have to keep our social net of programs that we have. They will replace it with what?
I would say in the short time you allow me that when these gentlemen from the opposite side-and I do say gentlemen-ask the government and when they are talking to the Canadian public about this, our answer veiy clearly since 1984 is that we must face up to reality. For them to put in the smoke and the mirrors is not good enough. I would ask the Leader of the Official Opposition concerning the GST, what percentage would he put in with a new tax and how would he impose it?


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, my question is concerning the bill, Bill C-21. I would like to ask the hon. member whether he believes that this bill is going to solve Canada's debt and deficit problem? How would he address that problem? It is a very simple question.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on a very intelligent, a very prudent and a very wise question. I will be equally wise and prudent as the hon. member and respond to him in this way. No, it will not. This bill will do very little, if anything, in terms of the debt.
I want to thank the hon. member opposite, who stood in this place, like I, and condemned those socialists, those old CCF-NDPers coming in this House, full of hypocrisy, as I am sure the hon. member would want to agree to, and making scandalous comments about the role of the Official Opposition and, to a certain extent, that of the government.
I want to say to my hon. colleague, he should be aware that when he talks about the GST, that it was his government which inherited a debt, they say, of some $187 billion and the debt today is well over $400 billion. So something must have happened over the last eight years.
We have had the proliferation of taxes, numbering in excess of 32, on Canadians. The Tories said they were putting those taxes in to raise additional revenue but the deficit has doubled under the Conservatives. The minister of tourism has entered the Chamber. Perhaps he will want to say a few words as well, but this is the government which promised in 1984 and 1988 that they were going to be prudent managers of the public purse.
We have seen anything but prudent management of the public purse. We have seen all sorts of examples of waste in this government which we have brought to the attention of this House of Commons. I would only hope that members opposite would amend their ways as soon as possible. Give Canadians the opportunity that they seek so overwhelmingly and that is the opportunity to go to the polls so that the government will then be in a position to prove that its case is right and our case is wrong. I would love that opportunity.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion agreed to on division.


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

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, can there be anybody left in this country who has not heard that the Atlantic fishery is in a veiy deep crisis, that our fish stocks are being pillaged, that men and women by the thousands in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia have had their source of income cut off through no fault of their own?
March 30, 1992

As I suggest, there cannot be anybody left in this country who does not know that this is the case, that the fish are being pillaged by foreign overfishing and that men and women are being put out of work right, left and centre through no fault of their own.
If we are going to correct this situation two lines of attack are required.
First and foremost, or else nothing else matters in so far as this subject is concerned, we have to find a way to stop the rape of the fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland. We have to do it. There is no time left. It has to be done now.
That is why that armada of seven trawlers at this very moment is making its way out to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We have to send a message to the world community that this overfishing, this pillaging, this wanton rape of the fish stock has to stop and it has to stop now.
Second, the government has to lend a helping hand to those who depend on that resource for their livelihood. They are the men and women on the south and southwest coast of Newfoundland and elsewhere in Newfoundland, the men and women in parts of Nova Scotia who also depend on that resource. The government has to find a way to help these people bridge the gap. Not in the context of handouts. The reason these people are not working today is not because they are lazy; it is because they cannot find any fish to catch.
Today, just for the moment or so left to me, I want to talk about that second element, the need to help those who, through no fault of their own, are without a source of income: the fishermen, the trawlermen, the inshore fishermen, the plant workers, the men and women who cut, split and package the fish for market.
That is what I was talking about last December when I raised with my friend, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the issue of unemployment insurance as it affects those people.
I appealed to him in particular to review the program's guidelines. When I say the program, I have in mind the Atlantic Catch Failure Program itself. I asked him to take into account that the program, as well intentioned as it might be, was not meeting the need that it was intended to meet, that whole populations of people were being excluded on technicality and technicality does not buy groceries.
Adjournment Debate
Those people, first of all, want to work. In the absence of work, work which has been snatched out from under them, they ought to be given a helping hand. That helping hand ought to be given in a fair way.
As an example, let me use the gear-up program that the minister of fisheries announced some weeks ago. That had a good objective. But whoever came up with the rules must have sat down and said: "How can I make this as unfair as possible?" Mr. Speaker, if you have ever seen anything as warped in your life as those regulations,
I challenge you to show me.
There are people being excluded just in terms of where they live along the coast, not in terms of how bad a fishing season they had.
My appeal to the government is to use the resources available to it to give some help to those people. It should do it in a way that is fair, so those people are not left out on technicalities, so those people are helped to put bread and butter on the table until they can get back to doing what they really want to do in the first place and that is to go out there, catch some fish and prepare it for market.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic fisheries emergency assistance program, announced on October 4, 1991, was based on a particularly set of circumstances. Many people who would normally have taken part in the coastal fishery during the summer of 1991 were not able to do so or hardly caught anything at the local level. There was a lot of ice and the consequent cold temperatures translated into poor landings of cod and capelin.
This special program provided funds for the creation of jobs and specified the eligibility criteria. Those criteria were necessary in order to make sure that the program benefited those for whom it was created, namely the fishermen and the plant workers that have been depending on fish for a long time and that did not fish for a sufficient number of weeks during the summer of 1991 to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.
In the Atlantic region, 249 job creation projects have translated into more than 41,000 weeks of employment for 5,864 fishermen and plant workers. This assistance was mainly provided in Newfoundland, where 4,092 fishermen and plant workers participated in more than 100 job creation projects. The projects undertaken in

