1992-06-16

[Stage Direction]
41 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Communication Group - Publishing, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9,
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 16,1992
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association parliamentary visit.
This visit was held in Ukraine from April 28 to May 9, 1992.


HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
This report presents the results of our consideration of the government's decision to cancel the Court Challenges Program.
This report is also available in audio cassette format from the clerk of the committee.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


IMMIGRATION ACT
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-86, an Act to amend the Immigration Act and other acts in consequence thereof.


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


PETITIONS
Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek leave of the House to adopt the following motion.
That, notwithstanding Standing Orders 132 and 140, the petition for a private bill from the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church presented on Thursday, May 14,1992 and reported on by the clerk of petitions on Friday, May 15, 1992 be deemed to have been filed within the required time limit and received by this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present a petition signed by 35 residents of the south shore of Nova Scotia.
The petitioners note that the new firearms regulations now before the House leave many questions unanswered with respect to firearm storage and transportation, the

June 16, 1992
Routine Proceedings
capacity and alteration of firearm magazines and the need for increased fees payable on application for a firearms acquisition certificate.
Therefore, they humbly pray and request that the proposed regulations under Bill C-17 be referred to the standing committee on justice for further review, reconsideration, consultation with recreational firearms organizations before they come into force.
Since this petition was initially circulated, there has been a meeting with the officials of the Minister of Justice and the Lunenburg and Bridgewater Firearms Associations. Nevertheless I am pleased to present this petition on their behalf.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions, the first one coming from various parts of my riding from people who perceive a great weakness in our justice system. I think this petition was initiated on the basis of the death of Nina de Villiers some time ago.
The petitioners are asking the government to protect these vulnerable people and to do it by amending the Criminal Code, the Bail Reform Act 1972 and the Parole Act.
In their opinion it would help prevent murders such as the one that occurred to an innocent victim, Nina de Villiers, some time ago.


Jim Jordan: Madam Speaker, the second petition is the same as other petitions coming I notice from all comers of the House. It asks the government to make sure, before any constitutional amendments are made, that the people of Canada are given an opportunity to react to any changes.
I notice the very same wording is being presented by all parties. Perhaps it suggests something to this government. There is a feeling out there that any change in their Constitution should reflect the feelings of the Canadian people.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 285 and 311.


Mr. Whittaker: Since January 1, 1989, has any funding been provided to the Daishowa company, directly or indirectly, for the Forestville, Que., pulp and paper facility and, if so, (a) in what amount (b) in what form (loans, grants, contributions or guarantees)?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Environment)):: To our knowledge, Daishowa does not have a plant at Forestville but rather a logging area. Its plant is located in Quebec City.
(a)	Environment Canada, through the St. Lawrence Centre, provided $190,000 in funding to test the use of the bicarbone process for treating effluent from the Daishowa plant in Quebec City. The total cost of the testing is estimated at $996,000.
(b)	The funding was provided by the St. Lawrence Centre under a Department of Supply and Services contract in exchange for which we would obtain the test results.


Mr. Milliken: Did the government provide funding, directly or indirectly, for the preparation and showing of "ParticipACTION" advertisements during the America's Cup races and, if so, (a) what were the costs of production, (b) what were the amounts paid to run the advertisements?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: ParticipACTION received $1,000,000 from Fitness and Amateur Branch of Health and Welfare in the 1991-92 fiscal year. The portion of that contribution allocated to the television public service announcements amounted to roughly $365,000. These funds represent a partial contribution toward the full production costs of television, radio and print media advertisements. Since ParticipACTION uses public service announcements, there is no cost associated with the "airtime". Consequently, the $365,000 federal government contribution in effect leads to a considerably sized contribution in-kind
June 16, 1992

from radio, television and print media and corporate sponsors.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1993, laid upon the table on Thursday, February 27, 1992, less the
amounts voted in Interim Supply, be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period, ending June 23,1992, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of the supply bill. In view of recent practices do hon. members agree that the bill be distributed now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to speak about full supply for the Main Estimates for the fiscal year 1992-93.
This year the Main Estimates total $160.5 billion and through these estimates the government is seeking Parliament's approval for $48.8 billion in new spending authority. The remaining $111.7 billion represents statutory payments that have received previous parliamentary approval.
These Main Estimates reflect this government's continuing commitment to eliminating waste and inefficien-
Supply
cy, as well as divesting itself of activities and organizations that no longer serve a vital public need in order to reduce costs and strike a proper balance between Canada's demands for federal services and their ability as taxpayers to pay for them. In this regard much has been achieved over the past seven years.
Program spending now represents only 16.7 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product as compared to 20 per cent in 1984.
During the period the annual growth in program spending, including Public Service salaries, has averaged only 4 per cent as compared to an average inflation rate of 4.3 per cent.
These achievements show the government's commitment to increased efficiency through the rigorous control of expenditures as well as the implementation of innovative management practices. They also reflect our commitment to good management and to the careful stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars. Our record is one of success.
The year-over-year increase in the Main Estimates is the outcome of a number of decisions and factors affecting the budgets of all 135 programs delivered by 116 departments, agencies and Crown corporations appearing in the estimates.
This increase can be divided into two broad categories: adjustments to statutory items, which amount to a net increase of $1.3 billion, and changes to voted items which amount to $1.7 billion.
Statutory spending is $112.1 billion or 70 per cent of total estimates. Spending in this category includes such things as: major federal transfers to Canadians in respect of Old Age Security, guaranteed income supplements, family allowances and unemployment insurance benefits; transfers to the provinces under the equalization program for health, education, and social assistance; general Public Service programs; and public debt charges.
It is important to note that the major factor underlying the growth in the voted portion of the Main Estimates is the continuing requirements of items funded initially through 1991-92 Supplementary Estimates. Items approved through 1991-92 Supplementary Estimates and included in the 1992-93 Main Estimates reflect the incorporation of new policy and workload increases

Supply
announced or identified after tabling of the previous Main Estimates.
On a consolidated basis, the budgetary Main Estimates will increase by only 1.9 per cent over the level of the
1991-92 Main Estimates. However, within the 1992-93 Main Estimates there are four areas which account for more than 80 per cent of the total allocated budgetary spending. Public debt charges take up to 25 per cent of the total, social programs account for 36.1 per cent of the total, and fiscal arrangements account for close to 11 per cent of the total.
Social programs are the largest component of over-all spending. During 1992-93, the federal government will direct over $60 billion, which is 36 per cent of its allocated Main Estimates, in continuation of its efforts to ensure the health and well-being of all Canadians. Help is directed to those in greatest need through programs of assistance to the economically and socially disadvantaged, including the jobless, unskilled persons with disabilities, seniors and immigrants, as well as aboriginal people, veterans and children.
The departments of Employment and Immigration, National Health and Welfare, Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Veterans Affairs account for over 90 per cent of the spending in this sector.

The government has acted on its commitment to legislate expenditure controls that will limit spending over the next five years to the amounts set in the budget brought down by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. The expenditure plan for 1992-93 remains within the limits set in the 1991 budget and the legislation approved by the House of Commons.
Expenditure control has obliged departments and agencies to respond to increased demand with fewer resources. Furthermore, cuts and a freeze on operating and maintenance budgets have been part of the restraint measures announced in every budget since 1985, and since then, the result has been a 30 per cent reduction in the value, in terms of purchasing power, of operating and maintenance budgets for current programs.
Canadians would like the government to spend less and spend smarter, and to be more efficient. To that end officials responsible for resource allocation have carefully examined spending levels to ensure that public money is spent exclusively on services that respond to the needs and desires of Canadians.
The Minister of Finance announced a number of measures that will enable the government to achieve durable savings and be more effective, which means that fewer resources will be available for the government's internal operations.
Programs, including grants and contributions, have been cut back in many areas, while in others growth will continue but be restrained. We remain committed to green plan funding of $3 billion over the next six years, but certain expenditures have been reprofiled to the latter half of this period. We will also improve the operations of the Canada Student Loans Program which should result in savings totalling $530 million in 1992-93 and $3.4 billion over the longer term, that is, over a five-year period.
Costs associated with government operations will be further reduced. Departmental non-wage budgets have been cut by 3 per cent, while a review of spending related to communications will cut departmental budgets by an additional $75 million in 1992-93.

Also, in keeping with the 1991 budget statement and the Public Sector Compensation Act, the government limited salary increases to zero for 1991-92 and 3 per cent for 1992-93. The number of management layers below the level of deputy minister has also been reduced to three.
This causes the management structure of the federal Public Service to resemble that of many large organizations in the private sector which have been forced to restructure in order to reduce costs. In this initiative, we are at the end of a schedule of a commitment made in the 1991 budget to reduce the number of senior managers in the federal Public Service by 10 per cent within two years. At last count, the number of members in the executive group has been reduced by 320 since January
1991.
Because of the continuing restraint measures introduced by this government, the level of program spending contained in the 1992 Main Estimates has fallen to 16.7 per cent of gross domestic product from a level of almost 20 per cent in 1984.

As you will see, the reduced levels of expenditures have not only come from reducing transfer payments to individuals and to provinces. The most severe reductions have been made in government operating expenditures.
Expenditure control initiatives are not limited solely to cutting ongoing operations. We are also restructuring. To this end 46 separate organizations and advisory bodies will be wound up, privatized or consolidated with other organizations. This figure includes three new agencies which will be put on hold.
In today's difficult fiscal environment, there are not enough tax dollars to meet all the financial demands of government programs. Accordingly, the government is placing a priority on using the tax dollars available to finance the higher priority programs that benefit all Canadians.
Through user fees and cost recovery, the government is providing and improving services that it might not otherwise be able to afford and ensure that the best use is made of scarce resources. This gives paying clients more influence on the level of optional services provided by the program. Paying clients have a right to expect and demand a quality product or service at a reasonable price. User fees foster such a service-oriented operation and one that is more attentive to clients' needs.
In 1992, annual revenues from cost recovery and user fees are expected to exceed $3.3 billion, which is a 5 per cent increase over 1991-92 and nearly double from 1984-85 levels. Departments and agencies are attempting to identify areas where the application of user fees or cost recovery is appropriate, resulting in a continuation of the rising trend in revenue generation.
In December 1989, the Prime Minister announced a major renewal exercise for the Public Service. It is what we call PS 2000. The aim of this exercise is to benefit the taxpayer and client by making more of the scarce tax dollars available for service delivery and for internal administration.
As an interim step in this process, a number of special operating agencies have been or soon will be established. The establishment of these agencies enables managers to run their organizations more like a business, with greater focus on results and service. They have greater freedom to serve the Canadian taxpayer better, and managers can adapt more rapidly to changing clients' needs.
Supply
Also beginning in 1993-94, operating budgets will be introduced, which are expected to benefit both clients and taxpayers. Operating budgets are intended to give managers more flexibility to decide the most efficient use of their allocated resources. It also allows them to make the most economical use of scarce tax dollars to deliver services better on a timely basis.
These changes are merely a sample of the measures the government is prepared to take as part of its reform to offer Canadians better service at reasonable cost.
The Main Estimates before the House today reflect the government's firm commitment to reducing spending and introducing fiscal reform in the interests of Canadian taxpayers. Considering our achievements so far, I am sure we are on the right track.
I am convinced that Canadians will react favourably to the changes we have made in the areas of spending restraint and improving program operations. We will continue our efforts to structure and administer government programs so as to serve the best interests of all Canadians.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, first of all I want to thank my friend from Beauhamois-Salaberry for his remarks.
He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. The point to be made of course is that as competent as he is, he is not either the minister responsible for the Treasury Board or indeed the parliamentary secretary for the Treasury Board.
I understand his dilemma. He was told to do a job this morning and he did it reasonably well, given the facts he had to work with. The sadness of course is that the one responsible for this motion, the gentleman in whose name the motion stands, does not see fit to rise and defend it. I understand that. I say to him that it is a fairly indefensible request that he puts to the House, that we at this point in time ought to give yet another carte blanche for an amount approaching $49 billion, $48.8 billion.

June 16, 1992
Supply
Before we get that generous there are a few things we would like to say to the gentleman from Beauhamois- Salaberry and the group he is obliged to represent here this morning.
For at least a couple of years, and indeed more than that, this country has been facing twin crises. Our economy faces very serious problems, problems that transcend even the current lingering recession and, of course, second and important also, national unity continues to be uncertain.
My friend from Simcoe Centre interjects that the national unity issue has been with us since 1982. She is almost right. She is right except for the date. She is slightly off on the date. She was not here at that time, so she can be excused for slipping on the date slightly.
The issue was put to bed in 1982, except there was a separatist from Quebec who would not have signed anything anyway. Everybody knows that including the Prime Minister right now who said in 1982 that was the case, who congratulated the then Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, for his leadership. He has since tried to rewrite history a bit, so she is almost right. She had a slight slippage, but I am sure she meant, in kindness to her, 1984. That is when the damage on this one was done.
There is an old rule, and it is worth following even in this Chamber, even in the government of a country. It is: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If she is interested in knowing why we are in the constitutional mess that we are in today a good part of the reason is because in 1982 and 1984 somebody tried to fix something that was not really broke.
She interjects again: "Quebec was left out". A separatist premier from Quebec elected to be left out. No matter what the offer was in 1982 that would have been the case. I appeal to her good sense to not be rewriting history. Her own leader in 1982 said essentially what I am saying at this particular point.

As for the Constitution, it seems that the parliamentary committee, several provincial commissions and half a dozen constitutional conferences, including the one in Toronto in late May and more recently the one held here in Ottawa, last week I think, moved the constitutional
reform project forward. I hope that the governments will use the opportunities to continue to seek a solution.
As I will explain later, the sooner we complete this constitutional reform, the better for our economy.

There are those who say that they are fed up with the Constitution, and I am one who says that from time to time, and that we should just stop talking about it. However, we cannot set the Constitution to one side for the moment because we cannot have an economy, strong or otherwise, if we do not have a country.
That uncertainty must be resolved, though the debate on that issue is for another time. However, in speaking to this motion I wanted to put the economy in the context of the national unity issue because they go hand in hand. It is difficult to intelligently debate one without being at least cognizant of the other.
Having said that, let me come to the issue immediately at hand, which is the request of the government that we kiss and make up, that we let bygones by bygones, that we give it another $48.4 billion so it can go out and spend some more like drunken sailors.
Let us review, let us go back as recently as the latest budget by the latest Minister of Finance, the gentleman from Alberta. He presented his first budget in February of this year.
We might return to the words of the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of my party. Last November he laid out a five-point plan that would guide a future Liberal government in restoring Canada's long-term industrial strength.
His plan, which we stand by today and will stand by as a government, included a call for policies to promote economic growth and a better balance between inflation fighting and other economic goals.
In January of this year my party unveiled a further five-point emergency economic recovery program. Let us examine the elements of that program announced in January. It included a 5 per cent down payment for first time home buyers, it would allow the use of RRSP moneys to purchase homes, and set up a national shared cost infrastructure program that would include projects already on the shelf at the municipal level across this country. It included more basic skills training and emergency federal funding for food banks.
June 16, 1992

In his budget a month or so after we announced that emergency plan the Minister of Finance, to his credit, did adopt two of our points, those two which relate to housing. As he will know, there has been a strong response from the housing sector, a response that impresses even the most optimistic supporters then and now of measures concerning housing.
However, while we welcomed those initiatives, the budget as a whole lacked a very clear strategy oriented toward economic growth. The minister himself admitted in that budget that the recovery will be "weak by historical standards".
The question is, now that the budget has been in effect for a full quarter, did he expect the recovery to be this weak? If not, then what is he going to do about it in light of the even more dismal figures that we see from day to day?
This government's track record is nothing to get excited about when it comes to making projections. If we look at the 1989 budget, the 1990 budget, the 1991 budget or this year's budget we will find that in terms of gross domestic product, inflation, deficit reduction and unemployment both finance ministers-the current minister and his predecessor, the present Minister for International Trade-in the last four budgets have been painting a veiy rosy picture, one that has not been borne out by reality.
Take 1990, for example, when the then Minister of Finance projected gross domestic product growth of 1.3 per cent. He was off by a country mile. It was only about a half of one per cent. Other figures for those four years will illustrate a similar picture.
That is the broad brush approach to this issue. That is generally why we in this party cannot stomach the idea of giving another carte blanche to this government, because of its track record to date.
Generalities by themselves, whether in this Chamber or in the country at large, do not really convey the agony and the human pain that is out there as a result of the terrible leadership of this administration.


Mr. Boudria:: Lack of leadership.


Roger Simmons: To put a human face on it, let us look at some of the realities as they relate to a particular part of the country.
Supply
My friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell says: "Lack of leadership". As usual, my friend is being his generous self. If it were only a lack of leadership, if only the Conservatives had not led at all we would not be in as bad shape as we are. However, I say to him, and I know he means well, that not only has there sometimes been a lack of leadership but there has also been some terrible leadership in the absolutely wrong direction.
We saw an example of it in the last few days when the Prime Minister pounded his chest for taking this great brave step in signing the biodiversity agreement. He became the champion because he had taken on the United States. Of course, the reality is somewhat different. Mr. Bush needed a favour.
He needed to appeal to the right wing that Ross Perot is appealing to in the United States. He picked up the phone and he called the man who has, without fail, delivered for him over the last few years. He said to him: "Prime Minister, pretend you are painting me into a comer because every time you attack me on this issue of biodiversity you get me votes down here in the United States".
Is it not more than passing strange that the two statements, the American President saying he would not sign the biodiversity agreement and the Prime Minister of Canada saying that he was going to sign it and lead the charge, synchronized almost within minutes, certainly within hours?


An hon. member:: Coincidence.


Roger Simmons: They were orchestrated to be done exactly that way.
We have heard from this Prime Minister before. Whether he is rolling the dice on constitutional matters or strutting the international stage, the script is the same. He tries to hoodwink as many people as he can at any point in time.
It so happens that the people he attempts to hoodwink have been hoodwinked once too often. He is transparent. They see through him.
Let me talk about some of those people, because I want to put a human face on this situation. I have the privilege to represent about 90,000 people in 158 communities in rural Newfoundland, on the southwest coast and a bit of the west coast of Newfoundland.

June 16, 1992
Supply
Since I came to this House I have talked about the plight of the fishermen. Some of the time I have been talking about the deep sea fishery and the impact of the pillaging by ships from Spain and Portugal. That has had a very serious and devastating impact. As recently as yesterday in Question Period, and on other occasions, I raised that issue and will continue to do so.
There is another set of circumstances that is also pulverizing a group of people in my riding. It is not the deep sea fishery per se, although it is an aspect of the fishery. I am thinking about the southwest coast of Newfoundland, the communities that start with Hermitage, Gaultois, McCallum, Francois, Grey River, Ramea, Burgeo, Grand Bruit, La Poile, Petites, Rose Blanche, Burnt Islands, Isle aux Morts, Fox Roost and Margaree, and Port au Bras. Those communities traditionally have had two fisheries, a winter fishery and a summer fishery.
For the purposes of simplicity I want to talk about the winter fishery, which takes place from January to March. That fishery traditionally has been a very lucrative fishery for those people but the bottom has gone out of it, not just this year but for the last four years. For example, people in the community of McCallum caught
178.000	pounds last year during the winter fishery and caught 61,000 this year, one-third of last year's catches. People in Francois caught 62,000 last year and caught
10.000	this year, one-sixth.
In the 1987 winter fishery people in Rose Blanche caught four million pounds. This year they caught a little over 1,000 or 2,000 pounds. The bottom has gone out. People did not look to unemployment because they fished winter and summer. They fished 30, 40 or 45 weeks a year. There are people on that coast who never drew any unemployment until this year because it was not worth their while. They fished 45 weeks a year and by the time they got their forms filled out it was time to go back fishing again.
I talked to such a man in the last few weeks. When I asked him whether he had enough stamps, as we call it, to get his unemployment he nearly poked me out. He took it as an insult because he had never even thought of fishing in that context. He told me that if his pride allowed him to draw UI this year, it would be the first time he had ever bothered to do so.
Those people in Rose Blanche, Burnt Islands and Isle aux Morts are in dire circumstances. I see from your
signal, Madam Speaker, that my time is running out. There were other things I wanted to say but I understand I just have a minute left.
I would like to comment very quickly to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I greatly admire him in some respects but he puzzles me on this one. Why has he been so stubborn? Why has he obviously set out to punish those people in those communities I have mentioned? Why has he turned his back completely on the people in dire straits in those communities who, through no fault of their own, are hurting?
Those people went to St. John's as recently as a month ago. They met with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He made a commitment that he would have an interim solution to their problem by May 15.
May 15 has come and gone. I wrote the minister about this issue two weeks ago and I am still waiting for an answer. I know he is a busy person but these people are hurting. They need some answers. I think they have waited long enough for those answers.
Those are the human reasons we are not going to support this motion because to give this government another $48 billion without knowing whether a few shekels of it are going to be given to my fishermen and plant workers would be to betray those people.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans may betray them, but I would like him to assure me that he is not going to. I can tell him that I will not betray them. I invite him to join me in doing something worth while for those people while there is still some time.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Burin-St. George's. He talked a lot about the deep economic pain existing in his community and right across the country.
I am not sure if he mentioned the fact that the interest rates are at the lowest they have ever been in 20 years and inflation is practically non-existent. We on this side of the House in debate would not want to exclude some of the good things that are happening in this country right now.
However, I am having a difficult time in figuring out how we can rekindle the confidence in this country again.
I am feeling in my community in downtown Toronto a sense of no confidence. People with jobs seem to be lacking in confidence more than those without jobs. One
June 16, 1992

of the reasons this lack of confidence is there is that the banking institutions of this country are not really providing the necessary service to the small and medium sized businesses.
There are many reasons, but I would like to ask my colleague, who is an experienced member in this House, what steps does he think we should take in order to ignite the confidence in this country again? When that confidence is ignited it will lead to people taking risks again. That will ultimately lead to people creating more jobs. Could the member explain to the House some of things we should be doing to try to get this economy going again?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Broadview-Greenwood. He is right. He puts his finger right on the nub of the issue. The issue is one of confidence. People are despairing, even people who hold jobs are talking a much less optimistic line than one would expect. It can be demoralizing when travelling around this country.
The first challenge is one of inspiration. It is a challenge to send out to the people of Canada the message that there is some reason to hope. We do live in a great country. It is not the country that is at fault; it is the government. It is the government that has brought us to a point in time where all people can do is despair. Take the example I was on as my time ran out, of fishermen who through no fault of their own find themselves in very desperate straits. They cannot even get the time of day from the people in the administration they look to. We have a regional minister, a minister from Newfoundland, in the cabinet. He hardly gives them the time of day on this particular issue.
My friend the parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries takes exception. I understand he was unavoidably detained a moment ago when I was speaking but I invite him to read the transcript of what I said in the last five minutes. I am talking about a very particular incident.
I said that in general I have great admiration for his minister. But I said on the issue of the southwest coast he has turned his back on them. He has been given opportunities. He is making wild statements to people, including the press that he did not know they had a problem. I have been badgering him in this Chamber for a year, telling him about the problem. He has turned his
Supply
back. I use this as an example of why there is a crisis of
confidence.
What can be expected when all sectors of society are being pulverized. The fishermen, the plant workers on the southwest coast of Newfoundland, the industrial worker in southern Ontario, and the small businesses in border towns between the United States and Canada are lacking the signal that this government cares.
We are asked what needs to be done. The first thing that needs to be done is to restore some confidence, to re-establish a linkage with the people who put the government there in the first place.
There is the crux of the problem. If a government is only supported by 15 per cent or 17 per cent of the people, how can it reflect the wishes and aspirations of those people? I suppose without being too simplistic, I say the answer to the question of my friend from Broadview-Greenwood is to call an election.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to the comments from my colleague and I want to congratulate him.
I am sure that the electors of Burin-St. George's will be very proud of the profound statement he made today on behalf of his constituents who are suffering through these very difficult economic times.
Both he and I represent rural ridings. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit his riding, although I thank him for the invitation he has extended. I hope to take him up on it very shortly.
I can imagine just how difficult it must be.
In many communities in rural Canada some of the few federal government jobs that exist are with the post office. It pains me to see in so many communities in rural Canada that we have lost that institution, that the flag of Canada, which was in many instances the only flag in the community, has been removed and replaced with a pigeon wing, that the word Canada has been taken off the Canada Post mail box and replaced with the profound words "mail-poste".
I want to ask my colleague if his riding has been affected as mine has with such closures. How do his constituents feel about the loss of this national institution? I think only rural members can understand how profound it is in rural communities to see the loss of sometimes the only federal government building, the only federal presence in rural Canada that we have. I

June 16, 1992
Supply
want to ask him to share the experience of his constituents in that regard with all of us.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
There are two Canadas out there: the American Express gold card Canada and the Canada that buys its money orders at the post office.
That first Canada as represented by the cabinet over there-I am sure they all have gold cards-will not be found in Frangois, in Belleoram, in Point May, in North Harbour, in Cape St. George, in Grand-Le-Pierre, communities in my riding. Not many of them have a gold card. But until recently, they had the option of walking down the gravel road, along the shore to the post office to get their gold cards or their postal money orders to send money to Nellie who has gone to Alberta to get a job, to send money to Joe who is off in Dalhousie doing his degree, to send money to Mary who is taking a cooking course in St. John's, to make the car payment, or to make the payment on the motor for the boat.
They could do all those things, until members of the gold card clique connived their latest strategy. Thke away from Nellie's mother and Joe's father in that community their gold cards and their postal money orders. Shut down the post office. If they want their mail, they can go down with a key in orie hand and a blowtorch in the other and if they can get the mail box open in the dead of winter and the mail is not too soggy, they can retrieve it. But they must close the door fast because the snow might get in and tomorrow's mail will be wet.
Or, they may want money orders. They go over to the window in the dead of winter and blow on the glass making a hole in the frost so they can peep out. They have to watch for the car coming down the road from the community 40 miles away because the lady in that car is going to sell them the money order, if they have the right change and if they do not miss her when she goes by.


An hon. member:: Great system.


Roger Simmons: What a system. The gold carders of this country are unnecessarily pulverizing the money order people, and why? The champions of national unity are
pulverizing national unity by removing from those little communities the very symbols of national unity which keep this country together.
I ask them to get out of their drunken stupor. If they want to do something for national unity, they should just go back to basics and give those people in those communities some service. They have as much right to it as those living in Toronto or Montreal or those with a gold card.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Burin-St. George's. I particularly enjoyed his comments about postal service.
I did not enjoy them in the sense that I regret the conditions he was describing. I think he would want to agree with me and certainly other of his colleagues would want to agree with me that it is not just rural Canada that has had its post office service curtailed. The national symbol that the post office represents has been removed from other communities as well.
I have recently been involved in struggles with Canada Post over the closing of the traditional post offices in my riding, in Elmwood for instance which is part of my riding, and also the removal of services that existed in private outlets in longstanding businesses, for example, drugstores. Those services have been put in the 7-Elevens and other chains. It is not just in rural Canada that this is happening.
The member makes a good point and one which I have made before. That is, the government wants to talk about Canadian unity and holding Canada together. It is not a coincidence that we are having this problem when we have just come through a period of eight years where almost every national institution that we have as perceived by the people, not necessarily by the Conservatives, has been under attack.
Those include the privatization of Petro-Canada and Air Canada, the cutbacks to passenger rail service and VIA Rail, the downsizing of the CBC, the elimination of rural post offices and the reorganization of postal services in cities and suburbs. I am sure I could think of a few more things, but that is not what I got up on my feet to talk about.
June 16, 1992

The point is well made and Conservatives of all people should know it, real Conservatives that is to say; not this fraudulent bunch of 19th century capitalists we have over there. They should know the importance of institutions and the importance of maintaining institutions. But that insight has long since been buried somewhere in the republican mentality of the group over yonder.
We are talking about the estimates today and of course the estimates have to do with spending. I asked a question with respect to government spending and taxation revenue policy in the House on Friday, June 5. It was a question I had asked before and to which I keep getting a non-answer. It is like I am speaking a different language. It is the dialogue of the deaf. My leader has raised this question as well.
It has to do with the intention of the government to bring in legislation with respect to trusts on which we were protected from taxation in 1972 by the Liberals, by what is called the 21-year rule.
What happened is that in the Liberal tax reform of 1972 when the inheritance tax was removed and a partial tax on capital gains was introduced, the Liberals introduced a measure which had the effect of saying that these trusts would not be taxed until January 1, 1993. Now we all know how close January 1, 1993 is getting to be.
These are private trusts so one is able to say just exactly how much money is involved here. Estimates run as high as $70 billion, but certainly several billions of dollars are involved. Many of these trusts are the trusts of some of Canada's wealthiest families. We are not talking about ordinary Canadian families here.
This would be money, if it were to be taxed as it was intended to be taxed for the last 21 years, that could go toward the deficit, if the government were serious about fighting the deficit or if the government were serious about having everyone share equitably in deficit reduction.
We have asked this question repeatedly of the government: why is it bringing in draft legislation to further protect these trusts? We cannot even get the government to acknowledge the substance of our question.
I asked the minister of June 5 why he was bringing in this particular legislation. I mentioned the legislation by name. I described it so that there could not be any confusion as to what I was actually talking about. He
Supply
said: "Mr. Speaker, I know the position of the New Democratic Party has always been to tax Canadians into submission. What is important is that we have a competitive tax system". No mention of the question I actually asked, and certainly no answer.
The same thing happened in the next exchange between myself and the minister. Here we had the Minister of Finance of the government which was responsible for bringing in the GST, chastizing me as a New Democrat for wanting to tax people to death. The difference is: who is being taxed to death here?
The middle class is being taxed to death, yes, but not by the NDP. It is by this government that has brought in a form of tax reform over the last eight years which has seen the burden on the middle class go up and up and the burden on the very wealthy minority at the top of the tax structure actually reduced.
I was asking the minister if they are serious about equitable sharing of deficit reduction, allowing this 21-year rule to run out and tax that money in the trust. If some special consideration needs to be given to certain kinds of trusts that exist for disabled children or something like that, it could be done some other way. We do not have to do it in a way to hit a certain minority of these trusts that may have to do with disabled children. We are going to exempt them all.
There are ways to do it. It seems to me that a couple of very well placed calls from high places have been made to the Minister of Finance. He gets up and says: "We must not tax Canadians to death". We must not tax the Bronfmans to death. We must not tax the Reichmanns to death. We must not tax other wealthy Canadian families to death who no doubt have some part to play in some ownership of these trusts".
Why is there concern for this group and no equal show of concern for the many Canadians who are not only being taxed to death but do not have the money to be taxed to death with in the first place.
This is the sure sign, the government bringing in this legislation, that it is not serious about real tax reform, that is not tax reform as Canadians understand it. Thx reform as Canadians understand it is tax reform that is fair. It is tax reform that makes Canada's tax system more progressive, not less progressive, as has been the case with the Tory tax reform since 1984.

Supply
There are many other loopholes we have been asking them to close from the business and entertainment tax deductions to many others. We get the same answer all the time, that we have to be competitive. Even on that argument which I reject, even if we take the government at its own word for a while, there are other countries with which we compete that do not have as generous business and entertainment tax deductions. There are other countries with which we compete including the United States that have much more severe inheritance taxes.
It is not a question of having to do what others do. It is a question of some strange power that the corporate elite has over this particular government at this particular time.


Mr. Angus:: They own it.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: "They own it", says the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. I think he is right.


Mr. Harvey (Edmonton East):: They owned the previous Liberal government.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: As the hon. member for Edmonton East says: "They owned the previous Liberal government".
It is very strange. I am waiting for someone from the Liberal caucus one of these days to ask a question of the government as to why it is doing this and to urge it not to. Has there been a Liberal member who has stood up and urged the government not to bring in this particular measure?


Don Boudria: Yes. George Baker did this.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The member says that one Liberal member has done this. It was certainly not the official tax critic for their party. We await that question. I can understand the hon. member referred to that because he has a history of sticking up for the little guy and therefore being a minority within his own party. Has it been done officially on behalf of the Liberal Party? We await that with bated breath.
Going back just a minute to the business and entertainment tax deduction, we are always talking about there being a great deal of emphasis in right wing circles about making sure that ordinary Canadians do not rip off the system, that they do not get any UI that they do not especially deserve or qualify for or that people do not get any more welfare than they absolutely must get. All
these things are legitimate concerns. No one wants to see any system ripped off.
Why is there not the same concern about, as Neil Brooks, an expert from York University once said, the fact that there is more fraud going on at a Blue Jays game than there is anywhere else. There are all these season tickets that belong to corporations, the cost of which is being deducted as a business expense, when in fact they are simply tickets that are being given out to family and friends and have very little to do with any sort of business expense whatsoever.
Why is it that certain groups of people in this country can deduct those kinds of expenses when ordinary working folks cannot deduct the cost of the tools they have to buy or teachers cannot deduct certain things they have to purchase as a part of doing their job? There are many other examples of people who are doing a lot more than simply shuffling paper around making money through mergers and other trickery who cannot deduct these kinds of things. Yet a very small minority of people are able to make these enormous deductions related to buying season tickets at baseball games or hockey games or whatever. It is this kind of thing that frankly I wish Canadians would get more upset about.
People get upset if they hear there has been some welfare fraud or something like that. The phone starts to ring off the hook in the constituency office. I wish we could just get Canadians as excited about the way they are being ripped off from the top of the sociological ladder. It seems to me that those ways of ripping off the system deserve more attention and involve an incredible amount of money.
One other thing I would like to cover, because there is a supplementary estimate related to it, is the question of the money spent in this country on the nuclear option through the money the government spends on Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the Atomic Energy Control Board. I see a supplementary estimate here for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited of $177,605,000 and $37,934,000 having to do with the Atomic Energy Control Board.
Without getting into the larger debate about the appropriateness of nuclear energy as an energy option for Canada, which I reject and which I made obvious in my private member's bill that was debated and defeated in this House not so long ago, I wanted to say that we have a particular concern which I may raise in the House
June 16, 1992

later on in Question Period about reports this morning of a study done in New Brunswick on possible dangers that may exist at the Point Lepreau plant in New Brunswick. Apparently the Atomic Energy Control Board has issued warnings to New Brunswick Power which do not appear to have been taken seriously.
There has been concern about the Point Lepreau reactor going back some time. I can remember being in New Brunswick in 1987.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: It is the most efficient in the world.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Minister of Veterans Affairs who is from New Brunswick says it is the most efficient in the world.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: It is.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It may well be. That is not the point. We could have a perfectly efficient nuclear power plant that is efficient right up until the day it melts down.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The minister says something about Greenpeace. I know for some people, if we just say the word Greenpeace, immediately the eyes close and the ears seal up. It may well be that there is a real problem here. I do not think the minister should simply write it off the way he has. Neither should New Brunswick Power.
Certainly the AECB should not write it off because, if this report is true, it has issued these memorandums of concern to New Brunswick Power. Unless the minister maintains that AECB has been infiltrated by Greenpeace, which is not something I would not want to maintain at this particular point, then it would seem to me the minister, as someone from New Brunswick, ought to take these warnings seriously and at the very least inquire as to their validity.
I recently had the opportunity to visit Pinawa, the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment, and to meet with the union people there. I have met with management before in another context. One of the things that I would like to put on the record is that if today as a country we were to decide that we were no longer going to pursue nuclear energy as an energy option, it would not mean that the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment or Chalk River or any of these other places would shut down. There would continue to be important work that would have to be done related to everything nuclear
Supply
that we have done so far. It is not a question of if the NDP were to implement its policy, everyone who has anything to do with the nuclear industry would automatically be out of work, or something like that.
We will continue to have to find out what to do with all the high level and low level radioactive waste that we have accumulated so far. That is a problem we will have for generations. Even if we had made a decision against nuclear energy yesterday, we would continue to have to devise decommissioning technologies for the reactors that we already have. We would continue exploring other ways of applying nuclear technologies, in medicine and a variety of other ways that may be appropriate, although not all of them will be. For instance, food irradiation I would not be in favour of, but there may be other appropriate applications of nuclear technology.
There are all these things, not to mention what we may feel called upon to do as a country with respect to the existing nuclear plants in the rest of the world which, whether we like it or not, are there and in the absence of some other alternative may need to be made less dangerous than they are.
There would be no shortage of work for a Canada that is committed to making its expertise available to a world that, quite frankly, still lives at the edge of the nuclear abyss, only it is not a weapons abyss any more. It is a reactor abyss, when you consider how many Chemobyls there are out there. I am not talking about Canadian reactors here, I am talking about reactors that exist mostly in the former Soviet Union and in eastern Europe about which there is a great deal of concern, and appropriate concern.
It seems to me that Canada could make a contribution there, short of being able in the short term to develop alternative energy sources for these countries, in helping to make sure that these reactors do not become one Chernobyl after another.
There is a lot of work for the nuclear industry to do in this country. We do not need a minister going around trying to market reactors and firing people who are not good at marketing them. We need a minister who is willing to put Canadian expertise at the disposal of the world to ensure that we do not have the kind of

June 16, 1992
Supply
radioactive poisoning that we got out of the Chernobyl incident over and over and over again as these reactors in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, each one of them eventually, come to some unhappy end.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I was amazed at the evidence of new dinosaur-ism in the member's comments today, particularly when it deals with Atomic Energy of Canada and our nuclear expertise; known throughout the world, leaders in the world in science and medicine. He complains about food irradiation because he does not understand it. He says, my gosh, if you irradiate those potatoes so that they won't grow on the shelf and develop bugs in them and will be safe for people to consume, there is something terribly wrong about that because you have stopped the normal decay process.
That is new dinosaur activity from a new dinosaur party. Surely to goodness, when we have developed the safest and soundest reactor system in the world to produce electricity, where we have been in the forefront of nuclear medicine, where we have been in the forefront of learning how to preserve fruits and vegetables with irradiation, why should we abandon this because it is not within the understanding of the New Democratic Party, formerly the CCF which developed its philosophy in 1935.
The member comes from Winnipeg, a progressive city.
I am just amazed how he could all of a sudden pull in these horror stories and worry about a Chernobyl when he knows that our reactors are safe and he knows that our reactors are efficient, when he know our nuclear medicine plays a leadership role in the world, and complain about the program. He says: "Well, we can always keep the nuclear industry around just to clean up the messes of others". This is such drivel. I make that comment because it surprises me that the New Democratic Party is such a dinosaur party.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South has done it again. I do not know how many times I speak in this House and he comes in at a certain point, not having heard everything that I said, and attacks me for saying things that I did not say. I never
put down the medicinal dimension of nuclear technology. I complimented Canadian expertise and said it ought to be put at the disposal of the world.
The member says that there is something wrong with our party because we devised our philosophy in 1935. It was actually 1932 and 1933. However, he makes no apology for the fact that his party quotes Adam Smith who formed his policies in the 1700s. If we just want to talk chronologically, it is not very debatable about who is more up to date. The fact is that neither Adam Smith nor anything said in 1932 or 1933 are applicable to today's situation. It is a question of trying to figure out what is applicable to today's situation.
I was simply making the argument that jobs in the nuclear industry do not depend on us pursuing a nuclear energy option. There are jobs in the nuclear industry in this country that would continue and would continue to be important even if we made that choice and we would still have an international role to play.
The member is not really interested in genuine debate. He wants to get up and caricature what I had to say. What I do find interesting, and this relates to what I said earlier in my speech, is that he did not get up and say anything about the trust tax exemption.


Some hon. members:: Yes, that's right.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You cannot even get them to acknowledge that this is happening. You get up and ask a question about apples and they get up and throw oranges back at you. Why does the member not address that particular issue? He will not because it is embarrassing. It embarrasses all of them, what we over here call the Upper Canada clause. It embarrasses them that they are such toadies for the corporate elite in this country that they would do something that is so absolutely contrary to all their rhetoric about deficit reduction.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A quick supplementary, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the member could tell me the bill that is going to abolish this great tax loophole that is before the House. Maybe he could tell me what the bill is so I can refer to it and read it. I am as interested as he is in the bill that we are going to have to vote on to abolish these tax loopholes.
June 16, 1992


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the draft regulation number is 91-018.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I listened attentively, particularly to the last remarks. I am a little puzzled by this so-called Upper Canada clause that the member referred to.
As a member of Parliament from so-called Upper Canada, as a matter of fact the community where Upper Canada was founded, namely Glengarry where the United Empire Loyalists arrived after 1776,1 am a little curious as to what is meant by this clause.
I represent, of course, those people with great pride. I consider it the birthplace of our province, as it is in my opinion. Obviously you know, Madam Speaker, that Simon Fraser, Alexander Mackenzie and Sir John Johnson came with those people to Williamstown in Glengarry' shortly after the War of Independence in the United States and after they were chased out of that country, so many of them with just the shirts on their back, and came to found the province of Upper Canada in this land of trees, of the great pine forests of eastern Ontario.
I am a little curious as to what the comments of the member mean. Perhaps he could clarify them for the benefit of my constituents.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I would be more than pleased to clarify. I left out a word. I should have said the Upper Canada College clause.
I certainly withdraw any unintended implications that might exist for the entirety of Upper Canada, an area which includes a lot of people who never make it to Upper Canada College, including the hon. member. A very small minority go to Upper Canada College and actually develop a social conscience. They make it into the NDP, but the rest of them go on to bleed the country to death in a variety of ways.
I just want to say to the hon. member for Mississauga South that he should check the finance department press release. I called it a regulation but I was mistaken. It is number 91-018 in which the finance department on February 11 announced its intention to bring in the legislation I am talking about.
Supply
I would think a former chairman of the finance committee would be able to do that, and substantiate what I had to say today. In fact, he knew about it all along. He is just playing ignorant.


