1992-04-27

[Stage Direction]
this will be the first time in 24 years that we have had a commission or an inquiry on industrial relations.
I hold in my hand the report of the last task force, which was tabled in this House in 1968. This report of the task force, which was chaired by H. D. Woods, the Dean of Arts and Science at McGill University, is entitled Canadian Industrial Relations: Report of the Task Force on Labour Relations.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move
immediately to appoint an independent commission to undertake an
in-depth study of labour relations in areas of federal jurisdiction.
He said: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and welcome back to all members. Of course, we all missed this place dearly and are glad to be back.
I would like first to explain the motion. One of the questions that was asked of me when we put the private members' motions together was whether a motion would be votable or non-votable.
I decided from the outset not to make it a votable motion. I did not want to force the government to feel obliged to deal with the issue in a partisan way, but to look at the facts and to try and get a sense from the discussions which we will have in this short period of time as to the importance of the issue, what is confronting us in the long term, and of course the ramifications down the road of the labour relations in this country for us as Canadian people as we enter into the global market.
First of all, in the short time that I have, in the next 20 minutes, I want to try and outline just what has taken place and what some of the issues are that this particular inquiry can look at.
Let me also say that there are times when the Canadian public feels very frustrated about inquiries or commissions and the cost of them. I want to suggest that
I think everyone in this place can agree that we have come a long way since 1968. There has been a tremendous amount of change. There have also been some issues that we have tried to deal with in this place and in other places, of course, such as the provincial jurisdiction.
What is hoped by the in-depth inquiry which we may be done, by some proficient Canadians is that we could enter into the 1990s and beyond with a new way of doing business. As you know, every time there are difficult periods in our history-some call them depressions, some call them recessions, some call them blips, some call them bust and boom cycles-when those periods take place, all of a sudden new words emerge.
The new word for government members opposite is "partnership". They are talking very extensively now out there to labour relations people, to unions, to workers, about the importance of having a partnership, of being co-operative, of having team-work in order that we can globally compete out there against other countries for jobs and to make a living in all sectors of the economy.
That is very well and good. We recommend that people try to co-operate. If we are going to ask people to co-operate, to have team-work and to enter into a partnership, the rules have to be such that it is fair for those who are participating, that it is not skewed one way, that it is not take by one particular group and give by another.
That is really the issue that I want to deal with today. I want to do that by using a couple of examples. At the same time, before I get into the examples, I just want to inform the public that there are some difficulties out

April 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
there. That is the reason it is important that we take a look at this issue and why we should study it thoroughly.
For example, in 1991, there were 31 labour disputes in the federal jurisdiction. That is a large number. Some will recall in The Ottawa Citizen of not too long ago, a few weeks ago, it explained to us in detail the number of person-days lost to strikes in 1991.
All of us in this place know that there have been some difficult strikes. We as parliamentarians have had to legislate people back to work because of those difficulties. Our Public Service employees, of course, come to mind. Postal workers and grain handlers are others. For those who may not be familiar, the railroads are now in the process of negotiation. Again, we may be forced, if it comes to that, to look at that issue as well.
Ottawa leads the way in strikes in 1991 with 1.1 million lost person-days. Montreal, of course, is second with 353,470. Toronto lost 291,073; Vancouver lost 154,207; Edmonton lost 122,318; and Calgaiy lost 89,942. Those are a lot of lost days. A tremendous amount of competitiveness and productivity has gone down the tube because of these strikes.
That is why we as parliamentarians should take a very positive route, take a look at the issues and try to come to some sort of understanding of whether there is a necessity to make changes in the labour relations process in this country.
I want to read into the record what was said in 1968 by the then Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson at his press conference of September 2, 1966. When he launched the inquiry, the Prime Minister said: "To look into this whole question of labour disputes and the procedures and provisions of the current laws, we have to deal with them and to recommend to the government changes that may be required".
In the study itself as a result of the Prime Minister's recommendations to have a study, paragraph 2 of the task force introduction reads: "Why has the public apparently lost faith in the prevailing collective bargaining process? The rash of strikes which have caught the headlines in recent years provides much of the explanation".
"In many of these disputes, the protagonists seem to suffer less than the public. Worse still, there is apprehension that the parties are using the public as their whipping boy while they work out their differences".
That does not sound too different today than it did 24 years ago. I suggest that if it makes sense now as it did then it is time to take an in-depth look at the whole subject of labour relations.
We should look at it in the context of the major issue of collective bargaining versus public policy, versus industrial strategy and industrial policy for us as a country in order that we can be very competitive out there with other countries.
Whenever there is a strike, whenever there is a dispute, whenever there is a difference of opinion, somebody is affected. It is not just the workers, but the country as a whole. For us as parliamentarians it is paramount that we take a look at that particular issue with the vision of just what it entails if we allow this kind of situation to get out of hand. If this kind of situation continues to grow then all of a sudden public policy is held hostage by a process that does not seem to work.
As I said before, partnership, team-work and co-operation is a two-way street. I want to give an example of what is going on out there today in the pulp and paper industry. This is an industry very close to my heart. I come from the riding of Kenora-Rainy River that without this particular resource and industry at its full potential experiences tremendous hardships.
Lo and behold, during the 1980s we went through a very difficult recession. The pulp and paper industry was probably at its lowest in many years. The Canadian Liberal government at the time pumped billions of dollars into the pulp and paper industry.
In this place we talked about the importance of having the most up-to-date technology, the best trained workforce, the most acceptable collective bargaining process in the country for that industry. At the same time, we needed the ability as a government to help the industry to be competitive in the global market.
April 27, 1992