March 30, 1992
Adjournment Debate
numerous regions were linked to fisheries and helped improve the local facilities.
People who were receiving unemployment insurance benefits and who no longer do also tried to participate in that program. Those people are not eligible because they could get UI benefits and, in fact, many of them were already receiving such benefits. The case of people whose employment opportunities are limited is being reviewed by the Department of Employment and Immigration. Interested parties can contact their local employment centre to see if they are eligible to other programs run by that department.


BUY CANADIAN
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I do not know about you, but regularly I get complaints from my constituents about plant closings, manufacturing job losses and Canadian businesses moving to the United States.
What can we do about it? Some say we should cancel the free trade agreement. Others say scrap the GST and others like the Minister of National Revenue say we should tax Canadians who cross-border shop.
The United States also has its plant closings, its manufacturing job losses and its businesses moving to other countries. In fact, between June 1991 and January 1992 there were some 350,000 industrial, retail and service jobs lost in the United States. General Motors is laying off some 74,000 American employees and closing 12 United States auto plants; IBM is reducing its American staff by some 40,000; 22,000 American jobs are disappearing at Pan American Airlines.
It did not just start recently. Between January 1989 when the free trade agreement went into effect and December 1990 the U.S. lost one million manufacturing jobs alone.
Were these American job losses the result of the free trade agreement, the GST, cross-border shopping or a made-in-Canada recession? I hardly think so.
What then can we do if we are truly concerned as Canadians about Canadian manufacturing job losses? Clearly there is one obvious answer at least and that is to
buy Canadian. If you buy Canadian and you buy a Canadian-made product you create income for other Canadians to spend. Unlike the Americans and the Japanese, Canadians too often forget that their jobs depend on their Canadian neighbours having jobs as well.
Obviously, in addition to individuals buying Canadian, there is a role for government too. Back in 1962 the Ontario provincial government, under the then Premier John Robarts and an initiative started by the Hon. Bob Macaulay, there was a buy Canadian campaign. It is time that our government instituted a campaign like that as well. Also, it is time to publish a list of the companies that actually manufacture goods in Canada.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he is prohibited by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement from initiating a buy Canadian campaign. He did not answer my question at the time. I hope he does tonight because Canadians are watching and listening carefully.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to my hon. friend's question is no, there is nothing in the free trade agreement to prohibit such a campaign being carried out any more than there is anything to prohibit the United States from carrying out a buy American campaign.


Alan Redway: Are you going to announce one tonight, Jim?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: The hon. member asks me if I am going to announce one tonight. I regard my hon. friend as a free enterpriser and I think that the appropriate thing is that Canadian industry and the Canadian consumer associations have a role for themselves to play in this regard, rather than having the heavy hand of government intervene.
I do not believe that buy American campaigns in the United States are sponsored by the United States government. I believe that they have their origins among the consumers and perhaps even among unions. Trade unions would be a very appropriate vehicle for that.
March 30, 1992