Mr. Hogue:: Madam Speaker, today I would like to repeat an important announcement made yesterday-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows that we are still in the period for questions and comments. Are there any more questions or comments?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, on a point of order I apologize for rising at this time but I arrived in the House one hour late exactly to table a NATO report. I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the members here to table it at this time.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If we are to seek unanimous consent, we should know what we are consenting to.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Madam Speaker, it is the 13th report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association presented in both official languages.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle for concurrence (p. 12117).
[Stage Direction]
June 16, 1992
Supply
Jean-Pierre Hogue: Madam Speaker, today I would like to repeat an important announcement that our government made yesterday on the future of the greater Montreal area.
To begin, I think it is appropriate to recall that our government has always kept up with the situation in Montreal in recent years and has always taken the required action so that Montreal and its people can regain their prosperity.
As you know, the past 10 years or so have been difficult for Montreal. However, we can now say that better days have arrived. The metropolis of Quebec has defined its vocation and is now at work achieving its objectives. Montreal is further strengthening its position and its economy is now undergoing a most interesting transformation.
That is why it is important to support this renewal in every possible way, in order to provide the greatest benefit to the whole Montreal community.
With this purpose in mind, the hon. minister responsible for regional development in Quebec announced yesterday that our government would give $150 million more to promote Montreal's economic development.
I would like to state right away that these funds are in addition to the large amounts that the Canadian government is already investing in the Montreal region in projects affecting all areas of Montreal's economy.
The $150 million announced yesterday will be used mainly to help carry out projects in the most promising sectors for the city's development, especially the seven areas of development recognized by our government as most likely to make Montreal prosperous.
I would also like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that our government has long been interested in Montreal's development.
In 1985, the government created the Ministerial Committee on the Development of the Montreal Region, supported by an advisory board from the private sector. In 1986, it proposed policies and initiatives to develop the region.
In the wake of the recommendations of this advisory board, our government in 1987 adopted a strategy highlighting Montreal's assets and emphasizing seven areas of development: international activities, high technology, finance and international trade, design, cultural industries, tourism and transportation.
Since 1987, the Government of Canada, together with its partners, has invested considerably in strategic planning for the industrial and cultural sectors of Montreal and its surrounding area. For example, let me remind you that the government helped establish the Canadian Space Agency, create the technological initiative centre, expand the Museum of Fine Arts, develop the Old Port and carry out many other projects that I will not mention now.
This kind of achievement, together with those of the other levels of government and of course the private sector, help define Montreal's true vocation and strengthen its competitiveness on international markets.
As you know, today more than ever, the Montreal area has resources and assets to realize its true calling as an international industrial and technological centre.
This $150 million will be invested with Montreal's partners in the sectors targeted for development. These new resources will help pursue the efforts in support of the strategy the federal government has been following since 1987 and support initiatives to innovate and consolidate strategic infrastructure.
The fund will make it possible to act in a complementary and/or joint fashion with the Government of Quebec and the Innovatech Corporation of Greater Montreal, which the Quebec government set up a few weeks ago. It will also help establish partnerships with private enterprise, corporations and groups that promote Montreal's economic development in order to launch projects, conduct analyses and equip Montreal with key facilities or infrastructure.
I would not like to conclude without saying that Montreal's development and prosperity require the concerted action of governments, educational institutions, municipalities and the private sector. We must all work together and keep working harder to meet this challenge.
Of course, the investment of $150 million more is part of this spirit of co-operation and partnership. But even more, this decision shows the Canadian government's firm intention to give all the players on the Montreal scene the resources they need to make the recovery of Quebec's metropolis the best possible.
June 16, 1992


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about the government's estimates because an important part of parliamentary life is reviewing the government's spending estimates. Having them in committee has some advantages because it gives members an opportunity to go into quite a bit more detail.
I think we lost something by the move back in 1969 to have the estimates removed from the House so this is a good opportunity today for members to talk about the government's spending estimates.
I want to talk about agriculture and the situation which faces Canadian farmers today. 1990 and 1991 were perhaps the most difficult years for the grain and oilseed industry because of two factors; the government made drastic reductions in their payments and at the same time the world price for grains was dropping dramatically from something like $137 a tonne for grain and wheat to $95 a tonne.
The government at that time was involved in negotiations for the establishment of the Gross Revenue Insurance Program and the Net Income Stabilization Account. Farmers at the same time were being really stiffed or stonewalled as to financial support at a time when world prices were dropping through the floor. In fact, they were the lowest last fall that we have seen since the Great Depression. Prices were as low as $2 a bushel when you removed the handling charges and so on.
The government steadfastly throughout that period dropped the government support programs drastically. The kinds of rallies we saw across Canada last fall have not been seen in the country in recent times. I had an opportunity to attend a rally in Weybum, Saskatchewan which was attended by some 3,000 people. I also had an opportunity to attend a rally in Regina where some 7,500 farmers were pleading with the government to provide assistance.
Ultimately the government did provide something, about two-thirds of the funds that farmers were short-failed in 1990 after a wild and woolly scene last fall in which farmers pleaded with the government to come
Supply
through with some financial assistance. At the end of the day it provided something like two-thirds of the amount the farmers had been cut back in the 1990-91 crop year.
The government does a masterful job of orchestrating things to appear as if it is the great saviour of Canadian agriculture. When the estimates came out this spring the government announced that they were up some $800 million or $900 million. In fact, those estimates were just reflecting the funds the government had shortfalled the farmers two years previously.
We tried to go into the details of what was actually being provided in the agriculture committee when the estimates were there. The minister was there with his whole panoply of 15 or 20 experts and specialists, but nobody could actually explain where the extra funds were.
We got out the Part III Estimates and it showed that the additional funding for this calendar year 1992-93 was barely up, when the Wheat Board deficit of 1990-91 was added in, by some $500 million or $600 million, even though the press release and so on showed quite an increase for this year.
The government is really masterful at smoke and mirrors and it is also a master at trying to orchestrate funds to come just the year before an election or during an election year.
It is very interesting to look at the government's own farm income financial conditions and expenditures. Since 1986 farmers have been through the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. However, government support programs only increased dramatically in 1987-88. Surprise, surprise, there was a general election in 1988.
At that time the financial support from the federal government was $2.6 billion across western Canada because it is the grain and oilseeds sector, which of course operates in other provinces, where there has been a great deal of havoc.
Then in 1990, with no chance for a federal election, support dropped by 50 per cent from $2.6 billion to $1.2 billion. The same thing happened in 1991. Those were the years when the world price of grain was dropping from $135 a tonne to $95 a tonne, yet the government was just totally stonewalling Canadian farmers. They did not do much better in 1991.

June 16, 1992
Supply
Finally, after mass rallies right across the country, the government came through with some funding but none of that was paid in the 1991 calendar year. In fact, most of it will be paid in 1992. That is where we get the higher payments in the Main Estimates this year.
Even with all the minister's specialists and bean counters, they still were not able to explain to the agriculture committee who was actually provided with this additional assistance or when it was going to be provided.
The government will say that things are going to be much better now it has the Gross Revenue Insurance Program in place. This program is designed to provide producers with a guaranteed gross revenue from a certain area of land; so much per acre.
There are a great many flaws in that system. The trigger mechanism is not as sure as it should be and the government has already made some adjustments. The neutrality of the system with regard to markets, production, and international obligations through GATT are very much in question.
The important thing is that the government has gone through a massive off-loading program where it has loaded much of the cost of these programs on to the provinces and producers. For instance, let us look at those massive payments the government made in 1987 and 1988. This was leading up to the 1988 general election when the government wanted to look good and essentially it was on the buying end of activity.
If we look at those years, 1987-88, the total program payments in Canada were some $2.8 billion or $2.6 billion in 1988. During those years the producers' contribution was some $250 million in 1987 and $313 million in 1988; most of that would be their crop insurance premiums.
Let us look over the estimated payments for 1993. This will be the first year there are no additional payments under some of the programs that were announced last year. We see that the program payments in the entire country are estimated to be $1.6 billion with the federal government making contributions of $900 million and the province making payments of $732 million. The producers' contributions are double what they were in 1988 and 1987 and are as high as $650 million. What we have seen here is a tremendous off-loading and the
sharp reduction in benefits from what they were in 1987 and 1988.
The government is putting in place a system that will be mainly funded by provincial governments and by farmers. In fact the benefits coming out of the system will be pretty well covered, at the least in the calculations of the department, by payments made by the provincial governments and by the producers themselves.
Some farmers may think that they have put in place a program that is going to have massive payments and guarantees, but if we look at the government's own estimates they do not look very tremendous. In fact, even with this program in place in western Canada the realized farm income in the government's own projections for 1993 dropped back below what they were in 1986. They are lower by another 11 per cent in 1994, and lower again in 1995, 1996 and 1997.
This is a government that is projecting extremely low realized net farm income in those years ahead in spite of having put in place a program that is going to cost producers and provincial governments hundreds of millions of dollars, resulting from an off-loading of these responsibilities.
For some provinces, like Saskatchewan, in which a very high proportion of their income comes from agriculture and there is a relatively low population and massive debt, those payments by the province are going to be extremely onerous.
While this scenario has been going on during the past year, with the government off-loading its responsibility on to provincial governments and producers and causing perhaps the greatest uncertainty in the history of western Canada, at the same time we have had that going on in the grains and oilseeds sector there has been the greatest uncertainty in our history going on in the supply managed sector.
This came to a final, calamitous rally on Parliament Hill on February 21 at which there were some 30,000 to
40,000	producers from all over the country-from Prince Edward Island to British Columbia, to Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, every province-who were concerned that they were going to be sold out in the GATT negotiations.
June 16, 1992

When the interim report came out from the Secretary General of GATT on December 13 recommending a tariffication program, which is very much in line with the government's recommendations on every other commodity except for supply management, the Tory caucus started to sell that idea. It did not get very far.
Within the matter of a month it had turned tail and the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office were having second thoughts about it. The political egos were figuring out what the new strategy should be. The new strategy was that it was going to oppose tariffication even though it initially agreed to it. The Prime Minister's Office is orchestrating meetings and sending groups off to Europe to make representations even though many producers and many Canadians believe it did not really struggle that hard in the negotiations that have been going forward.
Farmers do not trust the Tories because of the free trade deal with the United States. In that deal, back in 1985, 1986 and 1987, people like the then Minister of Agriculture were telling the House of Commons to have no fear about the supply management system, which is a system that provides producers with a reasonable return on their investment, their capital investment, their labour and their know-how. The Minister of Agriculture and the then minister of external affairs at that time said not to fear because they had put together a deal ensuring that the supply management system could continue.
The Minister of Agriculture told the Canadian dairy producers in January 1988 that he was going to put all the supply management items on the import control list. That was about a week after the government had initialled the original deal.
As soon as he said that the chairman of the finance committee of the United States Senate, Lloyd Bentsen, immediately challenged it. He said if those items were put on the import control list the Americans would take it to GATT and ensure that it did not happen.
In fact the government did put them on the import control list in late December 1988 after the general election and after the government had hammered through the FTA deal, despite the fact that 57 per cent of Canadians opposed it in that election. It felt that the
Supply
support of 43 per cent of Canadians was adequate to hammer it through.
When it put those items on the import control list the United States took us to GATT and said that Canada's action was not part of the free trade deal and it did not meet Canada's GATT obligations. In November 1989 it succeeded, and ultimately the government capitulated in December of that year. In that case-which involved processed dairy products, ice cream, and yogurt, which is a processed dairy product-the Government of the United States had an excellent demonstration of its ability to export processed dairy products into Canada.
Processed dairy products represent some 63 per cent of our dairy production in this country.
At the same time the United States kept its own GATT waiver, which it got in 1954-55 in negotiations. This government was going into those GATT negotiations that have been going on for the last several years with one arm tied behind its back. It has already lost to the United States. If GATT comes to naught the United States will have access for ice cream and yogurt, and ultimately for other processed dairy and poultry products.
It is little wonder that some 40,000 Canadian farmers in the supply management sector rallied on the Hill to show the government that they do not trust it and they want it to fight for them in GATT.
We hope that they will continue to keep that pressure on the government because it is the only thing that is going to make it fight for farmers in those international negotiations.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and seat-mate on his speech today, particularly as it related to his own portfolio in the opposition as agriculture critic.
I would like to ask a question about the Tbry government and its actual polity toward farmers in Canada, which we have seen since the free trade agreement. Farmers were left hanging to go it on their own. We saw that as it related to the yogurt and ice cream decision, and now we are seeing it in the GATT, in terms of the supply management sector.

June 16, 1992
Supply
I would expect that under the NAFTA farmers in Canada will again be left to go it alone. This government seems to have a great propensity to say to groups that have been very healthy and very much a part of our communities: "You can do it on your own. From here on in we are not going to support you. You are dispensable under these agreements".
I would like to know whether he thinks the government has done enough research and development in terms of trying to find alternatives for our farmers who have been sacrificed in these areas. There are abandoned farms in Annapolis County, an area that used to be a very thriving agricultural community. The farms are either not used or have a very limited use for the fanners who are left, namely dairy. They are slowly closing or selling their quota because of policies that have been put forward by both the provincial and federal governments.
If we as Canadians are abandoning farms and our communities, the farmers, the people and all the spinoffs that we have had across Canada, this government should come clean to the farmers and say: "We have to find other jobs for you", rather than letting them close one farm this week, another farm another week, and allow the slow dying of the rural farmers.
I have not seen research and development from this government to instil a new drive or a new desire for farms to be active or continue. I have not seen any offsets to the free trade agreement or to what is coming under NAFTA. We cannot compete with the cheap labour. Although we have low interest rates and a comparably low inflation rate, none of our farming communities seem to be able to come up with new programs in response to these three particular areas, the FTA, GATT and the proposed NAFTA.
Has the government failed this community? Has the government not done research and development? I do not feel that the government has done enough to support the small farmers in rural Canada who have been so much a part of the vitality of Canada.
What does the critic for the Liberal Party think that this government should be doing to offset the free trade agreement, the potential disastrous effect on supply management under GATT, and, even worse, the NAFTA, which would eliminate most of the rural farming communities that are still existing?


Maurice Brydon Foster: I want to thank the member for South West Nova because she has outlined the malaise and concern that exists in the country as a result of the government's failure in the FTA.
When it left this gaping hole in the FTA, which the Americans immediately seized on and made use of, it was obvious that the government had no intention of maintaining supply management as we know it. I believe supply management has given us greater diversity in agriculture than any other single act. I believe, for instance in Atlantic Canada and the maritimes, it is probably the most important economic diversification tool.
I recall attending a meeting with co-operatives and agricultural producers during the free trade debate in New Brunswick. People were saying: "Look, if you want to see what free trade will do for Atlantic Canada and for the maritimes, go over and see what agriculture is like in Maine where most of its dairy and poultry industries are non-functional". It has had free trade for the last 50 years.
The free trade deal has to be renegotiated. The vast majority of Canadians want to see it renegotiated. We need a subsidy code. Our pork and hog industry is being ravaged because under our tripartite stabilization program we end up with a massive countervail which goes on year after year. Clearly the FTA has been extremely harmful, but nothing like it could be or will be if the GATT negotiations go the way that we are afraid they will.
If the GATT fails, the Americans have total access or will have pretty well complete access to ice cream and yogurt. They have already won that in a GATT panel decision. It will simply open the floodgates for challenges on cheese, butter, powder and other dairy commodities.
Nobody knows exactly, but we hear that the FTA will be a separate negotiation. There are press reports this morning that there is some kind of an agreement. Our concern under the free trade deal was that the snap-back provision we had for fresh fruits and vegetables, especially those coming in during the growing season of June and July, was simply not adequate. That snap-back provision is simply not a functional mechanism. That is the kind of thing that has to be renegotiated, and 67 per cent of Canadians favour renegotiation.
June 16, 1992

Diversification and research and development application are very important. I noticed this year for instance that the agricultural research and development application budget has been cut by 4 per cent. If we have an inflation rate of another 4 per cent, we have got a 9 per cent effective cut in R and D. The economic competitiveness council called on the government one week before the budget came out to increase the capital cost allowance for the food processing industry, to double it from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. What did the government do? It increased it by 5 per cent, which is about the inflation rate.
We need the diversification that supply management has brought us. We had a resolution by one of our caucus members yesterday about ethanol, the member for Lambton-Middlesex. It really called on the government, but what did we get? We had Tory members from southwestern Ontario standing and saying they were the representatives of the Ethyl Corporation. I thought members of Parliament represented people, farmers. He said: "No, no. I am the representative for the Ethyl Corporation so I do not want to see ethanol opened up and used". It is one of the greatest diversification tools. It is a good environmental improvement. Yet we had Tory members saying they were going to oppose mechanisms for increasing the use of ethanol for our transportation fuels.
There certainly is a lot to be done. The estimates before us today cut R and D, which is not helpful to Canadian farmers. It is not helpful to rural Canadian agriculture.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to request on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board supply for the 1992-93 Main Estimates.
These Main Estimates reflect our continuing commitment to eliminate waste and inefficiency, control spending and contain the costs of government, the need for significant changes in the way government operates, and our commitment to deliver services to Canadians in the most efficient manner.
This year the Main Estimates total $160.5 billion. Through these estimates the government seeks Parliament's approval for $48 billion in new spending authority of which some $13 billion of interim supply was granted
Supply
earlier through Appropriation Act No. 1, 1992-93. The remaining $111.7 billion represent statutory payments that have already been granted previously with parliamentary approval.
Growth in the Main Estimates is the outcome of a number of decisions and factors affecting the budgets of all 135 programs delivered by the 116 departments, agencies and Crown corporations that appear in the estimates. This growth can be divided into two broad categories: adjustments to statutory items which amount to a net increase of $1.3 billion and changes to voted items which amount of $1.7 billion.
These Main Estimates fully reflect the government's continuing attempts to eliminate waste and inefficiency. This includes divesting itself of activities and organizations that no longer serve a vital public need in order to reduce costs and strike a proper balance between Canadians' demands for federal services and their ability as taxpayers to pay for those services.
In this regard much has been achieved over the past seven years. Program spending now represents only 16.7 per cent of Canada's Gross National Product as compared to 20 per cent in fiscal year 1984-85. During the same period the annual growth in program spending including Public Service salaries has averaged only 4 per cent as compared to an average inflation rate of 4.3 per cent.
In the 1991 budget a commitment was made to introduce legislation that would limit spending for the next five years. The Spending Control Act has been approved by this House and the spending plans outlined in the Main Estimates are well within the limits set out in that legislation.
These achievements clearly demonstrate the government's commitment to restraint and improved efficiency through the rigorous control of expenditures as well as the implementation of innovative management practices. They also reflect our commitment to good management and careful stewardship of the taxpayer's dollar.
The government's record since taking office in 1984 has been one of success. We are confident we are on the right track. Canadians have indicated that they want governments to spend less, to spend smarter and to be more efficient. To this end the government continues to scrutinize carefully resource requests by federal government agencies.

June 16, 1992
Supply
My colleague, the Minister of Finance in his latest budget, announced a series of initiatives intended to bring about immediate reductions in expenditures and contribute to lasting efficiencies in government programs and services.
First, a number of programs including grants and contributions is being reduced. Defence spending is being scaled back further. Expenditures on social housing will continue to grow but the rate of increase will be slower.
This government remains committed to the green plan and plans to spend $3 billion over the next six years. However some expenditures have been rescheduled for later years.
Second, the cost of government operations, that is the non-salary operating budgets, is being reduced a further 3 per cent. An additional $75 million in communications related expenditures is to be removed from the appropriations.
In addition to the expenditure reduction and reprofiling announced in the budget and in addition to the more than 20 Crown corporations that have been sold or dissolved since 1984, 46 separate organizations and advisory bodies will be wound up, privatized or consolidated with other organizations.
Cost recovery will also be extended to a number of additional areas with a view to moving the costs of providing specific services to the beneficiaries and away from the general taxpayer.
In today's difficult fiscal environment there are not enough tax dollars to meet all the financial demands of government programs. Cost recovery ensures that the best use is made of scarce resources. Through user fees and cost recovery the government is providing and improving services we might not otherwise be able to afford in order to ensure that the best use is made of scarce resources.
Ongoing restraints mean that the Public Service managers and organizations have to deal with increased demands for services on the one hand and ever decreasing resources on the other hand. The managers have to seek the balance in a creative, sensitive and constructive manner.
We also believe that an innovative, competent and dedicated Public Service is the key asset in supporting Canada's ability to compete. Dedicated and competent federal employees working across the country and in
missions abroad are working to serve Canadians in many areas such as health and safety, protection of consumer interests, support of industry regions, aboriginal people, science and technology, foreign aid, representing and protection of interests abroad, protection of persons and property, protection of taxpayers through effective and fair administration of the Income Thx Act and the Customs and Excise Acts, and delivery of social programs.
The government as the employer wishes to inform Canadians that its employees are doing many things to serve them better and to bring the government closer to them. To improve efficiency in the Public Service, innovation management practices remain a priority for this government.
Since taking office in 1984 we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to improve the management of operations. Many of the recent initiatives are the result of the major renewal exercise PS 2000 announced by the Prime Minister in 1989.
In support of this initiative a number of special operating agencies have been or are in the process of being established. Managers of special operating agencies have been given the ability and the flexibility to run their organizations more like a business with greater focus on results and service. This gives them greater freedom of action to serve Canadian taxpayers better and to respond quickly to changes in client needs.
Also, in the context of PS 2000, a system of operating budgets is currently being introduced which will be used to provide a far more realistic measure of the administrative costs of delivering programs and services. It too will give managers more flexibility to decide what is the most efficient distribution of their allocated resources.
Operating budgets will also allow managers to make the most economical use of scarce tax dollars in order to deliver services better and on a more timely basis. Operating budgets are expected to be in place government-wide by the beginning of 1993-94.
In conclusion, this government is committed to providing Canadians with the best service possible within the resources available. It is committed to a Public Service where employees focus first on the public they serve. To this end we must make it easier for our clients to deal with the government by providing simple and accessible services and we must make it easier for our managers to move in this direction.
June 16, 1992

We will do this by continuing to restructure government operations and provide training to our employees. To achieve these goals, federal government organizations will work together to make government services available at common points of delivery service. They will develop, where possible, standards of service based on consultation with clients. They provide more flexible and client oriented hours of service. They will reduce the number of forms to make them easier to complete. They will move to electronic procurement and invest in new technologies and training.
The message is clear. This government is serious about restraint. It is responding to the desire of Canadians that we reduce spending wherever possible. We are serious about reform and the need for new organizational approaches with which to operate the government in a manner that suits the needs of Canadians.
The measures that have been announced in the budget and reflected in these Main Estimates clearly indicate our commitment to sound fiscal management and to reduce the demands on the Canadian taxpayers.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the speech of the hon. member for Burlington.
I know that he is very interested in science and technology, industrial diversification and the whole area of science and industrial design and so on. He talked about the government doing a slashing job on groups like the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada. I know the government is saving some $22 million with the wholesale destruction of those agencies.
In view of the member's interest in long term science policy and economic policy, I am wondering whether the government's move to slash all those agencies is out of concern or because of the politics of it, especially in western Canada and in other parts of the country with the Reform Party, and spending all of that money which I believe was $22 million on the 'feel good agenda' where we are trying to make people be happy and be satisfied and so on.
Supply
Does he feel that is a good trade-off. Should the Government of Canada be destroying long term agencies like the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada? Politicians by their very nature, with a mandate of only for four or five years, have to look at the short term. The Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada can take a broader view, perhaps a 10 year, 15 year or 20 year horizon as to what needs to be done in terms of retraining, education, science, specialities, direction, innovations or design that is good.
I am interested to know whether the hon. member feels that it is in the best interests of the country to slash agencies like the Science Council of Canada and the Economic Council of Canada, to cut off that opportunity for a window on the wider world and, more important, on the horizon of those special areas of education, university and design and new perspectives on where we need to be going as a country for our industries.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, the member poses an interesting question because the government has closed the two agencies to which he referred.
The question is: Is the information they supplied available from other sources? We are constantly being pushed by the academic world, in particular the universities, to help them in their research and development programs. The Minister of Industry, Science and Technology has introduced and put in operations centres of excellence in our universities across the country.
We find that we can get much of the information that we want, much of the research that we want through those universities. Thke the drug program that we introduced through the extension of the Patent Act under Bill C-22. Most of that research and many of the companies involved in it came to Canada because they felt that we have a good university program where they could tap into and get much of the research done for the new drugs and processes that they were putting forward in biotechnology and so forth to help our medical services across the country. It is the same with our industrial research. The member I know is aware of the disastrous programs that were introduced by previous governments in research and development that cost us billions of dollars in the final analysis, fraudulent schemes that

June 16, 1992
Supply
were put in place. I am not blaming the government for it. I am just blaming the way it was administered. There were fraudulent schemes that were put in place and exercised by many companies which came into the country, got research and development grants from the government and then disappeared out of the country again. There was no control over them. We have had a bad history in that regard.
I think what we have done is the right thing. The services that are available to us from our university communities are good. What we are doing with industry in research and development will continue to sustain our industry in the future. Certainly, in many of our industries we are leaders in the field and we will continue to be that way in the future.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, as I have just returned from the earth summit in Rio, my questions for the parliamentary secretary will focus on the issues that flow out of that experience.
In Rio the government reaffirmed its commitment to give .7 per cent of GNP for foreign aid. Regrettably there was no timetable attached to that commitment. Over the last five years that commitment has in real terms actually decreased.
My first question is whether or not this is more than just nice words and no action, the usual strategy of this government, or whether there are some real dollar figures that are planned from Treasury Board.
My second question also concerns my experience in Rio. I was horrified to come back to Canada and hear that there was a proposal to spend $4.3 billion on military helicopters. When one considers the kind of priorities there are, there has to be a fundamental rethinking about what is valued and what environmental security means. I would ask the parliamentary secretary whether or not there is some concern in cabinet for what environmental security is and what is going to happen with that planned expenditure.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister of Canada made a commitment that he was going to propose to cabinet and to put through in government
spending a certain amount of money for foreign aid, it will be done. There is no doubt about that in my mind.
With regard to the helicopter acquisition, it has not come to cabinet yet. It is still being considered. The newspapers got hold of a story and they played it pretty well. Members, like the member who asked the question, have played on it.
The matter has not come before cabinet. It will be coming before cabinet. Much of that will be used for search and rescue. The condition of the 35-year-old helicopters that we have and the number of accidents they have had certainly indicate to me, at any rate, that these helicopters have to be replaced.
I would just say that the first time there is a need for search and rescue helicopters on either the west coast or the east coast and we do not have helicopters that are capable of going out and getting into that rescue operation, the hon. member will be on her feet, as will others, saying why are we not doing something about it.
We have equipment. Equipment wears out. These are 35 years old. There is talk of revitalizing them, putting new engines in them and so forth, but I do not know if that is such a good idea. We are going to have to replace those. Part of the replacement will come from the program that the government is going to be looking at in the very near future.


Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, I have a very short question. Having seen the budget, there were many reductions. My colleague has talked about the different councils: the Economic Council, the Science Council, and the Law Reform Commission which in my opinion were worth-while. The hon. member said there were other places they could go for that expertise.
Has the parliamentary secretary seen any studies that might have recommended that the ministers' offices should be cut back?
I cannot see most of them being very cost-effective because they now have a chief of staff who is paid almost at the level of a deputy minister. It seems to me this cost is an ineffective use of Parliament.
June 16, 1992

I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary would like to comment on that because I think there are an excessive number of ministries. Possibly some of them could be cut out altogether or doubled up.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, ministerial staff is the prerogative of the minister.
I can recall when I was in opposition one of the members of her party who sits in the front row had an exempt staff of over 125 people. I have never seen a parallel of that in our government. People on ministerial staff can be shuffled into various areas.


Coline M. Campbell: Name it.


William James Kempling: I am not going to name it. The hon. member knows better than to ask that question.
The shuffling of staff from one side to the other goes on quite a little bit. If the ministers need the staff to carry out the programs they are engaged in then they should have the staff to do so.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, there is a motion before this House that asks us to concur in the Main Estimates of the spending of the Government of Canada through to the end of the year, March 31, 1993.
As we look at these estimates we can talk about all that things that are happening and are not happening in the country. We can talk about financial matters and those other matters that concern the country very deeply.
There are certainly many problems that face this country today that are of a very serious nature. However, that is no reason for anyone in the House or any Canadian to go around being deeply concerned about how we are going to handle it, whether we are going to handle it, and what is going to happen to the future of our country.
If we have the determination and the insight, if we have learned something from past history in this country and from the past leaders of this country, from the people in the past who put this nation together over the years, then we will look at the past to get an answer to the present. If we have any vision in this country, any vision in ourselves, we will be able to look to the future and put it together.
I do not fear that Canadians today cannot meet the challenges that are facing us right now. However it is
Supply
going to take leadership in this country and it is going to take serious dedication on the part of every member of Parliament, every senator, and every Canadian from coast to coast to coast in this country.
I want to go on the premise of our forefathers, of the sound foundation that has been built in this country over the years by people who had faith in themselves, faith in their country, faith in their fellow human beings, their comrades, and faith in God.
God has given us a great gift. It is called Canada. How we as generations of Canadians manage this Canada of ours is our gift to God, and I suggest that we not let our Maker down.
One thing that is bothering me greatly, as we have this last day for the study of the estimates for this fiscal year, is that the federal government is unloading its burdens on to other levels of government in this country, namely the provinces, the municipalities and right through to the very doorsteps of every individual taxpaying Canadian.
The estimates for this fiscal year are $160.5 billion. A new financial structure is going to be needed in this country and it is going to be needed now because the financial structure is all out of whack as a result of the niggling process of trying to pass the buck to somebody else.
With all my heart and every inch of my sincerity I maintain that the buck stops right here in the House of Commons of Canada. This is where the leadership has got to come from if we are going to manage this nation well.
Yes, we have a farm crisis in this country. It has been very well outlined by the hon. member for Algoma, who has an in-depth knowledge of the farm community and its difficulties in this country.
Supply management programs must be protected at all costs and they can only be protected if each and every one of us is determined to protect the farm community in this country. I grew up on a farm in this country. I have done all the chores that anyone could think of. I milked my two cows before I walked six and a half miles to high school because there were no school buses. I came home after school, got on the tractor, went out to the fields, drove the team of horses, milked the cows and tried to do my homework in the interim. It never hurt me and I recommend it to everybody.

June 16, 1992
Supply
There is nothing wrong with this nation today that a good dose of national spirit, personal determination, and the ability of every one of us to pull our weight would not fix. This country needs dedication. We have this great nation, this great gift that God has given us, called Canada. Let us manage it by working for it and not be afraid and back away from things in case we are going to fail.
We can never be afraid of failure because that is the first step to failure.
We must protect our farm system today because this country has been blessed with some of the greatest health standards in food anywhere in the world. I congratulate our Department of Agriculture and its officials for that, and the leaders of the past who put these programs together. Our health standards are excellent.
We need security of food in this country because any nation that cannot feed itself is in danger. That is a terrible failure. Over the beautiful farm lands and open fields of this country waves that great Canadian flag day in and day out, as it does over the small villages, towns and cities of this country. Let us get up in the morning and say how grateful we are to be Canadians. Let us go out and deliver the message to our neighbours and friends and inspire them to go on and build Canada, this Canada that cares greatly for her own people.
We have health care in this country that is unparalleled. If there is anything that we must do, if we think anything about our friends and neighbours at all, it must be to ensure that this is retained in the social structure of this country. I am sure every Canadian wants to see that done, but it requires determination and good management.
In my years in this House I have made some tremendous friends on both sides of this Chamber, and I have some good friends on both sides of this Chamber today. I appeal to everybody, at this moment and as they get up each morning, to say that we, the citizens of Canada, have the greatest opportunity to do things not only for ourselves in this country and not only to feel for those people who are unemployed and those people who do not have good health but we must have a heart and we must have a heart for them. National Revenue must
have a heart for those people who are suffering and cannot pay their taxes because they had to feed their kids first. They have a wife and family to support.
I hope that the Minister of National Revenue will see it in his heart to back off on some of the sad cases that are coming forward. I have a number of them myself and my heart goes out to them. Our greatest resource is our people. Let us help them through this difficult time.
Our national resources are another point in question. Softwood lumber had a tremendous downturn when the Minister for International Trade signed that 15 per cent tax against softwood lumber going into the United States. We know it was not part of the free trade agreement but we also know that it was signed just before the free trade agreement was signed and the softwood lumber people in this area, and in my own Ottawa Valley which has been hurt terribly, were the sacrificial lambs of this government signing a free trade agreement with the United States. Let there be no question about that. Our lumber and natural resources have suffered ever since.
Even though it has been taken off, after many suffered as a result of it, the United States is now coming back and trying to nail us with it anyway. We will be interested to see what the report is.
The hon. member from Superior and-how could I forget? As a student I stood out on the highway in Cochrane hitch-hiking all night to get to Long Lac where I had a summer job. The member for Cochrane-Superior has brought this issue out extremely well.
Let us not say that it just happened on its own. This government has always said that we must compete. I could not agree more with it, and I do not think any member in this House could! agree more. We must compete with the world if we are going to live but we are not going to compete in this world if we have a lack of commitment on the part of the government for research and development in this nation. Yes, we must talk about competing but the research and development programs of this country, or of any other country, are the engine that drives the economy. That is what answers the competition.
If it is the determination, the desire and the will of the government not to do R and D in the way that it should be done to benefit all Canadians then it is failing in its
June 16, 1992

effort to compete at the same time as it is saying we must compete.
Emergency Preparedness Canada's training centre in Arnprior is an issue I want to raise at this time. For months on end the people in that community and Canadians from both territories and all 10 provinces of Canada, 3,000 people a year, come to that Emergency Preparedness Canada training centre in Arnprior to take training courses to handle disasters in their communities across this nation. There were great rumours it was going to be moved out of that centre. We had a large rally recently. I have been asking questions and raising the matter in the House. Finally the other day the Minister of Supply and Services, who is the regional minister for eastern Ontario, gave a commitment in writing to the Mayor of Arnprior this facility would stay in Arnprior and in the Ottawa Valley, and I thank him for that. I am not vindictive about these things.
I am a fighter for things for the Ottawa Valley and I am a fighter for things for Canada. When a person makes a commitment, then I thank him for it and I want that commitment kept. I want it kept for the county of Renfrew because it was very much involved in this.
Canada has had problems over the years. Today we have many problems but these are not unnatural. Every nation has its problems. As I said in the beginning, it depends on the will and determination of Canadians generally to face up to these problems of today. That is going to tell the rest of this country whether or not we have the conviction and faith within ourselves that our ancestors had to solve these problems and carry on with this great nation called Canada.
This is Canada. I am a Canadian nationalist. I have been a Canadian nationalist from the word go. I am not a Scot, I am not Irish and I am not English. I am Canadian and I will be one until the day I die. I almost got thrown out of a history class in high school because I was fighting for our Canadian flag. I am proud of that day and I have had some great discussions with that teacher since.
What is the sense of discussing all these other great issues today and worrying about them if, first of all, we do not have a united Canada? The difficulties over Canadian history have been great. One of the greatest things that has ever been done, one of the greatest
Supply
visions of this country was building the first railroad across this nation.
To put things in perspective, let us go back to 1840 in Canadian history. Lord Stanley, who was the British Colonial Secretary from England at the time, said and I quote: "I have to express the hope that the formation of the Government of Canada may have the effect of extinguishing party and national animosities and of directing the minds of men in Canada"-You know it is not our generation now, because we would say "men and women in Canada"-"of whatever origin to the advancement of the prosperity of their native or adopted country". That was in 1840 and there were problems. We are still trying to face up to those problems today.
Then there is a quote from Stephen Leacock in 1926 regarding the contribution of those two great Canadians who worked prior to Confederation, Robert Baldwin and Louis Lafontaine. Stephen Leacock had this to say:
From now on a new path of national development is indicated in the alliance and co-operation of the two races, English and French, each contributing its distinctive share to the political life of the country, and each finding in the other a healthful stimulus and support. This is the principle, entirely contrary to the doctrines of the older school, first introduced by the alliance of Baldwin and Lafontaine, which has since governed the destinies of Canada. On the validity of this principle, the future of the country has been staked.
It is a great and well-earned tribute to Baldwin and Lafontaine because they did a lot prior to 1867 in the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s to make this a great nation. George-Etienne Cartier had this to say in 1855:
In the alliance which we have made between Upper and Lower Canada-we have not abandoned any of our positions.
Those are the words of great statesmen, so let us practise a little bit of that today. They had their nationhood idea and were trying to bring the races and various groups in Canada together. It is a great credit to the Fathers of Confederation after conferences in Quebec City and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, that in 1867 a nation consisting of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec and the rest of the territories of Canada was brought together.
B.C. entered in 1871 on the promise a railroad would be built across the country. We know all the little scandals and the problems of bringing that railway to pass, but in 1885 it happened and B.C. remained in Canada.

Supply
We also remember the American Civil War between 1860 and 1864 ended up with a victory for the north. The Americans had a tremendous army at their command at that time. They had a great idea they were going to become the continentalists in North America. Some wanted to go right through to the North Pole and claim all of what is Canada today.
But what happened? The Fathers of Confederation saw this happening. They had the minds of statesmen and used them. That is why they brought Canada together in 1867, so we could protect ourselves from the pushing and aggressive interests from south of the border we see today.
Continentalism was what the Americans called it then. What is it today with free trade and the lumber issue I mentioned? They are still trying to come on to Canada and push us right to the wall. We, as Canadians, have to stick together today just as we stuck together in 1867. There must be unity within this nation. That line of steel started to be built across the country and Manitoba, a great province of Canada, entered Confederation in 1870. In 1873 that beautiful island, Prince Edward Island, joined Confederation. Saskatchewan and Alberta came in 1905, carved out of the territories of western Canada. Newfoundland came in 1949, and then we had Canada and the two territories.
This was leadership, Madam Speaker.
I want to end on this great note, because I want to appeal to every Canadian in every province of Canada. I want to appeal to those who are handling our constitutional debate today.
Let us remember over in Europe, tens of thousands of young Canadians are resting row on row in those cemeteries. They went over there to defend Canada, to defend freedom and to defend other free nations of the world. There were 619,636 Canadians who participated in World War I and 66,655 died. They were Canadians and young people. If you look at those grave markers you will see how young-18, 19, 20, 23, 24 years of age. They were young people who never had an opportunity to participate in the history of their nation, but they saved this nation for us, and are an inspiration to us.
They came from all over Canada. In World War II more than one million Canadians went to war to save
freedom once again. We lost 45,000 Canadians in World War II. They too are sleeping far away from their homeland, but they fought for freedom. They fought for us so we could have this great nation and participate in a free world.
Then we joined the United Nations in the Korean war in 1950, 1951, 1952 and 1953.
Five hundred and sixteen Canadians are resting in Korea as a result of having fought under the UN flag in those years. We have done a great job peacekeeping around the world.
Just remember, we do not have Remembrance Day in this nation only on November 11 each year. Today is remembrance day. Remember all those Canadians who sacrificed their lives to save Canada's freedom and fight for the free world. Let us as Canadians determine today we have the destiny within ourselves to co-operate with one another, to tone down our demands and try to get along together as good neighbours. Let us build this great nation God has given us.
If we do not, we have failed. I do not want a single member sitting in this House today to ever leave Parliament and have any of our children or our grandchildren in the future say: "My father or mother or grandmother was a member of Parliament when this country failed itself"
I want to thank hon. members from all over this House for listening very intently. I have a great feel for members on both sides of this House. I think that is the kind of spirit we have to put into building the Canadian Constitution and uniting this nation. I call for my friends from Quebec, from every province of Canada and the territories, our aboriginal peoples and everyone, to make Canada great. Let us get on with our great nation, help our fellow man and help bring peace on an ongoing basis to the world.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I just want to compliment the member for his excellent remarks and the spirit in which he made them in this House on a non-partisan basis.
I think they are the kind of remarks we do not hear enough of in this House. I think the remarks were well placed today.
June 16, 1992


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I too want to share the thoughts of my former colleague from Mississauga with the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, who came to this House in 1965 as I did.
There was a certain celebration here last night for the class of 1968, but they are sort of young members here. Some of us are from the class of 1965 and are getting a little longer in the tooth.
I listened on television and came here to hear the end of his speech because of my personal respect for the hon. member and his generally objective view on most things, although most of us share party labels.
I obviously agree with him totally in terms of what he says about the state of the country and the fact we, as members, have a very special duty to help resolve those constitutional problems. I know how he feels sentimentally, but I would just like to ask him how he feels in terms of Parliament. We have seen all the negotiations and everything has been ticking away outside of this forum.
We have a referendum bill that already puts a three-day time limit on a referendum question if we get to that point. Does he not feel, as an experienced member, this House has to become seized of this in a real way in a very short period of time, if the negotiators in those conference halls outside of Parliament are not able to come up with some type of offer to present to Quebec?
This is the House of Commons for the country. What really bothers me about the process, although it is much better than the Meech Lake process, is the time clock is ticking. We might not be able to come up with a reasonable situation to offer to Quebec. Is it his personal opinion, as a parliamentarian with long experience, that if we can come up with the offer, that in effect, as some people have written, especially in the Quebec press, let us have the referendum in Quebec, whatever the question may be and just see how that province decides on a very precise question its relationship with Canada.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If I may, it is one o'clock p.m. The hon. member would have the floor after Question Period. I think it would not be fair for him to answer such a question in 20 seconds.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Jim Jordan: Mr. Speaker, currently the average Canadian taxpayer has absolutely no sympathy for the administrative problems of Canada's revenue department. The cross-border shopping craze is a rebellion against over-taxation, nothing more and nothing less.
The Minister of National Revenue's answer to overtaxation would be to impose some more taxes by this thing he calls harmonization of the PST and GST.
When is the minister going to quit putting measures in place at border crossings which do nothing more than cause Canadian shoppers to show more ingenuity when they are returning from their shopping sprees in the U.S.?
When is the minister going to do something positive about cross-border shopping? For example, let him lower the federal excise tax on gasoline, which is the main culprit that forces Canadians to shop in the U.S. in the first place.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, the Obstetrician and Gynaecologist Society of Canada wants the federal government to legalize the pill RU-486 for abortion purposes in Canada.
RU-486 pathologically affects the lining of the pregnant women's womb, causing the baby to undergo slow and agonizing starvation, followed by death and expulsion from the body. The drug has been known to cause fatal internal bleeding in some women.
The society is reported to have stated that: "The problem of legalizing the use of RU-486 is not with the government, but with the company itself, for fear of reaction from the pro-life people".