That was just 10 years ago. Now what do we have today?
Today in the pulp and paper industry in northwestern Ontario and in Canada we have mills shutting down. We are being told the 20 per cent over-capacity in the paper industry means that 20 per cent of the industry in Canada and in North America in general has to downsize to a point where it now can sell that excess paper. Or, of course, what it has to do is downsize to the point where those mills are shut down because they are not technologically capable of competing with our American neighbours or with Sweden and Finland.
That brings me to an issue which is of concern to me. In the pulp and paper industry today, in my own backyard, in my own home town, the company has asked the labour union to open the collective bargaining process. They have a contract now. It is not due for another year or so before they have to negotiate. It is asking to have this collective agreement opened in order to become more competitive and to change the work rules to become more flexible.
Of course there is some reluctance to do that by the employees. Why? Because they have a process. They have a collective bargaining process. They have a contract that says in essence they have negotiated with the intent of not having to look at that for another year. They signed a three-year agreement. Because of the difficulties out there, the recession, the job losses and the potential of this mill closing itself, they are literally forced to open it. This is not new to a lot of members, they could talk about this in their own areas too, as well as in other provinces.
That is the case in this industry and of course it is the case in other industries. In southern Ontario we have seen massive job losses, plants closing, plants moving to the United States, people having to look for other jobs in other industries because of the fact the company is not competitive.
Of course we as parliamentarians have to look at that issue as far as the collective bargaining process is concerned. We cannot simply say that it is business as usual, that if a company wants to shut down, especially a company that is in the resource sector like in mining or forestry, a whole town can practically disappear when that takes place.
I want to emphasize by quoting a few paragraphs from the task force of 1968. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the task
Private Members' Business
force introduction reflect today's realities. I will read them: "To these events must be added a public predisposition to blame unions and collective bargaining for inflation which has plagued the Canadian economy in recent years".
Paragraph 7 says: "Whether these alleged ills are merely symptoms of more profound social problems is ignored by the public. Unions and collective bargaining are ready targets for public wrath".
It has been so long since we even looked at the issue and talked about it in public that people get the impression it is always the union's fault. It is because they always want too much and because wages are so high we cannot be competitive. The argument made is will we move or will we slash them down to a point where we can be competitive. However, there are some large ramifications to that.
Now is an opportune time for us to talk about the effects of the marketplace on collective bargaining and the effect of the collective bargaining process on the ability to compete. If that is true or not true, ways must be found to change the process in order for it to be more compatible to our goals as Canadians.
There are some good recommendations in that report which were never implemented. I want to touch on a few of them. One of the things I found very interesting, and it deals with unions themselves, is the fact that public policy issues are at the forefront. I want to read one of the recommendations. "We recommend that there be created a three-man public interest dispute commission, independent of any government department, reporting to the Prime Minister and composed of public members only".
This dispute commission would ensure that when there is a dispute that conflicts with the public good, that conflicts with an industrial strategy that is necessary for us to compete, we should not allow the employer to hold us hostage on the one side, and on the other side allow employees to drag the dispute into the public forum in order to get the dispute into the political arena, which is where it ends up if it drags on too long and if it has some public ramifications.
If that takes place, we as parliamentarians are always asked to legislate them back to work. This public interest dispute commission would give the opportunity for both sides to put forward their side of the dispute. It would allow the commission to recommend to the government