Adjournment Debate


Alan Redway: Do not forget the Progressive Conservative government under John Robarts.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: My friend says remember the government of Ontario. It was a different age, an age of government intervention. I think the less intervention we do, the better.
I would remind my hon. friend that back on February 7 when he posed this question, the minister did respond by saying this: "When we look at housing, transportation, food, health and education and we compare with the Americans, the cost of living in Canada is lower than that of the United States".
As this House knows, Canada must be able to answer concerns from other foreign governments about any special treatment we are perceived to afford Canadian-made goods and services in comparison to foreign-made goods and services offered for sale in the marketplace.
There is another level of concern. What, for example, constitutes a Canadian suit or dress when the component materials originate outside this country and are made into garments by Canadian workers? How would one answer the question of what, in fact, constitutes a Canadian automobile? There is intense international debate about these matters.
The domestic content of automobiles, for example, is currently a matter of discussion between Canada and the U.S. as both countries try to maintain vehicle production levels.
Finally, like consumers in most countries, Canadians are first and foremost price conscious and have a demanding sense of quality. Value for money is of paramount importance. Budget conscious Canadians undoubtedly base their shopping decisions on value rather than country of origin and because pricing is considerably competitive, that will advantage Canadian companies.


THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS
Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on March 18, 1992,1 asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare to review decisions made by an unqualified official in his department, Mr. Greg Smith. These decisions legally and medically affect three thalidomide victims in my constituency, Darcy Petkau, Mrs. Cheryl Wood and Laurel Webb. The minister's response in the
House to my question was irresponsible and arrogant. He simply said no.
I would like to remind the minister that on February 13,1990, when this program was announced in the House by the Minister of National Health and Welfare the minister said: "This program would be on the basis of compassion and understanding and not liability". As well, he went on to say: "I would like to assure everyone in the country that the funding I am announcing today is over and above the settlements the victims received from the manufacturer of thalidomide".
He also indicated that the government estimated that there were only 75 to 100 people living in Canada who were affected.
I dispute his numbers because I was practising medicine at that time and I know how many people were prescribed thalidomide at that time. Basically what the current minister is now saying is that the victims must either have been on the original list which the department compiled in 1963, or have received a settlement from a drug company.
There are many additional victims who can and are producing legal medical records as proof, like my three constituents, for their eligibility for the program. However, the minister and his departmental staff are stonewalling.
I would like to quote a letter from one of those constituents, a letter written by Dr. Boyar on October 18, 1991, to Mr. Greg Smith, Director, Extraordinary Assistance Plan, here in Ottawa:
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is to confirm that I did deliver the above patient on 07 May 1962 while still in general practice. His birth defect is a classical thalidomide defect involving his left hand. This has been recently documented for you by Dr. Fowlow, plastic surgeon.
The doctor admits that he had prescribed thalidomide to the mother during her pregnancy.
Another medical record is that for Cheryl Wood and it is from the Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children, dated June 16, 1965. It says:
Deformity of the left forearm and left hand, duration since birth. The mother was extremely sick during the early part of the pregnancy and used thalidomide tablets.
This is medical and legal proof that those people had been prescribed thalidomide.

March 30, 1992
Adjournment Debate
I believe there is a tragic injustice being committed by the department of health and welfare and the minister. The minister refuses to take his ministerial responsibilities seriously. I ask him to be fair and honest and if he cannot be that way, he should resign.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in June of last year the final arrangements were made for an extraordinary assistance plan for Canadian thalidomide victims and I am pleased to put before the House information on the implementation of that plan since that time.
The plan provides initially for $4.5 million to be divided equally among all eligible recipients and another $4 million to be paid on the basis of placement into one of three disability categories.
To this date 105 individuals have been confirmed to be eligible and the government has made payments to 101 of those for a total of $42,400 per person.
Medical evaluations to determine the level of disability category have been progressing well. Two-thirds of the evaluations have been completed and the rest are to be completed by the end of April. At that time payments will be calculated and paid to the recipients.
Sadly not all those who applied to the plan could be confirmed as thalidomide victims but the criteria for the program are clear. There must be proof of maternal consumption of Kevadon or Thlimol, the two brands of the drug available in Canada at that time during the first trimester of pregnancy. There is no other means to determine whether someone is a thalidomide victim.
There are a number of ways of attesting to whether that is-Mr. Speaker, are you allowing me to conclude or telling me to conclude?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am allowing you to conclude.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will be quick.
Anyone who received a settlement from the drug company already proved the question of maternal consumption of thalidomide in that context. Others were identified, as my colleague has said, during a major national research study in 1962-63.
The government has also taken steps to provide non-monetary support, providing up to $1 million in funding for services needed by thalidomide victims.
In summary, the extraordinary assistance plan is a significant response to Canadian thalidomide victims, and the delivery of the plan to eligible Canadians is progressing well.


NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, natural gas is a vital part of the economy of my province as well as Canada's energy future. The region enjoys a large surplus of natural gas reserves which has allowed us to extract this very clean burning fossil fuel for export. More gas projects are under way and there has been very heavy competition between two pipeline consortia for rights to build a new export pipeline out of Alberta to the southwestern U.S.
Natural gas exporters from our province have been fair in their trading activities with our friends to the south beginning last year. However we saw that these exporters had to deal with certain regulators in the state of California who were not interested in playing fair. To put it bluntly those regulators, the California Public Utilities Commission, chose to take advantage of our suppliers by blackmailing them for shorter term supply contracts.
In late November of last year those regulators ordered the largest utility in northern California, Pacific Gas and Electric, to dump its long-term contracts with western Canadian gas producers.
It is a clear violation of article 905 of the free trade agreement. I rose therefore in this House on December 5, 1991 to ask the minister of energy if he agreed. He spoke of joint press conferences, consultations with western provincial energy ministers and consultations with the U.S., but he would not give a simple undertaking to support the claims of our suppliers.
The question was simple: would the minister lend support to groups such as the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada? A review of the matter was held in front of the National Energy Board. Speaking personally I hoped that this issue would transcend partisan cleavages between the minister and myself. I was mistaken, because when the minister rose to answer the supplementary question he said that he could not even bring himself to speak to the question.
March 30, 1992

He said in the House at the time:
I mean I don't know where this guy is, except that he just wants to make a point in the House.
That is a former teacher talking. It was very confusing. Why else would one want to speak in the House if one did not want to make a point? The minister obviously believes that any member who rises in the House and does not sing the praises of the government is some type of an obstructionist nuisance.
The interventions in this dispute over natural gas are based on a sincere desire to see it resolved as quickly as possible. I hoped that desire might converge with that of the minister of energy. If it did, I hoped that our converging desires would have an impact on the California Public Utilities Commission, but it seems that this government, as in so many other issues, would rather see our natural gas industry twist in the wind as far as its most profitable export market is concerned than actually presenting a united front in opposition to those moves in California.
I had written to the governor of California on the matter in mid-December. A reply has not been received, but since the letter was sent 190 western Canadian gas producers and distributors are no closer to receiving fair treatment from the California Public Utilities Commission. The action of the commission has had the effect of exerting downward pressure on the already depressed price of natural gas. Furthermore, in an age of deregulation its demands that California utilities purchase only short-term contracts has the effect of distorting fundamental conditions in the marketplace.
Our Natural Energy Board has made a good attempt in trying to mediate and resolve this state of affairs. Unfortunately the NEB has no regulatory authority over the actions of the California commission.
It would seem to any reasonable person, I suggest, that the consultative mechanism for energy matters in article 905 of the free trade agreement will have to be used. Unfortunately the government has yet to inform the House whether it has chosen to use this option to resolve the dispute which puts into jeopardy several thousand jobs in Alberta and British Columbia. If it has, it has refused to inform the House about any progress in the consultation.
Adjournment Debate
I would therefore ask the parliamentary secretary or some parliamentary secretary, to rise in the House and deal intelligently with the question.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast I would just like to review some of the facts.
In December 1991 the Governments of Canada, Alberta and British Columbia and the Canadian natural gas industry agreed on a three-party strategy to respond to the California Public Utilities Commission's capacity brokering decision.
First, it was decided that consultations should be initiated to convince the CPUC of the need to rely on commercial negotiations.
Second, regulatory options would be examined to maintain the integrity of the first export agreement until a commercial restructuring by the commercial parties was concluded.
Third, our options and remedies under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement would be carefully examined.
That consultative process commenced immediately and the representatives from the governments of Alberta and British Columbia and staff from the California Public Utilities Commission were invited to attend the regularly scheduled Energy Consultative Mechanism, the ECM-gas trade talks meeting between the Canadian and American federal government officials.
Discussions have continued under the umbrella of these special gas talks for the past few months with favourable results to date. It is important that we note that these discussions are intended to promote a regulatory environment that will facilitate a commercial solution. They are not intended to substitute for commercial negotiations.
In the interim the Canadian Petroleum Association, with the support of the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, requested the National Energy Board to review the 1989 decision to extend the Alberta and Southern natural gas export licence. As a result, the board adopted interim measures to prevent the potential erosion of long-term contracted natural gas exports to northern California. These interim measures are subject