It is my opinion that the Obstetrician and Gynaecologist Society of Canada now considers itself the chief advocate and lobby group for Rousell Canada, the drug manufacturer, pushing for the legalization of RU-486.
I would expect that the government will remain firm and steadfast and not be swayed in any way in this decision to refuse the use of this drug for abortion use in Canada.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a message from several hundred members of the Yamaska Valley Chapter of the Canadian Club, in my riding, to their anglophone fellow citizens in the other provinces.

We of the Canadian Club of the Yamaska Valley, in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, wish to tell you of the enrichment we feel in our lives because we have an opportunity to partake in two cultures. We consider this diversity a bonus. This province is not unique, just different. Most provinces have languages and customs which they treasure and want to keep. Quebec feels the need to preserve what it has and we accept this. We do think that a compromise can, and will be achieved, so that Canada will remain a united country.
A positive attitude recognizing that we are a privileged people is essential. These privileges were given to us as Canadians to enjoy and to share. Let us not lose sight of this.

I hope this message will be heard and understood across the country.


NUCLEAR POWER
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, a report prepared for a number of environmental groups in New Brunswick has called attention to the fact that there may be a serious situation developing at the Point Lepreau reactor in New Brunswick where aging high pressure steam pipes located over the control room might pose a potential hazard.
Apparently AECB has issued a warning to New Brunswick Power and this warning has so far been ignored. Also, concern has been registered over the fact that Point Lepreau or New Brunswick Power has not filed an emergency plan like they were asked to do by AECB after the Chernobyl disaster. In fact, all nuclear reactors were asked to file such plans.
I would ask the government in my statement today to get in touch with the AECB and to ask it to get tough with New Brunswick Power to make sure we do not have any kind of nuclear accident in that province.
Now is the time to do something about these things, not after the fact. This report ought not to be discredited as it was earlier in the House today simply because the person who prepared it had something to do with Greenpeace. It is groups like Greenpeace and others who have warned us before the fact about other possible hazards.
It is time we listened now rather than wait until something happens.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 removed the government's obligation to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund.
The fund is made up of employee-employer contributions and not government money. It is to be administered by the LFDB and it requested that the spending for developmental use be increased from $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion.
In a feeble effort to make it look as if the government is actually doing something positive for the unemployed, the Minister of Finance said: "We increased worker training and adjustment funds under the unemployment insurance program".
What he failed to mention was that this is not government money but it is the unemployment insurance contributions from employers and employees that he is using.
For example, community development projects are aimed at helping remote areas adjust to the changing market needs. This includes promoting alternative markets to whatever may have once fueled the local economy and I repeat, the local economy.
June 16, 1992

The local economy of P.E.I., in particular Hillsborough, has a record high unemployment rate which is having a tremendous impact on my constituents' lives, families, and well-being.
I ask the minister not to shuffle money around at the expense of the unemployed in Canada. If he is going to shuffle money around, shuffle it in the right places to help these unfortunate Canadians.


UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CANADA LIMITED
Mr.   Marcel@: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to the pride and determination shown by a company in my riding, United Parcel Service Canada Limited. UPS, which provides a parcel delivery service over land across Canada, in addition to having its own air mail delivery service which also operates throughout the country, has acquired a reputation for providing quality service.
The company does 48 inspections on each aircraft before every daily departure. The company has also become a significant player in the trucking industry. UPS tries to improve its employees' knowledge of safe driving practices, and it is one of the leading companies in North America in providing safety training for its employees.
I applaud the determination of UPS to provide an outstanding mail delivery service, which confirms the feelings of pride reflected by the UPS team.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the government's approach to our youth, our students, is absolutely morally scandalous. The government has a brutal consistency. It attacks those who are most vulnerable, including young people between the ages of 15 to 24.
The unemployment rate, according to Statistics Canada, for Newfoundland youth was 34 per cent last year this time and it is now 36 per cent.
Combined with full-time students, the over-all rate for these groups, youth and students, is 43 per cent according to the latest statistics.
What has the government done? It has gutted transfer payments for post-secondary education. It has cut back on Challenge funding for summer employment by nearly $1 million in Newfoundland alone. It has tampered with Canada's student loans.
Our most vulnerable and precious resource is being wilfully pillaged by this government.
I ask this government now to retrace its steps, to amend its ways and to do something for that important group of people who are our future, while there is time left to do so.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, with the break-up of Yugoslavia and the recognition of new nations such as Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovi-na, some are seeking the recognition of another new state which is referred to as Macedonia.
Whereas the Government of Canada supports the principles of self-determination and independence, we must not forget the history of this region. Archeologists and experts in ancient history will affirm that Macedonia is inherently woven into the fabric of Hellenic civilization.
On the other hand, the People's Socialist Republic of Macedonia is a post-World War II creation of Tito's Yugoslavia and is a falsification and expropriation of the concept of Macedonia. It is a deliberate and malicious attack on Hellenic history and culture.
I urge the Government of Canada not to recognize the so-called state of Macedonia. Another name is fine, but not the name of Macedonia. I further recommend the government work with the United Nations and the European Community to ensure that the Government of Skopje gives up its false and provocative claims to Greek culture, history and territory.

June 16, 1992


CANADA POST
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers have been without a contract since the summer of 1989. Despite the appointment of a conciliation officer in October 1989, of a conciliation board in October 1990, and a mediator in September 1991, the union is still without a contract.
Canada Post negotiators have attempted to deny that agreements were reached on many major issues during and following the mediation phase. For example, on the issue of wages, the government says it was not able to reach an agreement. In fact, both parties did agree on that issue.
I call upon the government to stop procrastinating and solve this matter forthwith.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks there was concern raised in this House that Canada's big banks would nail consumers for higher service charges to cover their mistake loans to the floundering real estate giant, Olympia & York.
In response, the Minister of Finance made it clear he would not tolerate the banks trying to recover their loan losses from small businesses or average Canadians. He contacted the Canadian Bankers' Association and spelled out his concerns. He also told this House he was standing squarely on the side of bank clients.
The man the press is now calling "Mad Maz, the consumers' friend", has got results. Last week several banks announced they are freezing their service fees for a period of time as a visible gesture that the O&Y mistake will not end up costing us all more money.
I want to congratulate the banks for their gutsy response to this public concern and of course we are all in debt to Mad Maz, the caped crusader of Canadian consumerism.


EARTH SUMMIT
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, at this first opportunity to speak in the House since returning from the earth summit in Rio, I want to express my deep admiration and thanks to the Canadian negotiating team for their outstanding work on our behalf.
These women and men have given of themselves tirelessly over the past two years and in the final days and nights of negotiation in Rio worked around the clock. These 16 people are public servants in the truest sense.
Thank you John Bell, Vic Buxton, George Greene, Michael Small, Bob Applebaum, Serge April, Jerry Beausoliel, Alexandra Bezeredi, Barbara Brown, Louise Cote, Adrian DeHoog, David Drake, Fern Hurtubise, Jag Maini, John Sloan and Roger Street. You are among the heroes of the earth summit. I hope you can rest up, see your families and recharge your batteries for the crucial follow-up work.
Merci beaucoup.


BEEF INDUSTRY
Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, the cattlemen and women of this country and indeed of North America are being attacked by environmentalists and animal rights groups.
Cows and bulls have existed on this planet since Adam and Eve and in fact the Lord asked Noah to preserve all species because of a big cloudburst a few years ago.
Now these brain-warped animal rights groups and environmentalists, who all gorge themselves on big Macs, blame beef for causing heart attacks. They blame the cow with its forward and backward belches, you know what I mean Mr. Speaker, for causing a hole in the ozone.
Cattlemen are now blamed for feeding grain, grass and silage to these cows while Third World children starve. Cows provide milk, butter, cheese, fat, meat, leather, protein, calcium, fertilizer, recycled, and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Cows are perfect examples of sustainable development. Take away the moo, in fact the oink or the baa, and the entire world starves.
June 16, 1992


IMMIGRATION ACT
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of Employment and Immigration tabled a bill with numerous and complex amendments to the Immigration Act.
In this bill he provided for extensive management and enforcement measures but virtually ignored humanitarian considerations. Most serious, he did not take any steps to provide for an appeal on the merits for refugees whose applications are rejected.
The Refugee Board is not perfect and without a fair appeal process the system is seriously flawed. As an alternative, why did the minister not clarify and provide objective criteria for the use of section 114, the admission of refugees on humanitarian and compassionate grounds? This useful provision has been virtually shut down by this minister as a means of appealing deserving cases. During the past year only four out of 889 of these applications were accepted in Quebec and only 16 out of 2,288 in Ontario.
I ask the minister of immigration to put more balance in his bill and provide for a fair appeal process.


QUEBEC FEDERATION OF LABOUR
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in Vancouver last week, the Quebec Federation of Labour decided to split from the Canadian Labour Congress.
This decision came as a result of the CLC's refusal to recognize the QFL's specific role in representing the workers of Quebec.
This is just one more instance that proves Quebecers must have their own institutions to become complete masters of their own destiny and become full participants in international organizations.
The QFL realizes that after many attempts, by both sides I agree, there is a total lack of compatibility between Canadian organizations and Quebec organizations. This decision will make it possible eventually to
Oral Questions
create a single labour congress in Quebec and will encourage Quebecers to take similar action in all areas.


INTERNATIONAL HEART HEALTH CONFERENCE
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the International Heart Health Conference chaired by Canadian-born Dr. John Farqhuhar was held in Victoria, British Columbia, on May 24 to 28, gathering over 700 delegates.
The Conference Advisory Board issued a declaration that clearly states that our nation has the capacity to drastically reduce the incidence of heart disease and stroke.
Canadians will be able to achieve this if we reinforce our commitment to maintaining the cornerstones of good heart health, good dietary habits, tobacco-free lifestyles, regular physical activity, and a supportive psycho-social environment.
I am sure all hon. members will join me in congratulating the Conference Advisory Board, including Senator Dr. Wilbert Keon, representing the Canadian Cardiovascular Society on the board, for its efforts in improving heart health world-wide.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, in answering a question by the hon. member for Yukon, I used the words "intelligent question".\nThis did not translate what I actually meant. I do not want to impute that the hon. member is not an intelligent person. I should have used the word "pertinent". That is what I meant. If I caused any heartache, or whatever, to the hon. member I wish to apologize.']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tburism said in this House he could not make a premature disclosure as to the contents of the deal between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and we will find out what is in the deal only after it is signed.
I want to ask the Prime Minister: Is it the policy of the government that the minister was representing when he said that the Canadian people and the House of Commons will not hear anything about the deal until it is signed?

June 16, 1992
Oral Questions


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition appreciates it but he is mis-stating and distorting the facts.
We have been quite open in presenting to this House various positions we have been taking in the North American free trade negotiations. There have been extensive meetings with his caucus representatives and the chief negotiators. We have also had extensive meetings with the various industry sector groups which are advising us on the negotiations.
As my hon. friend the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism has said, the final details cannot be known until the final negotiations are completed. We have been very open in a variety of ways of making sure that people do understand the clear objectives we have and some of the specific negotiating issues we are dealing with.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister or the Prime Minister. I would like to ask them what they are proposing at this time when they say the people are being consulted. We are talking to some premiers who are complaining bitterly because they have not heard anything from the government, let alone the people. Provincial governments have not heard anything from the government.
If this government thinks we will be faced with a fait accompli the government has another thought coming because we will not tolerate that.
If the government does not want to take this House into its confidence about this deal, will the government at least make the commitment that when it has signed this deal between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, that it will authorize a committee of this House to have public hearings before this House is confronted with a vote. The Canadian people are entitled at least to be heard before we vote in this House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me direct my response to the two things that the hon. member has raised.
First of all, as far as the provinces are concerned, we have had something like 35 meetings with the provinces
over the last year on the issues. My hon. friend is, I am sure, referring to statements that were made by some premiers who were not aware. They had not been briefed or they chose not to acknowledge that they had been briefed on the results of these meetings. I have seen members of the provincial governments express their deep appreciation for the way that we have consulted with them and taken into account their views.
On the question of the activities of this House prior to the signing of an agreement, there will be every opportunity for a committee of this House to take the initialled agreement, have hearings on that initialled agreement, take the advice of various interested parties, parties that have been involved in the negotiation through the sectoral advisory process, and in that way the views of Canadians will be heard before the deal would be signed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, promises of the kind the minister just made tend to be received with some scepticism by Canadians, because during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister and the government made a very firm commitment to introducing adjustment programs for Canadian workers and companies. Three and half years later, none of these programs has been implemented. My question is directed to the minister or the Prime Minister. Before making any commitments under the new agreement with the United States and Mexico, does the government intend to introduce adjustment programs for Canadian workers, and will it do so immediately, and not by way of an election promise but by introducing legislation in this House, before the government is defeated by Canadian voters?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to say this a second time, but my hon. friend is totally mis-stating what we have done as a government.
My hon. friend refers to what we said we would do at the time of the free trade agreement with the United States. We appointed a commission headed by Jean de Grandpre. It had representatives from the business community and the labour community. This committee made recommendations to the Government of Canada to increase the amount of training. This has been done.

Oral Questions
My colleague has said a number of times that we have increased training from $1.4 billion to $1.8 billion. We have launched the Canadian Labour Force Development Board with representatives from labour and business to advise the government on the use of these training funds.
It was the policy of his party to delay the legislation that was going to implement the recommendations of the de Grandpre committee. If he is worried about-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Yesterday, in asking questions about what was in the agreement and what was not in it with reference to subsidies, the Minister of State for Small Businesses replied: "The government will announce what is in the agreement when it is signed".
Let me ask the Minister of International Trade, who says that is not the government's position, two questions:
In defending the existing free trade agreement with the United States, the government invariably points to the dispute settlement mechanism. Yet that mechanism, the centrepiece of the free trade agreement, is on the table in the current trilateral negotiations as the North American Free Trade Agreement supersedes the FTA.
Are United States negotiators seeking to water down the dispute settlement mechanism? Is that a price Canada will have to pay for a North American free trade agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, it will not be the price that Canada has to pay, to use my hon. friend's words.
I also use the words that he used before, right after the last election when he said "every sparrow that falls will be blamed on the free trade agreement". Here is another sparrow that he is throwing out into the air right now. My hon. friend should know that in this agreement, as in any trade negotiation, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
I have responded to his questions. The chief negotiator has responded to his questions in the briefings that he is
receiving. The openness that this government has demonstrated to the opposition parties and others in discussing what the negotiations are designed to achieve is totally different from anything that his government or previous Liberal governments have ever done in terms of letting Canadians know about what they are planning to negotiate or not negotiate in any trade negotiations.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister finds my ornithological metaphors so pleasing, but they do not in fact answer the question that I am asking, nor has he answered the question that I just put to him: Is the dispute settlement being renegotiated or not? However, the minister declines to answer that so let me move on to another question.
A major omission in the existing Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement is the absence of provisions regarding financial services on the one hand and government procurement on the other. Indeed, the government justified its entiy into the current North American free trade negotiations to correct those and other anomalies in the free trade agreement.
Since the minister claims that he is seeking to improve the free trade agreement in the current North American negotiations, will there be provisions in the North American free trade agreement regarding financial services and regarding government procurement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes and yes.
Let me just respond to the question that my hon. friend raised about the dispute settlement mechanism. We have made it very clear right from the start of these negotiations that things that were negotiated in the free trade agreement with the United States will not be renegotiated in the NAFTA agreement unless they can be improved upon. That certainly applies to the dispute settlement mechanism which was a centrepiece of our acceptance of the free trade agreement with the United States and has been a centrepiece in the success of the free trade agreement since that time.

June 16, 1992
Oral Questions
With regard to financial services and procurement, these matters are both under negotiation. We have made it clear in both cases what our objectives are. In the case of procurement, if we are able to get a Uruguay round success at the same time, the procurement package will be a considerably larger one and a very attractive one as far as Canadian industry is concerned.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The minister has said that Canadians will not know what is in the deal until it is signed. We even do not know the official statistics on this government's assessment and Canadians' assessment of the Canadian-U.S. trade deal and yet the government is taking us blindly into a trade deal when all we do know is that we have lost almost a half a million jobs because of the Canada-U.S. trade deal.
The minister has said that he is going to go out to Canadian business and ask it to help sell the deal. I remind the minister that just before the Canada-U.S. trade deal was signed the same multinational corporations in their campaign said: "Okay, what's in it for me: More jobs, better jobs, more wealth to improve government services such as day care and direct personal benefits. You will find that the average food bill for a family of four will go down $100 a year".
Is that the kind of promises that the minister wants business to go out and sell? Canadians know better. Why does the minister not do the right thing and, rather than trying to sell a bad deal, pull out of these negotiations and give Canadians a real birthday present.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I guess my hon. friend is still the spokesperson for the Canadian Labour Congress, but I think she has got her figure wrong. Rather than the 500,000 jobs that she stated were lost, the Canadian Labour Congress figures it is 1.4 million. She should get her figures right. Both of these figures are wildly out of perspective.
As I have said on many occasions if we have a record level of exports to the United States, if exports are up something like 5 per cent or 6 per cent since the free trade agreement came into force, how is it that is causing
us lost jobs in Canada? It is the reverse. The free trade agreement with the United States is helping this economy through a difficult period. The $5 billion or $6 billion increase in exports translates into something like 75,000 or 85,000 incremental jobs since 1988 as a result of the free trade agreement.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I would suggest that the minister talk to those thousands and indeed millions of Canadians who are out of work. We have 1.75 million Canadians out of work. Then he will get the straight goods. Then he will know what the economic policies and trade policies of this government have done to Canadians.
I want to say it has been clear from the beginning of the negotiations of the Canada-U.S. trade deal and now the NAFTA deal that there are parallel talks going on in other areas. This government has repeatedly said that these trade deals do not affect social policies.
We saw the generic drug bill that was passed before the Canada-U.S. trade deal. Now the immigration bill which was introduced clearly indicates that there is a move toward harmonization of immigration policies with the United States.
I want to ask the minister responsible whether it is the intention of this government to continue drawing Canada into the United States by harmonizing Canada's immigration policy with that of the United States?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would be well advised, instead of standing up and making such a statement, to read the projected bill, try to inform herself and try not to mistake the position of the government, and then maybe we can answer an intelligent question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, all we would like is an intelligent answer.
I have a supplementary question for the minister. Last September, as the minister knows, senior officials of the Canadian government met with senior officials of the Mexican and U.S. governments to discuss harmonization of refugee and immigration policy.
June 16, 1992

I want to say to the minister that Canada has had a long and proud history of admitting immigrants and refugees to this country on the basis of need, and not on the basis of wealth. I want to ask the minister whether it this government's intention to change those principles simply to cater to the needs of the United States, or whether there is going to be some sovereignty in Canada in developing our own immigration and refugee policies?


Bernard Valcourt: No, Mr. Speaker. This is about furthering the view of the United Nations that the problem of genuine refugees is an international problem.
By the way, that is probably why today the United Nations high commission representative in Canada issued a communique endorsing fully the provisions of this bill fine-tuning our refugee determination process.
These people seem to look at the refugee determination system as an immigration problem. This is not an immigration problem. This is an undertaking by Canada to the world as a signatory of the UN Geneva convention to give protection to those people who need it. We are trying to exert Canada's influence throughout the world in order to give real protection to those persons who really need protection.



Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On May 11 the minister stated in this House: "If the United States does not allow the softwood issue to go to the dispute settlement mechanism panel then it will be a very serious thing".
Yesterday the U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports stated that the issue does not come under the free trade agreement and therefore is not subject to chapter 19 of the agreement.
What is the government's plan to avoid the issue being settled solely by American law?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, our plan is quite simply to file a joint request by the Government of Canada, the provinces
Oral Questions
and the industry for a hearing under chapter 19 of the dispute settlement mechanism. That has been done. We expect that the hearing will commence next month. The process will continue until we get a conclusion.
What Mr. Howlett said and what we say are totally at odds. We are a party to an action under the dispute settlement panel. Mr. Howlett is on the other side of it. Obviously he is going to say everything he can to try to disrupt that process. But the process is proceeding.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. What the minister just said merely adds to the current uncertainty among softwood lumber manufacturers.
Again, I want to ask the minister whether this question will be subject to chapter 19 of the free trade agreement, and will it be referred to the dispute settlement panel, yes or no?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend had his next question prepared before he heard my answer.
What I said in my response was that we have already filed an application under chapter 19. The application will start being heard next month. It will follow the process from there to a final conclusion, which as I said before we are confident we will be able to win.
What Mr. Howlett said and the facts and the process are completely at odds with each other. He obviously has an axe to grind as the chief spokesman of our opponents on this issue.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister or acting minister of multiculturalism and citizenship.
This morning a unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons recommended that the Court Challenges Program be reinstated. I salute government members of the committee for having the courage to admit that the government made a mistake.

Oral Questions
Will the government accept the advice of this parliamentary committee and reinstate this program?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the program was terminated because initially it was intended to provide a base for the establishment of jurisprudence in a number of cases.
The government felt that had been done and that obviously, in a period of strict budgetary restraint, if the purposes of the program had been fulfilled it might be wise to review that program and abolish it. That is what we did in the last budget.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, the unanimous report from the committee does not agree with the minister.
The Court Challenges Program is being forced to close its door in September. The committee's report calls on the government to make a public statement of its intentions within the next 60 calendar days.
Will the minister agree to such a report confirming government support of this program before the program
closes?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister responsible will be looking at the report very closely. Along the lines of our normal procedures the government will respond to the report in due course.


EXTRADITION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns yesterday's decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that makes a mockery of extradition treaties which have been signed by the United States.
In welcoming this decision the United States Attorney General William Barr said: "Our general policy remains co-operation where possible with foreign governments".
Will the minister now send a clear message to the United States government that this Rambo-style, vigilante kidnapping is not acceptable anywhere in the world and that it is a flagrant breach of international law?
Will she immediately seek an exclusionary amendment to the Canada-U.S. extradition treaty to ensure the United States agents can never get away with this in Canada?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, Canada was an intervener in the case that led to this decision as it came before the court.
We continue to believe that the appropriate way for U.S. authorities to obtain custody of a criminal suspect is through a request to authorities of other countries, to Canadian authorities for example, under the extradition treaty that exists between our two countries.
Any attempt to abduct someone from Canadian territory we would continue to regard, as we have in the past, as a criminal act.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the United States would feel if Canada ignored the treaty, sent the Mounties down to Washington, New York or Kennebunkport, seized an American citizen and brought him back to Canada for trial. I do not think it would accept that and neither should we.
My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister now stand up for Canadian sovereignty, tell George Bush that U.S. extradition requests will be put on hold and that not one FBI or DEA agent will set foot on Canadian territory until this monstrous ruling has been overturned?
Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs do the right thing and seek an amendment of the treaty now?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is not a presidential decision. It was a court decision by the Supreme Court. Canada will continue to insist that the extradition treaty in force between Canada and the U.S. is the only method
June 16, 1992

for obtaining the custody of fugitives between our two countries. We will express that in the strongest possible terms.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not feel that the minister's answer is sufficient.
This is an affront to all nations. It allows the United States to come into Canada, abduct Canadian citizens that it suspects of having committed an offence in the United States, and take them back to the United States for trial. It is a complete abandonment of the principles of the extradition treaties.
What I would like to know from the minister is: What is she prepared to do to bring this matter before the World Court for a full and proper hearing?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that this was a judicial decision in the United States.
I have said that we are going to continue to make our case in the strongest possible way. We have done it in the past; we intervened in a case. We will do so in the future in whatever avenues are open to us.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this is a flagrant abuse of international law. As we speak there are Canadians who are at severe risk.
One such Canadian is Mr. Ken Walker of Richmond Kill who was taken advantage of by the Americans in a sting operation. He is still wanted in the United States although he has not broken any laws.
This morning he called the minister's department and said that he had concern about this ruling. He was told by the minister's department: "We understand your concern. Call your local police". That is a callous response to a man who is in tremendous difficulty as a result of this ruling.
What is the government going to do to protect Canadian sovereignty and the safety of Canadian citizens?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, and so does Mr. Walker if he wants to get into specific cases, that this government has acted on behalf of Mr. Walker as we have acted on behalf of other Canadians
Oral Questions
who are in difficulty in whatever country they may be in, including the United States.
This is a Supreme Court decision. We will stick by our stand, which the United States does not accept. We will pursue in every avenue we can that extradition is the only way in which to proceed.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
The minister knows certainly that Canadians throughout the country were very disappointed last week when his discussions with the provinces broke off and the minister could not reach a successful conclusion.
I would ask him to give us today in the House a report on the status of the negotiations. Second and more important, what step does he intend to contemplate next to solve the constitutional crisis?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians should not be disappointed that the process which yielded so many gains on the constitutional front was not able in that stage to get everything done.
From our point of view, there were four major questions remaining: an agreement on the Senate; an agreement on the amending formula; an agreement on reducing barriers to trade within Canada; and a means to bring us together on the basic questions relating to aboriginal Canadians.
There are ongoing conversations. I am quite encouraged by the people with whom I have been speaking, with their forthcoming nature and particularly the willingness to consider models of Senate reform which may lead us to an agreement on that question.
If the provinces continue to be forthcoming on those issues, we may well be able to get a breakthrough. If I have other plans to report to the House, I will certainly do that.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for mentioning the four major areas that remain to be finalized.

Oral Questions
I know that many, I would even say most, Quebecers hope that very soon proposals on renewed federalism will be forthcoming that will be acceptable to both the Parliament of Canada and a majority of the provincial legislatures.
My question to the minister is this: Do the areas that remain to be finalized include changes in the amending formula that would give Quebec a veto in the future? Is the minister prepared to give us the assurance that this very important point, which was part of Quebec's original demands, will be respected and that we can expect a positive response from the Canadian government?


Charles Joseph Clark: In
fact, on the basis of our discussions so far, Mr. Speaker, agreement could be reached on an amending formula where the Supreme Court is concerned. This is an important step, and even the premier of Newfoundland and the government of Alberta made it clear they agreed with this proposal.
Two major aspects remain: the Senate and the status of the provinces. I think we would be more likely to reach an agreement on an amending formula once we have agreed on the Senate.
That is why we are now discussing with the provinces a number of formulas that might give us an agreement on the Senate. However, it is up to the provinces to demonstrate their own flexibility and their determination to reach an agreement.


BREAST CANCER
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health. As he well knows, breast cancer is now at almost epidemic proportions. This fact was underscored yesterday in this House with the tabling of a parliamentary committee report on the disease.
I would like to ask the minister again: Will the government consider making increased funding for breast cancer research a priority and will it do that by shifting existing spending?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say first that the
report tabled yesterday represents very good work. Of course, I have not yet had the time to look at all the recommendations that I want to do.
In terms of breast cancer, we will have to put more emphasis not only on breast cancer but also on other health issues. We are close to getting a report on foetal alcohol syndrome. The Hearn report on medical devices is coming too. We also have the drugs management report by Gagnon. All those reports have something in common: They deal with the health of women.
I would like to say to the House today, after one year as minister of health, I want to consider all issues dealing with the health of women. Those issues have to be seen in a particular perspective and it is that which I want to apply to breast cancer. If there is any way we can put more money toward breast cancer research and it is useful to do so, we will.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, this year in Canada over 14,000 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,000 women will die of it.
The subcommittee tabled its report on breast cancer yesterday. It found that breast cancer research in this country is grossly underfunded. The committee made one particular recommendation, that the federal government allocate $2 million to establish a Canadian breast cancer foundation.
I want to ask the minister of health specifically: Will he implement that recommendation and will he do it immediately?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, in light of what I said before,
I believe the member will allow me to consider all of the report and not just answer her recommendation today.
I repeat what I said. I said that if we believe it is the report's position that money is not sufficient in terms of breast cancer research, we will consider that possibility.
I am sure she knows there is no ceiling set in terms of money for research in cancer. It depends on the quality of projects presented to NHRDP or to the Medical Research Council. If we have good projects, I want to Examine the money which is allocated. If we can do something, we will put more money into research for breast cancer.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the total allocation in the last budget year for breast cancer research from this government to the MRC was $849,000. That is abysmal and so is the track record of the department on women's health issues. I have mentioned the IUD, thalidomide, Depo-Provera, and breast implants.
Every two hours in Canada another Canadian woman dies from breast cancer. We do not have the time for more reviews. The study has been done. Will the minister implement it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I said. I said that we should consider women's health issues in a different manner than we have so far. It may be that for too long that question has been seen in a man's perspective. I do not disagree with that, but we are saying we will put $1 million toward breast cancer and other health problems with women. I want to look at the options. If there is a necessity to provide more money, we will.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
After the minister's recent visit to Cyprus I am sure it is clear to her and to the government that if Canada withdraws its peacekeeping forces it is going to just help one side and at the same time hurt the other. That is not the basis to encourage a peaceful, just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem.
Will the minister confirm for the House that Canada will not withdraw nor will it reduce its peacekeeping forces on Cyprus until there is a peaceful, just and viable solution?
Will she also confirm for the House that Canada is prepared to apply the same standard of support for the UN Cyprus resolutions as it was prepared to apply for the United Nations Kuwait resolutions?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the Cyprus issue it would be very difficult to make a
Oral Questions
commitment that we would stay until there is a negotiated settlement.
We have been in Cyprus for 28 years. We are very encouraged at the moment by the progress being made. Part of this is a result of having pointed out to the Secretary General earlier this winter that the Secretary General and the parties involved had a responsibility to come to a peaceful solution and Canada would not make a commitment to be there forever. Even the patience of Canadians runs out.
We are encouraged by the progress that has been made since then and with the changes going on in that region, with some of the parties involved, and how their interests are reflected.
We think the forthcoming discussions will be useful in making progress in Cyprus. We encourage the Secretary General to continue and also the parties involved to accept their responsibility for peace among their people in their region.


TELEPHONE SERVICE
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Communications quoted observations made by the chairman of the CFTC and me on competition among telephone companies, but he did not take a position or answer questions on behalf of his government. I repeat my question concerning consumers:
Is the minister prepared to assure us that the CRTC's decisions will have no negative impact on consumers and on residential customers and that local rates will not go up? Yes or no.


An hon. member:: Good question.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises the question of the position of consumers with regard to the CRTC decision. I suppose the best source might be Mr. David Simpson, the executive director of the Consumers' Association of Canada who said: "We could have written this decision ourselves it came so close to what business and consumers were looking for". This is from the spokesman on behalf of the Consumers' Association of Canada.

June 16, 1992
Oral Questions


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I guess the minister has not been able to think about what he would like to say for himself and his government. I would like to ask him a supplementary.
Because this government has failed to pass legislation that will guarantee 80 per cent Canadian ownership and control of domestic telephone companies, including resellers, there is a threat of Americanization of our system since the CRTC opened up new areas of competition.
Given that the minister has made sovereignty a key policy of his new legislation, will he now move to pass those sections of Bill C-62 that will safeguard Canadian ownership of this key economic sector?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will go even further than that. I very much appreciate the endorsement by the Liberal Party of Canada of Bill C-62. I think we should not just pass certain sections of the bill but we should pass the whole bill as quickly as possible.


EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence.
For a long time rumours have been flying around fast and furious to the effect that the Emergency Preparedness Canada training centre was going to be moved out of the town of Amprior.
Last week the Minister of Supply and Services, our regional minister, clarified the situation by stating in a letter that the training centre will remain in Amprior.
Will the Minister of the National Defence tell us today when we can expect the construction of the long-promised new residential building to be built at Amprior?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, in the latest budget, all responsibilities for civil defence were transferred to the Department of National Defence. All procedures, including infrastructure, are under review.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Public Works.
The property and facilities on which this nationally used Emergency Preparedness Canada training centre is located is the property of Public Works Canada.
Can the minister inform this House whether or not the total plans for the new residential building, which was supposed to be up and operating by December 1990, are now ready for presentation to Treasury Board and are they planned for Amprior?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, the whole question is covered in the first answer.


CLIMATE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who signed on behalf of Canada the convention for climate change at the earth summit. It regrettably contains no targets or timetables for reductions.
Since Canada publicly committed to stabilize all greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 in Geneva almost two years ago, would the Prime Minister tell this House what Canada's emissions were in 1990 so that Canadians can know what that means by the year 2000?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that work has been undertaken to make a determination on the baseline level of information that will be the object of some discussion at the next meeting of the Canadian Council of the Ministers of Environment which will be held sometime next November.
I should also point out to the hon. member that the Prime Minister indicated not only would Canada sign the treaty but we would also ratify it within the year. We would also encourage other countries to enter into a prompt start process by which we could go out there and apply the dispositions of the treaty.
June 16, 1992


ENDANGERED SPECIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister who also signed the convention on biodiversity to protect plants and animals.
Would the Prime Minister tell this House what steps will be taken to protect the 227 endangered species of wildlife in Canada, a whopping 13 per cent increase since last year, that are on the brink of extinction? What is the Prime Minister going to do for the short-homed lizard, the phantom orchid, the white-headed woodpecker or the High Arctic beluga whale? Anything?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, given my hon. friend's interest in the environment and his presence in Brazil, I thought that he would have wanted to invite the House to join in a very genuine round of applause for the Minister of the Environment for his tremendous leadership.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This was clearly an oversight by my hon. friend. He mentioned the endangered species, which range from the beluga whale to the NDP, I suppose.
My friend raises a very serious question. The Minister of the Environment has indicated that the government is participating in post-Rio conferences with specific plans to deal precisely with the very legitimate question raised by my hon. friend.
I think that as he participates in these post-Rio conferences, initiated by Canada, he will feel the same sense of pride that he did in Rio as he watched the Minister of the Environment and other parliamentarians guide the Canadian delegation, I think quite successfully* * *


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Gilbert R. Clements, Minister of the Environment and Minister of Finance for the province of Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Supply


POINT OF ORDER
Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period, in answering a question by the hon. member for Yukon, I used the words "intelligent question".
This did not translate what I actually meant. I do not want to impute that the hon. member is not an intelligent person. I should have used the word "pertinent". That is what I meant. If I caused any heartache, or whatever, to the hon. member I wish to apologize.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Loiselle (p. 12117).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate at one o'clock there were seven minutes left in the question or comments period. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants had the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, after the very eloquent address this morning of the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, I was directing a question to him when time ran out just as I was posing the question.
Since we both came here many moons ago in the class of '65, and although there were some younger members honoured yesterday because of the class of '68, I was calling upon him to give his views-perhaps not necessarily those of his party, but from his own parliamentary experience-as to the state of the constitutional discussions. Does he see a danger in trying to come up with some type of an agreement? It might not find favour all across the country, and may not be in a form where it can be presented to the time clock that is ticking in Quebec.

Supply
From his point of view, what would happen, because Quebec has that law that there has to be a referendum in Quebec, if that referendum proceeds on a very clear question as to whether Quebec wants to stay in Canada-and of course we do not frame that question-and what would be his view if that question proceeded on the basis that we cannot put an agreement to Quebec before that October deadline?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked me if I would put forward my views even though they may not be the views of my party.
I want to say to him that any views I give are those of my own party and vice versa because I do have my say within our party caucus and discuss the matter with my caucus members. I do not go off giving views that do not belong to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is called unity and that is what we are talking about in this entire debate.
To address the several questions which the member has just put to me, I want to say that if I were to give him the answer the minister opposite, who is handling the constitutional questions at the present time and federal-provincial relations, would really thank me for giving him the precise answers. If I were to come up with all the answers for the government at this time I would probably be the most famous Canadian going.
To ask me to tell everybody else what is going to happen in the days ahead is a little bit unfair because if we had the answers we would be going in that direction.
I said in my speech this morning that the rhetoric has to be toned down on this issue. I also said that the demands have to be toned down from all angles and that flexibility must improve across the country.
Parliament could be recalled this summer-the option is open-and we could debate the constitutional proposals or whatever. We could also be here to discuss whether or not we are having a referendum. But to say that if I had the answers I could give them now, anything else that I might say would disrupt the very sensitivity of the items that are being discussed now.
The member mentioned our long tenure here in Parliament. My long tenure in Parliament tells me not to disrupt an already sensitive situation. What I have said is that we must have the political will and the determination to handle this situation. This morning I said there is
no such thing as failure. I also said that every person in this House, on both sides of this House, must make it their business to see to it that the constitutional issue is settled and that we can get on with the economy and the other great interests of this nation.
Let me remind everybody that there is far more to lose by standing aloof and making great demands of our own by individual groups or organizations than there ever will be to gain.
All Canadians and this Parliament must come together. We are a nation known as negotiators. We now have to negotiate to put this Constitution together and we are not going to do it if we are going to go off in 10 different directions at the same time. Now is the time to prove our mettle.
I want to say once more, in reply to the hon. member, as I said this morning, that 112,000 young Canadians are lying in cemeteries abroad, in Korea and throughout Europe, 18, 19, 21 and 24 years of age. They fought for this country and they fought for the free world. If we do not come to grips and unite this nation at this time as did the Fathers of Confederation, the Baldwins, the Lafon-taines, the Georges-Etienne Cartiers and the Macdonalds, and all those great statesmen who followed on in the 20th century, then we are not only failing those
112,000	young Canadians who died in the name of freedom, we are losing faith with those who built this country in the beginning.
I say to members on both sides of the House and to the hon. member who asked me the question: We must have the political will to face up to this issue, to sit down and negotiate and bring the Constitution of Canada into fruition for years to come. We have the ability to do it. We must not lose it.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to enter into debate today on the motion to concur in the Main Estimates of the government, the spending estimates of the government.
It gives me an opportunity to raise a number of concerns in this House about issues across the country and in particular around some of the particular spending plans or lack of spending plans by the Government of Canada as they relate to my riding in northern British Columbia.
June 16, 1992

It is a good opportunity to do that today. The minister of forests is encouraging me to mention forestry in a few comments which of course I will be pleased to do. I would do that in encouragement to the minister. I know he is going to hang on my every word today about the importance of forestry to our area.
There are a couple of areas I would like to mention. I am pleased that the minister is here because a couple of the issues affect the community for which we share representation. I know he will be taking notes. I hope he will follow up on these as I have already done to the minister in writing.
In particular on forestry, just a bit of a nudge to the minister. He knows there have been discussions in Prince George regarding the Forestry of Canada Research Centre located in Prince George currently on the federal government experimental farm which unfortunately, from the federal government's point of view, through attrition and cuts and transfers really is being slowly chopped away to the point where most unfortunately we may lose a real presence by the federal government in terms of a role in agricultural policy and research. There have been many transfers of officials to Kamloops.
I am afraid we are going to reach a point in this operation where to some degree the government is going to say there is nothing left. It will then be in a position where it will have to close the whole shop down. That would be most unfortunate.
I know the minister is aware of that. He is aware of it from a departmental point of view as well, given the location on the experimental farm site near the airport in Prince George and the discussions I have had, and I know he has had, about attempting to relocate that facility to the new campus of the University of B.C. where I was pleased to attend the sod-tuming with Premier Harcourt and of course the first convocation of the newest university in Canada. The minister of forests was present as well.
That is really great news for Prince George and the whole region of northern British Columbia. It is important because of what the minister's department can do in making a contribution to the operation of that university. I am talking specifically about the transfer of the Forestry Canada operations now on the experimental farm to the university site. There is a close co-operation
Supply
that can be held with the collection of research capability and learning at the campus and also of course with the project locating right nearby which the minister has been to as well, Forests for the World, which is a display of the different tree species we have in the area. It gives the public an opportunity really to come and see just what having a forest operation is. It is located near the campus. I would urge the government and the minister to move as quickly as possible in making an announcement that we can have that Forestry Canada operation, small as it is, moved to the campus site.
The minister had appointed a committee and had promised to report some months ago. I have written to the minister to ask for more details on that and as to when we might get a decision. It is very important. It goes to the heart of what we are talking about here today. It is not grand schemes of a constitution. We are really talking about the nitty-gritty of government, some of the very basic spending plans that government can have in our ridings. I mention that as one of them.
As well, the minister should be tabling soon I hope a state of the forest report flowing from the legislation to create his department. Also, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that we have expressed our concerns in this House before about the government's cuts to forestry programs across the country. I think of the FRDA program in British Columbia, which is a concern to all of us. We do not see Forestry Canada removing itself as a player in terms of co-operation that it can play with the provinces in forest renewal, in forest management. In particular following the world summit in Rio on the environment, it is all the more important that we maintain a presence, I argue, in terms of Forestry Canada. I know that is a subject of some debate and discussion on the Constitution.
I hope that in the final analysis when a discussion is held about whether we are going to have a forest department that the premiers, the Prime Minister and this House do not just throw out the work of many of us in our first days here as parliamentarians to bring forward legislation in this House to create that department. I would argue that there is probably a need today more than ever, given our demands on our forests from an international environmental perspective, for a federal forest department.