March 30, 1992
Adjournment Debate
to the outcome of the board's public hearings which are conducted in Calgary.
At this time I believe it is preferable to continue constructive dialogue with the CPUC as a means of resolving this dispute. The value of such a non-confrontational process should not be discounted. Nevertheless, should these talks not prove fruitful, we would still have at our disposal the ability to seek recourse under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
I might add that I am cautiously optimistic that these talks will lead to a successful conclusion that will be mutually beneficial to the energy trading relationship and for it to continue in the future.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question on the lobster fishery back on December 4, 1991 and my supplementary question was on quota. I want to deal with both of them.
At the time, I was asking the Minister of State for Transport, because of the opening of the season, and because of the crisis as far as price went in the lobster fishery, whether she would ensure that there would be cargo space available for York, which is a very lucrative market for the lobster fishermen from Nova Scotia and, for that matter, for other areas that ship their cargo of lobster to Europe.
At the time she said yes. It is now four months later and I have never heard back from the minister. Maybe tonight I will hear from the parliamentary secretary what will be done in the future in order to ensure, particularly when the season starts, that there is access to cargo.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the price back then was probably around $2.50; today it is a hefty $7.95 or $8-and-something. On the weekend it was said it might even go up as far as $10. If it is priced that way, the market is probably hard to fill at that price, but at the same time the number of lobsters has gone down.
The other question I raised at the time had to do with quotas, whether or not the groundfish would see an increase in quota for 1992.
At the time, that question was addressed to the parliamentary secretary. He is here in the House today and he answered: "I can tell the hon. member opposite yes, we will look into that immediately".
As a result, there were no increases for the sectors in groundfish. The only thing that has increased that I can see, and I think it is of grave concern, is the number of licences that have been issued for gill nets. I heard on the weekend that there are now 900 gill net licences in Scotia-Fundy, in one area. It is an incredible amount.
There will be a meeting on April 14 to see if these gill-netters can go to George's to set their gill nets on quota. A few years ago there was an over-capacity in one sector for groundfish and all of a sudden there are 900 licences that appear for gill-netting fish on the east coast. It is a real crisis.
If there are no fish and the boats are not able to fish, why the abundance of licences? Why are they going to George's Bank? When the UN has banned gill-nets, why is this government now opening up a gill-net fishery that never existed in the past in the ground fishery?
When you cannot find more quota there should not be this enlargement of activity that is going on out there. I wonder what the longliners think about all the gill-netters who will be fishing where they are. I think of the numbers that have been reduced in the dragger sector with all the gill-nets that are going to be there. I think of the poor stocks on George's Bank and in the Bay of Fundy that will be hurt because of loose gill-nets floating around the bottom and capturing the sea life there. Gill-nets are very harsh.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might want to bring that matter up. Since then, there has been no issue of additional quotas in the groundfish sector. But all of a sudden, there is an addition. When the quotas were announced in January, there were no additional quotas given, but there were these numbers of licences given.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite is covering a wide range of subjects.
March 30, 1992

She asked about the amount of freight space on airlines going to Europe. The hon. member should remember that the government does not control any of the airlines that travel back and forth to Europe. It is not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport who set the regulations in place for how the airlines operate.
More particularly, with respect to the groundfish quotas for 1992 for the Scotia-Fundy region, the ground-fish plan on December 23 was released for the coming year. The total allowable catches for the Atlantic groundfish were set at the level scheduled within the multi-year groundfish plan which was introduced in 1991. The decisions announced for 1992 were based on the advice of CAFSAC, the Canadian Atlantic Fisheries Scientific Advisory Committee. They are also the product of consultations throughout the year with the fishermen's organizations, the industry and the provincial government.
The management measures introduced in 1991 for the 4VN winter cod fishery will continue to protect the juvenile cod and control dumping and the discarding of fish and enhance the data base for assessing the stock. Observer coverage, which had reached about 70 per cent
Adjournment Debate
the year before will be raised to 100 per cent and a program of observer-estimated catch will be mblished for 1992. As well, to alleviate the concern about the migration of the 4T cod to division 4VS, catches in the 4VS between January to April will be limited to 12,000 tonnes, based on the 4VS catch average of recent years.
For 1992 the fishermen will not be forced to transfer quotas. Under the current system transfers of fish are only acted upon after they have been requested by licence holders. At no time are fishermen requested to transfer quotas to companies.
The future of the Atlantic groundfish industry rests on responsible fisheries management. This means looking at the issues in a careful, open manner. It also means reconciling the needs of groups and communities for economic benefits today with the overriding duty to conserve and sustain the resource for future generations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 31,1992