Supply
I hope at the very least in the discussions that some heed is paid to that particular issue during the constitutional debate and the debate that we are going to end up having in this House on that issue.
There is another spending issue that relates directly to forests and ties in directly with the work or the lack of it I suppose by the Minister for International Trade. That comes to the whole question of the softwood tariff dispute we have now with the United States. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I led a delegation of New Democrat MPs from the interior of British Columbia as well as my colleague from Thunder Bay in northern Ontario to Washington to meet with American legislators and officials on this issue. I think it was a very important two days. We delivered a strong message to the Americans about Canada and about our view on this issue.
We have some well known differences with this government's approach to this whole issue, but on the question of the softwood dispute we gave a united message to the Americans. I say that Canadians want to ensure that from this government they get the same message as well.
I have said on numerous occasions that it is important that we keep pressure on our own government. It is a pretty clear perception among most Canadians that this government just rolls over and plays dead whenever George Bush and the Commerce Department in Washington, D.C. basically tells it what to do. We found that in this dispute, whereas yet we have not heard a formal word from the United States, the Commerce Department or the Bush administration as to whether this whole softwood dispute can even be referred to this much vaunted dispute settlement mechanism that the minister of trade so often talks about. It is revealing of the weakness of the free trade agreement that even after three years of operation this government still has to plead with Washington, D.C. for this whole dispute to be settled by even a weak dispute settlement mechanism, which it is.
We have not heard the end of that yet. We may end up having a dispute over the dispute settlement of all things. It gives an indication of how much trouble we are in with this dispute. We are on the verge of perhaps the most massive trade dispute in Canadian history between our two governments. It is over an issue that is of critical
importance, not just to the entire country but in particular to British Columbia which makes some 80 per cent of the softwood lumber exports to the United States.
Another issue I have raised throughout my riding and in different parts of the country is an important issue for many of the smaller communities in this country. In many cases we have to plead with different levels of government to get the kinds of services and programs we need. In many cases larger centres across the country take so much for granted. I guess I am reminded of that each day here in Ottawa where, of course, we would expect our nation's capital to have those kinds of buildings and monuments to our country and to the history of this area. However, at the same time, let us not forget the contribution made by the rural communities, the resource communities across the country. Yes, they are away from the major population centres, but they are just as deserving when it comes to government services and programs.
I am reminded in particular of a case where we were pleased to have convinced the Minister of Communications to provide some funds for an art gallery in Prince George. I would like to encourage the government to go a step further. We have to take a look at using some of the funds under the communications subagreement to help with the art gallery in Prince George.
In the election campaign in 1988 the previous government clearly rejected any federal help for a performing arts centre in Prince George. I have collected information since that election. I have been diligent at this because it was my sense that this government had spent millions of dollars elsewhere across the country on similar ventures but, of course, gave the cold shoulder to Prince George. Tb date that evidence shows that some $143 million in projects similar to that which we have been lobbying and working for in Prince George has been spent and authorized by this government, ranging from the Comedy Museum in Montreal. I have nothing against a good joke or project but we are just asking for our fair share.
I ask that the government give serious consideration to those proposals because that is the kind of nitty-gritty work the Government of Canada can do to show Canadians and residents of these communities that small communities are as deserving as any major population centre for the kinds of projects which bestow pride on a community for the work they have done.
June 16, 1992

We had a healthy contribution from the new Government of British Columbia for the Civic Centre complex in Prince George. That was announced on Friday. We are pleased with that. This government is prepared to spend billions of dollars on helicopters for which there is some question as to their need and yet a community that needs an art gallery and what have you is given the cold shoulder by this government. That is not good enough. We deserve and expect more.
As well there are a couple of transportation matters that are critical to ridings line mine in northern British Columbia where transportation is an important issue because of our location. I am pleased to have been able to work with community groups and others.
There is a new instrument landing system being put into Prince George, a project costing around $2 million. I am pleased to have been able to do that but we have more work to do, and I think of air strips outside of the Prince George area where in some cases we cannot even get a medivac jet in to take someone out.
If members from large urban communities would not be able to get an ambulance they would be shocked by that, yet that is what we have in many of these communities. The government has to make a commitment to provide the necessary infrastructure and programs necessary to provide these services to Canadians regardless of where we live in the country.
The finance minister at least alluded to that at the first ministers' meeting in Toronto on the economy some time ago. Prior to that he mentioned that the government has tucked away somewhere a capital projects fund.
I have written to the minister. I would like to find out a little bit about this fund. How much money does the Minister of Finance have tucked away somewhere? Is he going to spend it all in the run-up to the next election campaign as the Prime Minister was to apt to do prior to the last election campaign? Let us get some details on that capital projects fund. Let us make it public so we can see what is available and at least give communities across the country an opportunity to make representations to the minister for funds from that project.
Supply
One of those infrastructure programs on which I have been corresponding with the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and the British Columbia minister of transport is the Yellowhead Highway program, which we used to have. It was a program that helped upgrade the Yellowhead Highway from my colleague's riding, Skeena, through my riding in Prince George-Bulkley Valley and down into the Kamloops area, represented by another of my colleagues.
That program was allowed to collapse and run out by this government and by the former government in British Columbia. I asked this minister in this government on behalf of the people along that highway and on behalf of the minister of transport for British Columbia, who has asked us to make representations to the government, to go ahead and hopefully renew that program.
At the earlier First Ministers' Conference that I mentioned, the Minister of Finance hinted at a national highways network. When a Minister of Finance is hinting at something like that we should take him up on it. However it is his turn, we have taken him up on the offer to renew this program. I now want to hear from the minister and this government whether they really are committed to an infrastructure program that can help rebuild those transportation arteries which we require all across the country.
I hope that before this House rises for its summer break the minister can make that kind of announcement to give some assurance to Canadians and the people in northern B.C. that this very important transportation link has the attention of the Government of Canada and will be dealt with, approved, and renewed in the near future.
I mentioned airports and air transportation. I mentioned highways, and the unique federal role in this particular issue, one which I do not think is thought of much in western Canada. When I drive on any of the roads in eastern Canada I note that there is significant federal presence in working with the provinces in highway reconstruction. We just ask for the same in northern British Columbia. I do not think it is asking too much for this government to treat one end of the country the same as the other.

June 16, 1992
Supply
I would like to conclude with an appeal to the government to please make up its mind about VIA Rail remote services. There is a run from Prince Rupert to Prince George to Jasper. This government said on October 4, 1989 that it would make a decision on this run. It has been announcing that it would be soon making decisions on this. We have been patient while waiting for the government to make a decision.
I appeal to the Minister of Transport and the government to make up their minds as soon as possible. Do not sit around and wait. We do not want to wait for an election campaign for good news, we will take the good news announcements now. I ask the government to get off whatever royal seat the government is on and make up its mind about this very important issue in our area.
It is an opportunity to provide that valuable transportation link. I have used this opportunity in the House to raise a number of important issues concerning the nitty-gritty of government spending and planning. I hope the government will take heed of some of these measures and make some positive announcements for all of us. It is a case of many communities asking and fighting for their fair share.


Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to make some comments on the 1992-93 Main Estimates for Agriculture Canada.
I would like to begin by presenting a few facts about the agrifood industry. In Canada, agriculture and food and beverage processing contributes some $50 billion to the economy every year. Food processing is the second largest component in Canadian manufacturing after automobiles, and the agrifood sector accounts for about 10 per cent of our total exports.
These are impressive figures that clearly demonstrate the importance of the agrifood sector to all Canadians. However, in this 125th year of Confederation Canada's agrifood producers are facing some of the greatest challenges in the industry's history.
The world economy is growing increasingly globalized and interdependent. New trading blocs are forming and more and more countries are entering the international marketplace.
The opportunities for Canada in this environment are enormous. Already an exporting country, we have the natural resources, the human resources and the technology to build on our strong trading base. However, if our agrifood producers are going to capitalize on these advantages they must move quickly to diversify and become more efficient and more competitive. They must adopt new technologies, new methods and new ways of thinking and doing business. They must put more emphasis on research and promotion, seek out new market opportunities and form new partnerships at home and abroad. They must begin to look much more closely at the long-term sustainability of the sector environmentally, economically and socially. They must do this in a time of continuing restraint, increasing competition and ongoing international trade wars.
In 1989, in an effort to help the industry adapt to changing realities, Agriculture Canada undertook the agrifood policy review in consultation with the provinces and the industry stakeholders. The review is based on four major pillars of reform: market responsiveness, regional sensitivity, self-reliance and environmental sustainability.
There has already been significant progress toward these goals. For example, the new safety net programs, GRIP and NISA, are designed to encourage greater self-reliance on the part of agricultural producers and greater income predictability.
The three-year National Farm Business Management Program announced in March is designed to increase farm business management training and to make more business information and consulting services available to farmers. The check-off legislation now before the Senate would encourage greater research and promotion by agricultural producers.
In 1992-93 Agriculture Canada's priorities will be to continue to build on the work of the policy review, to encourage continued adaptation and greater competitiveness in the agrifood sector, and to ensure improved government responsiveness to the changing needs of the industry.
The department will be working to build more effective, efficient and regionally sensitive partnerships with the provinces and the industry stakeholders.
June 16, 1992

It helps the primary and processing sectors improve their competitiveness and provides farmers with the information, services and training they need to improve their business management skills.
It helps the agrifood industry pursue new diversification opportunities; and helps maintain and develop domestic and international markets for our products through trade policy, marketing support, research and responsive regulations.
It promotes the environmental sustainability of the Canadian agrifood industry and the safety and quality of Canada's food supply.
Finally, it enhances corporate and organizational structures to better enable Agriculture Canada employees to provide quality service in response to the changing needs of the department's clients.
The federal budget contains a number of provisions which should help with these efforts. For example, the tax exemption for ethanol and methanol in gasoline blends will encourage the development and use of ethanol and methanol fuels made from feed stocks. This will not only lead to considerable new market opportunities for grain producers, it will also help to protect the environment and encourage increased producer involvement in value-added processing.
The Small Business Financing Program, which will run until the end of 1992, will help small family farm businesses in difficulty obtain loans at lower interest rates.
Tax reductions to Canadian manufacturers and processors will help to improve the competitiveness of food processors and farm input suppliers such as machinery manufacturers.
The review of Agriculture Canada regulations, in partnership with provinces and industry, will ensure that federal regulations are helping, not hindering industry adaptation.
As well, through the agrifood policy review, the department will be continuing its efforts to build a second generation of supply management and to ensure the efficiency of our transportation systems.
Through agreements like GATT and NAFTA, it will continue to work toward a more liberal and predictable
Supply
international trading environment with more equitable trading rules.
The department also recognizes the need to continue to support our agricultural producers over the short term. Agriculture Canada's Main Estimates for 1992-93 total about $2.9 billion. Of this, more than $1.2 billion is being paid for GRIP and NISA and for the farms support and adjustment measure initiatives, FSAM I and FSAM II.
In the year ahead, the department will focus on improving safety net programs so that they do more to encourage industry adaptation. For instance, the provisions in FSAM I to encourage participation in GRIP and NISA are a good example of how income support spending can be used to foster greater self-reliance by agricultural producers. I would also like to note that governments are committed to extending NISA eligibility to the whole farm program.
Combined with the efforts of the federal government to stimulate economic growth through low inflation and interest rates, these initiatives should go a long way toward relieving the pressures on Canada's agrifood sector.
In fact, the 1991 census of agriculture shows that, despite the difficult economic times over the last year, we are already seeing some progress.
The census reported increased acres under cultivation since 1986, an increase in livestock production and more acreage dedicated to specialty crops, a sign that farmers are beginning to diversify.
As well, farmers are increasingly adopting more environmentally sustainable practices, with reduced use of chemicals and increased use of conservation tillage.
The 1992 survey of farms shows that farmers largely thought they were holding their ground financially. Some 48 per cent said their situation was the same, 13 per cent said the financial picture was better; and 38 per cent said things were worse.
In comparison, in the 1990 survey 43 per cent said their situation was the same and only 11 per cent said it was better. Some 45 per cent said their situation was worse than the year before, 6 per cent more than in the most recent survey.

June 16, 1992
Supply
The results show that farmers are more optimistic about the future. In 1990, 34 per cent thought their situation would stay the same, 19 per cent felt it would improve, and 39 per cent felt it would get worse.
In the 1991 survey 44 per cent thought things would stay the same, 25 per cent thought their situation would improve, and 23 per cent were pessimistic about the coming year.
More concrete signs of improvement can be seen in the grains and oilseeds sector which has been the hardest hit by the international subsidy wars. Wheat exports are 34 per cent higher at this point in the crop year than they were last year. Sales through the west coast have hit records every month except September.
Due to tightening world wheat supplies, especially in the United States, and greater demand from the former U.S.S.R. and China, world wheat prices have risen since the crop year began. This has resulted in higher Canadian Wheat Board initial payments. As well, we have seen higher initial payments for feed barley, designated barley and durum wheat.
I am confident that with the co-operation of all governments and with strong industry leadership we will continue to see improvements in the economic position of the agrifood industry in the years ahead.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments on agriculture of the hon. member for Elgin-Norfolk. I completely agree with him that there is a tremendous need for research and development in the food processing industry. If we lose the food processing industry, we lose the market for those producers.
Clearly that is one of the greatest challenges facing us with the free trade deal with the United States. There are no offsets. There is no protection as there was in the free trade deal for automobiles signed back in the sixties. Essentially we are just reducing the tariffs on processed products.
The agriculture competitiveness council recognized this in a report which it put out in January of this year. It said that we need more research, that we need to upgrade the equipment we have in the food processing industry, and that we were in a deathly competitive world with producers in Mexico, with producers in the United States, with producers in Ireland, and with producers in
other countries. It emphasized the need for increased commitment by the government.
When we look over the 1992-93 estimates of the Department of Agriculture, we see that scientific research and development has been cut by 4 per cent or $11.4 million in 1992-93. Although the hon. member is talking about the right things, his government is doing the wrong things because its cutting back agricultural scientific research by 4 per cent.
If we add the 2 per cent, 3 per cent, or 4 per cent inflation that we face we see an effective cutback of probably 7 per cent or 8 per cent.
It is interesting that just before these estimates came down the Minister of Finance brought down his budget. In the agriculture competitiveness council report of January of this year, which was released slightly thereafter, it talked about the importance of the agrifood processing industry. It said that if Canada did not act immediately, if Canada did not provide very significant incentives to encourage investment in productivity enhancing activities in the agrifood sector, we would lose out. It recommended that we increase the capital cost allowance from 25 per cent to 50 per cent.
When the Minister of Finance brought in his budget he brought in a piddling 5 per cent increase. This is to save an industry of which he was the minister.
I would like to ask the member: Why is the government cutting scientific research? Why is it only providing a 5 per cent increase when the government's own agriculture competitiveness council recommended a 25 per cent increase? Why is there a cutback in agricultural research when its own competitiveness council was recommending that there be a massive increase of 200 per cent in current tax depreciation and research as recommended by its agriculture competitiveness council?


Ken Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his comments and his question. He will recognize that the policy review undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, by the former Minister of Agriculture, pointed to some of the things he has talked about: about further processing of products in Canada, not only in agriculture but other aspects of natural resources, so that we might create jobs in Canada and create that extra wealth for Canadians. I believe that is the direction the government is taking.

The hon. member talked about research and development. He thinks there have been cuts. I would tend to think that if the hon. member really took a look at it he would recognize that those dollars being spent on research and development by the federal government are under review. They will be put to greater use in the future to make sure that those dollars are wisely spent. We recognize we have to spend dollars in research and development. That is what the Minister of Finance was aiming at with his reduction in the federal budget.
I am sure the hon. member will also recognize the competitive council, in its discussions with Canadians across Canada, talked about the various things that might need some looking at such as the regulations which three departments, including the Department of Agriculture, have already started. It recognized that we needed to take a look at some of the regulations to make sure we were not hindering processing or further development in Canada.
The hon. member will recognize that the government looks at over-all expenditures. We are acting in a responsible way, trying to make sure those dollars spent are spent in a super controlled way so that we do not increase the deficit and end up with the problems we had when we took over the government in 1984.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, our side has agreed among ourselves to limiting debate to 10 minutes so that two speakers could be heard in the 20 minutes, starting with me.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the opposition party the power to split the speeches?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, our twinning of the two ridings seems to be going very well. The students who returned from Your Honour's riding last week had nothing but praise for the reception they received. I hope when your students come back to our area under the 125 celebration we will be able to host them in the same way and to continue that program.
I rise today to talk a bit about the government's estimates, not necessarily estimates in terms of specific items as much as in terms of government spending. Our
Supply
party before the budget and since the budget has put forward to the government the idea of creating jobs by putting money into infrastructure that is needed right across Canada.
Once again, I have to ask the government to see that this idea has merit. It can create jobs. It can get Canada moving again. As we look at our infrastructure, sewers, roads and various other types of infrastructure in different communities, we see what is needed to keep Canada at a certain level of ability to perform.
I know these are difficult economic times. I would just say there are probably areas this government could look at. One would be in the administration of the UI funds in terms of putting money into creating jobs rather than having to spend it on unemployment insurance or welfare rolls.
I do not see this happening. I see despair out there as to when the economy is going to turn around. When are we going to be able to use the low interest rates we have seen come down so slowly over the last while? They are down, yet the businesses are not picking up, at least in the rural areas. There does not seem to be hope or the new ideas with which the research and development we used to have in Canada might have created new jobs.
We saw in the budget the decrease in research and development. Over the years the government has cut back the Economic Council, the Law Reform Commission and the Science Council of Canada. All these areas have given greatly to Canada. I know members opposite will say that we can go somewhere else and get this research done. I heard it here this morning. Yes, we can probably go to the Americans as usual and ask for their statistics. They do not always apply to Canada because we have different values from the Americans, different values for what we feel in Canada has made us Canadian.
I want to raise another idea today. When I took part in the debate earlier I said that we have excess in our ministers' departments. We have excess in their staff and we have excess in people overseeing groups. The chief of staff who is highly paid, paid higher than a member of Parliament or higher than his minister, is he the same as the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister? I do not understand why we need all these layers to produce something.

June 16, 1992
Supply
A very innocent example was given today in the House during Question Period. Yesterday we had an all-party report on breast cancer. The three parties agreed that cancer causes death: 5,000 women will die and 14,000 women will have breast cancer in Canada this year. These are real statistics. We do not need more studies to say that we need more research to prevent these senseless deaths from occurring in Canada.
If it were a man who had the same problem, it would probably be passed and we would not even have to ask about it in the House. It seems so ironic that the mothers of our children, the women out there today, have to live with an idea that more studies have to be done to tell the Department of National Health and Welfare that it would be a good idea to start putting some of its dollars into this, particularly when it says it has a ceiling with no limit.
I also want to raise the issue of CFB Cornwallis.
Over the last year I have seen the continuous reduction of jobs in my area. I do not have great companies in my area. I do not have ACOA that can find multitudes of businesses to bring into the area or a multitude of businesses to expand in my area. We do have CFB Cornwallis and it has provided jobs continuously for all my lifetime in that area. It has worked very effectively. It is in a cost-effective area. The taxes are not high, land is cheap, we have a ready-made harbour and ready-made facilities for any naval training. We have an airport and we have CFB Greenwood, which can work in conjunction with CFB Cornwallis. There are many reasons why CFB Cornwallis should be an ideal place for the Armed Forces.
Yet we have seen a reduction of jobs, with a further reduction of about 100 jobs contemplated within the next few weeks. We have seen businesses close and the threat of school closures. People who have been employed for years may have to face very tough times and leave their homes and area. This threat has been hanging over the people in the area for well over a year and a half.
What does CFB Cornwallis do and why is it important to the Armed Forces? Since 1968 all new recruits who
speak English have been trained at CFB Cornwallis. I realize the Minister of National Defence has said as of last September the Canadian Armed Forces would be reduced to 75,000 for regular Armed Forces. This was in light of the conditions in the world, and I can quite accept that. But where are those 75,000 enlisted men going to be trained? My people are asking me where they are going.
I tell them we have the ideal facilities. We have been training since 1968. I do not know why we cannot be reassured it is going to continue, and we will be able to train new recruits for the Armed Forces across Canada. We can do militia, cadets, reserves, and we have done other training there over the years.
People look to Parliament to see what decisions are going to be made and if their future is protected. New recruits coming in from Alberta or Newfoundland want to know there is a place for them in the Armed Forces. Yet, apparently there are no new recruits coming into the Armed Forces because of whatever the policy is.
It is my understanding at the end of this month we will lose our base commander and a lieutenant-colonel will come in. It means the status of the base for new recruits will be reduced to a station. Those who have had a military base in their constituency know that somehow the government has failed to find something to put into CFB Cornwallis along with new recruits. I say that because our area is a bilingual constituency and we have a bilingual university. My people and I see no reason why we could not be training all new recruits in Canada. Certainly I cannot see why we would be even thinking of moving the English speaking new recruits anywhere else in Canada.
I have to voice these concerns to the House because we have had something and we see it slowly being lost through the reduction of jobs, the closing down of businesses, the threat of school closures and even hospitals. We have to ask ourselves if closing means when there is only one person left, then we close the area. If that is so, it is very cruel and unusual punishment to inflict.
June 16, 1992


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Perhaps I may add just a few words. I would like to respond to the cordial remarks made by the hon. member for South West Nova and stress the superb co-operation between our two ridings, as a result of which residents of both ridings will be visiting each other this summer to create a brotherhood of Canadians.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague, the member for South West Nova, which is adjacent to my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants. I represented the riding of Annapolis Valley-Digby Annapolis-Cains, as it was called when I was first elected many moons ago and Cornwallis was very much a part of my responsibility. I certainly share the concerns she expressed here in a pretty objective way about what is happening to Cornwallis through attrition and/or ministerial decree, notwithstanding the fact there evidently is a committee on base consolidation and closures that is supposed to make recommendations.
Now we have had another statement from that committee. It is going to postpone fundamental decisions, perhaps until after the next election. I know and come from Nova Scotia too. We have had a history of servicing the services because we are never going to have the massive industries of other parts of the country. That has been part of our history and the pending closure of Cornwallis flies in the face of that.
I would like to ask the member how she feels this base closure committee is really performing. How can it objectively assess the criteria when the minister openly says there are going to be a lot more changes because only 17 per cent of the defence budget is being spent in Quebec? There are going to be changes in other parts of the country regardless of history, to make sure that is redressed. Does she feel this is the sword of Damocles hanging over the base at Cornwallis and the future is no brighter than the hon. member painted it in her remarks?
Supply


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Annapolis Valley-Hants for his question. He expresses the concern of my constituents I run into every day as to why this is happening at CFB Cornwallis and soon to be CFS Cornwallis I guess. I have to agree, we are now going to have an infrastructure rationalization process in the ministry of national defence to look at the determined force requirements, determine infrastructure requirements and identify surplus infrastructure. That is what this MAGDI, Ministers' Advisory Group of Defence Infrastructure, said it would be doing.
I find it quite unique in the sense we are giving the Department of National Defence something I think we have never actually given up as parliamentarians, which was the exact role of National Defence in Canada. It is all right for the Department of National Defence to say what may be excess or why, but I do not think anybody should be allowed to say something is a certain way without looking at the effects it has on the community. That must be put into perspective at the Department of National Defence. The defence people are going to make the study and the decisions. At the same time the minister has said openly in committee 17 per cent is not enough of the defence budget for Quebec.
At the same time I know my people are asking why a new naval reserve is going up when we have all the facilities at CFB Cornwallis. Perhaps they are not being given the right answers. They are not being looked at. There seems to be a real dichotomy between the minister and where he sees defence going, and the Department of National Defence in its infrastructure rationalization without looking at economic realities. It could be one general prefers to have something over another general and that is who is going to have his case put before the Minister of National Defence to be reviewed. Parliament will have 30 sitting days to review and no more whenever the decision of the minister's review panel, which comes after the infrastructure rationalization process does it at defence. They are given to the minister. The minister looks at the proposals. He gives them to a review panel. The review panel hands them back to the minister. He then looks at the proposals and they come to Parliament.

Supply
By that time this great study says, get the people used to thinking they are not going to have something and then two years later you can do it.
I am saying it is not a fair way to treat Canadians. It is one thing to say you have to have an even distribution of defence dollars across Canada and that can be done perhaps in capital spending.
But we will never have tank cars built in Nova Scotia in the Annapolis Valley unless somebody decides to put a factory there with a lot of money because the centre of activity is in Ontario.
Surely we can train new recruits in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are going to have at least 50,000 enlisted men and they have to go somewhere to be trained. Why can it not be at Cornwallis? Why can this minister not give that commitment to not only South West Nova but to all Canadians?
It is the most cost-effective way. There is no way you can show me a less cost-effective way of spending our training dollars than at CFB Cornwallis.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the debate today is to indicate whether or not a member is supportive of the government's expenditure plan for 1992-93.1 rise in the House to indicate the reasons why I oppose the expenditure plan and in particular reference to Winnipeg.
Members of the House will know that in the last decade Winnipeg has had a particularly difficult time. In the first part of this decade, from 1979-80 right through to the 1984 election, both Liberal members from Winnipeg stood up and worked very hard on behalf of the city.
Subsequent to that, the strategy of the federal government has been to pull out one support after another from our city. As a consequence, an expenditure plan this year does not show what can be done for Winnipeg.
The core area initiative, the most public of programs, the one in which most of us came to identify with a more optimistic future, a game plan for the city, has been taken away. It was not renewed at the end of this year when the opportunity presented itself to the federal Minister of Energy, who represents the federal government at the table.
A few weeks ago all of us watched great difficulties in our cities, from Toronto to L.A. Those of us who have downtown constituencies know the frustration felt by
youth, families and the elderly as they found the city unsafe.
The one thing that distinguishes North American Liberals from North American Conservatives is whether or not we should sit back and allow this to happen, whether or not we should allow frustrations to boil over, whether or not we should tell people it is their problem and not ours.
From one generation to another, the Liberal tradition has been to stand up and fight for those people and find a solution. I personally find the expenditure plan lacking in energy and vision. Once again we see no particular plan of action for Winnipeg, or for any other big city in the country.
Canada is of a size where any government showing any sense of commitment can very quickly put together packages which do not overwhelm the treasury, to protect cities from the fundamental flaws we see in other countries. It is not good enough to sit back, watch TV and see another country or city crumble and say thank God it is not my city, province or country.
It is a chance to see what the worst signs and future can be, take the initiative and turn this around.
There are several things that can be done. I must say at the outset it is not a case of telling the government to come walking in with a big stick and big bucks and change things. No, no. The style of the 1990s must be that of partnership. There are organizations in the voluntary sector, well-meaning businesses, provincial governments and municipal governments. The field is filled with people with energy who want to make sure their cities work but they need one more actor at the table. They need a committed federal government.
What can the federal government bring to the table to help in the renewal of our cities that is not there now? First, the government can go back to CMHC and restore the long-standing commitment that we have to social housing and to assisting with low-rental housing across the country.
If we look at the dismal state of the housing market in this country and then look at the federal government expenditure plan, it is clear that there is a direct relationship. If the federal government, through CMHC, is not active in housing the market collapses in this country. If we want the strongest component for dealing with new Canadians who have put together non-profit
June 16, 1992

housing organizations, for seniors groups and for the Lions Clubs of this country, we need the federal government to be there to finance and show direction. But no, that opportunity has been passed over.
Second, if we look at the renewal of older neighbourhoods, one of the most successful programs that we have had, I would say since the early 1970s, has been the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP. It successfully helped low income homeowners, and in some cases landlords who were dealing in low-rental areas, restore their property so they could stay there. They continue to stay there because of the activities. Think ahead seven or eight years if there were no repairs in the inner city. Then we can just begin to imagine the worst scenes we have seen on television being a backdrop to Canadian cities.
Third, there is youth employment. Why is it impossible for the federal government to properly fund Challenge '92? Why were so many students not given the opportunity to work? In the case of the constituency of Winnipeg North Centre as many as 9 out of 10 in the category of non-profit organizations were denied an opportunity to work this summer because of underfunding of a program. If you do not have a job, how can you have hope and how can you get educated?
Fourth, changes in the unemployment insurance program have pretty well prevented aboriginal youth and many women who have been out of the work force for some time from getting proper training. Without training it is impossible to take a step forward.
Fifth is safety in the cities. There are a number of regulations and laws within the Criminal Code that can be changed. There are a number of initiatives that can be taken by the Solicitor General's office. It could start up the race relations organization that has been long promised, and nothing has ever been done. Why has something not been done to help out with the fundamental question of safety on the streets?
This is not an issue from the right wing. This is not an issue on which it is possible to say: "Oh well, it is only the law and order people who are concerned about safety". The average Canadian family living in a big city is concerned with the safety of themselves, their children
Supply
and their parents. We, as a government, have an obligation to respond to this and come up with ways to design cities better, to make more functional laws and ensure that the support services are properly financed so that the basic question of personal safety is responded to more positively.
As for economic development, how can a city find its role in a new competitive world if the federal government, which is in charge of the trade arrangements and the international environment, does not take a concern with the individual cities of this country and in finding a role for the people living there in trading. What is the role of Winnipeg in the international economy? It has lost its role and it is having a difficult time understanding what it is to do. What is the expectation? How is it being helped by the federal government? There are 650,000 people living there and yet there is no plan for their economic functions.
On a much larger scale, the people of Montreal are facing the same crisis. The economic base of Montreal is very similar to that of Winnipeg. It relies upon the textile industry, the apparel industry, the construction industry, engineering and the transportation of commodities from the agricultural fields. They are all similar to components of the Winnipeg economy, and Montreal is suffering a similar collapse.
Does the government have in its expenditure plan that is under discussion today any particular points of reference to help the people of Montreal or Winnipeg? The answer is a resounding no.
If your national government decides that your problems are too small then how can you possibly begin to redevelop your own city? Where is the federal government when it comes to providing languages for new entrepreneurs in this country?
If we do want to develop trading partners in Asia, if we do want to develop partners in Eastern Europe, who has the language skills? Who has the documents in their language? Who has the ability to understand Canadian law and apply it to the international trade situation? Who is going to be supportive of the long trips over to these countries so that trade can begin?

Supply
It is not this government. That is what is sad. The expenditure plan has left out any reference to the tremendous problems facing Canadian cities. I use Winnipeg as an example but I could be talking to the House about Montreal, Toronto, or Edmonton. All these cities face a crisis, some of them somewhat different.
It is not for the federal government to come in and say: "We have the answer". However, it is up to the federal government to say: "We want to be a partner. Let us sit down at the table and let us go over a list of issues. You tell us what you need and we will help you form a better urban environment that will create jobs, create a strong economy, rebuild houses in neighbourhoods and get our cities going again".
The cities are the centre of economic energy and we must defend them.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I was listening very intently with a great deal of interest to the excellent speech given by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I was struck by the common sense that he pronounced and the logic that he brought forward. At the basis of our Canadian society is the city itself. Therein we have the whole vehicle for our modem life in the urban context. If we allow our cities to become disorganized, to become debased, to decay and to become unruly then frankly we in this country have thrown away the very vehicle of our urban way of life.
I cannot help but think that this government is completely missing the boat when it comes to dealing with urban problems. He mentioned, and I think correctly, the violence in Los Angeles. It was a very tragic episode, not only in American history but in human history. That episode showed us that these problems have not been solved. The difficulty is ongoing, and it would seem that our governments are turning a blind eye to the problem or just do not know how to handle the situation.
From a judicial point of view, 8,000 people were arrested in the Los Angeles riots. It defies the imagination to understand how they are going to process these
8,000	people through an already crowded court system in the United States.
This is the sort of thinking that we must consider because what has happened in Los Angeles could very easily happen in Canada. We did have very unfortunate
riots in Toronto as a result of a shooting incident. They gave us a clear signal that Canada is not exempt from these problems. If we do not deal realistically and strategically with the problems that exist in our cities then we are going to be faced with ever-increasing violence and disruption.
As the hon. member has mentioned, we must deal with the questions of housing and employment but we also have to work together at the three levels of government.
The Minister of Justice stated that she is promoting meetings and dialogue with the mayors of the major cities in Canada. Hopefully in a year's time we will have a meeting of the three levels of government, but this does not seem to me to be the response that is urgently required and that Canadians want.
The government must get in better contact with not only the problems that exist in our cities but also with the difficulties that it seems to be having in entering into a dialogue with supposedly friendly provinces and municipalities.
The situation goes much further than just the cities themselves. It goes to the thinking that seems to permeate our society today. There is a survival of the fittest attitude. Unfortunately this attitude is manifesting itself in very derogatory ways. For instance we do not seem to be doing what we should be doing for single parents and their children, ex-wives who have been separated or divorced from their husbands and are finding themselves incapable of meeting the expenses of raising their children let alone looking after their own needs.
We have a tax system that allows the ex-husband to deduct his payments to the ex-wife and children but the wife who receives the payments must pay taxes on what she receives.
We have heard that the courts and other authorities tell us that when the wives and children do get the money, it is less than half of what they need to raise the children. We are told that 12 per cent of the ex-husbands are living below the poverty line but 66 per cent of the ex-wives and families are living in poverty, even if they are receiving payments. If they do not receive the payment, that poverty level figure is increased to 75 per cent.
June 16, 1992	COMMONS
There must be more recognition of what needs to be done and how it is going to be done. If not then we are saying that our federal system stymies the justice and the equity that we all expect to have in this country. However, the government is not only turning away and not recognizing the problems that exist but it is also wilfully abandoning the programs that had meant so much in cementing our society, bringing people together, and giving people hope.
I just want to deal with two programs as they refer to the justice system. The first is the Court Challenges Program. We have talked to the government. We have asked questions in the House. We have asked questions in committee as to why the government would possibly do away with the Court Challenges Program. It is incredible to think that this program has been jettisoned by the government.
It is a program that cost $2.4 million. Certainly $2.4 million is a considerable sum of money, but we should consider that this program allowed disadvantaged and poor people to be able to take their perceived injustices and questions to court. Not everybody was given financing, but if it was determined that their case was something that needed to be brought forward and needed to be determined, viewed and questioned then the organizing group gave them funding of up to a maximum of $35,000 toward their legal fees.
This has been of immeasurable help to us. Not only has it helped disadvantaged people, visible minorities, single mothers, and aboriginal people but it has brought forward a good body of law. It helped us to enrich the body of law that we so proudly speak about in this country.
We have had court decisions that have resulted from the Court Challenges Program such as the Butler case, in which it was determined by a vote of nine to nothing that the obscenity rules in this country were directly related to violence against women and violence against the family. This now allows us to proceed, I would have hoped faster than we have, with tougher pornography laws, in particular, so that we can protect our children from this degrading and abusive form of material.
Also, we are doing away with our Law Reform Commission which has been the genesis of a great deal of our

Supply
legal thinking. We have talked about the various bills in this House. We have discussed cases where in at least 44 recent Supreme Court decisions the Law Reform Commission was cited as being the origin of the particular legal thinking.
We now have Bill C-46 before the House, the contraventions bill. In 1976, it was the Law Reform Commission that requested this. The government first brought it forward in 1986 and finally we have the legislation that we have today.
It seems the government is determined to do it, but if we do away with our Law Reform Commission then Canada will be one of three Commonwealth countries without a law reform commission. We will be joining Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as the only three Commonwealth countries without a law reform commission.
Quebec is now in the process of setting up a law reform commission. This will mean that all provinces in Canada have a law reform commission, but the federal government does not. It is a travesty in a federal system that we would abandon this role and not consider our law more important than we have.
I think I have 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to be sure because we have a motion that members of your party will split the time for their speeches.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: My colleague is in committee and cannot leave, unfortunately.
There is a certain fibre, a certain cement that we have had in Canada. We have been able to relate one to the other, we have been able to care for one another, we have been conscious of the needs of one another. It seems that these programs and these concerns are dissipating. It is mainly because the government is choosing not to keep those programs going.
In a lot of cases the government has set up or initiated good programs, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, employment programs and various labour initiatives. It then has proceeded to reduce the funding for those programs which is counterproductive. This is not the way to proceed.

June 16, 1992
Supply
I also want to give a great deal of credit to the hon. member for South West Nova and to compliment her on the comments she made concerning the Cornwallis base. It is a tremendously important facility in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada.
When we see new institutions being funded and reorganization in the Armed Forces taking place when we have this excellent facility in Nova Scotia, the thought, even the very germ of an idea that we would let this facility go is absolutely galling and ridiculous. It is a marvellous facility not only in the technological expertise that exists there but also in the infrastructure which is so costly today. It has an excellent infrastructure and is in a marvellous location with very competent personnel. The thought that we would let this go is unthinkable. I certainly hope the government will listen to the words and reasons put forward by the hon. member for South West Nova. It is well worth listening to. It is a benefit to her constituents and to the country as a whole.
Frankly, the situation in Atlantic Canada is very bad at the present time. I think the government is trying not to notice this. How government members can possibly not notice it, how they can possibly come into the House and not be completely and utterly embarrassed by their treatment of Atlantic Canada is very perplexing to me.
In my constituency on Cape Breton Island we have a devastating economic problem. The meaningful programs we expect from government are not forthcoming. There does not seem to be a recognition of what is going on in Atlantic Canada and certainly on Cape Breton Island.
The community has no understanding whatsoever as to why the federal government has abandoned its role in Atlantic Canada.
We have the situation in the fisheries. We have asked the government time after time to please tell us what will be done as compensation for those who are going to be losing their livelihood.
In Newfoundland there are thousands of communities depending exclusively on the fishery. On Cape Breton Island there are communities which are completely
dependent on the fishery. These communities will suffer irreparable harm if the fishery is closed. What is the government doing? It is causing tremendous anguish.
In Nova Scotia and Cape Breton we had an excellent tourist industry. It has been hurt by the GST and by higher taxes on gasoline. We depend mainly on Americans visiting our region and frankly, the GST and the gasoline tax are disincentives to come to our region.
It may be said that applications to obtain a GST rebate can be made. People just do not go through that process. They are not prepared to go through that hassle. They will stay at home. They will go as far as Maine, Vermont or New Hampshire and decide that is as far as they will go. We will lose the assistance we could have had from their visits.
This is so fundamental. It seems that everything in Atlantic Canada right now is tainted as far as the economy is concerned. Something has happened pretty well on all fronts to cause questions in every industry and every form of livelihood. This is a mystery to us all as to how this could have been allowed to happen to the extent that it has.
This is a great country, even though we have our economic difficulties at the present time. There seems to be different levels of Canadians. There is a gulf between the more prosperous regions of the country and the less prosperous, between the rich and the poor, and that gulf seems to be widening. This was not the way it was supposed to be. This was not Canada as most of us thought of it. This was not the idea that we ever imagined would be of such prominence in our country as it is today. This cannot really be allowed to continue because if it is we are going to ruin the spirit of the country as we know it.
Certainly in Atlantic Canada there is the feeling because the four provinces together only have a total of 32 seats that politically, government believes Atlantic Canada is expendable. The government asks: "Why worry about the fishery? Why worry about the tourist industry? Why worry about agriculture in Atlantic Canada? Why worry about the forest industry? Why worry about the communities that are suffering such difficulty? Because we can win an election and not have to worry about Atlantic Canada".
June 16, 1992

That thinking is diabolical. I want this government to reassess its actions. I want this government to reassess the needs that it is giving priority.
I want this government to realize that the four provinces of Atlantic Canada are very much in need of their federal government. The federal government cannot just say that at the very best, it is going to allow the concerns of Atlantic Canada to wait for another day when there are not so many other things on its plate. These people are good Canadians and they need the support of their government. They are asking for the support of their government and they are not getting it.
I want this government to reappraise its priorities. I want this government to be mindful there are Canadians in Atlantic Canada needing its help. I would suggest right now that there be plans and there be analyses of the economic situation and that the proper regional development framework and assistance in the short term be put in place.
What has happened is a tragedy and if something is not done very soon, the damage will be irreparable. These people who have depended on their government will find their government not anxious and in fact not even willing to help them when they need that government assistance so badly.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I found the intervention by the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys quite interesting. I was intrigued by his having mentioned early in his discourse the benefits provided to the visible minority community by the Court Challenges Program.
I wonder if he realizes that in fact the Court Challenges Program was never used to bring a single case to the Supreme Court of Canada. At the time the government decided to terminate the program there was an attempt to organize young lawyers within the black community to begin to initiate some cases. In fact, the Court Challenges Program was about to be used for the first time by visible minorities. I would like to hear what he thinks about that.
How does the hon. member relate that in the present social context to the fact that at the same time, the Law Reform Commission had prepared a preliminary report examining the issue of jury selection as it related to what had been suspected in Ontario to be an exclusion of visible minorities from juries? It was an initiative taken
Supply
by Ontario to pursue that issue. Can that be seen to have a relationship to the government's decision to delay the implementation of legislation on the Race Relations Institute?
In short, there are a number of elements in the decision of the government to terminate programs or commissions that have impacted seriously on the ability of visible minorities to exercise their right to be a part of the process. This is at the very time when the issue of racial discrimination has become critical in many parts of this country.
Is all of this in some way connected to the introduction of sharp changes in the refugee determination system? This is at a time when the Reform Party is raising xenophobic questions with respect to government policy on immigration. Are we not finding a kind of xenophobic government in terms of the legislation that it is passing in response to the Reform Party and in disregard to the concerns of a considerable sector of the community?


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his questions and his comments. What he says is correct.
While the Court Challenges Program has not brought a case to the Supreme Court involving visible minorities, the matter had been under consideration and there was an attempt to correct that. It was unfortunate that the visible minorities did not get more support from the Court Challenges Program.
I think it is unfortunate too that the Court Challenges Program has been cancelled. The deficiencies of the program did not get a chance to be corrected. I feel that it could have played a very important part for visible minorities. They never really had the full benefit of it. I think that is extremely wrong, particularly when we are talking now about amending our Constitution and amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The government is in fact saying: "We don't need the Court Challenges Program any more", and at the same time considering these amendments. We are going to have to look at these amendments in light of their relationship to our legal system. The effect on visible minorities, aboriginal people and other groups is going to be very important. At this particular time when we need it so badly, the government is withdrawing it.

June 16, 1992
Supply
The member also talks about the Law Reform Commission and the jury selection process. He is right on that as well. This is something that was being looked at. Hopefully we were going to have a meaningful commentary on that.
We also had a very good report in process on the law and multiculturalism, an excellent program that dealt with the law relating to visible minorities and the various groups in our communities and exactly trying to relate one to the other. The actual fundamental preparation for it had been completed. In fact, there was a group of consultants from the various multicultural communities who were to meet with the government to discuss the report four days after the budget was presented.
The budget was presented cancelling the Law Reform Commission, the meeting was cancelled. These meetings have never been rescheduled. To the knowledge of the multicultural community, they do not know where the reports sits. They do not know if these meetings will ever take place. In fact, they are now of the mind that they will never see this report, that this report will never be made public. This is an unmitigated tragedy when we consider how much has gone into it and how much we need this report.
That is just the callous thinking and the disregard that exists.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague and I thank him for his support for Cornwallis. I could not help but think that the question put prior to me was an appropriate one and leans toward the question that I would like to ask the member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.
The member mentioned ACOA, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. It has not proved to be very effective. In this government's implementation of ACOA, it has not proved to be an effective use of creating jobs or bringing new ideas into my area. I think I speak not only for my area but for the surrounding communities south of Halifax. We have seen it play a role in tourism, in building hotels and things like that.
Has the member experienced the same thing and does he have any ideas? I do. I have a couple of suggestions. I wonder if the member would like to comment on where ACOA has gone wrong under this government in terms
of delivering $2 billion. I think most of my constituents would like to see where the $2 billion is going.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member for South West Nova that we would all like to know where the $2 billion went. It is probably the biggest mystery of all when we are talking about ACOA.
The concept of ACOA on paper initially was not a bad concept. What happened was that political patronage became the dominant consideration in ACOA. Moneys were given depending upon who you were and what constituency you lived in and what you had in your wherewithal to be able to do for the government at a later date.
That is crass. It was the number one criteria for ACOA.
By Cape Breton standards, we received considerable funding for large industries that were organized and applied for by people outside of the jurisdiction. They were given a lot of money. They could not turn the money down. We do not know what relationship they had with anybody in the government or the Public Service, so I cannot comment specifically.
They came in. They set up the businesses. They employed people who wanted jobs badly. The local people worked very hard only to find that when the funding was used up and the tax credit was gone, the job training grants were used up, all of a sudden the doors were closed in the industries.
These people were not only without a job once again, but actually had their hopes dashed because they thought that finally they were going to have something worth while and they were going to have a future. They were going to be able to look after their families and make a home for themselves in Cape Breton without having to worry about where the next pay cheque was going to come from.
This is not the situation now. We find ourselves back to square one. What we need to do is foster the local entrepreneurs who have a stake in the community and who have shown that they want to live in the community and to help them, not because of what political party they support or what they can do but on the basis of their ideas and what they want to do for the community.
June 16, 1992

That is going to have to be a fundamental consideration.


Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the government's Main Estimates for the current year.
However, I find it very difficult to understand why a number of opposition members have been telling us since this morning that the government does not spend enough. They complained that the government withdrew from certain programs and that it cut spending. We tabled Main Estimates totalling $160 billion for the year
1992-93. This does not include the interest charges on the debt we inherited, an irresponsible debt that goes back to the seventies and the beginning of the eighties, a $200 billion debt that causes all kinds of problems because of the interest which accumulates each year. I wonder how anyone could claim today that the government is not spending enough money when we realize that we have a budget of around $120 billion, that the public complains it is being overtaxed and we are being asked to increase spending in practically all the government's current programs. We are even being asked to introduce new programs. I realize there is significant need, but people should also realize that if we want to control taxes, if we want to reduce taxes, we will have to stop increasing program spending, or at least cut certain programs and focus on the priorities.
I think it would be interesting to consider how the tax money the government will collect this year to provide services to Canadians will be spent.
I just mentioned that first of all we have an unfortunate situation where a significant share of the government's tax revenue will go to paying the interest on our debt. The debt keeps increasing annually because we do not have the money to pay the interest, let alone the principal. This means that 25 cents out of every dollar spent in 1992-93 will be applied to debt charges.
There are members who wonder why the government keeps blaming the previous government for the deficit. They say it has now been seven or eight years and we should be able to find something else to talk about and come up with other reasons.
Supply
Unfortunately, as we have been repeating for six, seven or eight years, this debt got out of control and is causing problems now and will continue to do so for generations. The government became so ambitious that its revenues no longer covered its expenditures. It had to borrow to pay for programs it was making available to Canadians and which it really could not afford.
The fact is that more than 50 per cent of budgetary expenditures consist of amounts paid to individuals through our programs and through agencies and provincial and territorial governments. People still complain in this House about cutbacks in transfer payments to governments and individuals. That is entirely false. These expenditures have increased from year to year. I mentioned earlier that if we go back to the 1984 budget, this was a $70 million budget. Of course, the government was running an operating deficit of $16 billion that year, which meant its budget was actually $86 billion.
The fact remains that today, planned budget spending totals about $120 billion, which means that transfers to the provinces, instead of going down, have increased on an annual basis. Of course we had to limit those increases in recent years, in this budget as well, but there again, instead of cutting spending on transfer payments, the government is doing everything it can, within the fiscal room it has to manoeuvre, to keep upgrading these transfers and respond to the public's expectations as much as possible.
Eight per cent of this budget will be spent on defence. We have taken some very substantial measures to control defence spending, and new guidelines have been issued to deal with our new obligations to replace obsolete military equipment. We had to cut defence personnel to be able to modernize our fleet. However, 8 per cent of the budget will still be spent on defence.
As for Crown corporations, 3 per cent of the budget will cover that item, while 11 per cent is allocated to services other than defence, offered directly to Canadians by the federal government. These services are part of the cost of government operations. There are officials and people who provide those services, and these people have to be paid. This includes salaries and wages. It includes accommodation. It also includes equipment for inspecting food and drugs, if we want to protect the

Supply
public and ensure our food is safe to eat. Of course it takes money to have this kind of control.
We have to control enforcement of environmental regulations. I think that investing in the environment is becoming increasingly critical. I think the public expects its leaders to take certain steps and invest in correcting the problems that have developed over the years. The opposition is asking the government to act, but I think it will realize how aware we are of the country's needs. We know a lot more money will be spent on dealing with environmental problems.
We also know how important air safety control is. This is part of the budget for services like aircraft safety and scientific research. We know that it is important to invest in research if we want to meet the challenges of the years ahead. Surveys and mapping are all services in which the government must invest and of course they are in the budget.
The budget also includes fields like health and safety. I see the Minister of Health here and we know very well that we must invest large amounts year after year for better health services and in research for the benefit of Canadians. Canada is a privileged country in this field.
Of course it is not perfect, but we must continue. We will find in the budget the money needed to correct the problems we have identified.
I just spoke about food. Food quality in Canada is the envy of the world, but we must keep track of it, monitor and control it. There are also the environment, medicine and roads. A country as large as Canada must invest heavily in its road system. As well, there are the seaway, airways, airports, ships and harbours. That is all part of our budget.
We often forget all that. We often take all the services we enjoy for granted, but of course they cost something and that is found in the budget. This budget also includes the protection of other consumer interests, like inspections and enforcing regulations on such things as weights and measures, communications and financial institutions.
Social programs and programs for native people are also found in our budget. Most Canadian families receive some income support. We know how important our old
age pensions are to give our seniors a decent life. In addition, unemployment insurance is a huge cost in a difficult period when Canada must restructure its economy and face new challenges.
A major investment must be made in unemployment insurance benefits, because obviously in a time of such great change, Canadians are hit and they must be protected until the situation returns to normal. We can talk about family allowances. We know how important it is to help our Canadian families.
For that reason this budget gives more to deal with those needs, even though the government has very little room to move. As for competitiveness, I said that we are now going through extraordinary changes with the opening of markets; we talk about globalization of trade and we must face tremendous competition. It will not decrease but become more intense. Therefore we must invest and that is what we do in this budget.
We are investing large amounts in science, technology and the infrastructure we will need to face all those problems. We must also protect people and property. We are involved in security, policing, the courts, prisons and social reintegration of offenders. Again, we know that we are going through a difficult period and need more and more good security services in this country.
We have passed legislation on the security of individuals, of Canadians.
Structures and infrastructures must be provided to ensure public safety and deal with people who have had a brush with the law for one reason or another. Money must be spent for their rehabilitation. We cannot neglect them and let them turn into bad citizens. We have to see to it that they are rehabilitated as quickly as possible and, of course, that costs money.
As far as border protection is concerned, we know full well that to preserve its sovereignty, Canada has to protect its borders. A lot of money had to go that way. Canada is a three-ocean country and, as such, has borders, the traffic through which needs to be monitored. In order to be able to afford providing such services to the public, naturally money must be raised. Unfortunately, this means levying taxes. To do so, we
June 16, 1992

need personnel and materials. Administering all that costs quite a bit of money.
Regarding the Immigration Act, again, we are a nation of immigrants in Canada. But this does not mean that immigration just happens. Controls are required as well as all kinds of expenditures that we have to take into account in our budget.
On the revenue side, there are the proceeds of the Customs Act, but then again, money has to be spent in order to collect custom and excise duties.
In a rich, prosperous country such as ours, in spite of the indebtedness I talked about earlier, compared to other countries, there is no doubt that we are privileged. It is our duty as elected members of Parliament to provide cultural and recreation services to our people, and a lot is invested in that. I think that a proud country like Canada must provide cultural services to promote culture throughout the country.
There is also the representation and protection of Canadian interests abroad. We do have to be represented abroad, world-wide, and that entails considerable expenses.
Add to that foreign aid. Considering how privileged we are as a nation, as I pointed out earlier, compared to other, poorer nations, these do need assistance of course. I believe Canada cannot afford not to provide assistance to countries where people die from hunger, which is not the case in Canada. I think it is the thing to do to provide assistance to bring hope to these countries and help them achieve some level of prosperity.
Finally, there are the parliamentary institutions, activities that all members of this House certainly consider as essential to maintain our democratic system. There is more. But I think you get a pretty good idea of how where the money goes, of how the taxpayers money is spent. .
I would like to remind hon. members of one thing, especially those opposite, and I will close off on this. I have been sitting in this House for four years now and I would like the opposition members who, day in day out, criticize government for their lack of consideration for the Canadian citizens, for their lack of consideration in programs offered to provide security and an adequate quality of life, to keep one thing in mind. By the way, a recent United Nations study carried out throughout the
Supply
world concluded that Canada was the country where citizens were afforded the best quality of life. Nevertheless, I believe that a lot needs to be done. Many Canadians are in need and need assistance, but let us not forget that there is a limit to how much taxpayers can pay. Canadians are already overtaxed. We cannot afford to increase our expenses without cutting somewhere else because we cannot go over the $160 billion planned for this year. We cannot even think of doubling this amount. Somebody would have to pay for it eventually.
I would therefore ask the members in the opposition to tone down their criticism and stop blaming the government for the shortfalls of just about every single one of its programs. There is a price to pay. In fact we have already reached the limit and I think that the recent budget is reasonable and that it will enable us to meet our obligations. We must of course take care of those people who require government assistance, but it is about time that most people who can provide for themselves do so without counting on the government, especially as regards unemployment insurance and welfare for which we provide transfer payments. At this point in time, we must focus our efforts on those members of our society who are in the greatest need of help. Mr. Speaker, all this is to say that this budget is extremely important and that it will allow a decent living for all Canadians.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend that I listened attentively to his remarks and there were many things he said with which I agree.
I especially want to focus on that part of his speech near the end where he said that we must look after those who are in most need. It is important to explain to the people of Canada where we as Liberals have a different point of view from the government.
The people who are most in need right now in this country are those people who are out of work. We are talking of more than two million people.
It seems to me that if we are already spending about $35 billion in unemployment insurance and welfare, if we were to maybe add another $5 billion or $6 billion to that amount, we could probably get those people into the work force. Then we would have a productive labour force and it would not be the same sort of drain on the

June 16, 1992
Supply
treasury. We would be creating an asset for that work, whereas right now these disbursements on welfare and unemployment insurance, not to mention the fact there is a lack of productivity, are a real affront to a person's dignity.
The government is constantly telling Canadians that we cannot do this because of the deficit and the debt of the nation. The member said we are paying about 25 cents on the dollar in interest payments. I personally do not think that is such a big deal.
In other words, if someone has a mortgage of $100,000 on their house and they make around $50,000 or $60,000 a year, they are paying 25 per cent or 26 per cent in interest rates and they manage to get by.
My question for the member is does he not think that Canadians without a tax increase could handle another $5 billion or $6 billion for the mortgage of this country if it meant we could put those two million people back to work?


Gaby Larrivée: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. He says that if we got another five or six billion dollars into debt, we could eliminate unemployment in this country.
Without wishing to be overly partisan, I would say that if we realize the extent of our current debt-


An hon. member:: It's not too much.


Gaby Larrivée: It may not be too much, but we must not forget that the $400 million worth of debt some people seem to take for granted costs us 25 cents out of every dollar we collect to provide services for Canadians.
In fact, it costs us about $40 billion annually. When you talk about five or six billion, my answer is that if you had planned things differently 20 years ago, with the same tax revenue we would have had $40 billion to distribute in the form of services to Canadians.
The honourable member says that with five or six billion more, we could eliminate unemployment. Sure,
there would be no more unemployed left in this country and we could even offer them bonuses.
Experience has shown that this kind of investment, and I am referring to borrowing to inject money into the economy, does nothing to deal with the problem. If that were the case, there would be no unemployment today. However, it is not the answer, and that is not how we will create jobs.
It is not the answer, because what is important today is training. The problem is not only the debt we have been handed down over the years but the fact that we have failed to train people for the jobs available today and the jobs available in the future. What we have to do now should have been done 20 years ago: train people so they will be able to work.
The jobs are there. In Canada, between 500,000 and
600,000	jobs would be available if we had the right people to fill them. However, people are not trained for these jobs. It would be wonderful if we had a magic formula that would deal with the problem overnight, but there is no miracle solution. We have to do what should have been done long ago, which is train people and prepare them for the jobs of tomorrow, and that is how we will become a prosperous country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but other members have a few questions.


Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the hon. member for Joliette, who said several times that the United Nations had referred to Canada as the country with the best quality of life in the world. I also heard this on television, and I heard about the UN criteria for this kind of statement.
However, the UN overlooked a very important item. It forgot to say that Canada has been living on credit for the past 30 years. It also forgot to say what Canada would be like during the next five years. I predict that five years from now, Canada will be almost bankrupt. People will not say so, because they assume a country cannot go bankrupt, so let us say Canada will be getting increasingly poorer. In fact, we realize we are getting poorer every day.
June 16, 1992

Unemployment and the debt are out of control because we have 11 political powers in this country that are constantly bickering and cannot reach any kind of consensus, which means that all this is costing us a lot of money. A sovereign Quebec and a sovereign Canada with a dignified form of association would save us between three and five billion dollars, strictly in operating costs. Imagine how efficient we would be. We might save between 15 and 20 billion dollars. That is how we can stop Canada from going bankrupt.
If you want your beautiful Canada to go bankrupt, make a sovereign Canada with a sovereign Quebec, and an association between the two, and in this way we could have effective administration and together keep Canada from going bankrupt.
Perhaps we should invite the UN and give it some real criteria by which to judge what is good or bad for Canada.


Gaby Larrivée: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, the sovereignist from Longueuil.


An hon. member:: The sovereign.


Gaby Larrivée: Indeed, the sovereign of Longueuil. I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. He predicts that the future will not be rosy. He is a pessimist. I say everything will be alright, and I know it will be. Granted, as Canadians-all the provinces made the same mistake-we live beyond our means. We took advantage of our natural resources, but now we realize we have to change. We have to roll up our sleeves and adjust to a modem world, and then we will be on the road to prosperity.
When the hon. member says: "We are going to separate from Canada and we are all going to save money", I find that hard to believe. I am not so sure that will happen.
Mr. Parizeau in Quebec City says: "If we separate, we will reduce government spending. It will cost less in administration costs". When public servants in Hull started asking questions about their future-


An hon. member:: That's Rocheleau's riding.


Gaby Larrivée: It is in the riding of Hull. Mr. Parizeau told them: "Don't worry, you won't lose your jobs. We are going to keep you all". Someone will have to explain how we can cut spending if we keep spending the same amount of money and maintain the same number of employees and provide the same services. Someone will
Supply
have to explain why this is such an ideal solution. Mr. Speaker, we will continue this some other time. I thank you very much.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Dura lex, sed lex, as they used to say.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to join in this debate on the Main Estimates.
I do so in the context of just having come back from the earth summit. It was a very intense experience, where the heads of state of 170 countries were united for three days by a lack of vision, a lack of urgency, and a seeming commitment to put national interests ahead of overwhelming global concerns.
I think they are all deserving of the condemnation of their citizens.
That having been said, in the Main Estimates we are talking about priorities of government. It is very clear coming out of the earth summit in Rio that what is required is a fundamental rethinking about what is important. I have been listening to the debate this afternoon and we are talking about the debt problem and so on, so there are political choices that have to be made.
I would like to inject a little sense of urgency this afternoon. Maurice Strong has a quote that is worthy of repetition: "We can be intellectually pessimistic, but we must be operationally optimistic". That is going to be my theme today. I figure I can be operationally optimistic by exposing some of the very skewed priorities of this government. It seems to be able to find money for the weirdest schemes and yet the money that is used to make a fundamental change that is so urgent in our world seems to be beyond it.
These are political choices made by this government and it is going to be responsible for having made them. I give the House one example. Dr. Nafis Sadik, the head of the UN Population Fund, confronted the representatives from those 170 countries with the need to increase social spending as a means of curbing over-population. Quite frankly, the population of the globe is growing so quickly that we are going to be losing space for future generations. It is not sustainable population growth. What does this government do on population?

June 16, 1992
Supply
In the last five years, it has decreased funding for planned parenthood. In 1984-85, it decreased it by 15.6 per cent, in 1985-86, by 12.5 per cent and in 1986-87, by 20 per cent. This shows the kind of wrong thinking this government has in its caucus. On the one hand, it wants to introduce abortion legislation and on the other hand it takes away funding for planned parenthood, to give women the wherewithal to find out about how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. This is an investment in our society that this government has chosen not to make.
It is an interesting statistic, further on the population issue, that the way to address overpopulation is to increase the access to education for women. It is an interesting statistic that for a woman who has not completed secondary education, the average number of children she will have is seven. If a woman has secondary education, that number drops to three which is still not a sustainable number but four less than seven. An investment in education for women is one thing this government should be doing, making education an attractive choice that young women could make.
The other way where the population can be decreased is if women have more participation in political decisionmaking. It is interesting and I think quite instructive that the Prime Minister remarked only a few weeks ago that Canada's international reputation depends on what his government does at home. I agree with that. It is interesting that at Rio there was not one government woman member on the delegation. This, in spite of the fact that the ministers both for external relations and for external affairs are both women.
Who does the government choose to send down to represent Canada's interests? Quite appropriately, the Minister for the Environment who did do a good job representing Canada. The other minister was the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. This was not a conference about fish, this was a conference about the future of the planet. Women make up more than 50 per cent of the human population on this planet. But no, the government does not send down a woman minister to represent it, it sent down another man to talk about fish. That is very instructive and it goes back to what I said earlier about governments acting out of national self-interest rather than very critical global concerns. I would like
now to turn closer to home and talk about those other choices that this government has made because of course when you are government you have to make the tough choices. It is bizarre at best.
For example, the announcement when I was in Rio. I was incredulous to hear that there was a proposal to spend $4.3 billion for the world's most expensive high-tech helicopters to combat the Soviet threat. Has the government not been reading the papers lately? There is no longer a Soviet threat. Why does it not use the $4.3 billion to buy the whole Soviet submarine fleet? It seems that would make about as much sense.
The government says that those helicopters are going to be used for search and rescue. As a representative of a coastal community where some of those helicopters would be based, I should be in favour of this. I am in favour of the remotoring of those helicopters. I am in favour of giving the adequate resources for those helicopter pilots to do the job that they have to do. They do a good job with poor equipment in very unruly weather on the west coast of British Columbia.
However, when you put $4.3 billion up against $145 million in debt forgiveness that the Prime Minister announced last week, one wonders about the political priorities of this government. One wonders if the world has gone mad when we see that this is the way the government is behaving.
Put it also up against the $1.3 billion of federal funds per year for national municipal infrastructure where
63,000	jobs could be created. If we are going to spend $4.3 billion, let me make the shopping list for a change. Give me an opportunity. I could find a way to spend $4.3 billion which I think would be a more fundamental way of making those changes that are so necessary if this planet is going to survive.
The $40 million on proposed cuts including feasibility studies, consultant fees and designs for the purchase of extensive high-tech helicopters is just a ridiculous proposal for expenditure. Put that against the promise of this government in 1984 and again in 1988 for a national child care program. We are hearing repeated horrifying incidents of child abuse in Canada. Yet this government
June 16, 1992

does not seem to see the linkage, that a national child care program would go a long way in addressing that.
The government is not giving it because the members of its caucus are in favour of keeping women in the kitchen and keeping a more traditional family. Those years have passed. Women are not in the home in the kitchen anymore. They are out supporting their families. The economy demands that they do that.
The people who are suffering are the children who do not have adequate child care. They are forced to be latchkey kids where they come home on their own after school or they have sort of take-a-chance kind of baby-sitting services where there are no standards. We need a publicly funded national child care program. If we really believe in supporting the family then we have to be able to give the resources to the people of Canada so the children have support.
Then there is the expenditure, and this is another whacko idea, of $1 billion on low-level defence systems. Who are we being defended from? We are talking billions of dollars.
I will go back to the millions, what the government did not fund. It cut $200 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy, something that I know every single riding in Canada benefits from. Over the last two years of job training, a number of people have been employed, have been retrained and have been sent out into the work force.
What does this government do? It cuts $200 million from it.
Another example. The Conservatives cut three federal agencies which provided expert advice to the government; the Law Reform Commission, the Economic Council of Canada and the Science Council of Canada, costing $19 million. That was 185 lost jobs. The government also eliminated support for the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
This is a time when the whole definition of what constitutes security is being redefined and the government eliminates funding for it. But it managed to find money, $46.7 million including a $13.7 million cost overrun on the Canadian pavilion at the World Exposition in Seville, Spain. Just so that viewers will know, that pavilion will be dismantled after Expo.
Supply
Is that an investment? It is no wonder that the Canadian taxpayers feel overburdened when they can see the kind of absolutely whacko ideas this government chooses to spend our money on.
The government has also capped the Canada Assistance Plan funding to Ontario, B.C. and Alberta. For B.C. alone, that means a loss of $166 million in 1991-92. But $50 million was found to support Canada 125 Corporation, a private non-profit corporation to promote Canada's birthday. Well, I can buy my own candles. I can bring my own hooter and wish Canada a happy birthday, and it is not going to cost $50 million.
The government has terminated the co-op housing program, a cut of $25 million. As the representative of one of the fastest growing ridings in Canada and also one of the most expensive ridings in Canada in which to live, this is a scandal that the co-op housing program has been eliminated. It is not only the wealthy who live in Saanich-Gulf Islands. It is those young families that are scraping along trying to find a way to buy a home. Co-op housing is often used as a start. But this government has chosen to terminate the co-op housing program, a $25 million cut. There was about $19 million found by the department of the Minister for International Trade for the propaganda and promotion of the Conservative "prosperity agenda". I put that in quotes because prosperity for whom, I ask?
Then there was the $14 million to sell the GST that nobody wanted. Believe me, that sales job was a big failure. There is still a lot of anger about the GST. On the other hand, the government has cut the Court Challenges Program in the 1992 budget, $2.7 million a year, that was allowing equality seeking groups and individuals access to courts to enforce their rights.
One wonders where the grand plan is when you see these comparisons. What is the priority of this government? It is more than just a coincidence that it is the social programs that are getting the short end of the stick while the flimflam and public relations it always seems to find the dollars for.
There was $800,000 to $1 million spent on new cars for cabinet ministers and senior mandarins over the last year, replacing vehicles still in top condition but not quite so bright and shiny. But there was also $3.4 million in cuts for funding for the aboriginal communications program.

Supply
In conclusion, this demonstrates that this government is devoid of vision, devoid of that sense of urgency I talked about that is necessary if we are going to survive into the 21st century. Maurice Strong was right that we can be intellectually pessimistic. We must be operationally optimistic. By speaking today in the House, I wish to expose the vacuous nature of this government's planning. It feels that by putting a fresh coat of paint on or a new ad that it can solve a lot of problems. This is not so. You have to get down and roll up your sleeves and work from the ground up by funding child care centres, funding family planning centres, educating women, putting more money into investments for education and technology and investing in the future of our country.
We have that vision and I hope when the election is called that people will see the vacuity of this government's agenda and choose a New Democrat government.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. I must say that over all I agreed with many of her concerns about the government.
As members know, I do not share the ideology of this Prime Minister on the way this country should be governed. I have a different view than he does on free trade. I do not believe in this decentralist approach that is going on with the Constitution. However, I have to say to the member that I have a totally different view of the Prime Minister's actions in Rio last weekend.
I felt that the Prime Minister of Canada did a good job in Rio. I know it may sound strange coming from a Liberal to say that this Conservative Prime Minister did a good job on the environment, but I will state why I think he did do a good job. I thought that he stole the show when it came to the environment. In other words, this $140 million debt that we probably never would have had returned to us anyway, he managed to write off and create the perception that Canada was throwing in its oar, or to quote Maurice Strong: "He was operationally optimistic. He committed a further $20 million". I had some constituents on Saturday morning when I went to the Albion restaurant on Queen Street saying: "There he goes again, writing off another $140 million on the environment. What is he doing?"
As I said to the people in the restaurant on Saturday morning: "That is the cheapest $140 million Canadians
ever spent, not to mention the environmental cause. Just think of the doors that will open for all of our environmental consultations, our environmental technologies and all of these things that are manufactured in Canada". Quite frankly, I think this was probably one of the best things this Prime Minister has done since he has come to this office.
My question to the member is: Because this person is of a different stripe, can he not do anything in terms of contributing to the dynamic of this country? In this case I personally would have liked to have seen him do more in terms of his commitment to the environment. It would not have bothered me if he had written off $250 million because, as many of us have said in this House, if we cannot save the planet, what good is the debt owing to us anyway?
If we are going to win credibility on this issue, I do not think that the New Democrats or the Liberals are the only ones who are concerned or committed to saving the planet. In this case the Prime Minister opened doors for us around the world where now if we just put our Canadian business card out there, I will bet we are going to get preferential treatment for environmental technology and environmental service for many, many years to come. I think that is what Maurice Strong meant when he talked about operational optimism.


Lynn Hunter: The hon. member's question and his comments preceding it demonstrate that national selfinterest also extends to the Liberal party and not just to the Conservative Party.
In my comments I did compliment the Minister of the Environment for his performance in Rio. That compliment did not extend to the Prime Minister.
The 16 negotiators that Canada had there did an exemplary job. They did a stalwart job representing Canada. They are public servants of the highest calibre.
However there were only 16 of them doing that work and they had to work around the clock to be able to do their work. Compare that to the 22 from the communications unit whose job was to sell the story back in Canada. This demonstrates the real priorities of this government. It is willing to put more into flimflam than it is into substance.
June 16, 1992

The member's reaction shows that it is working with the Liberals, and that is why my operational optimism is to expose it.
As for the international debt issue, the $145 million write-off, we were never going to paid back that money anyway. Canadian taxpayers are paying it anyway, through bank rates, through interest rates. It is the bankers who are benefiting. The bankers are benefiting not Canadians.
The writing off of that debt is only one part of the solution to this problem. We have to realize that if there are going to be real changes it is going to have to be more than a $145 million write-off. There has to be more written off, there must be.
There must be some honesty with the Canadian public. The government must admit that we are never going to get that money anyway, that it was the banks that have been benefiting year after year after year on that issue, and that we are paying for it through bank interest rates, et cetera.
The Liberal member has demonstrated that he has the same lack of global vision that permeates the Conservative caucus. He demonstrates that it permeates the Liberal caucus as well. The only choice in the next election is the New Democratic Party.
[Translation)


Nic Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments further to the speech by the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. I heard the member say that we had to spend more on education, health and so on. Of course it is a priority to maintain those services. But we must also add that we have reached a certain level, which I think is very satisfactory and we need only maintain it. I think that we must first create some wealth. We should first create the wealth to be able one day to pay this frightful accumulated debt of $400 billion.
In 1984, when I was elected, we said that we absolutely must reduce the debt. Unfortunately, at that time, revenues were about $75 billion and expenditures $110 billion. Today, we see that revenues are about $135
Supply
billion and expenditures $165 billion, so we have not really succeeded in controlling government spending.
I think that we should create wealth. How do we create wealth? We had examples like free trade. Free trade was badly handled. We should have prepared for it, because if you open new markets, you must train the work force properly to deal with those changes. The dollar must also be kept as low as normally possible to encourage exports. Interest rates must also be reasonable so that our businesses can raise funds and thus create jobs. That was not done. Basically, free trade is a good thing, but it was so badly mishandled that jobs were lost. Our unemployment rate is now 11.5 per cent. I must say to the hon. member that we cannot think only of spending; we must also think of creating wealth, jobs and prosperous businesses so that we can then redistribute that wealth. So my question for her is how does she see the way of creating-


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I see that the right wing thinking that has been demonstrated by the Conservative government and the Liberal opposition also permeates the Bloc Quebecois caucus. There is only that one choice. We do not have to create wealth, we have to redistribute wealth.
Rio de Janiero is a city of vast wealth, 12 million people in one city. There is a huge contrast between the vast wealth and the extreme poverty. We do not need more wealth, we just need more equitable distribution of it. That is the kind of vision that we need, not just in Canada but globally. We do not need more greed, we need solutions for all people on the planet. We do not need to act out of narrow self-interest.
We should act out of self-interest because it is our survival we are talking about, and that is the only thing that should motivate us.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, like others in the House today I am very interested in participating in this debate. I think that even my colleagues on the front benches will agree that this is not utopia but, as others have mentioned in the House today, our number one ranking in the world obviously means we are pretty important. There is no doubt in my mind that

June 16, 1992
Supply
if we continue down the road we are on, with the leadership we have, we eventually will get a lot closer to utopia than we are today.
I had the opportunity to read some mail and some news clippings earlier this morning. There was a significant news clipping that came out of Washington, D.C., in which the media in Washington was questioning why the American government could not follow the same lines and same type of leadership as the Canadian government with regard to deficit reduction. Quite a number of my colleagues in the House have spoken to deficit reduction.
In my comments this afternoon I would like to deal with some of the successes of this government, particularly one specific program. It seems that members opposite are constantly nit-picking at various issues, although some of them may be important. At the end of the day they very seldom have compliments about the successful programs and efforts of this government.
The one program I would like to mention today is the Western Economic Diversification Program. The program was specifically put in place to promote the diversification of the economy in western Canada. In northern Ontario there is the FEDNOR Program and Atlantic Canada has the ACOA Program. I think that one of the most successful programs the government has introduced since 1984 has been the Western Economic Diversification Program.
The program is not meant to pit one person against another in terms of business competition. The program was put in place to diversify the economy, not to have a program financing people to compete against one another in a local community, in western Canada or in all of Canada. The specifics of the program lead the applicants to look at providing new products, new markets, new technologies, industry-wide competitiveness and most importantly, import replacements.
There is no funding for internal competition with existing companies or industries.
The program, as a result of being located in western Canada, has a western Canadian theme and western Canadian attitude. The head office is in Edmonton, there is a satellite office in each of the western provinces, and a liaison office here in Ottawa. It shows that the government understands that to put regional programs into place the management of those programs should be in the area that they are working within.
The program guidelines are very simple. We are looking for new products and new markets, but except for the very complicated projects that western diversification examines, most of those decisions are made in provincial or regional offices so that the applications by various companies and industries are reacted upon and processed extremely quickly.
Probably the most significant part of the western diversification concept is the fact that by far the biggest majority of all the monies that go out are in the form of repayable loans. The Government of Canada is not going out and giving money away and granting money to industry.
The Government of Canada has decided that if this is a business venture that will fly but needs a little kick-start then western diversification helps kick-start that particular project. At the end of the day the Government of Canada is asking those industries to repay their loans.
Like most things in life, the ones that you earn yourself are probably more respected than the ones that are given to you. That is probably one significant issue that arises from western diversification. You go in there and you work hard. At the end of the day you pay your debts, you feel well, and there is no indebtedness to somebody else.
There are a number of different aspects to western diversification. One of the ones that has been utilized most recently is the Quality Assurance Assistance Program. That particular program entails support from western diversification to take existing industries and help them upgrade to international standards.
Any Canadian company, whether it be in western Canada or elsewhere in Canada, that wants to compete in the international market knows that the standards that are required today are extremely high. If it does not have those standards it cannot compete in the international marketplace.
Those of us from western Canada truly believe we can compete any place in the world. With a little bit of repayable help from WD our industries in western Canada have had the ability to upgrade their facilities, get help from experts to make sure their quality reaches the required standard, and ensure they meet the international guidelines.
June 16, 1992

A lot of industry in western Canada will eventually be coming to western diversification. If not for funding they will be coming for guidance on how to meet these international standards.
Western diversification also gets involved with international marketing. A lot of smaller companies in western Canada have products that meet the international standards but they do not have the financial ability to enter the international marketplace to expand their markets.
Western diversification has taken a leadership role in promoting our products outside of Canada and in bringing people into western Canada to look at our ability to manufacture various goods.
The member for Saanich-Gulf Islands was making comments about this government's involvement in the environment. Western diversification, understanding the importance of the environment, took a leadership role a number of years ago in becoming involved with the South Moresby National Park. It has put well in excess of $100 million into the South Moresby park project to sustain a very special environmental area in Canada.
Western diversification also gets involved with projects dealing with various environmental standards and research. A good example is research into the low sulphur coal in western Canada that could be used in Ontario. We have a lot of quality coal which has a little bit too much sulphur and if the problem of getting rid of the sulphur emissions can be resolved, and they are working very hard at it today, I know that those colleagues of ours from eastern Canada will accept some western coal that is of good quality.
Western diversification has also entered into what has been called the partnership programs. I guess most of the House would remember this as an extension to what I remember as being the ERDAs.
We have had the ability to work with the provincial governments in western Canada dealing with forestiy, mines, tourism, communications technologies. We had another program with the federal government, with the funds funnelled through western diversification, to each of the four western provinces. Each province had the ability to spend the money as it saw fit which would encourage economic diversification in its province.
Supply
The one that I can speak best about is one in the province of Manitoba. Through western diversification and the province of Manitoba, a number of small community infrastructure improvements are taking place as we speak so that the infrastructure is in place either to expand existing industries in a number of small communities or to attract a number of industries to these communities because they have the sewer and water facilities ready to go.
Western diversification has been a leader in co-ordinating various government procurement initiatives. The last speaker was talking about helicopters as an example of purchases that are veiy significant.
Whether it is fortunate or unfortunate, very few Canadians know about the activities of western diversification. The Government of Canada has made some very significant purchases that are situated completely in western Canada. As an example I would mention what is known as the CAATS program, which is the Canadian Automated Air Traffic System.
It was Hughes Aircraft which picked up the contract. This contract is worth over $380 million and from what I understand, by the time the Hughes company has finished investing in western Canada, along with the $380 million contract, the Hughes Corporation is looking at spending another $500 million in various types of industrial development. Once again the area that I know best is Winnipeg, and it has already set up a specific company to deal with the acoustics industry.
Another one is the Thctical Command Control and Communications System. The successful bidder has a contract worth $1.2 billion, the majority of which will be spent in western Canada.
When we look at some of the other expenditures the government is making throughout Canada, western Canadians will see from these two specific examples what the government is doing to diversify the economy into western Canada.
Western diversification is also very much involved in the sole source contract to Bristol Aerospace for the CF-116 update which is a complete update of the 18-year old CF-5 aircraft to give it an extended life. At the same time, the experience that Bristol Aerospace Limited has picked up has allowed it to expand into international markets. The company has attracted a

June 16, 1992
Supply
significant amount of business from other countries in the world that need their CF-5 aircraft upgraded.
Not much more than six or eight months ago Western Star Trucks of Kelowna, B.C. was awarded a $200 million contract to provide DND with 2,750 trucks and shelters over the next few years. This contract provided over 350 jobs for the Kelowna area and maintained an existing industry probably longer than was initially expected.
I would like to talk about a couple of specific projects close to home in Manitoba. One is the Centre for Biodiagnostics which was announced a while ago. From what I understand, on Monday a representative of the government will be out to officially open the biodiagnostic centre. This initiative is a three-way co-operative effort, with western diversification putting some funding into the project, the National Research Council putting in a third of the funding and private industry putting in a third of the funding.
Within a very short period of time I think that we will find that the centre in Winnipeg will probably be the international centre for biodiagnostics in the world.
Another favourite project of mine which I believe eventually will be somewhere in western Canada and which will provide over 400 jobs, but is in the research and development stage right now, is that of Meadow Materials. Meadow Materials has taken it upon themselves to do research into how to take silica sand, which is a very significant commodity within the riding of Selkirk-Red River, being probably the supplier of the best silica in the world. Western diversification is working with Meadow Materials and the Manitoba government in doing the technology improvement so that silica sand along with apparently other materials will be able to make silicon metal. It seems very simplistic in a statement but the estimated job opportunities when the project comes to completion is well over 400. When you come from a community such as Selkirk-Red River 400 jobs in that area is very significant.
I commend the western diversification people for their efforts in making that actually happen.
To sum up, I have made comments about how maybe things are not exactly perfect here and although I do not think they are that significant, some of the decisions that
we have made in government have not been perfect or idealistic. What I would like to put to the members opposite is that I think there are times when the government does do a good job and does come up with progressive thinking and provides jobs and opportunities in a very progressive way.
I guess what I am asking is that the members opposite sometimes give credit where credit is due.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, we might have forgotten in the last 18 minutes or so that my friend and hon. colleague opposite said that we had been excessive in our criticisms of the government and in fact we were well on our way to Utopia. That is what he said "well on our way to Utopia which could be accomplished if this government was re-elected". He said, Mr. Speaker, I know you heard it because my hon. colleague on this side heard him say that there was an awful lot of nit-picking that obscured the pursuit of the ideal perfection of the universe in Canada under the hegemony of the Conservative government. I suppose the last time we came so close to Utopia was during the recession when we lost 29.7 per cent of our manufacturing jobs. I guess it is true we have not yet achieved Utopia since so far this government has cost only 25.5 per cent of our manufacturing jobs through its free trade agreement. Just to put that into context, Utopia so far has cost us 510,000 manufacturing jobs.
In the 1981-82 Liberal Utopia, 270,000 jobs were lost. In fact only about 22 per cent of those were permanent job losses. Under present circumstances, the loss of
510,000	jobs in manufacturing in this Utopia constitutes 65 per cent of permanent job losses.
Just to give you an idea of the practical impact of that, six plants have closed in Windsor in the last two weeks, and nearly 40 plants have been lost in Windsor alone in this Utopia since 1989.
Others have cited the practical effect on ordinary human beings. We know there is a crisis among young people in this new Utopia and I do not want to be nit-picking. I do not want to nit-pick but I guess it is nit-picking to tell the hon. member we have an unemployment rate among youth of 17.7 per cent right now. That is almost 18 per cent unemployment among youth. There is a drop-out rate of 30 per cent among youth and also a 40 per cent illiteracy and innumeracy rate.
June 16, 1992

Supply
The impact of these circumstances on our youth in this Utopia is an increase in property crimes among youth of 57 per cent since this government has been building this Utopia.


Mr.   Bjomson@: Mr. Speaker, I would not say that is particularly nit-picking but I am glad the member brought up the problems he has in his own community of Windsor. The honourable member and I sat on a committee that did significant research into the auto parts industry. We found government policies which preceded us such as the National Energy Program, the low value of the dollar and the auto pact created an industry in southern Ontario that was not competitive.
The problem we have today is former policies, which people probably thought were all right at the time, but obviously did not work. As a result, we are going through a significant adjustment. I feel sorry for anybody who does not have a job, but these people do not have jobs because they are not high-tech. The reason they are not high-tech is the fact they work in a low-tech factory which is no longer competitive. If the leadership at that time had forced industry to modernize, educate its workers and be competitive, maybe we would not have the problems we have today.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. Today we are discussing whether or not we should agree to give this government $48,902,383,552.00.
That is the decision we have to make. That is in the bill before us. I want to say to the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona I did not prepare this bill, but that is what is asked of us.
Now should we give $48,902,383,552 to those clowns across the way? That is the decision for us to make.
Let us evaluate what it did with the money we gave it last time. As you know, this House has voted money for this government on a number of occasions. Let us review some of its expenditures.
Only a few short days ago I asked the government how many departments and agencies presently had outstanding computer contracts, not the ones that are finished,
not the ones that are over, not the ones they gave to their friends and have been completed, just the ones still in progress. Do you know what the answer was? The answer was $1,123,498,026.58. Those are just the outstanding contracts. My colleague asks very appropriately, does it not have enough? Seemingly not. This is what it is up to.
In my continuing quest to find out whether or not we should give this amount of $48 billion to the government across the way, more particularly to the Prime Minister, I asked other questions. It has come to my attention the Government of Canada does not trust Canada Post. I do not know why anyone would not trust Canada Post. I cannot think of any reason. But the Government of Canada used Interpost, which is a Dutch postal system partially owned by the Dutch government, partially owned by KLM Airlines and partially owned by a great Canadian company, Northwest Airlines of the United States.
It gave $733,000 worth of contracts to deliver the mail to this particular Dutch company over a recent period. Let me draw a parallel for my colleagues here in the House. That is a little bit like me owning a taxi company and using someone else's taxi-cab to go around town.


Mr. Kilgour:: Save gas?


Don Boudria: I suppose it would save gas in my own cab, but it would not make much business sense. Then again, the government across the way does not make much business sense. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources used $301,000 worth of this particular service. Do you know the reason he gave me? Interpost offered low rates and "reliable service". The government used the Dutch post office to deliver its mail because it gave reliable service. What does that say about the Canadian postal system it owns and runs on behalf of the people of Canada? It tells me this government does not trust its own corporation.
That is not the only area where this government has wasted money. This government has been wasting money since it has been in power. It has been buying limousines, travelling around, doing all kinds of things and just wasting taxpayers' money like you would not believe. We have a first-class Minister of External Affairs who proved her class to all of us recently when she broke the

June 16, 1992
Supply
edict of the Minister of Finance travelling here and there.


Mr. Peterson:: First class travel.


Don Boudria: Last year it came to my attention this government had built a dog house in Rigaud. This particular dog house in Rigaud is at the Customs and Excise training college. Canadians were howling mad when they heard the price of this particular dog house. It cost $325,000 to house 10 of our salivating friends in Rigaud.
Do you know why it built the kennel in question? Because the old one was on the tennis court and the good people there, the head honchos at the place, wanted their tennis court back. What did they do? They ordered a new one built so they could practise their backhand courtesy of the taxpayers of Canada. This cost $325,000.
The amazing thing about it is the original cost was $226,800, but there was almost $100,000 in cost overruns on a dog house, if you can believe it.


An hon. member:: That is like going to the dogs.


Don Boudria: No wonder we are going to the dogs in this country.
I have been asking this government a number of questions. Again, I am trying to hold it accountable in an effort to make up my mind as to whether or not we should give it another $48 billion. I asked how many computer contracts were given to install the various computer systems for the GST. That sounds like a reasonable proposition. After all, the GST was much dreaded by most Canadians and much heralded by the Tories across the way. They even appointed eight extra GST-loving Senators to get it through the other place. Anyway it cost $9,343,771 in computer contracts over six months between January 1, 1991 and June 30, 1991.


An hon. member:: And it did not have to pay the GST either.


Don Boudria: You are right. My colleague is quite correct. They did not even pay GST on those particular computer contracts.
I also want to talk a little bit about advertising. This government is quite good at advertising. I remember
when the present Minister of Communications was a mortal opposition member and used to criticize the government. He said about government advertising at the time, which was minuscule compared to today, and I quote from May 3, 1982, Hansard'.
"If the present situation is allowed to continue unchecked, we will find that the essential equilibrium between government and opposition, which has existed over centuries of parliamentary democracy, will be destroyed".
Those were the words of that member. Do you know who the top spenders in advertising in Canada were in 1989? The Government of Canada was first with $76 million in advertising; Proctor and Gamble was second with $61 million; GM spent $56 million and the others, of course, are much smaller. Those are the kinds of expenditures we have seen.
I will give a few other instances here. I could go on for quite some time, but unfortunately time will not permit. I want to bring to your attention the leasing of real property by this government. In its budget two years ago this government cancelled the construction of new headquarters for Transport Canada. It renewed the lease on Place de Ville here in Ottawa and spent $170 million to rent the building, which the government is renovating. The employees will be working in a construction site for no less than eight years while the building is being renovated for the ultimate benefit of the Campeau Corporation, not the tenant or the employees in the building.
Questions were asked at that time about how this happened, who lobbied for this contract and so on.

Mr. Speaker, having consulted my colleagues, I must tell you that we have concluded that we will refuse to give the government the $48 billion it is asking us for today.
Let us give the message to Canadians that this government does not need an extra $48 billion. It deserves a kick in the pants, which is what we will do at the next election.
June 16, 1992


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask a very quick question of the hon. member.
He talks about whether or not the $48 billion should come to the government. Back in 1980 or 1981 the Liberal government was coming forward and asking for money. It was not really money because the government was asking that it be put on the credit card. In essence, I think every Canadian can understand that back in 1983 for every dollar of tax revenue the Liberal government was providing about $1.23 in services. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker.
Where was that extra 22 or 23 cents going? It was going on that Visa credit card and then the MasterCard because that was over-exposed. All the balances on those credit cards kept going up.
Now we are hearing the member moan and groan as the government is trying to get its fiscal ship back in order. Today, for every dollar in tax revenue there is about 95 or 96 cents going toward services. We have made that adjustment.
Is the member suggesting that the government should go back and is he concerned that it is only $48 billion? If we were following the policies of the Liberal Party ten years ago we should be requesting $96 billion and just putting those balances on the credit card.
I would like him to explain if indeed that is the case, why we are not asking for $96 billion instead of only $48 billion.


Don Boudria: It is always nice to get a question about credit cards from the government that gave us the American Express bank.
I find it interesting that a government member would be asking a question on credit cards. The government gave us the Amex bank, signed it by an Order in Council the day of the last election, probably in the fear that it was going to be turfed out on its ear and that if its friends at Amex could not be rewarded, the way to-


An hon. member:: It didn't happen.


Don Boudria: The member says that it did not happen. No, it did not, but we will get to them next time.
The member asks us about fiscal responsibility. That is interesting given that one half of the accumulated debt
Supply
in the history of Canada is there courtesy of the present Prime Minister and his administration.
In other words, the $400 billion debt we have today was only $200 billion in 1984, immediately after a very severe world-wide recession. After years of prosperity this government made it worse.
The member asks me how much I think the $48 billion should be. He has missed the point. The point is that Canadians have no faith in this government. Canadians do not trust this government to administer their money nor the affairs of the nation.
That is why my colleagues and I do not want to give any authority to this government to be running the affairs of the nation. It is not a bill that the government should be asking for; it is an election. That is what we need.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: If in 1984 there had been a $200 billion surplus and now through compound interest it had grown to $400 billion, would you be upset by that? That is exactly what has happened to the national debt. It was $200 billion in 1984 and the compound interest on that debt has grown and doubled right now.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this government is telling us that after some six years of prosperity, the last year and a half or so in a recession largely caused by the policies of this government, the best it could do was to double the debt in Canada. And government members are asking me to explain that kind of mismanagement? I am sorry, neither I nor the Canadian public can explain that, but they do understand it and they will take care of it very shortly.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on the other side of this House sits the Tory government which has always been on the best of terms with the business sector. But what has this government done? During the last three years, our country has been undergoing a de-industrialization process. During the last three years, we lost 16 per cent of our manufacturing jobs while the United States lost only 7 per cent of jobs in that area. Therefore, this cannot be due entirely to restructuring, globalization and the recession.

Supply


An hon. member:: Incompetence.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It must be due in part to the lack of economic ability of this government.


An hon. member:: That's it.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: In the automotive industry, our major manufacturing industry, the one which exports the most, during the last three years, we lost 21 per cent of our jobs, while in the U.S. the job loss figure was only 9 per cent. In other words, in the automobile industry, Canada is losing jobs 2.3 times faster than the U.S.
The last figures show an increase in unemployment. We are still in a recession and what is even worse is that those permanent jobs disappearing in Canada are moving to the U.S. and to other countries. As a country, it will be very difficult for us to adjust to that situation, but we have to start somewhere; all is not lost. There is still something we can do. First, we must create adjustment programs, those programs which were promised by this Toiy government before the with the United States but which were never put in place.
Our objective must be to make Canadians the best educated, the best trained and the best equipped workers of the western hemisphere. If we reach that goal, we will see economical results in 10 or 20 years from now I hope.
We must remember that only the private sector can generate jobs and wealth.
That wealth is essential, not only for job creation, but also to reduce the deficit. We cannot increase taxes any more; it is impossible. Canadians have reached the point of ignition on the subject of taxes.
Let us be honest. Nobody in this House can tell us how to cut spending so that we can solve the deficit problem. What we must do is give the private sector the means to generate wealth, pay taxes, create jobs and transform the unemployed into taxpayers. That is what has to be done.
lb do that, the government must change many of its policies, such as its monetary policy which has translated, over a period of 20 years, into an increase of more than 25 per cent of the value of our currency. This is an incredible burden for our exporters. This is a government that was not supposed to increase taxes, but it has done so 34 times since it came to power. It has also given us much higher interest rates, a very high currency rate,
as well as taxes that are too high, while at the same time presenting us with the free trade agreement. Our exporters must face an incredible challenge trying to keep up with the American competition. This was not fair and we have seen the results of those measures.
There is another thing that must be done. It has to do with the relations between workers and employers and businesses. In Canada, we have the worst record among the 23 developed countries when it comes to the number of days lost because of strikes and lockouts. We have the worst record and the example came from this government when everybody saw what it did to its own employees.
I now want to say a word about training which was cut by this government. It is a cut of the contribution made from the general revenue for the training of Canadians. This contribution should in fact be increased so that we can become better equipped and better educated.
Let us now talk about science and technology, as well as research and development. Again, those sectors suffered cuts from the government. How can we face the competition at the international level, as well as globalization, when our level of research and development is but half of that of other countries?
Finally, there is the issue of co-operation between the three sectors, that is the workers, the contractors and the various levels of government. In Canada, we do not yet have the will nor the means to create this kind of partnership amongst the three groups, each of which is essential to job creation as well as prosperity in Canada.
In conclusion, I want to say that we must not be partisan when it comes to Canadian unity. We must remain united so that we can regain the potential that we used to have and that most Canadians now feel we have lost. If we do not work together, it will not be possible to envision a prosperous future and a country that enhances its capacity as well as the potential of its citizens, and in particular its young people who cannot find jobs right now.
Mr. Speaker, you will have noticed that in your own riding young people have nothing to do. When they ask: "What shall I do to find a job? I have a good education and I can work", what is your answer? What is the answer of my other colleagues? Must we tell them: "Wait"? No. We must create jobs and opportunities for these young people and this exercise must take place in a strong and united country.
June 16, 1992


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for Willowdale on using his alloted time to speak French. I think this is quite remarkable, and I think the hon. member is to be commended on his efforts to speak a language that is not his own in this House.
I would like to comment on some aspects of his speech. In fact, although the hon. member for Willow-dale is a member of the opposition, his speech could have been made by a member on this side of the House. All the objectives and the principles he wanted to put forward are typical of programs the government supports wholeheartedly. We agree we should make an effort to increase manpower training. We agree Canadian citizens are overtaxed. We cannot go on increasing taxes. We agree a partnership should be developed between workers, the private sector and the government. All these principles are admirable, but the first item on the government's agenda is to stop further increases in the deficit we inherited in 1984, a deficit to which this government has not added a single penny. The current deficit has two components: the $225 billion, more or less, we inherited from the Liberal government the day after the election in 1984, and the compound interest.
I would like to raise another point with the hon. member, before asking any questions or suggesting he help us find answers. The day after the election in 1984, the Liberal Party left us another legacy as well: an operating deficit. The honourable member will recall that at the end of the 1984-85 fiscal year, the federal government's current account was in the red to the tune of nearly $16 billion. Today, that same account, thanks to the efforts of this government, now has a surplus of nearly $15 billion. We first had to deal with this current account deficit in order to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. Since the period for questions and comments is very short, only five minutes, it is only fair to allow the hon. member for Willowdale, equal time for his answer.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to thank the hon. member for Manicouagan for his
Supply
question. First of all, as far as the deficit is concerned, this government was elected in 1984. At the time, the national debt was $170 billion. Eight years later, at this very moment, the national debt is $450 billion, under a Conservative majority government. This is not our fault. However, businessmen and homeowners know that when you have to buy something, you have to invest in the future. Whether we are talking about buying a house or a factory, sometimes you have to borrow money to pay back the cost of the loan.
Now, about youth training. This is an extremely important point. And investing in science and technology is also very important, we cannot overlook that either. We must invest in training for a prosperous future. Now is the time to invest in the things that count. That is the difference between this government and our party. How long is the government going to wait? Until the national debt reaches $100 billion or $200 billion? How long will it take? We must invest now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to have the chance to participate in this supply motion involving $48 billion-plus. Most likely for those watching television it is not one of the most exciting things. However, as some of us remember or know from our history, the whole essence of Parliament is the granting of supply, the granting of the dollars necessary to make the government work. It began with the old dukes and lords leaning behind the bushes in the meadow as they tried to restrain the King from fighting wars and doing all the things the King did. That is where we get the title "Speaker".
The lords and the dukes would send someone to speak to the King about supply and all of the vitals for war and the King's court: the cows, the horses, and all the ladies necessary to make the King's court work.
That was the beginning of supply. That is where we get the name Speaker because it was the Speaker who was sent by the dukes and the lords to talk to the King to say: "You should not go to war and fight the War of the Roses", or "You should not go and fight this war of the Crusades".

June 16, 1992
Supply
That Speaker had his head chopped off up until about 1200 A.D. in the very civilized country called England. That is where supply came from.
This is the basis of Parliament. Though it is not the most exciting, sexy session of Parliament it is the basic session of Parliament.
I am glad to participate in that because I still believe that, even with all the imperfections and all the warts we have-because we do personify the people we represent, and certainly a lot of our constituents have warts, as do we-this is the highest institution in the land.
It is a strange place indeed. Just yesterday we had the courage in the Public Service pension legislation to force a vote on extending pension benefits to the gay community. That is certainly an objective of many members and it is an interesting debate. That came up for debate last night and was voted on last night. Those provisions were voted down.
Yet we evidently do not have the courage to force a vote or have members force a vote on our own pensions, with all of the problems that has caused the public domain.
There is this contradiction that many people are upset about. We seem to be so strong and courageous on certain things that are controversial, yet on other things that get right down to the nitty-gritty of our own work habits and our own emoluments we seem to be a little shy. I am really sad about that, but be that as it may we are still in supply.
I want to talk in the brief time that I have, having been fairly patient, basically not about the supply.
When talking about supply and the dollars involved in the bill that we are discussing, which affects all facets of the government, it is wide open season. It is open sesame. Anything is possible to say as long as it is in order.
That is what I am going to suggest, but still focus not on all the programs of government, not complain about the government I used to belong to because as I told the high school students and college students in my riding, there is not a party in this House of Commons or a party in the land that has all the answers to the challenge of government. We all think we have ideas but there is
always a blend between the black and the white, and that is a grey area.
I have heard some of protestations of righteous indignation because the government has not done the right thing and the opposition can do it better. I was in opposition for many years and thought the opposition would do better. Then we got in government and I found we were doing some of the things we complained about in opposition.
Around the mulberry bush it goes.
I am going to do something I have never done since I became a member. I am going to read a column because it is so well written that I certainly could not improve it. It is generally about the issues I want to talk about.
I am concerned, as are all members and all Canadians, and yet we are getting tired of this constitution topic. I understand the reality. There have to be conferences. There are now phone calls being made. Parliament very well may be met with a package deal that really has not been ventilated much in Parliament. Yes, it was ventilated across the country ad nauseam in a sense, but there are many of us in the House who still want to have a chance to make comments here. I am going to anticipate what I believe are one of the two biggest problems.
The Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has been trying to do a good job. Quite frankly, the halo of unity and trying to come together and constitutional fatigue may be creating more problems that are simmering under the surface. The package I understand they are talking about has several ingredients that, frankly, have not been debated in this House of Commons and have not had that much debate in the country.
I am not talking about the Senate. I will mention the Senate in my closing remarks as you start to give me the high sign in the few moments I have. I am going to talk about something that is a little difficult to talk about. You raise the issue and people start to interpret and perhaps call you names. I am talking abut the issue of the inherent right of the aboriginals to self-government.
That has blossomed very quickly in these constitutional discussions that have gone on in the last several weeks and several months. There was a report here from the minister several days go. We are told in the press that
June 16, 1992

there is a principle that has been agreed upon, although no legal text has been seen. There has not really been any explanation of the implications of that and what it really involves. One paper says it is just a form of municipal government. Another paper says it is another level of government, federal, provincial and aboriginal. Other papers say it is going to involve 400 or 500 self-contained aboriginal communities. Is the law of the land going to apply or is the law of the province going to apply? Are all people of Canada, be they aboriginal, English speaking, French speaking, going to be covered by the charter of rights? These are questions that, frankly, as far as I am concerned have not been given a positive definition. There is real confusion about it.
I am glad I have the opportunity under supply today to voice my thoughts and concerns and read a column that I think asks some very legitimate questions on this issue. Quite frankly, I am going to conclude with a suggestion that I do not think the Prime Minister will take, but I am certainly going to throw it out.
That is the purport of what I would like to say today. I believe we are getting into an area where I know the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has to put on a brave face. He has to be an optimist and he has to keep moving. We are getting into this interim period where we are not sure where we are moving. We also know we have passed referendum legislation, therefore, we may come back into the House on that. That itself has problems for an independent member and for all members. The referendum legislation limits the debate on the question, which presumably would be a package, to three days. In three days with members speaking 20 minutes and 10 minutes of questions, you can only get about 20 or 30 speakers at the most on that situation which will be the fundamental question affecting the future of the land, if it comes to that.
I am glad to have this opportunity to voice some thoughts in anticipation of what I gather the Constitution ministers are talking about and/or in part have perhaps agreed upon. I am concerned that in this halo of unity to try to bring it all together as we would all like and/or the constitutional fatigue and the open sesame of compromise, we may be creating a monster within a monster in some areas of potential agreement in principle, although none of us have seen the legal text.
Supply
In that light and in the time I have, I want to refer to a column that was printed in The Montreal Gazette today, June 16, by one Peter Blaikie, who as many of us know is more than just a Montreal lawyer, but was the former president of the Progressive Conservative Party, long before my friend from Cambridge was on the scene.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: I was there then.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Were you there? I had the interesting challenge of running against Peter and getting bumped and I took my lumps. He is also president of Alliance Quebec. There is a person whom we know. We may not agree with everything he says, but he is not a fly-by-night person. As I say, I got my scar tissue from him. Everyone should go through a defeat every so often. It is great for humility, but you do not want to do it too often. This man is rather articulate. As I say, you are not going to agree with everything he says but it does confirm some of my fears.
I think it is good to get this in the public record, so I am going to do something I have never done before. I am going to read this column. This will most likely take about five minutes. I hope it takes less. I do not want to read it too quickly. It was in today's paper. It will have some things that some might not agree with but I will not comment on that. I just want to read the column and then conclude with some general remarks. This is titled, but of course he does not have anything to do with the title in the paper. As Madam Speaker knows, that may be some copy person in the editorial room. The article is entitled: "Questions, the headlong rush to 'get a deal' is dangerous" by Peter Blaikie, as follows:
"Notwithstanding the label, the current debate is not about renewed federalism. It is not about the "distinct society", except as a form of camouflage. It is not about language and culture.
At its most obvious level, the debate is about the extent to which the provincial power-grab, principally by Quebec, will succeed. At another level, it is about the extent to which powerful, skilful pressure groups will have their interests satisfied. More subtly, it is about the extent to which the Prime Minister will sacrifice the national interest to repay his political debt to Quebec's ultranationalists.
Three things are certain in the event that a "deal" is struck. First, there will be no benefits, in the long term, for the overwhelming majority of Canadians. Second, the issue of Quebec's future will not be resolved. Third, to the extent that power is transferred to Quebec, directly or by way of the "distinct society" clause, the future work of the separatists will be made easier.

June 16, 1992
Supply
Of course, this man lives in Quebec.
There can be no doubt that, after 125 years, there is ample scope to renew the federation. But the principal rationalization for a "deal", which has become a mantra in some circles, is "the need to decentralize power." Arrant nonsense.
Indisputably, Canada is today the most decentralized country in the industrial world. Most Canadian provinces are currently unable to finance properly their existing responsibilities. There is no convincing evidence, even in Quebec, that the citizens of Canada, as opposed to the provincial political barons, want significant further decentralization. No case has been made for savings flowing from decentralization.
Why, when we have so little confidence in our leaders, are we so eager to let them cobble together a "deal"?
Why should we allow the separatists, as will occur in a referendum on "federal offers", to attack the proposal without having to defend their position?
There is a second, equally dangerous form of dismantling of Canada being proposed. Until recently the issue of native "selfgovernment" has been largely ignored by political commentators. The virtual silence is profoundly disturbing.
In fact, the current proposal to enshrine, for Canada's aboriginal peoples, an "inherent right to self-government" is evidence of national dementia.
Consider the following questions which are only some of those one might ask:
a)	What is the underlying objective, the vision, behind the proposal? "Self-government" is simply a means. What is the end?
One must conclude that the government has abandoned any belief that native peoples are best served by integration into the mainstream of Canadian life. Is apartheid the goal? If so, how will that improve the life of the aboriginal peoples?
b)	What is meant by an "inherent right to self-government"? No one in Ottawa, or are otherwise involved in the constitutional industry, has the faintest idea. The defence of this lunacy is frequently that other parts of the constitution have been subject to interpretation by the courts over the years.
It is one thing, after the fact, to find that as national conditions change, so do the interpretation and application of the constitution.
It is quite another when those actually drafting the document have no idea of the meaning of the language they are using.
c)	If the natives' right is "inherent", why must it be granted at all? A right which is inherent is more fundamental than any right which can be "granted" by a constitution. At best, the constitution is merely declaring the existence of the right, not creating it.
This may seem to be mere semanticism. It is not. If, as appears inevitable, the courts have to grapple with the concept in the future, they will have to consider what the word "inherent" means:
"Forming an essential or intrinsic element of; existing inseparably within an object or person; innate."
d)	What are to be the continental limits of "self-government"? There is little doubt that Ottawa and the natives have dramatically different views. It appears, from Joe Clark's bafflegab, that Ottawa is thinking in terms of municipal governments. Anyone who accepts that the native leaders agree believes in Santa Claus and every other multiculture equivalent. Is it unreasonable that we, the citizens of Canada, its "owners" so to speak, insist that, before approving the "deal" that is going to save us from hellfire and damnation, our "servants" tell us what it means?
e)	Assume for sake of argument, that all the parties agree that what is being discussed is a form of municipal government. A whole series of other questions, important but unanswered, arises. Since we have over a century of experience with municipal government, why have our leaders not simply defined self-government?
How many of these "municipal governments" are there to be? It appears native leaders consider that there are several hundred distinct aboriginal societies. Is each to be independently self-governing? Will they all be subject to the same rules? What is to be the territory of each of the self-governing units?
How is the new structure to apply, if at all, to those native Canadians who choose not to live within the boundaries of the "municipalities?" What is to be the relationship between the new level of government and the existing levels? lb what extent will the native peoples continue to be governed by, for example, the Charter of Rights or the Criminal Code? A similar question can be raised as to the applicability of provincial laws.
The list of questions is endless. Either they have been answered, and the results are being concealed from us, or they have not. Both scenarios are disturbing; in neither case do our leaders merit support.
(f)	lb what extent is there unanimity of purpose among the aboriginal peoples? At first glance, there appears to be very little; the native women have not been reluctant to dissent from their male counterparts. Is it unreasonable to suggest that Ottawa should have required the native peoples to present offers they had previously adopted internally?
(g)	Who is going to pay for the Canadian experiment in rewriting history, and how much?
When faced with these basic questions, which the media are too polite to put, lips will be sealed with Krazy Glue. We have the right to know the answers.
The real problem is that the answers are no doubt "the Canadian taxpayers and far too much". Vast sums are today spent on the affairs of Canada's native peoples. As we add yet another level of government, the cost will inevitably grow. As to whether there will be benefits to anyone but the elite of the aboriginal peoples, I am from Missouri.
June 16, 1992

That is the article in today's edition of The Gazette by Mr. Peter Blaikie, former national president of the Conservative Party and former president of Alliance Quebec. I appreciate having had the time to read the article into the record.
I just want to refer very quickly in the minutes I have left to those rhetorical questions asked by Mr. Blaikie in The Gazette today and some of the confusion over what self-government means. This starts to bother me because there is a very important case-and I mentioned it in a question in the House the other day-right now in British Columbia. It is the case of Delgamuukw v. the Queen, British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada. It is the Gitksan clan.
This is fundamental to the issue. It is the very question the negotiators have been talking about. I have here a copy of of party of the factum of the appellants, the aboriginals. It is very clear. I am not going to waste time now in my remaining two minutes to read what the appellants, the aboriginals, believe the inherent right of self-government means. It means a lot of what is in the Blaikie article.
Under one the items in the appellant declaration they want the court to declare that they have the aboriginal rights to the territory, to proprietary interest in the land and to harvest, manage and conserve the territory and its natural resources, and on we go. This is a proprietary right, which means that other people who happen to be there now, be they corporations or individuals, third parties, will have a real interest in the interpretation of that.
Paragraph (iii) of the factum reads:
The Appellants' existing aboriginal rights include an inherent right to self-government over the territory, themselves and the members of the Houses represented by the Appellants, in accordance with the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en political, legal and social institutions;
That opens up all the questions that were actually raised by Mr. Blaikie's article.
The negotiators cannot try to confuse. Part of the problem with Meech Lake when it got down to the crunch was misinformation and disinformation at a very critical time.
I do not agree with everything the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has done. I am afraid, because of fatigue, trying to be too nice and being locked
Supply
in rooms with the same people over a period of time, one gets the Stockholm syndrome. People get too agreeable because they do not want to disagree with the persons they have been living with, talking to and meeting over six weeks or six months. I am afraid that element may have happened. I am glad the minister took a pause, got away, reflected and had discussions.
It is not the time at this critical hiatus to have any disinformation or misinformation and to kid around with this very important principle that has much to be meritorious about if it is the way some people interpret it.
Let us not try and fool the Canadian people by saying: "Oh, don't worry about it. It is only another little form of municipal government", when the people involved, the aboriginals, feel very much differently. I appreciate the time. My time is up.
In conclusion, I would just say I did not know about the referendum. I have mentioned to other people at another time here in this House, I think the Prime Minister, if this hiatus stays, if there is not an agreement, and some of these things are not clarified, the Prime Minister- and it is funny for me to say-may have a golden opportunity here using the referendum bill or an election on either the aboriginal question and/or the Senate question.
I certainly agree with the Senate question and there is a lot of hocus-pocus on that. I do not have time to get into that, but even Bobby Rae has forgotten that the 13 colonies, not the 50 colonies when you had a distinction between Virginia of 900,000 and little Delaware and Rhode Island which only had 40,000, something like the distinction between Ontario and P.E.I., not necessarily in fractions but it is that big versus small, the 13 colonies had the guts to in effect give the states two senators per state then. Granted they were not elected, they were appointed and different things, but they did it to balance off population.
I am for the abolition of the Senate. I think the Prime Minister could ride the abolition of the Senate either in a referendum and get momentum for an election or even have an election and pull a Mackenzie King on the King-Byng issue which resurrected Mr. Mackenzie King when Arthur Meighen thought he had him down on the ropes.

June 16, 1992
Supply
It is funny for me to say this because I can tell you this, if the Prime Minister called an election on the Senate and its abolition because he cannot get agreement on a constitutional package, I certainly could not be campaigning against him on the abolition of the Senate because I think that is what we should have. I think 80 per cent of Canadians would go for it.
Madam Speaker, you have been very tolerant. I have many other things to say but that shows you how terrified I am about all these issues here. There are many other members who want to speak. It is difficult to get in all of these views in the narrow timeframe I have.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, I have heard the honourable and dare I say venerable member on two or three occasions raise this topic without a great deal of clarity about what the question really is.
The hon. member cites an article in The Gazette and he cites a court judgment in British Columbia, both of which have in common that they have paid not an iota of attention to the entire debate on the question of what the inherent right to aboriginal self-government is and has been accepted to be.
For the hon. member's edification, it is simply this. When the Europeans came to North America, the native people did not expect they would do anything but share this continent with the visitors. They were generous about it, generous in a fashion which was uncharacteristic of Europeans who thought they had a proprietary right over all that was there. That impetus from a different culture led to an effective colonization of the native people even though they had never conceded the land or their right to govern themselves.
In fact, the signing of treaties signifies precisely that the Crown recognized they had a right to govern themselves, which was inherent because it is a characteristic shared by all people, European or aboriginal.
I do not understand why it is so- difficult for people to understand something so elementary and something that they assume for themselves, except that they assume it for themselves at the expense of the native people and have done so ever since the Europeans arrived here.
What has happened here is that early negotiation, the arrangements that resulted, led virtually to the destruction of the native society, to poverty, to dependency, to paternalism, and they want it to end. I think most Canadians would like to see it end.
In fact, if I recall correctly, there is a poll that says 70 per cent of Canadians would like to see the native people negotiated with on the basis of the recognition of inherent right self-government, which includes one other characteristic that should not be too difficult for people to understand, and that is the assumption of equality in negotiation. Not another thing is assumed.
That judge in British Columbia and that writer in The Gazette refused to recognize this. The difficulty with the hon. member is that he is paying too much attention to a judge and to a Gazette writer rather than taking the time to talk directly to the native people. He should not be asking that question in this House. I suggest that he sit down with native people and discuss it in those terms.
He would be then, as has been the case with those engaged in the negotiations now, in a position to understand what is being discussed. He would understand that the native people want the same rights as everybody else on land which they have never conceded, but they want to do it as Canadians.
If we persist in looking at what they asked for as something alien instead of something inherently human then this kind of strange question, certainly strange to their ears, will continue to be asked.
As for the 13 colonies and their arrangement for an equal Senate, the hon. member ought to know that the equal Senate in the United States is no magical solution there either as it will not be in Canada. For example, in the United States right now it takes an average of three years to pass legislation. I am not so sure that is the kind of thing that we want to have here.
That is a partial answer to the question, but I would ask the member if he has done that. Has he made any effort to sit down with native people and ask them instead of a judge or a Gazette writer about the issue of inherent self-government? Has he explored the impact in the United States, not of the great disparities in population on the function of government there, but the effect of having two houses of virtually equal power in which one is equally distributed and the other is by popular election?
June 16, 1992


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I am not going to waste much time on the second part of the question about the Senate because as far as I am concerned, I would abolish the Senate. I do not think the Canadian public needs another elected body to in effect prevent a lot of the laws from being passed. We can reform this House. The abolition of the Senate and mostly independent votes other than perhaps on budgets and throne speeches would do more to make this House live than any other thing I can think of.
In terms of the first part of the question from the hon. member, whom I respect, I must say, and I may be a little bruising to him but he can take it because he can give it out, if he believes what he said then I am glad for him, but he does not happen to be in that conference room. I have not read some of the things that he has said. The fact of the matter is, whether he wants to believe it or not, we do have a judicial system. The aboriginals went to court in British Columbia with a B.C. claim for large globs of land where there happen to be-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: A racist decision.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Speak about racist. The hon. member has spoken in this House with proper indignation about the racial policies of South Africa and the apartheid policies there. Does he not see that there is some similarity? This is not a law or an accord or an agreement. If it was any of those things we perhaps would not have to worry so much and some of the problems could be ironed out if they are not all the way he says they are.
We are putting this into a Constitution and we have not even got an amending formula for it. That is the problem and that is the fear I have.
To answer the question, and I will say this very sincerely and honestly to the member who has been very rightfully indignant about South Africa and its policies based on race, is this not reverse apartheid to put in a Constitution that certain types of government are going to be dependent on race? I am sort of throwing this back to the hon. member and he may not have a chance to answer, but that is part of the fear. I think that is a little exhibit.
The hon. member is a learned person and a professor of microbiology and the sciences. Perhaps he can see that there is a little connection.
Supply
However, part of the norm is to have it explained by those who are making the rules at the conference table as to what this concept means. It is not as simple as the member said because it was the Chief Justice of the Supreme' Court of British Columbia who startled the Indian community by in effect coming out against the inherent right of aboriginal self-government and gave his reasons in a quite thick judgment, which I have.
To answer his question, no I have not talked to some of the Gitksan tribe but I have read the judgment.
It is a very profound judgment. I do not necessarily understand it all or agree with it, but it exterminated and cancelled out those initial rights as you well know. That is what the appeal is about, so I let the court take it.
Let us not kid ourselves, as we are talking about this and making a deal, there is not some knowledge and judicial opinion on what this is. At the moment, people and some of the leaders of the negotiations are saying very confusing things as to what it means. That is what gives me concern.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and reject any suggestions by the opposition this government has lagged in its commitment to good stewardship of the economy and the public purse.
The fact is this government has been following a consistent and comprehensive plan to create the framework necessary to help Canadian industries and workers succeed and prosper in today's fiercely competitive global environment.
This action to improve Canada's economic fundamentals is helping to ensure our return to real growth and new job creation for our country this year.
Let me take a moment to put our current economic situation in a broader international context that sheds a more honest light on the opposition's self-serving attempt to wrap itself in the shadows of economic gloom and doom.
This spring the United Nations ranked Canada as the world's best place to live. According to the UN human development index, which takes into consideration income levels, the environment, education, health care and life expectancy, Canada has the highest quality of life of all 160 nations. Just as important, the intemation-

June 16, 1992
Supply
al monetary fund this spring also forecast Canada will have the strongest economic growth of any G-7 country this year and also in 1993. The OECD and the Asian Development Bank have made similar predictions.
Even at this time of economic difficulty, we in Canada enjoy the second highest standard of living among the major industrial economies. Particularly to outside observers, Canada is the envy of the world. Canada is seen as a success, as a unique experiment that works.
Having said that, I want to emphasize it is not my intent to gloss over Canada's current economic problems. Yes, recovery has been weaker than expected and consumer confidence remains at a very low level. Our jobless rate is unacceptably high. But it is important we recognize that while recovery has been slow and confidence has been weak, it is nothing less than the reflection of the global interdependence that makes our economic policies so necessary.
As a major trading nation, and Canada is the seventh largest in the world, Canada has been hard hit by the world economic slowdown. Growth for the G-7 is expected to be 1.7 per cent in 1992 and that is hardly a robust recovery. Our vulnerability as a trader has been compounded by the industrial restructuring taking place here in Canada and also around the world.
This has been a difficult and painful process for many, as companies seek to control costs, improve productivity and enhance quality. But it is a process that must occur for us to survive and grow in a world of globalization and increased competition, accelerating technological change and new consumer demands.
The changes involved in such restructuring are affecting all regions across Canada and all sectors of our economy. It does not matter if you are in the auto industry, the steel sector, agriculture, natural resources, retailing, wholesaling, distributing or finance or whether you live in rural communities or big cities, the fact of the matter is we live in a era of global interdependence and no country can manage its affairs in isolation. As a consequence, one of the major challenges facing Canadians is the need to educate ourselves better. We must make a three-pronged attack in this regard. We must
first retrain workers as traditional jobs become obsolete. Despite 1.5 million unemployed, we are told at least
300,000	jobs cannot be filled because of the lack of skills and training, particularly in the software and computer sector. Second, we must upgrade the job skills for employees as technology and market needs evolve. Third, we must improve formal education so today's students can find the jobs and succeed in tomorrow's work place.
To effectively meet the education challenge we must also get the economic fundamentals right. This includes turning around the government debt and government deficits. This is essential to keeping inflation down and making lower interest rates possible. Keeping inflation down and low interest rates is the key to sustained growth with price stability.
Deficit and spending control is also essential if we want to maintain the government's ability, whether it is a federal, provincial or even municipal government, to provide the resources needed in key areas such as education and health care. Let us remember every dollar of government revenue that goes to pay the interest charges on the public debt is a taxpayer dollar that cannot be used for productive investment or to assist those in need.
These basic economic facts of life are why we have worked to implement the fundamental changes needed to build a more competitive market-oriented economy, with less government intervention and reduced government inefficiencies. These actions include trade liberalization, and this includes both the free trade agreement and the GATT and the current negotiations on a North American free trade agreement. The objective is clear; we must secure fair and open access for our exporters to the international markets.
One can go back to 1965 when Canada was negotiating the auto pact with the United States. There were speeches in this House from the opposition members at the time who said: "Voting for the auto pact is going to destroy the Canadian auto industry." Ten years later the auto pact was a sacred trust among the unions. We must recognize trade liberalization is important.
June 16, 1992

Tax reform on the personal and corporate side creates a fairer tax system that enhances our export potential and competitive position. This government has been involved in deregulation, most notably in the transport and energy sectors.
Over 20 Crown corporations have been privatized, which has helped reduce the number of employees on the federal payroll by almost 90,000 since 1984.
Most recently, there has been the opening up of the financial services sector to encourage more competition and allow the industry to respond to the realities of the marketplace and in particular global realities.
Underlying these steps is a clear and fundamental economic fact of life. Governments do not create jobs, the private sector does. Government must create the type of economic and policy environment conducive to investment and job creation.
We have also taken some tough action that has been needed, including setting clear public targets and applying a disciplined wage policy to the government itself to get inflation down to the lowest level in almost 20 years.
What is the impact of doing that for consumers? What is the difference between a 7 per cent inflation rate and a 2 per cent inflation rate? If we accepted a 7 per cent inflation rate consumer prices would double in about 10 years. If as a nation we can accept a 2 per cent inflation rate, then prices would not double for 36 years.
Some people would say: "What's wrong with a 7 per cent inflation rate?" But if the nations you trade with and compete against have a 4 per cent inflation rate or a 2 per cent inflation rate, then five or ten years down the road you become increasingly uncompetitive. Keeping inflation down is very important.
These fundamentals for the Canadian economic renewal have been built on and expanded in the February budget. We are reducing taxes to instil confidence, increase investment and improve industrial competitiveness. But to pay for these tax cuts the Finance Minister also cut government spending. We are taking further action to streamline the rules and operations of the government itself.
Again, let me remind the House of the steps we have taken to restore consumer and business confidence in
Supply
investment. The personal income surtax will be cut from 5 per cent on July 1, and there will be a further 1 per cent cut on January 1. This will reduce the federal tax burden on Canadians by $500 million this year and by more than $1.2 billion every year after that.
Of course, I come from the province of Ontario and the Finance Minister brought his budget down in February. The Ontario government brought its budget in at the end of April. On page 28 of the Ontario budget there is a chart that shows the federal surtax reduction. For example, if you are a single person making $30,000, according to this chart your taxes will be reduced by $75 on the surtax. But what did the Ontario government do? It introduced an Ontario rate increase which took away that $75.
If anyone wants to get a copy of the Ontario budget they will see the provincial government increased what the federal government reduced. That is one of the dynamics we have to deal with. As a federal government reduces taxation it creates a vacuum and there is always a fear a provincial treasurer will come in and snap up that increase. It happened this year and the residents of Ontario are well aware of that.
In the federal government we announced the home buyer's plan, allowing Canadians to build or buy better houses using their funds and RRSPs. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation also reduced the amount of down payment required for a home buyer to qualify for CMHC insurance.
These actions, combined with lower mortgage rates, are already showing positive results. For example, as CMHC pointed out last week, 26,000 families have taken advantage of the 5 per cent down payment required to purchase a home. It is also important to note three-quarters of these families say they would not have been able to buy when the down payment requirement was 10 per cent. In other words, we are helping to make home ownership affordable for more Canadians than ever before.
The budget took further important action to restore the industrial and economic capability. We announced tax measures worth some $2.3 billion over five years to help Canadian manufacturing and the processing sector become more competitive. There were three things that were in the last budget.

June 16, 1992
Supply
The manufacturing and processing tax rate will be cut from 23 per cent to 22 per cent effective January 1,1993, and to 21 per cent on January 1, 1994.
The capital cost allowance for manufacturing and processing machinery has been increased from 25 per cent to 30 per cent.
Third, we are also prepared to reduce the withholding tax on direct dividends paid to non-residents. This step, combined with the drop in the manufacturing and processing tax rate will help improve the investment climate and competitive edge we have. It will help rebuild the manufacturing and processing sector that has been shaken by the economic slowdown and restructuring.
I read out a lot of numbers and I am sure some members of Parliament are a little confused by what all this means. It is important because we happen to be located next door to the United States of America. When you take a look at the marginal effective tax rate on companies, it is currently 21.6 per cent in the United States, while in Canada it is 23.4 per cent.
Those were the numbers before this budget. After these three changes take place the effective rate in Canada will drop to 20.6 per cent. The Americans, if they do not do anything and they do not increase or reduce taxes-and they have a large debt they have to pay- would stay at 21.6 per cent.
In other words, today the tax rate for a Canadian manufacturer is 1.8 per cent higher than its U.S. competitor. But as of 1994 the Canadian marginal tax rate will be 1 per cent lower. Therefore, by doing those sorts of things it helps Canadian manufacturers. By helping Canadian manufacturers it creates employment. I will repeat again, governments do not create jobs; it is industry that creates jobs.
We are also establishing a small business financing program to help firms in temporary financial difficulty adjust. The ceiling for loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act will be doubled.
We will also streamline the administration of the scientific research tax credit system and in this way
enrich it by a further $230 million. We will revise the lifetime capital gains exemption to restrict its application to real estate. This will encourage Canadians to direct financial resources toward productive investments that boost the ability of Canadians to compete globally.
These measures do not compromise our commitment to reducing the deficit. The budget includes spending cuts needed to balance our tax cuts and continue the track needed to reduce the deficit to the point where we can begin the process of paying down our national debt.
What are some of those spending cuts? Defence spending will be cut by $2.2 billion over the next five years and this is a real peace dividend. We certainly will not disregard our obligation to our forces but the results will be a smaller and also a more effective and better equipped defence force.
Forty-six federal agencies and organizations will be eliminated, streamlined or deferred and federal grants and contributions will be reduced by $375 million over a five-year period.
Then of course, these actions will allow us to provide a tax break to all Canadians. This also helps the manufacturing and processing sector while setting us back on course to get the deficit to fall to $27.5 billion this year and $22.5 billion in the next fiscal year.
By 1995-96 we will have zero financial requirements. In other words, there will be no need for the Canadian government to go to the market and borrow. The government will have sufficient cash flow to meet its requirements during the fiscal year.
In closing, let me point out that the current economic situation is in line with what was indicated in the budget, that the 1991 final quarter was weak and that this weakness would continue over into the first half of 1992.
I am glad to say that there are also real signs that this turnaround is taking place to the benefit of Canadians.
The simple fact is our structural reforms and budget measures combined with an upturn in the United States, our major export market, has positioned Canada for renewed growth and job creation as the year progresses. This is not just a matter of opinion. These are positive indications that the economy is strengthening.

June 16, 1992

A few quick numbers as my time is winding to a close. Motor vehicle production in April was up 7.3 per cent above its first quarter level. In the first quarter real exports were 3.7 per cent above their level in the fourth quarter. In March alone they rose by almost 2 per cent and the Conference Board index of business confidence rebounded to 16.1 per cent in the first quarter after declines in the previous two quarters and it is at its highest level in almost two years.
These indications are in keeping with the budget outlook that the growth will come slowly in the first half of 1992 and will continue to grow in the second half and will rise to 4.5 per cent for 1993. There is no doubt our country has a way to go before we can truly say that we are out of the economic woods but it is just as clear that we are on the right path. That is why this government intends to stick to this course. We will not repeat the errors of a previous government which tried to borrow and spend its way out of a recession. The result of that policy approach is with us today in the large national debt that so drastically limits the resources available to our government.
No, we will not jeopardize Canada's future by abandoning the policy directions we have put in place. They are helping us make a more competitive country, the low inflation rate, low interest rate, a high productivity country that can take advantage of our new opportunities in world markets. That competitive strategy will provide all Canadians with the best guarantee possible for a more secure and prosperous future.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Mount Royal. Will the hon. member confirm the fact that she is splitting the 20-minute period with the hon. member for York West?


Sheila Finestone: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have just been so advised.
Hon. members from this side of the House want to talk to this government's poor record and poor public policy and the fact this country is suffering dreadfully. The question often asked is: "They have been raising money and bleeding me almost to death with 34 tax increases over the years and the GST. All that money flowing in, where is it going?" That is what people are asking.
Supply
Some of the things that my constituents are most unhappy about in my riding of Mount Royal are the cuts this government has brought in in a general overview, particularly as they affect our youth, our students. It is morally scandalous because they are the future of this country.
The government has been consistently attacking those kinds of support mechanisms that were in place. Those mechanisms were helping our youth to get a foothold, to get started so they could be the future to support the wonderful country we used to have before all the unfortunate short-sighted cuts were put into place. Those cuts are affecting the health of our society, the psychological health, the social health and the fiscal health and well-being of our society.
Looking at the unemployment rate from Statistics Canada right across this country, we know that unemployment has just increased exponentially. We know that when there is unemployment there is concern, stress and nervousness. It affects the entire family. For young people, it affects their view of the future and any hopes for the future. The impact of the family stress is showing itself in the cranky mood out there right now.
I would like to know what this government has done to alleviate the situation of our youth and our students who are unable to find jobs. What has the government done? It has gutted the transfer payments for post-secondary education. It has cut back on summer challenge funding. It has tampered with the Canada Student Loans Program in the budget.
Our most valuable and precious resource is being wilfully pillaged by this government, the talent, the potential. The government's failure to provide the needed tools for these young people really hurts more than anything else.
Our seniors are hurting and their cost of living adjustments are not what they should be-32 cents or 37 cents is not helping them. The last time around their cheques showed a 75 cent increase. They certainly are not going to be able to buy a loaf of bread and a bottle of milk with that kind of increase.
Seeing the jobless youth for tomorrow really hurts the family and our seniors in this society. I think the government has been extremely short-sighted in that regard.

June 16, 1992
Supply
There was tremendous short-sightedness on the part of this government when it cut the Economic Council, the Science Council and the Law Reform Commission. The government did not like the information it was receiving. It did not like the studies being tabled because they did not support Conservative views of society. It did not like a strictly market-oriented approach. The bottom line is all that counts and nothing to support the social services and the other kinds of projects and programs that have distinguished this country in its social perspective. The government just shut them down.
What else did the government do? It merged the Canada Council with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council without even consulting to find out if that was the best thing to do.
The government cut down on the race relations money or it cut out the race relations program entirely. It cut out the Heritage Language Program which was most effective. It cut down on the Court Challenges Program. In fact, it is cutting out the Court Challenges Program.
The minister today had the nerve to say that all the areas of discrimination have been established and the landmarks have been set. Therefore, there is no need for any more information in this regard, so there is no need to have or to support the Court Challenges Program. That is far from true. I just came from a meeting for people suffering from AIDS and from HIV. They have serious problems around discrimination. We have heard from the disabled who have serious problems around discrimination. They need to go through the Court Challenges Program to be able to make this government see the light of day and to have it cany out proper programs in this country.
With respect to housing, the government has cut down on social housing and co-op housing to a degree that instead of making the economy turn it is cutting out access for people who desperately need proper housing.
What should I say about child care, the basic building block to equality. The language that this government uses is a fancy package for no content in its budget, no content in its programs, no vision for the future and no vision for this country. It is an absolute and utter disgrace.
The first and primary building block after having a family and having a decent home is a child care program. It is unfortunate and maybe at the same time not so unfortunate, but the reality is that we need two income
earners in a family today to be able to live conveniently and properly.
The programs this government has put into place are a sheer disgrace.
I am really pleased to have the portfolio of critic for communications and culture. I feel it is incumbent upon me to alert the community out there to start talking to individual members of Parliament and tell them what this government has done.
The government has passed status of the artist legislation. It is very proud to have passed that legislation, but it made cuts in every single program that could possibly enable artists to function effectively and to earn a decent living. It is one of the reasons the artists are the poorest earners in this country. It is not because they have not got something to contribute; it is because this government sees them as a luxury.
Our country is obsessed with debating the Constitution. We are all constipated from the Constitution. This is a political question that should go away, please. Then we can address the real issues facing this country, the economy and putting into place the kinds of structures society needs to move forward and to face the global challenges out there.
We are capable. We are the best in the country and the world. We have good ideas. We have good businesses. We have good people. But it will not work if all we do is stick to one silly discussion. Let us get it over and done with and keep this marvellous country together and move ahead and address the issues that are seriously of concern.
The Standing Committee on Communications and Culture did a very fine landmark study called The Ties that Bind-Les liens qui nous unissent. Throughout the many hours that we sat and talked and had hearings and deliberations, we found many of our problems in this country could be examined as a cultural issue and could be solved easily through a proper cultural financing approach.
If a country wanted to remain a country and it wanted to have a spirit, how would that spirit be expressed if it was not through the cultural products produced by that country: the films, books, magazines, literature, television programs, artists and creators. There is a method that transmits all that information and that is through the communications mechanisms.
June 16, 1992

In terms of communications, the CRTC just opened yesterday telecommunications and telephone. No more monopoly. There will be a choice in the long distance market, but there was a concern about that. It is good for business to have choice in the long distance telephone market but it is also important to ensure that the private consumer is not going to be strangled or challenged by increases in local rates for home telephone use.
It is totally unnecessary, if there is a proper monitoring mechanism recognizing that a unified and integrated telephone system is not destroyed. Ma Bell and all its subsidiaries and colleagues are out there. They will be given opportunities at the business level, but do not touch the consumers in the home. That is the message that comes out: consumers come first.
What do we need to have an effective monitoring system here in this country?
We need the regulator to have the power to put into place the regulations and to keep a watchful eye on this new and evolving situation here in Canada. It can be a very healthy situation as long as we do not-I cannot believe I have only one more minute but if that is the case I am making a plea not to cut the CRTC budget. Put the six commissioners in place who are still not in place. Almost half the commissioners are not in place. It is ridiculous. How can we monitor and make this system work, for business as well as for the consumers, if we cut its budget.
We cannot cut out in that area.
It is just a shame that I cannot read into the record the kind of information that no one thought was out there for the cultural community. Everybody breathed a big sigh of relief after the budget came down. They thought there was nothing in there. However when they found out what was in this green book, another little document called Managing Government Expenditures, they discovered a section entitled "Ongoing reductions in non-salary operating budget". That is a convoluted way of saying cuts, cuts, cuts in the cultural sector.
For the communications and cultural sector they totalled $6.23 million just in 1992-93.
I would be pleased to give the breakdown if someone wishes to hear it for this particular sector. I do not wish to take my colleague's time unfairly.
Supply


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, I want to compliment my friend and colleague from Mount Royal on her not only factual presentation but very passionate and emotional appeal to the good senses of the government, if those senses still exist in some dark comer.
I have a two-part question. Would she care to finish her outline of the list she was unable to deposit before the members of this House? Second, she listed a long litany of cuts not only to very worth-while initiatives and projects but also to projects that have a minimal impact in terms of the $160 billion package that we are debating tonight, but an incalculable worth.
I am wondering if it is not more a question of ideology and public relations than of saving a few dollars to the public purse along the way.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I do believe it is a matter of ideology. Probably the reason I chose to be a Liberal was because we are not frozen in the ideological left that feels that the government should do everything and the state should be involved in eveiything or in the ideological right that says that the marketplace shall determine where everything goes and there is no role for government.
There is a role for government. If the government does not involve itself in good economic policy related to good sound social policy, we are not going to have a good society out there.
If we have a destabilized have-not community that is suffering from poor social policy we will never have a decent economic environment in which to grow and prosper.
The economic and social policies are very closely interlinked, and I thank the member for the opportunity to bring that to the attention of my constituency.
In conclusion, I would like to list the litany of cuts which will be increasing over the next five years. Before I do that, I would like to quote the words of Vincent Massey. I would like to quote him for my colleagues across the floor, all of whom are pretty decent human beings who are feeling pretty rotten about having to go out there and face their electors this summer. In 1924 he said:

June 16, 1992
Supply
The economist can, of course, give us the facts. That is his job. He is a good cartographer, but a bad pilot. There were plenty of crises in the nineteenth century, when cold-blooded economic fact would have been the end of us if there had not been some vision to interpret it.
The vision to interpret, so that we can have a country that is meaningful from a cultural perspective and can be identified on the world's map, is cut when the Department of Communications is losing $1.8 million; Canada Council, $230,000-it is death by attrition; CBC, $400,000; Telefilm, $210,000; CRTC, $290,000; National Archives, $590,000-that is a disgrace; National Arts Centre, $150,000; National Film Board, $470,000; National Library, $550,000; National Gallery, $530,000; Museums of Science and Technology, $210,000; Canadian Museum of Nature, $260,000; Canadian Museum of Civilization, $540,000.
There are additional figures I would have been happy to give. If we want a country that is sovereign, that has cultural identity, that differentiates itself from the world marketplace, that has a reason for existence, then arts and culture and the role this creative intellect brings to our society are fundamental. We better start putting it first. It is a very important economic lever as well as a cultural expression of our people. It is the heart, soul and mind. It expresses who we are and why we exist.
We have problems as a nation. There are differences linguistically and differences culturally. We have the strength of Canada and its diversity. That is the unity of Canada. That diversity is expressed culturally in a variety of ways. It is the food we eat. It is the films we see. It is the way we entertain ourselves. It is the way we play. It is the way we have fun.
I ask members to come to Montreal and I will show them a city that is as culturally diverse as any city in this country. Its people know how to have fun and play together as neighbours, whatever the language. In my riding they speak 36 languages, besides the official English and French. They are proud to speak both.

It is a pleasure to live in Quebec and in Montreal. Come and participate. Let us keep this country and prosper together.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I am going to try to pick up where my colleague left off in a brilliant and articulate way.
We are discussing tonight a package of estimates, a package of financial expenditures by the national government that total $160 billion for the current fiscal year 1992-93. Those are big numbers for most Canadians. It becomes difficult to understand how large a pool of financial capital that really is when we begin to think of our finances back home.
The Constitution is clearly on the national agenda. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want that national unity dossier closed and closed successfully. At the same time people are constitutionally fatigued in part because it is a natural phenomenon that they feel it has become too much of a national pastime to discuss our Constitution. More important, they are fatigued out of a sense of frustration that the leadership at all levels, but starting here in Parliament in Ottawa, has not focused on the state of our economy to the degree they would expect.
Some of them are looking at their television sets this evening. They are probably in their living rooms thinking and asking themselves how much of this $160 billion expenditure package is being utilized to help the country get itself out of this economic malaise that unfortunately has gripped this nation for far too long. The average resident in my riding of York West wants to know the bang economically that we are getting from their bucks.
I was reading the result of a poll that compared a poll by the same pollster in 1982, 10 years ago, which essentially asked Canadians: "How hopeful are you for the Canadian future? How hopeful are you for your own family? What is the satisfaction level that you feel in terms of your place in the Canadian society?"
It was quite telling to notice how much those levels have dropped dramatically since 1982 in terms of their own personal hope and the hope they attach to the country. I do not wish to be negative for the sake of being negative or to be negative because we happen to be temporarily on this side of House. I refer to those statistics because they are basically cemented to the economics of the day. Many Canadians are disillusioned.
June 16, 1992

Many Canadians are indifferent. Many Canadians are hopeless in terms of their economic livelihoods.
When we talk about $160 billion, the person who is unemployed in my riding cannot help but think why we could not utilize some more of those moneys in terms of stimulating the economy and stimulating economic growth and with that growth jobs. What is so wrong with the logical feeling one gets when one looks at $160 billion?
What about individuals who are looking for some retraining but are told by employment offices across the land that the training funds have all dried up? Then they watch their television sets to forget about the real world and they see government advertising. About what? About its great training programs.
What about individuals who want to learn a job, a trade? Why can we not be like other modem countries and put in place effective apprenticeship programs? We would be saying that they do not need a university degree to be a somebody, that a university degree is as good as a plumbing certificate, a carpentry certificate, or a tool and die making certificate.
What about the transition programs that this government promised after having signed the free trade agreement with the United States? Those programs are needed when workers become displaced because of the free trade agreement. The agreement went through. People were displaced. But we are still waiting for those transition programs.
In a study done by the Montreal Board of Trade of my province of Ontario, the manufacturing capital of this country, some 400,000 jobs were lost. Most of them were in the province of Ontario. In my own metropolitan city of Toronto 8,000 firms have closed their doors with a direct loss of 63,000 jobs. Another 33,000 jobs were lost because of industry and companies beginning to size down.
We have a situation that is serious. It did not accrue somehow last week and we are complaining about it this week. The government says: "Give us a chance. Let's analyse it. Let's go back to the drawing board". This recession, this malaise, has been in some regions of this country more than others for a very long time.
Supply
It is frustrating to be a member of Parliament in the opposition. We are not sure where a parliamentary majority starts and finishes or where a parliamentary dictatorship starts and finishes in terms of trying to bring to the equation a number of variables that we feel are important.
Maybe there is something to aspirations of Canadians who hope for a minority Parliament or a minority government the next time around because it is the most accountable government Canadians have come to know. Nothing is a better lesson than the last eight years.
We talk about $160 billion of expenditures by the national government. It seems to me almost ironic that we are debating this tonight. Yet day and after day we have a government that continues to tell us in the opposition on behalf of Canadians that it cannot afford to stimulate the economy, that it cannot afford to have increased training, that it cannot afford to have transition programs, that it cannot afford to do apprenticeship programs and that it cannot afford child care, all under the pretext of the deficit. We are not preaching fiscal irresponsibility, nor is any Canadian advocating that we be fiscally irresponsible. But as my colleague said previously, there is a role for a national government to play. There is also a role for national governments to play in the economy. It would seem logical to me that some stimulus, some incentives are an investment in the future, that they would bear some fruit. We spend $30 billion a year to keep people on unemployment insurance and when they are finished their unemployment insurance we tell them to collect welfare, and they collect another $12,000 on welfare.
Canadians want to work. Canadians want to regain their dignity. Canadians want to be productive. Canadians want to be part of building Canada. They do not want to be part of the soap opera crowd that stays at home watching television, then goes down to their local unemployment office to collect a cheque. There is no dignity in that. There is no satisfaction in that and there is no satisfaction for those who are fortunate enough to be working and also paying for those services.
I will wind up my 10 minute remarks by saying that we are voting tonight on expenditures of $160 billion. Clearly there was room in this national government budget to help Canadians go back to work and to help Canadians help themselves. By helping themselves they

June 16, 1992
Supply
will help the country. If they feel better and feel more dignified, that poll in 1992 that showed a dismal drop in attitudes would be changed and changed for the better.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I want to first of all thank my colleague. He took a very reasoned and rational approach to an incredibly large amount of money and indicated that when you are spending $160 billion, there is certainly room to do something constructive and helpful to move this country out of its doldrums and move the population, who are feeling so badly about being out of work. I have forgotten what the figure was for people out of work, and I am going to ask my colleague if he could refresh our memory as to what is happening out there in terms of unemployment.
More particularly, I know my colleague is a man who has good ideas. He talked about all the things that could be done and the feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. I wonder if he could address some of the good ideas this party has put forward that could effectively create jobs and meet the aspirations of the unemployed that he was talking about.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to respond to my colleague's question.
One of those classic examples that comes to mind is one that has been proposed by our leader as recently as last week when he addressed the Conference of Mayors and Municipalities in Montreal concerning the idea of trying to get the federal government to support an infrastructure program, a program that would see the three levels of government participating in the restructuring, rebuilding and renewing of our inner and outer cities.
Again, it is a question of common sense and logic. You know as well as I do, Madam Speaker, whether it is Montreal or Toronto or Vancouver or Hamilton or North Bay or Sudbury, those cities and towns constantly need upgrading. Whether it is a question of doing it sooner or later, it would be advantageous for unemployed Canadians if we moved those projects up.
I used to be in municipal government in the city of North York and know of what I speak. There used to be a large number of projects on our shelves that we, as a municipality, were unable to afford a dollar on the dollar. We were only able to put up 30 cents, 33 cents, or 45 cents on the dollar in terms of initiating those
projects. The remaining moneys for that $1 would have to come from the other two senior levels of government.
So there is a role for this government to play in actually kick-starting those projects. They could be taken off the shelf so that we could at least put carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, and the other trades back to work, which would then have an impact on the other services. There would be a sense of momentum, of movement, and some confidence would be rekindled in the economy.
Clearly one idea we have advanced is a national restructuring program with our cities and municipalities. We have asked for not great sums, certainly not as much as the refitting of the new helicopters would require, some $4.3 billion.
I am not suggesting our navy or our Armed Forces do not need upgrading but there are a number of different opinions concerning the dollar figure that is being attached to that $4.3 billion helicopter purchase and that it clearly could be scaled down.
My point is the government was very quick to approve those moneys and yet it was equally quick and easy for this government to dismiss other such ideas as not being in keeping with the financial plans of this government.
Some of the greatest frustrations for Canadians is that no one is listening to the ideas they have advanced. The idea for a restructuring program in our inner cities is not necessarily only coming from this side of the House and the opposition leader, it is coming from municipalities, from local elected officials, from provincial officials. The idea is being supported on the street level by those Canadians who dearly want to go back to work, including my own city of metropolitan Toronto.
There now seems to be more construction in Ottawa. We have the unbelievable situation of Toronto contractors coming to bid on jobs in Ottawa when two, three or four years ago that was absolutely an unthinkable solution but it is here and unfortunately we have to deal with it.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, there is a story going around about two tourists on safari in Africa. They were admiring the wonders of the grassy plains when suddenly they were charged by a huge lion. There was no place to hide and their vehicle was too far away to take refuge. One tourist stared in amazement as the second man bent down to tie up his shoelace. "You cannot possibly outrun that lion", he exclaimed. "No", replied the first man as he broke
June 16, 1992

into a fast trot. "I do not have to outrun the lion. All I have to do is outrun you".
Canada's future industrial strength depends on our ability and the ability of Canadian businesses to outrun the competition world-wide.
I am privileged to speak in the House today about a number of accomplishments in support of Canada's international competitiveness as promoted by the government's flagship economic department, the Department of Industry, Science and Tfechnology Canada or ISTC as it is known.
Recognizing the link between science, technology, and industrial development, in February 1990 this government set up the Department of Industry, Science and Technology Canada specifically to promote international competitiveness and excellence in these areas.
ISTC works in co-operation with other government departments and agencies, with business and the academic community, to develop a wide range of programs and services to help Canada improve its international competitiveness.
Since its inception, ISTC has played a key role in developing the national Prosperity Initiative. The Prosperity Initiative recognizes five key areas where Canada must improve its competitiveness if we are to sustain long-term prosperity in this country.
I would like to repeat these five areas just for the record. They are learning, research and development, investment, our internal Canadian domestic market and our ability to export.
Let us consider the concept of the learning society put forward by this government in the last Speech from the Throne. We are only too aware of the unhappy statistics about high school drop-out rates in Canada. We know that about 85 per cent of the technology we will use in the year 2000 was not even invented in 1990. In this world of rapidly changing technologies, we must encourage our children to pursue studies in mathematics, sciences, engineering and related disciplines.
We realize too that learning is a lifelong process which must continue on the job as well as in the schools. ISTC has a number of programs aimed at supporting and
Supply
promoting the scientific education and training of young Canadians. For example, the Canada Scholarships Program provides undergraduate students with $2,000 a year for up to four years of study in the natural sciences, engineering and related disciplines.
In 1991 there were 6,000 students benefiting from these scholarships in Canada. I would like to add that about half of the Canada Scholarships are awarded to female students. The program has recently expanded to provide scholarships for technologists and technicians.
This program is helping to ensure that Canada has a pool of technically skilled and highly qualified persons in fields critical to our industrial and technological competitiveness.
The department also leads a national public awareness campaign on science and technology aimed at Canadian youth to encourage them to place more value on, and to pursue careers in science, engineering and technology. ISTC also funds a program called Science Culture Canada which aims to develop a better public understanding of science and technology, especially among young Canadians.
National organizations and specific projects such as science fairs, exhibits, books, videos and lectures are sponsored throughout this program and such activities help to make science and technology less arcane, more accessible and more relevant to people in their daily lives.
Closely linked to the concept of a learning society is research and development. With the rapid evolution of technology, facilities are now in place to permit the almost instantaneous transmission of information and ideas. In these circumstances it is critical that our research and development performance keep stride with the pace being set by our world competitors.
Our record in this country is mixed. In high tech sectors such as electronics, aerospace and computers our research and development spending is ahead of the averages of most of the OECD countries. Yet only four Canadian manufacturing companies in 100 are doing any research at all and the top 10 companies account for almost 40 per cent of our research and development spending.

Supply
ISTC actively supports partnerships between government, industry and the research community to promote research and development and the application of new technologies.
Through the networks of Centres of Excellence, 35 universities, 37 major industrial bodies and over 500 of the top researchers in this country are working together in co-ordinated multi-year research projects in areas like biotechnology, disease control, industrial materials and processes, information technologies and atmospheric research.
Studies in Europe and the United States have shown that roughly half of business productivity gains can be directly attributed to technology improvements. But the best technology in the world is useless if you do not know you need it or you do not know where to find it or you do not know how to use it.
Real progress lies in the building of alliances and partnerships, in the sharing of ideas, information and resources and in the effective transfer and application of new technologies. In order to maintain Canada's position as a leading economic nation, we must strengthen existing partnerships and we must forge new ones.
For this reason, ISTC has initiated the Strategic Technologies Program to promote networks and alliances among the research community and government and industry. The program encourages the development and the diffusion of such technologies as biotechnology, microelectronics and advanced industrial materials. The program helps to provide a critical mass to Canada's research and development efforts to facilitate the gathering of scientific expertise, capital investment and market source development.
Our Advanced Manufacturing Technologies Application Program helps small and medium-sized enterprises to identify the technologies appropriate to their needs and to organize their production methods and train their employees so that the most effective use is made of these technologies.
Through the Technology Outreach Program we support technology centres that offer management and technical expertise, testing facilities, training, and intelligence to small and medium sized enterprises to help them develop new products and new processes.
ISTC is also active in promoting the principles and goals of Canada's green plan while at the same time recognizing sound business opportunities in the environmental sector. Our Environmental Technology Commercialization Program helps Canadian industry to commercialize environmentally friendly technologies both for the domestic market and abroad. Strong public and private sector spending in the environment over the past decade has created huge multibillion dollar markets in North America and Europe for firms that supply environmental goods and services to governments, businesses and households.
In 1990 Canadian production activity in this field was valued at nearly $10 billion. ISTC estimates the real annual expansion rate of the sector to be between 5 and 7 per cent. Programs such as these complement longstanding and successful programs like the Industrial Research Assistance Program of the National Research Council. This unique Canadian technology network consists of institutional partners and technical advisers who combine technical advice with access to financial and information resources. They deliver these services at the level of the individual firm.
These programs in support of research and development and technology transfers are vital to the continued prosperity of this country. We recognize that there is more to competitiveness than innovation and a highly qualified work force. We know that Canadian businesses must pursue a competitiveness agenda that includes human resource development, technological application, state of the art production methods and improved business management skills suited for the challenges of the nineties and beyond.
ISTC plays a vital role in working toward the improvement of the skills of business managers, including their understanding of technology and how best to use it.
A range of other services are available for small and medium-sized enterprises to increase their technological sophistication. For example, the Manufacturers Visitors Program sees Canadian firms open their doors to small and medium-sized businesses to show how they have successfully applied the principles of just-in-time inventories. Total quality management, empowerment of em-
June 16, 1992

ployees, and technology transfers are other assets of that kind of program.
It is precisely this sharing of ideas and experiences in the Canadian industrial context that will help to ensure Canada's continued competitiveness and prosperity as we move into the next century.
Through the annual Canada Awards for Business Excellence and the Strategies for Success initiative ISTC honours the companies and the individuals who have demonstrated a commitment to business excellence in Canada.
It is part of ISTC's mandate to provide Canadian businesses with information and services that will help them to hone their competitive edge. The department has set up 16 business service centres across the country. At these centres businesses can consult the Business Opportunities Sourcing System, a computerized data bank that offers profiles of over 26,000 Canadian companies.
Entrepreneurs can access thousands of licensing offers from around the world, or obtain information about government programs and about science and technology improvements, both domestic and foreign. Eleven of these business service centres are run jointly with External Affairs and International Trade Canada as international trade centres. Accessing the resources of over 100 Canadian missions overseas these centres are able to help provide firms with vital information to improve their export sales.
I mentioned earlier that one of the five key areas for our continued prosperity was our ability to export. I would like to speak for a moment or two about the importance of international trade. The fact is that Canada is a trading nation. This country was carved out of the wilderness by traders. Trade has kept food on our table and clothes on our backs for over three centuries. Trade has helped to build the high standard of living and the enviable social safety net that we enjoy in Canada today.
ISTC is committed to helping Canadian industries and businesses be competitive in the international marketplace. It is our objective to help develop and secure access to world markets for Canadian products and services. Working with industry we are assessing Canadian strengths and weaknesses in relation to world
Supply
markets. We are developing strategies to position Canadian firms to compete more effectively.
There is no turning back from the reality of global competition. In today's world it is by stimulating initiative and the will to succeed that modem nations can achieve higher standards of living, greater security and continued prosperity for their people.
The department has launched a series of sector competitive initiatives in areas ranging from commercial education to micro-electronics, from forest products to the fashion industry, from advanced manufacturing technologies to the emerging environmental business. Working closely with industry, labour and other government departments, we are identifying issues, challenges and opportunities specific to each related sector and we are developing action plans to address them.
ISTC and International Trade Canada are working together to promote new market opportunities created by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in areas such as consumer goods, food, textiles, clothing, footwear, consulting services, education and training services, and so on.
Confronted with the enormous challenges of our times we sometimes forget to acknowledge our achievements and concentrate only on the problems that remain to be solved. Therefore it is useful to take a good look from time to time at the solid hard work and accomplishments of a department in our Canadian government such as Industry, Science and Technology Canada. ISTC is in the business of promoting international competitiveness and excellence in Canadian industry.
Through programs and services such as those I have briefly mentioned tonight the department strives to co-operate with and promote the interests of the Canadian scientific, research and industry sectors.
The men and women of ISTC deserve commendation for their dedication, initiative and creativity in seeking and applying uniquely Canadian answers to the challenges of international competition.
Canada is a fortunate and wealthy country. It is no accident that the United Nations recently rated it as the best country in the world in which to live. We have problems and challenges ahead of us, but we also have the tools at hand to solve them.

Supply
I am pleased to have had this opportunity to share with this House some of the tools available in the Department of Industry, Science and Technology to help us in our pursuit of international competitiveness and prosperity. As I said at the beginning, the job is not to outrun the hon. the job is to outrun our competition. We are organizing Canada to do just that.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I listened to the Minister for International Trade trying to defend free trade. At least that is the way I heard it. It was very loud and very forceful. It reminded me of the line that my colleague from Edmonton East tells me comes from Hamlet: "Full of sound and fury signifying nothing".
It would seem that the government has determined that it is important at this stage in the life of Canada to try to sell the free trade idea to Canadians in the same way that it tried to sell it in the election campaign of 1988.
I did a lot of door-to-door canvassing in that election. I canvassed over 2,000 homes. The issue that was raised more often than everything else put together was that of free trade. It was not that the people I met were opposed to it and neither did they support it, they just did not know. They had the feeling that the government was holding back, that it was not telling them anything about free trade itself and was simply trying to persuade them that they had to accept it as an article of faith. It is like Castor Oil, have some because it is good for you. That was really what the government was trying to do the Canadian people.
In some areas of the country it worked. It did persuade people to swallow this article of good faith, to swallow this free trade deal with the U.S. and see how it would work out without ever really being persuaded to be in favour of it.


Mr. Fontaine:: Mr. Speaker, I found out about the subject of today's debate and I see no reference in it to the free trade agreement that has been so beneficial for Canadians and Canadian businesses.
I think that the agenda deals with an entirely different subject and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether members can on their own initiative change the program and comment on subjects that are unrelated to it. I would
like you to give us your opinion on this, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is a precedent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. TVemblay (Quebec-Est)):: would like to tell the hon. member for Levis that I took what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan said as part of his preamble and that he was just getting into his subject when you interrupted him.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who interrupted has probably forgotten that the architect of all of the economic problems of Canada right now is the person who spoke this afternoon, the person who is now the minister for free trade. He was the Minister of Finance. He was the Minister of Finance when the Conference Board of Canada said that the government "has induced the first made in Canada recession ever in the history of our country". We are still in that recession. The hon. member for Levis might say that we are not in a recession any more, that we are in a depression now. Certainly things are very bad.
In spite of all of the assurances given by the now minister of trade, the former Minister of Finance, there is absolutely no sound evidence that we are getting out of it. Neither is there any sound evidence that the free trade deal is going to help us get out of our problems. On the contrary, there is a good deal of evidence to persuade me and a lot of Canadian people that it is the free trade deal that has created our problems. It is not just the free trade deal as far as we know it, but the parts that we have to guess about, the parts about which we have to speculate.
For example, a former minister of the Crown was the first minister to say that the Canadian dollar is so high because it was part of the free trade deal that Canada would agree to get the dollar high. If you want to make trouble in Canada, what is the first thing to do? Make our exports so high in price that nobody wants to buy them. Of course the high dollar does that.
What is the next thing to do? If you have cut off the foreign markets, then cut off the interior markets, cut off the internal markets. Don't give people who will spend it the money to buy consumer goods within our country. Of course, that is what they have done as well. The dollar was high and that pushed up the price of our exports and hurt our markets. Interest rates were very high and the government was taxing people to try to get the money to pay that interest. Of course, that was pushing up the
June 16, 1992

costs of living for the people in the lower income tax brackets.
The government from the time it was elected has been taking money away from the poorest and from the lower to middle-income people and giving it to those who are in the highest income brackets.
Let us take a look at the budget with which we are dealing right now. There is the GST, of course. Does the pittance where the lowest income tax people get a lower amount than those who are getting-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. TVemblay (Quebec-Est)):: Order, please. I would ask hon. members present to keep order, please, so that the hon. member for Nanaimo- Cowichan can continue his speech.
The hon. member again has the floor.


David Stupich: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that they are listening and that they are commenting. I suppose it hurts to have to listen to some of this. I can appreciate why they are trying to drown me out.
It is obvious that the government has been lightening the tax load for those at the highest income levels and increasing it for the ones at the low income levels. It has been doing that, there is no question about it.
In this particular budget when it comes to housing, what does it do? It said to the people who needed it most and could afford it the least "we are going to cut back on the funding for social housing, but we are going to increase the funding for those who have plenty of money. Families can put as much as $20,000, $40,000 of their RRSPs into housing".
The people who do not need that kind of help are getting it. The people who need it are being cut off. There is evidence. Make it higher and perhaps 28,000 would take advantage of it.
The point I am trying to make is that it is helping those who do not need help from the government who could have acquired homes, who could have built them without
Supply
any government help, and saying to the ones at the bottom that they are not getting any government help. They need it so they do not deserve it. That is what it has been doing.
The ministers of the Crown have been quite open about this, quite honest about it. What they have argued is that if they leave more money in the hands or the pockets of the people who are most wealthy, perhaps they will invest it. They might invest it in Canada. They might invest it somewhere else, but they will invest it and it is good for people to have the wealthy ones investing.
If it is given to the poor, what are they going to do with it? They will spend it. That is wasting it. Let us take it away from the poor and give more of it to the high income people. That will be good. They will invest it.
What they are going to invest it in and who is going to buy the product they of course do not bother dealing with. They assume that is going to happen automatically.
In housing, they help the wealthy and they hurt the poorest. What about-


Garth Turner: Give them a break.


David Stupich: The member says give them a break. Well, if he is one of the wealthy he has had the break and he has had it ever since the Tories were elected in 1984. He is still getting it. Heaven forbid that they get re-elected again but if they do, there is no doubt that they will get even more help at the expense of the ones in the low and middle income brackets.
What do they do with industry? Industry laps it up. They like it. But they made the help available to the manufacturing and processing industry by reducing the income tax. A reduction in income tax does nothing for you at all unless you are making a profit. It is only when you make a profit that you pay income tax, and often not even then.
Nevertheless they are helping the industries that are already successful and doing nothing for the thousands of industries, firms that have gone bankrupt and are still going bankrupt on a daily basis. There is nothing for them at all, simply help the ones who are already being successful and who do not need government handouts.

Supply


Garth Turner: Capital cost allowance. He doesn't understand.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, that is next on the list. Capital cost allowance, hastening the rate at which they can write off capital investments. It is another dodge. It is another way of handing to those who need it.
Unless you are going to pay income tax, you do not need to increase your CCA. You do not need a higher capital cost allowance unless you are in an income tax bracket already.
Sure it lowers an expense for those who do not need the help. That is the point I am trying to make. They are helping the ones who do not need the help and they are not helping, indeed they are hurting, the ones who do need the help. That is what is wrong with this budget and that is what has been wrong with every budget since the Tories were elected in 1984.
I can recall a federal member of Parliament decades ago, a CCF member who never lived long enough to become a New Democrat member. He used to argue then and he argued in the House of Commons: You want to improve the economy. We talked earlier about exports. The second feature is to put more money in the pockets of people who are going to spend it. If you did give more to the people at the bottom levels, they are not going to go on holidays. They are not going to invest it in an opportunity outside Canada. They are going to spend it here in Canada. They are going to put that money to work within our own country and put people to work by putting that money to work.
There are ways. The Minister of Finance who was clever enough to put us into the first made in Canada recession ever knew how he did it. He did it by keeping the dollar high and by having high interest rates that go together. He is trying to reverse it now but not quite enough. It is not the same person, but the same government. He does not have quite enough nerve to do it fast enough.
For a while they thought they made a mistake. They thought they were coming down too fast. They have been so frightened ever since at having made one small mistake that they are extremely cautious, cautious to the point that there really are no signs that we are recovering from the depression we are currently in.
In this budget the federal government also reduced the income tax. That is great. It was across the board, it
helped everybody. Some of the people in the lowest brackets, the ones who are paying income tax, are ahead as much as $14 a year. There are others who are ahead $1,000 a year. If they turned it around and gave that $1,000 to the poorest and the $14 to the highest income people, it would have done some good.
The ones at the top do not need that extra money to spend. They are not going to spend it here anyway. They are already eating and drinking as much as they want. They are using the consumer goods to the extent they want. They can afford it. The people at the bottom are not. Even that income tax reduction was at the wrong level.
The government was very critical of some of the provinces for the problems they had. It cut back on the increase in transfer payments and led those provinces into the problems they now have.


An hon. member:: He is not worth listening to.


David Stupich: I do not know whether the hon. member has spoken in this debate.


An hon. member:: Transfer payments are going up. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est)):: would ask the hon. member to always address his remarks to the Chair. I must also tell him that in a few minutes, during the period for questions and comments, he will have plenty of opportunity to ask questions and to comment. I give the floor to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan.


David Stupich: The member is listening but not quite sharply enough. What I said was not cutting back in transfer payments but cutting back at the rate transfer payments were increasing. There is a difference.


An hon. member:: They do not know the difference.


David Stupich: If he wants to listen to me and criticize or comment, then he has to listen a bit more carefully than he has been to this point.
The provinces have a problem, there is no question about it. They depend to a large extent on the transfer payments, the moneys they get from the federal government. All of the provinces get some and they all depend on it.
June 16, 1992

Supply
All of the provinces have public debt they have to pay. They have to pay interest on it. They have to try to get out of debt because debt to them is a way of financing current expenditures to some extent, and also capital expenditures. It is a very real thing. They all try to avoid it and get out of debt because interest to them is a cost.
It is different for the federal government. The federal government borrows money as well, of course, but it uses borrowing as a means of transferring more income to the wealthy from the low middle-income people and the low income people. The provinces have to pay it. The federal government simply collects it from one group and gives it to another. Only those at the top of the income level can buy significant amounts of Canada Savings Bonds or any of the other debt instruments the government uses. So there is that difference.
Tb the provinces debt is a real problem. To the federal government it is an opportunity for them to transfer more income into the pockets of those who need it least.
There was an item in the opening speech where the government talked about a national highway program. I thought it was coming to its senses and we were going to see something good in this coming budget.
The national highway program would do a couple of things. In the first place it would create a tremendous amount of job opportunity from one end of Canada to the other. It could be financed within Canada and would provide work in every province of Canada.
Those dollars being received by the people working on those projects would be spent in their own communities, in every province, from one end of Canada to the other. It would turn over time after time after time. It would generate a tremendous amount of economic activity.
Every time it turned over, the federal government would be there with its hand out getting its share of GST and income tax from those who were profitable working on that highway program. It would have been a tremendous income generator for the federal government. It would have been a tremendous income generator for hundreds of thousands of people in Canada who are unemployed. It would have given them some hope.
It would have done something else. Such a program would have helped tie Canada together from one ocean
to the other, east to west. It would have helped eliminate some problems we have with north-south boundaries between provinces. It would have helped strengthen the east-west boundary between us and the U.S.
I have to ask myself why did nothing come of that? Why was it dropped? Who put it in there? Who wanted it in there? Opening speeches are contributed to by many people. The different cabinet ministers have an opportunity to say what they want. Somebody wanted the kind of program that would generate real economic activity in Canada and tie the people of Canada together from one end to the other. But somebody did not want it because there is not a word of it in the budget. Nothing. It is something that could have been so good.
Instead of that we have billion dollar programs for helicopters, for example. The only way we can put those helicopters to use is searching for submarines. The hon. member for North Island-Powell River suggested we buy the submarine navy from the Soviet Union or whatever country has it now and give them wheat in exchange. They desperately need wheat; they do not need the submarines. Then we would have some submarines to watch with our helicopters.
What are we going to do with those helicopters? They are not good for any other job except that. Billions of dollars are being wasted on projects like that when we could have had something that would have generated a lot of employment and economic activity. It would have been good for the economy here in Canada. It would have strengthened Canada from one end to the other. It would have strengthened that border. But we are not doing that.
This budget and the spending program announced by the Minister of Finance followed the regular Tory tradition that has been evident for the last eight years, since the Tories were elected in 1984. It continues to take money from the poorest and the low middle income people out of proportion to what it is taking from the highest income people. It continues to give new incentives and opportunities to those at the top of the pile to improve their position. It does nothing to get the economy going.
This housing program is going to run out pretty quickly. How many people in those categories need new homes? How many of them are really going to take their

Supply
money out of RRSPs to that extent and put it into new homes? Yes, there has been a flurry of activity as the member pointed out. How many more homes would have been built had the government been prepared to put that money into social housing in every province in Canada? That kind of program is needed from one end of this great country to the other. A national program like that could have helped tie Canada together.
There are a couple of things the government could have done. It could have done something to improve our economy and it desperately needs it. It could have done things to help pull Canada together and Canada desperately needs that. The government is following the agenda it came into office with in 1984. It has failed Canada for eight years. It is time to let someone else take over the reins of government, someone dedicated to the idea of building a real Canada. Canadians are proud of Canada now, but we could be even prouder. There is more we can do for ourselves and more that could be done. We could improve our economy. We could improve our country and make Canada a much better country in which to live.
I am proud of it now and pleased to be here. I am very happy to be a Canadian, but I am disappointed at what we have been able to do for ourselves with this Tory government that has been in office some eight years. Goodness knows just what bad news it is holding back to present us with later. I hope this government does not get re-elected whenever the next election is because Canadians cannot afford this kind of government much longer.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think it has probably been a long time since this House has heard such a disjointed and convoluted bit of rhetoric. The member has talked about the inadequacies of the federal, government's proposals. He suggested we spend money on social housing and creating jobs through public employment projects such as perhaps a national highway system. He has talked at length about ways the government should be spending more money, giving money to lower income people. He did not address where the money was coming from.


An hon. member:: Yes, he did.


Mr.   Timer@Halton-Peel: He did not talk about the possibility of raising taxes for the bulk of Canadian taxpayers who really contribute the funds. He criticized reducing tax rates for small businesses without addressing the negative impact it would have on small business and job creation if we do not reduce tax levels.
He talked about the dangers of the debt and the deficit on a provincial basis. He spoke quite rightly about debt as being a disease that cripples and maims the abilities of governments to help people. On the federal level he talked about the deficit as being poor social policy because the existence of a deficit, necessarily by its very existence, is transferring wealth from the lower income people to the higher income people.
Do you know something, Madam Speaker? He is right. He is absolutely right because when we run a deficit the people who finance the deficit are generally those who have the ability to purchase Treasury bills, Government of Canada bonds and savings bonds. He is absolutely right. I agree with him.
When we run a deficit we are transferring money from all the single mothers, from all the elderly people and from all the disadvantaged taxpayers in this country. We are taking their tax dollars and putting them in a form of income in the bank accounts of the higher income earners. Is that not right? That is what he said.
The member showed a great deal of wisdom and insight in saying that. That is exactly why the mandate of the government has been to cut back spending, to reduce the deficit and to tiy to get a handle on this immoral flow of wealth from poor to rich. Surely if he sticks by his principles-and he is a man of the New Democratic Party people and constituency-he will have to support the government's financial and fiscal thrust.
I want to know what argument the member puts forward for attacking the government's agenda of trying to reduce our deficit financing and stop transferring money into the bank accounts of the higher income earners.


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, I wish we had more time to go on with this and that the member would stay in the House. Perhaps he would learn something.
June 16, 1992

The member said I did not suggest where the funding would come from and that I criticized the government for having relieved the tax load on the high and upper middle income people by some $1.4 billion in this first year and by $2.5 billion in the second year, money that could have been used to create $25 million worth of economic activity. That is where the money would have come from: the giveaways to the wealthy. That is what I am suggesting.
Also $4.3 billion was spent for helicopters. The point I was trying to make is that we do not need those helicopters. There were $40 million on proposal costs dealing with the helicopters and $1 billion on low-level air defence against Soviet Russia. Soviet Russia does not exist any longer. This is $1 billion on a system that does not work. The government spent $250 million to purchase anti-tank guns. We will have to build the tanks first or buy them somewhere, or what are they going to shoot at? Will it be each other?
I tried to point out where the funding would come from. I am trying to say that the government is wasting money. We need not take all this money. Some of this money could go into the deficit. It could just take a portion of it and put $2.5 billion of it, one year's saving of income tax to the wealthy, into a national highway program year after year. That in itself would have a significant effect upon lowering the deficit by creating economic activity in Canada and by paying wages to people who would spend them here in Canada.
It is obvious. I hope the member now realizes the error of his ways.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments about the estimates that we are going to vote on tonight. It is one of the most important votes we have in this Chamber. We are going to allocate approximately $160 billion to the government so that it can spend.
I remember when we took office as Conservatives in 1984 that the budget at that time was only $90 billion and the debt was only $180 billion. After so many years we are still running a huge deficit of $30 billion probably this year and next year, annually, and the accumulated debt is over $420 billion.
We are in a bind because a lot of the money we collect from the taxpayers has to go to servicing the debt. Naturally this does not allow us to move in the direction we would like to move and probably spend more money on infrastructure and other projects, especially in a time of recession.
Supply
I remember just a couple of months ago the Minister of Finance would not pronounce the r word, recession. He said: "We are not in recession. There is no problem. We are going to get on with economic activity". He did not realize-and a lot of the members on the government side did not realize it-that the economy was slowing down and that we were losing a lot of economic activity because of a free trade deal with the United States that had not been negotiated properly.
The people who negotiated the deal said that we would have an adjustment period for our industry, and so on and so forth. We have just to look at certain areas like the border towns of Cornwall and others that have lost almost all of their industry. Almost all their industry has moved to the United States.
It is quite understandable because in any situation where we have a free trade deal, we need parity as far as taxation is concerned, as far as the cost of money is concerned and as far as productivity is concerned. Otherwise we are at a loss. We cannot compete.
What happens is that people in business know. For instance, a factory situated in Mississauga where industrial land goes for $300,000 or $400,000 an acre can get the same land across the border in the United States, in Buffalo, for $30,000 or $20,000. The labour cost is lower. A lot of these companies move across the border to establish their economic activity in the United States.
All this has compounded the problem we are facing today. We are simply becoming suppliers now of raw materials for the United States and other parts of the world. As most of our trade goes to the United States, we are supplying the raw materials.
The Minister for International Trade has a special line now. He says: "We have much more exports to the United States". Naturally we might have more exports, but it is raw materials. It is not manufactured goods. This is the problem. Factories are being established in the United States. We export raw materials, and who benefits but them? I will conclude because my time it up.

June 16, 1992
Supply


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, yes, it is true. The government has gone terribly into debt in the eight years it has been in office after promising quite a different approach.
We can recall that every year in at least the past four years the Minister of Finance has stood in this House and has predicted that year after next the deficit would be less than $30 billion. Each year it is the year after next. It is always the year after next. It is never next year or never this year. It is always in the future that it is going to be under $30 billion. He has not made it and he will not make it until he does something to get the economy going.
By spending a bit of money to get the economy going he will get the deficit down. We will be able to reduce not just the deficit but the debt itself.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the debate this evening. I do not think anyone on that side of the House, the opposition side of the House, has spoken in favour of a reduced tax burden when we think through what they have said. They are all in favour of increasing and expanding government services, that no deed should be left undone.
I raise that for a particular reason. The Ottawa Citizen and other newspapers across this country referred to what they call tax freedom day. The headline in The Ottawa Citizen read: "Tax Freedom Day. It took until June 10 to pay all taxes, report finds". That is what the report that is put out by the Fraser Institute tells us. Thx freedom day is the day when all Canadians theoretically free themselves from what they call pesky tax collectors. Obviously it varies from province to province. In Ontario they tell us it is June 13. In Prince Edward Island, I guess we can give P.E.I. credit, I think there is at least one Islander in here tonight, the date is actually May 10, so theirs comes earlier than in most provinces.
I make that point because the reality of governing is that when you have to deliver services, you have to pay the bills. That is the part that most of us have difficulty with when we listen to members from the other side of this House. They forget that at the end of the day the bills have to be paid.
I take delight in the words of the Liberal Party which governed this country or did form the government until 1984 when we replaced them. In 1984 when we took
office, one of their top people and a former cabinet minister took great delight in bragging that they left the cupboard bare. In other words, the Liberal government left the cupboard bare. There is nothing there. There is no money there to use.
The government that replaced them, which was us, would have a difficult time governing simply because there was no money. They left the cupboard bare. Much to their astonishment we got re-elected in 1988. If things work out, however we never know what is going to happen in the next election, and if the economy begins to move forward and a few other things happen, I suppose we will have a fair kick at the can in 1992 or 1993 whenever the next election comes, although we never know when it is going to be.
The point is that when we took office in 1984, we inherited a debt of $200 billion. Even the members on the other side of the House do not argue with that number. They accept it as being a reasonable figure. Some might suggest that the figure was a little higher. Some will say that it was $240 billion and others will say it was a little more.
The point I want to make is if you put compound interest on that debt and work it through an eight year period, that is where we are today in this country, a little over $400 billion in debt. It is the compound interest on that debt. It was because they left the cupboard bare that we are in this financial mess. We are not trying to disguise that.
One thing I want to point out is that the only real measurement of the debt is in terms of the Gross Domestic Product. That is where I think we can take some pleasure from what we have done as a government. The economy under this government has expanded faster than any other economy in the world with the exception of Japan since 1984.1 think we can take some pleasure in that.
We can also take some pleasure in the fact that in relation to Gross Domestic Product, our debt position has been halved. It is just half of what it was in 1984. We have made tremendous progress. In fact, if it were not for Tory policies, our debt would be much higher than it is today. They tell us that if we continued the spending habits of the former government, our combined debt in this country would be somewhere around a trillion dollars, up in the nine hundred and some odd billion figure. There are so many zeros on the end of that one you can hardly keep track of them.
June 16, 1992

Therefore, we have made tremendous progress. We are going to continue to make progress because we are exercising the kinds of restraints we have to exercise in order to take control. We have to take control of the economy, and we have. We are always compared to perfection. When you are governing, you are always compared to perfection. If you compare us to former governments and what they have done, I think we fare quite well. If you are comparing us to what a perfect world should be, maybe we a little bit in a sense fall short of the mark.
I am going to quote from Somerset Maugham. Somerset Maugham said: "Only the mediocre are always at their best".


An hon. member:: We are almost perfect.


Gregory Francis Thompson: We are almost perfect. That is right. We will accept that one. We are almost perfect.
Things are getting better. I think most Canadians realize that. I want to point out again a couple of statistics. These are not my words. They are not the government's words. I am quoting from the Edmonton Sun, of all places. The Edmonton Sun ran an editorial on June 2, 1992. I will quote some of the numbers that I think are worth repeating. They tell us that inflation has been at less than 2 per cent since January. Interest rates are continuing to fall, which obviously most of us know. In fact, if we compare where we are today with where we were 10 years ago, I do not think there is any question that we are in the right position in regard to interest rates.
I will use the date of August 6, 1981, a little over 10 years ago. Interest rates under the Liberal government at that time were 21.24 per cent. Today they are hovering just about at the 6 per cent range. I do not have to remind anyone what that does to you if you are in business, if you are carrying a mortgage or if you are going to take on more debt, whether it is a car loan or a business loan. It is just devastating.
I was in the business world at that time. I know what it does for the average citizen. It is something they cannot cope with. That is something that we have got firm control over, inflation and interest rates.
Supply
This article goes on. It says that this means that our own personal dollars go farther and buy more. Our pay cheques are not being quietly eroded and our mortgages and consumer loans are easier to pay. Further on in the same article it says that our dollar has dropped by 7 per cent since November, which makes it easier to sell our products to the U.S. and foreign markets.
Let us talk about the U.S. and let us talk about foreign markets. The point that we want to make is that exports right now to the U.S. are at an all-time high. I do not think there was a member on that side of the House today-I did not hear all of the debate, there may have been one sitting over in the comer-who mentioned that. Exports to the U.S. right now are at an all-time high, recognized by just about every economic think tank. Any student of economics recognizes that they are at an all-time high.
Where the opposition is having difficulty with some of our policies is they measure the unemployment rate in Canada against some of the policies of this government. They measure unemployment against the free trade agreement as an example. The previous speaker just mentioned that. The member suggested that any deal that we made was a bad deal or any agreement that we get into with the United States or any other country is always a bad deal because we are the loser.
That flies in the face of logic. The truth is the absolute facts indicate that we are doing very well, thank you, that we are competing like we have never competed before, much to the advantage of the citizens of this country. They focus on the unemployment number and merely that number and suggest that because that number is high, we are doing something wrong. They suggest that if that number is high we have lost jobs to the United States because of a series of trade arrangements we have had with other countries of the world, particularly the U.S.
I think what we have to do is focus on what is happening in the United States as compared to Canada.
In the United States right now there is a politician running around by the name of H. Ross Perot. Some are suggesting that he is going to unseat the incumbent President, Mr. Bush. H. Ross Perot is one of those who suggest that the United States gets the short end of

June 16, 1992
Supply
every trade agreement it has ever entered into, particularly the one with Canada. Up here we are suggesting just the opposite.
He is pointing out an extremely high unemployment rate in that country and says it exists for only one reason, because we got the better of them.
I guess time will tell whether we did or did not. The point is that it is always easy to look at that number, especially during a recessionary period, and blame it on the government of the day, the President of the day or the Prime Minister of the day.
The fact is that we are doing okay, and we are doing okay compared to our neighbour to the south. Those figures suggest to me that our numbers on a percentage basis are not much different than the United States.
One state I would like to examine in comparison to Canada is California. In terms of sheer size, the growth of the economy or the Gross Domestic Product of California's economy is somewhat similar to Canada's, and the population of the state of California is similar to that of Canada. We are a nation of approximately 27 million people and it has a population of approximately 30 million.
The opposition in this House accuses us of having lost
350,000	or 400,000 jobs because of the free trade agreement with the United States. What it does not realize is that the state of California, which has approximately the same number of people as the country of Canada, has lost 600,000 jobs in the last two years. That suggests to me that we are doing okay.
Let us take a look at the merchandise trade surplus. In the first quarter of this year it was up $3 billion, compared to a surplus of $7.4 billion for the entire year of 1991. We cannot help but see that is a very positive sign, it is a healthy trend developing.
They go into our exports and tell us that in the first three months of 1992 we are up a record 6.7 per cent. Our manufacturing output is up around 2.5 per cent.
Those trends are continuing and they are going to continue because we do have the fundamentals right. That is something that not one of them on the other side will argue, if they really want to argue in real terms about the definition of a healthy economy. They cannot argue that because they know that we are absolutely on the right track.
Not too long ago they attempted to argue that our position was being threatened by a high Canadian dollar. However that high Canadian dollar-although it has slid back a little, not a lot, and I mentioned the 7 per cent figure since December-forced us to become more efficient, to become better at what we do. In some cases it meant streamlining and in some cases it meant investing in new equipment. In some cases it meant dealing with fewer employees to compete with the rest of the world.
We have gone through some of those structural changes. In my own constituency I can point to businesses, in some cases major businesses such as pulp and paper companies, that had to go through that experience. They invested in new equipment and they had to scale down the number of employees within their plant in order to compete. That is very difficult for a company to do and it is very painful. It is something that none of us could actually stand up and support because it means that at the end of the day there is a family member, a friend or acquaintance who has lost a job because of this restructuring or streamlining within a particular business.
There are businesses back in my constituency that have done that and have survived the very tough last couple of years. They bit the bullet when they had to, although not too many of us were happy with them for having done it at the time.
Their productivity since that time has increased. They are actually increasing their output and decreasing the number of employees. They have done the streamlining necessary to compete in the 1990s and into the turn of the century.
There is a very high human cost to do that, none of us denies that. However, it is something that every country in the world is going through. I think we have gone through it sooner than some of the others and that is one of the reasons that the export capacity numbers are increasing.
If we examined those numbers most of us would find them most impressive. For example, last year we exported $12 billion in farm and fish products, $15 billion in energy materials, $19 billion in forestry products, $6 billion in aircraft parts, $32 billion in motor vehicles and parts, $7 billion in chemicals and fertilizers, $4 billion in office machines and equipment, and $4 billion in industrial machinery.
June 16, 1992

The numbers speak for themselves. We have experienced those difficulties. We have experienced a high Canadian dollar and we have suffered through it. At the end of the day our businesses and industries are going to be in a stronger position leading into the next few years. That is not to say that we will not go through this restructuring again because we will.
Back home in my riding and in every riding represented in this Chamber businesses have gone through that and will continue to go through it.
The finance minister often says that in time when we look back at what has happened in the last few months and the last couple of years it will probably be compared to the industrial revolution because some of the changes in our society are very much in line with what happened back then. There are some very quick and fundamental changes. There are structural changes that are very difficult. Truly at the end of the day they are going to pay dividends.
I think that what we have done will prove to have been the right thing. If we examine the numbers concerning inflation, foreign investment, and our export capacity they are very much in our favour. That is simply because we have done the correct things. We made tough decisions. I really think that at the end of the day they will pay dividends for all of us.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Carleton-Charlotte and I heard him say several times that we are doing okay. Quite frankly, I think that the economy of this country is heading in the right direction.
I agree with the member, and I have said this repeatedly in this House, that our interest rates are at an all-time low, certainly a low for the last 20 years. There is no inflation.
He cannot argue with me that there is not a lack of confidence. There is a lack of confidence in the market today. Despite these low interest rates and the zero inflation, we need something to get the entrepreneurial spirit of this country going again.


An hon. member:: Spend money.
Supply


Dennis Joseph Mills: The minister responsible for the Treasury Board says: "Have people spend money". Did I hear that correctly? I agree with him but we are going to have to send some stronger signals out than just the inflation rate and the interest rates.
The financial institutions in this country are not supporting these lower interest rates and the low inflation. It is still very tough for small and medium-sized businesses to get credit for risk taking or credit for expanding their businesses. I know the Minister for International Trade does not agree with me on this.
The banking institutions in this country are like a cartel. Let us face it, they all move together. I met with some bankers last week from the Canadian Bankers Association on this particular issue. I will not name any names but they basically said to me: "We like making small business loans but we are not in the business of high risk". Any investment is a risk of sorts and certainly it is with most small and medium-sized businesses.
There is room for the government to use its leverage, its muscle. It can give all of the speeches its members give in this House of Commons to the people of Canada to try and motivate the banking and financial institutions to be a little bit more aggressive in making loans to small and medium-sized businesses.
I want to make one final point to the member. He can stand here today and say that we are doing okay. There are a lot of people in this country today who are doing okay. Never expect members on this side of the House to forget the people in this country who are not doing okay. There are a lot of people right now who are not enjoying the results of this low interest rate and this low inflation. I am speaking specifically about the unemployed. Do not expect us for a minute to stop reminding the government that we have to get these people back to work.
I wonder if I could have the member's reaction to those statements.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I guess there is always room to agree and disagree, but I do agree with much of what the member had to say. I do not think it is simplifying it in a sense what I said. We are doing okay, but again I do not think we can say we are perfect and we are doing enough.

June 16, 1992
Supply
I do not know what an acceptable unemployment number is, but whatever it is it is always too high obviously. I do not think we can lay back and say we have done enough and that everything is bright and beautiful because it is not. There are a lot of people hurting out there. There are a lot of people hurting in my own neighbourhood and I know that. The indicators are out there.
Again, he mentioned that we cannot take total salvation in the interest rates. We cannot take total salvation in the inflation rate. I agree totally with that as well. They are positive signs that things can happen and they are happening. Again, when there is a job lost it is so much harder to bring that job back, is it not? Losing 10 jobs, it seems they can go like that but it is a lot harder to bring them back. It is more difficult and that is why the fundamentals have to be there.
Regarding the banking institutions, I could not agree with him more. Maybe it is time we all went on a bank bashing rampage in this House because Canadian banks are ultra-conservative. I think the Canadian banks have a great deal to be ashamed of.


Mr.   Dimer@Halton-Peel: Loosen the purse strings.


Gregory Francis Thompson: What were their profits last year, $6 billion?


Garth Turner: Record profits.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Record high profits last year.


An hon. member:: And they paid tax last year because our government put on the tax.


Gregory Francis Thompson: I agree.


An hon. member:: That is a good point.


Gregory Francis Thompson: This is fun when we get a little dialogue back and forth here.
I agree the banks had record profits. We did possibly collect record taxes from them and maybe we can take some comfort from that but the truth is their profits were extraordinarily high during a period when businesses were in extraordinary pain. When that happens I think there is something wrong.


Garth Turner: And where do they get their money?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Where do they get their money? We know where they get their money.


Garth Turner: Where do they gamble it?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Where do they gamble it? Tell me.


An hon. member:: Olympia & York.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Well there you go. But it is shoving out the little businesses isn't it? It is a five-way debate now. I think it is important that this point is raised.
Last weekend the finance minister was in my part of the country and we had a little economic symposium set up. I was pretty fortunate and we had a great time last Saturday. One of the questions asked at the symposium was exactly the same question asked here by the member for Broadview-Greenwood and that is the record high bank profits. They also asked about the record high foreclosures or business failures in the last couple of years.


Garth Turner: What about credit card rates?


Gregory Francis Thompson: And credit card rates extremely high.
One of the things the minister pointed out, and I will point it out to the nation, is that if you have specific cases where you feel a bank is unfairly treating a particular business or not taking a real solid look at the expansion of the business, bring them to the attention of the minister, or bring them to the attention of any member in this House. I think that is what we have to do because we cannot argue in generalities because any time I try to do that I get in trouble.
When we are on our hind legs speaking in the House we tend to get in trouble when we talk generalities. But it is incumbent upon everyone out there listening to speak out. If they know of particular instances where they believe the banks did not treat them as fairly as they should have or did not take them seriously, it should be brought to our attention.


Mr. Boyer:: Tell Maz.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Tell Maz. We do. I think we had better go after the banks. Every member of Parliament should be concerned about that whether they are on that side of the House or on this side of the House.
Now I know I have angered my bank manager friends back home but they just have a job, they do not write the rules.
June 16, 1992


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to wade into this interesting debate on the subject of the government's estimates for the 1992-93 fiscal year.
The exercise sounds simple enough. We are basically debating and voting on an appropriation of $34.9 billion. That is probably the largest block of money that Parliament has authorized and it is doing it in a year of recession and a year of difficulty in our economy.
The total appropriation is actually $48.9 billion but interim supply provided the other funds. I find it remarkable to think that this amount of money is being appropriated here tonight when I know how little scrutiny that spending has had in the House of Commons and in the committees. I think that is an unfortunate thing. The rules that exist have evolved over decades and centuries. I can say quite honestly the vote that will approve the spending of $48.9 billion minus the interim, has barely even seen the light of day by the public.
In the Solicitor General's area where I work in the House of Commons, large sums of money are involved. Canadians know it takes a lot of money to run and operate various levels of government. There is one in particular I want to note because it has received no scrutiny. Most members will say: "Well, it is in the estimates somewhere. You have the Part III of the Estimates document". My answer to that is sadly, it is not. That agency is called the Communications Security Establishment. We actually do not know how much money it spends because the figure is buried and for reasons peculiar to government in the area of national security, we are not told. The guesstimate is the amount is $250 million, but we do not know and we do not know what they spend it on. That is just not right.
I am putting on the record the fact it is happening. I will be required to vote tonight and my party will probably take the usual opposition stance in relation to an appropriation bill like this. I want it known members opposite are approving an expenditure guessed at $250 million and they do not know where $1 of it is going. That is not what this procedure was meant to do.
I know members opposite did not create the procedure. I am trying to say the system needs reform in a major way. The rules of the House provide the estimates,
Supply
as presented in this House and passed through committees, are deemed to be adopted this past May 31. Even the rules say: "What the heck", if you do not have an opportunity to review the details of the expenditure or have the opportunity to ask the questions. If the government-appointed chair of your committee has decided the committee just is not able to sit and does not call a meeting, then I guess the questions do not get asked.
I should say I am not advised of any case where a committee has been prevented from doing its work. I am sure all committees have made some effort.
Sadly, I heard someone say the hours and effort spent by members in reviewing estimates this year was approximately one third the hours spent the previous year. I do not think we are losing interest, but it does indicate the system simply is not working.
There is no real accountability of the government to Parliament and through Parliament to its electors. There is at election time, but on a day to day basis, on a fiscal year basis, on an estimates basis there simply is not. There is nothing at risk. A majority government knows in every case the appropriation will be approved and questions will not be asked.
Today at liaison committee, the Auditor General appeared and made some very constructive comments about how the process could be improved. I do not know where that will go, but members seem to be quite interested in that.
In comparison, our U.S. friends have an appropriation system where committees of their houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, actually approve every item of expenditure. If it is not approved in committee vote by vote, the money is not spent and it is not approved. That is not the case here. We get one vote tonight and that is all. The tone of the debate here today and in previous debates has been fairly general. I cannot help but note that a lot of the discussion of the previous member had to do with how well the government is doing with the economy. Precious little was said about the real issue in the debate; that is, the expenditure of the $48.9 billion. That is a sad thing. I have been here for part of the day and opposition members are doing the same thing. I want to try to focus to that precise issue, the actual estimates procedure.

June 16, 1992
Supply
This is not just a ritual that we are going through. We are spending our taxpayers' dollars, that big number that I just mentioned. I am not going to repeat it.
Nowhere in the system is there now a method of looking at cost efficacy, of looking at the value for money spent. It just is not there. The resources are not there. The Auditor General mentioned it today and members at the committee I just mentioned discussed it and we are looking for ways. I do not know if we will succeed in quickly finding a solution.
I thought I would mention a series of thoughts that were generated in the 1988 election campaign. I had written some of them down. They are not all my own. It occurred to me and others at the time that what was needed was some mechanism like the mechanism provided by the Auditor General for Parliament in overseeing the public accounts. Perhaps a branch of the Auditor General's function would actually do management or efficacy audits and do it, not on a comprehensive basis because government is really too large.
There was some thought of creating within the Auditor General's office an efficacy audit function and suggestions that it be staffed by individuals seconded from the private sector on two-year contracts-it probably takes a half a year to learn what Ottawa is all about-and staff it with 25 or 30 individuals who deal with large numbers and management efficacy issues in the private sector. They would be seconded.
They would have two-year contracts or at least term contracts. They would target a particular ministry and monitor it for a period of time and provide at the end a report to Parliament dealing with the very issue of efficacy of management audit or value for money, not whether the government's policy direction was necessarily right or wrong, but whether or not the objectives achieved by the ministry were valuable in relation to the amount of money spent.
I think that Parliament ought to be looking at exactly a mechanism like that.
I want to close my remarks by commending to the House and to my colleagues here the search for improved mechanisms of accountability for government spending.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I certainly listened with interest to the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and as he said, there is no mechanism to verify the estimates. They go to the committees and the committees are controlled by the government and the votes are simply a formality. Here tonight we are going to vote on the whole and there is no mechanism to know where the money is being spent and whether it is efficiently spent or not.
It was interesting to listen to him when he mentioned the United States. He says at least there they have a mechanism where each item is reviewed by both houses, their Congress and Senate, so that there is much more responsibility on how money is spent.
We are taken for granted here. The government has its majority. It brings in the estimates and the money is spent. Even so, we listen to a lot about how we have a huge deficit and how the previous member, the member for Carleton-Charlotte, said we have taken control of our economy. He said we took control of the economy. I wonder how we can take control of the economy if we run a deficit of $30 billion, if unemployment figures across the country vary from 11 per cent to 22 and 25 per cent in certain areas.
We have a huge unemployment rate. If we are not counting the people who are not on unemployment insurance but are already on welfare, it becomes an extremely high percentage of the population. We certainly have not taken control of the economy. We are really in a depression right now, and not even a recession.
The question arises: how can we change that situation? We can change it simply by having, as some members on this side of the House have suggested in the past, some capital spending on the part of the government. We stimulate the economy when it is on a downturn and we let it go when the economy is prosperous as it was in the past.
From 1984 the Conservatives had a real mandate to try to control the economy and to bring the deficit down. They have not done that and the member opposite knows it very well.


Mr. O'Kurley:: Did it work in the province of Ontario to stimulate the economy?


Alex Kindy: Some member is talking about stimulating the economy in the province of Ontario, if I hear him right. Naturally the economy in Ontario has suffered, mostly through the free trade agreement. This free trade agreement has been brought in by the Conservative government without enough studies. This is why right now we are not in a recession but in a depression.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member would certainly allow one-minute rebuttal from the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has quite fairly made reference to the remarks by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.
He focused on good news. There is the odd piece of good news out there, but the fact is that the government pursued an economic policy over the last year or two of high interest rates in an attempt to bring inflation down. There was a free trade adjustment going on, plus a global restructuring in a number of areas industrially, and it has basically brought this economy to its knees. Part of that recession was government induced. The existence of a large government debt did not help and our economic circumstances are really not too good.
The hon. member was not misleading when he gave his facts, but he is certainly showing an awful lot of blue sky when Canadians are seeing it as otherwise. We are looking for reality and accuracy in these debates.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Tvo members were splitting a 20-minute period. We have just finished a five-minute period of questions and comments.
I will recognize for the second 10-minute period the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I am actually quite disturbed by the bill we are voting on tonight. We are talking about almost $50 billion of taxpayers' money when we include the both packages we will be approving or voting on tonight. That is an awful lot of money to be making a decision on. The member for Scarborough-Rouge River made a very good point which was that we probably should have a much longer debate on this with much more ability to be specific about where this $50 billion is going. I do not know if a $1 billion expenditure could be put through this quickly in a board meeting of a major corporation. We are talking here of almost $50 billion of taxpayers' money.
Supply
How do you address all of this appropriation in less than 10 minutes? It covers everything from the Department of Agriculture to Enterprise Cape Breton, the communications-


Patrick Boyer: Speak of something specific.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member says: "Speak of something specific''. The specific thing I want to refer to is the fact that the process of spending $50 billion worth of taxpayers' money in one day is a little too quick. There should be a much longer debate on this with more specifics especially when people out there are having difficulty right now. They are saying: "When you are spending almost $50 billion, isn't there some way you can find in that lump sum of $50 billion a little bit more money for training?"
Right now in the city of Toronto people wanting to be retrained cannot find places to be retrained because we have apparently run out of money. It does not matter what part of the city it is. You can go to Centennial College, Seneca College, Humber College, George Brown College, there is no more training money left and here we are approving $50 billion.
If we were addressing the most serious problem that is facing our economy today in a more direct and radical way, and I am talking about the fact that there is close to two million people unemployed out there right now, then I might feel a little bit more confident.


Patrick Boyer: The amount of money in this year's budget is bigger than last year's budget.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore says that there is more money in this budget or in this appropriation for training than there was the last time.


An hon. member:: Where is it?


Dennis Joseph Mills: It is still not enough. We heard the member from Carleton-Charlotte talk earlier about how well the economy is doing with the zero inflation rate and the low interest rates. The government has room to put a little bit more money into training. It has room to put money into some capital projects to get people back to work.
At what point do you loosen up? Canadian taxpayers, and we are all representing Canadian taxpayers here, are being asked to give the government $50 billion. This is at the same time as there are low interest rates and low inflation. At the same time government has no money for retraining and people cannot find opportunities to be retrained. There seems to be a lack of confidence in the

Supply
market and therefore we are stuck and we have very high unemployment.
If government knew it could not get approval of this $50 billion unless it found $2 billion or $3 billion for capital projects, I bet that money would be found pretty quickly. It would find it fast. That is the point I am trying to make. It has all the leverage on that side of the House. What we are trying to do is appeal on behalf of the two million unemployed that in this approval of $50 billion you are getting of Canadian taxpayers' money, find $2 billion or $3 billion to put people back to work or to prop up the retraining fund.
I know there is absolutely no room in this economy for any tax increases. If anyone had mentioned today the idea of a tax increase in this economy, I think they would be shot on the spot and no one would even care. We are not talking tax increases here.
I do think there are enough assets, good will, skilled labour, and talent in this country that we can afford another couple of billion dollars on the deficit to put people back to work.
I am not treating that lightly. We spent $35 billion last year on welfare payments and unemployment insurance. Would it not be better to add another $2 billion or $3 billion to that and get some capital works projects going and get people back into the work force so that they can have their dignity back? Then they would become taxpayers.
I just received a note from my colleague from Cochrane-Superior. There are currently 30,000 unemployment insurance recipients who run out of benefits every month. Most of them end up on welfare. There is no retraining. The funds are gone and very few job opportunities exist because-and the member for Carleton- Charlotte was so right when he agreed with us on this-the cartel of financial institutions in this country right now is doing very little to stimulate, help, and push along the 1,700,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in this country that are our greatest hope for putting people back to work.
I compliment the member for the idea that he put forward to this House and to the nation, that if anybody
does not feel they are being treated fairly by their bank, the Minister of Finance will welcome hearing from them. I think that is a step in the right direction.
It is very tough in 10 minutes to talk about what is going on in a package of $50 billion. It is very tough but it would be irresponsible for us on this side of the House to look the other way when we have close to two million people who are out of work and not enjoying this zero inflation. They are only enjoying the pain of the zero inflation and the low interest rates.
Once again we appeal to the government. We on this side of the House are begging you to go through this bill appropriating $50 billion and see if you can find something that will help put those unemployed people back to work as soon as we can.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief so that my fellow members can also speak on this.
I think that a fairly clear consensus came out of what I heard today on the motion by the President of Treasury Board for consideration of a deficit budget for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, a budget that all members here in the House called lacking in courage and especially lacking in new ideas to fight this deficit that is eating away at our economy and our future.
It is with this in mind that I address the hon. member who just spoke about cuts and making better use of money. For example, does he agree in this recession with the government in its budget this year? We know that last year it spent $2 billion more than it forecast the year before. Does the previous speaker, since I must address him through you, Madam Speaker, also agree that we are wasting, for example, $40 million on advertising this year to tout the benefits of Canada's 125th anniversary, without forgetting all the incredible mistreatment of francophones in those 125 years and also of the native people? It is spending $40 million to brag about that on television and it will waste $600,000 next week on a monument to the Queen of England. Would we not do better to cut such foolish, frivolous expenses as sending 12 members of Parliament to the earth summit in Rio with the Prime Minister? Would it not have been enough for the Minister of the Environment and the Prime
June 16, 1992

Supply
Minister to go there, instead of 12 official committee members, together with members who were invited by the Prime Minister to go at a cost of $200,000 or $300,000? Does the member who just spoke not feel that we are squandering public funds and forgetting to find solutions for the problems of unemployment and the economy? It seems that the only criterion guiding this government, and I close on this point, Madam Speaker, is just a hope that interest rates and the economy will get back on track. It has no philosophy; in other words, it governs from one crisis to the next, without clear objectives.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I can hardly believe that the member for Richelieu would throw me such a lob ball.
I think that this government would probably be saving $4 billion to $5 billion a year if we did not have to contend with the separatist threat that comes from these six, seven or eight members. I cannot even remember how many of their members sit in this House, this nation's boardroom, the boardroom of Canada. I was elected here to try and do productive things to keep the country together. They are constantly sewing doubt and seeds of division which infect foreign investment and investor confidence. They do not realize that this $125 million, or whatever, is to try and keep this nation together. I do not know of a Canadian who would not support a bill to spend that amount of money if it meant keeping this nation together.
The member for Richelieu does not believe in this country. He is trying to separate, trying to set up a sovereign country for Quebec, which view obviously I do not support.
Canadians do not question that. They do not question that. But what they would like to see at the same time is the government, because of the dissension and the division and the lack of unity in this country, which is mostly caused by this sort of separatist thrust that we are eventually going to have to face right on in the next 30 or 60 or 90 days, get that resolved one way or the other. Then I think we are going to go back to being that united galvanized country that we were before this nonsense started.
Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for Science): Madam Speaker, the members are well aware, I trust, of the government's ambitious program to reform the Public Service to make it even more efficient and client oriented. Getting better value for the tax dollar has been the order of the day. Available resources have had to be redirected to the point of service delivery, that is where the client is, and away from overhead and administrative processes. Only through this action could the adverse effects of restraint on programs and services be minimized.
Changing how government does business means more than rethinking what government does. It means more than getting out of some activities, consolidating others, eliminating duplication and unnecessary processes, postponing some purchases and setting aside some worthwhile activities that cannot be afforded. It means improving how government does things to direct taxpayers' dollars toward better, more responsive and more client-oriented services, particularly at the point of service delivery; to make it easier for individuals and businesses to deal with government; and finally to focus resources and energies on clients' needs and ensure that public servants are ready, willing and able to resolve problems, answer questions and provide service courteously and quickly.
Concrete measures are being taken to improve services for businesses, more specifically to facilitate, streamline and modernize business dealings with government. One example is the move to a single business registration number. Another is the government's proceeding toward fully automated procurement that will reduce transaction costs and speed up the administrative processes.
A systematic internal review of the existing regulatory burden in each department and each sector is being launched. Regulations will be reviewed to ensure that: government intervention remains justified, regulation is the best among available alternatives, the design of the regulatory program maximizes the gains to beneficiaries in relation to the cost to Canadian governments, businesses and individuals, and resources are available to allow efficient compliance and enforcement.

June 16, 1992
Supply
The government believes that an innovative, competent and dedicated Public Service is a key asset in supporting Canada's economic competitiveness. Canada has a world class and high quality Public Service that is being saluted during "National Public Service: Serving Canadians Better" week.
This special week is being celebrated for the first time this week as a result of Parliament passing a private member's bill on June 4. This new national week will enable all Canadians to acknowledge the thousands of conscientious and responsible Public Service employees who are working to serve the public wherever Canadians are, in major centres and in smaller communities across the country, and from missions abroad.
The government is also decentralizing decision-making. We are changing what we ask of our program managers. Rather than directing them to follow rules we are asking them to focus their energies on serving their clients. We are making sure that public servants get adequate training to meet the demands of increasingly complex jobs. We are empowering them to make decisions and to be responsible for those decisions. We are holding them accountable for achieving results.
Many of our recent initiatives are the result of the major renewal exercise that the Prime Minister announced in December 1989, Public Service 2000. For the taxpayer and the client Public Service 2000 means that more tax dollars are being devoted to service delivery and less to internal administration.
Administrative decision-making is being decentralized. Program managers are challenged to focus their energies on serving their clients. They are being held accountable for the results and the bottom line of their programs, and training is crucial to making this all work. Public servants are being empowered to make their own decisions and to be responsible for them.
Central agencies are reducing and streamlining demands made on the departments. Internal administrative processes are being reduced and very much simplified. Investments are being made in people and in new technologies. Investment in information management is being undertaken to make it easier for clients to conduct transactions with the government and to reduce costs, red tape and paper.
Operating budgets covering salaries, operations, maintenance, and minor capital are being established. They give managers flexibility in deciding how best to spend their resources in order to maximize the results. They hold a promise of increased management efficiency, increased adaptability to changing client needs, and increased accountability for the use of the tax dollar.
Commencing April 1, 1992, a number of departments and agencies began operating budgets on a departmentwide basis as pilot projects.
The way government has transitionalized and transitionally been organized has not always been conducive to clients' receiving simple, easy, and accessible service. At present there are thousands of different points of service delivery across Canada; a reflection in part of the expanse of this country and its dispersed population.
However, it can be confusing and very frustrating to Canadians to have to speak to several people from several departments on a pension matter, for example. A number of measures announced in the budget will help change the way in which services are provided.
Departments will be moving to adopt more flexible hours and to work together toward the development of single-point access to clusters of government services. In the larger urban centres, departments providing similar services will look for opportunities to collate service delivery.
In the smaller communities, existing offices of one department will serve as the service delivery point for several departments, responsible for dispensing basic information on programs and services and providing forms. This process has already begun using the Canada Employment Centres as service delivery points for other government departments.
Representatives from these departments will link with Canada Employment and Immigration to establish the exact way in which the employment centres can be used to provide residents of these communities with direct access to a fuller range of services.
The new concept of special operating agencies was introduced in December 1989. This structure gives managers the wherewithal to run their organization more like a business, with greater focus on results and the bottom line.
June 16, 1992

In return for commitments to performance, managers receive increased administrative flexibility and delegation. They enjoy greater freedom of action to serve Canadians better and to adapt more quickly to changes in client needs.
Five agencies are now in place. Nine others are in the final stages of preparation and they are producing results. For example, the government telecommunications agency has succeeded in offering a credit of $8.5 million to departments. The government is actively seeking opportunities to extend the application of the agency model.
Departmental managers will be accountable for the services delivered and for bottom line costs in a way they have not been to date.
The Veterans Independence Program administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs will improve service to clients and minimize the administrative burden. This will involve prepaying entitlements and asking clients to submit their expenditure claims only once and at the end of the year.
Revenue Canada Taxation has already introduced no calculation tax forms for individuals whose returns are relatively straightforward. A similar saving in time and cost will result from the introduction of the new T-2 short tax form for businesses.
I have one last closing remark. As hon. members can appreciate, the innovations that I have just described mean that money taxpayers have entrusted to the government-and that forms part of the Main Estimates- will be spent with care and will buy increasingly more efficient services that Canadians can depend on.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81(16), to interrupt
Supply
the proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings.
The first vote is on the motion for concurrence. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)) moved: that Bill C-87, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1993, be read the first time and printed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. [English]


Mr. Dingwall:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the minister responsible. Could he indicate to the House if the bill is in its usual form.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to give the House the assurance that the form of this bill is the same as that passed in previous years.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Madam Champagne in the chair.
Andrée  Champagne: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-87, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1993.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall Clause 2 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 2 agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall Clause 3 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.
Clause 3 agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall Clause 4 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Andrée  Champagne: Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Andrée  Champagne: Shall Clause 6 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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


Andrée  Champagne: Shall the schedule carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
June 16, 1992

Supply


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
George Albert Proud: Madam Chairman, after years of hard work, it is a relief, at least for those who are interested in what happens in Parliament, that after repeated appeals to the House and to the Chair, I can now thank the Clerk and his staff, because at last I have a better idea of what is going on, now the votes are finally written in alphabetical order, in French and English. When you call the votes in English, I know exactly what they are in French. This is the second time this has happened in the history of Parliament. In fact, I really do not have to thank you, but I just wanted to point this out, because at last we can understand-


Madam   Chairman@: The hon. member has been looking forward to this for quite some time.


George Albert Proud: I am starting to understand, Madam Chairman. Perhaps if more attention was paid to-I was saying that at last we have, in alphabetical order, what my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier has been asking for years. I do not see why there is so much brouhaha when someone is speaking in French.
Would you please call the House to order?


Madam   Chairman@: Order, please.

Order, please. Members who have been here for a few years know that the hon. member has been making a special request for many years and he is now telling us that he does appreciate that changes have been made. There is actually no debate allowed at this time. The hon. member has risen on a point of order. I think he will close his point of order now so that we can continue.


George Albert Proud: Of course, Madam Chairman. And thanks to your call to order, I will be able to thank the House, although I really do not have to, for something that should have been done a long time ago. However, I think it should be said that at last people have realized that members whose mother tongue is French have a better idea of what is going on if everything is in alphabetical order. The process is so quick, and you are so efficient, that we easily lose track. So, my thanks to whom it may concern.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall clause 1 carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


Andrée  Champagne: Shall the preamble carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Andrée  Champagne: Shall the title carry?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Andrée  Champagne: Shall I report the bill?
Bill reported.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gilles Loiselle: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: 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, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker:: It being 10.35 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.37 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 17,1992