April 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
to look at different ways of resolving disputes without creating the hardship, the anxiety and the antagonism that goes on in the country every time we have a dispute of that magnitude.
This commission would only work if it has the interests of both parties at heart, is perceived to be fair and has the trust of both sides.
I would like to stress that when we get into this kind of study it be made as public as possible because it is my understanding, in talking to a lot of management people out there in the work force, that Canadians do not have a great understanding of unions as a whole. They do not have a great understanding of the complexities of the collective bargaining process. Because of that, when there are disputes, they tend to take their anger out on the employees who are out there picketing on what they believe to be a legitimate grievance.
I would like to see certain areas studied. The freedom to associate and to act collectively is one area that has to be studied to see why it is that certain management people are afraid to have collective bargaining or unions created in their particular industries and the difficulties that entails.
Based on the fact that I was very involved in the postal dispute, I would like us to look at unfair labour practices. I tend to think that the rules of the game have changed significantly. I would like us to take a look at labour practices and how they are dealt with.
I would like to take a look at trade unions, political action and the political process and see how trade unions are interacting with political parties and whether that is for the good of the country or not.
First, I would like to deal with management approaches and practices and how they deal with the collective bargaining process. Most important, I would like to deal with the public interest in industrial conflict and how that is changing because of the changing world that we live in.
If we can do that in a very non-partisan way, we could possibly set our sights on the future and go down the road with the understanding that we are to be co-operative. It is a two-sided coin. If we do not do that the animosity and the difficulties in the system will continue. The only way to say it is that people are starting to break the law. I hate to have to say that in this place but people are taking extreme measures to get their point across.
With this report and this study I hope we can change the way we do business. Perhaps we can update this 24-year old document and put in place a regime that will lead us into the next 10 years in a more co-operative manner. I hope the members who are participating will join in a dialogue of co-operation so that we can convince the government a report or an inquiry like this is for the good of all Canadians.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate today. I commend and congratulate my hon. friend from Kenora for bringing this issue forward.
There is no question there have been disruptions that have caused a great deal of anxiety on the part of both those directly involved in those disruptions and Canadians as the whole, as he has indicated.
Just before I get into my own comments I want to bring to the House's attention a couple of things in reference to what my hon. friend said. He spoke of the pulp and paper industry. I would remind him that that industry falls within provincial jurisdiction. I presume that in an inquiry such as the one he is proposing, it would not deal with the problem he raises with respect to that industry.
He also mentioned the 1968 task force study that was done and, indeed, it was very interesting to hear the remarks he quoted. I should point out to him, however, there have been three other studies since that time. It has not been the case that this issue has not been brought forward.
In the mid-1970s there was the Finkelman report on employer-employee relations in the Public Service of Canada. In 1975 Justice E. D. Bayda reported on the state of industrial relations in the grain handling industry in the Vancouver port area. That study was followed by a more detailed assessment of the bargaining structure
April 27, 1992

and various elements of Canada's transportation system, including grain handling and rail transportation. I am referring of course to the 1978 inquiry headed by the chairperson of the Industrial Relations Department of McGill University, Dr. Francis Bairstow. Therefore, it is not as if this subject has not been given some attention.
Also it is important to point out that while this motion has arisen from four fairly high-profile labour disputes, existing legislation provides a framework for collective bargaining which is both flexible and effective and is intended to encourage peaceful resolution of disputes and in fact does so in the overwhelming majority of contract discussions.
I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of collective agreements are achieved without any kind of disruption or collective sanctions and, indeed, 90 per cent of those that are not settled at the table in the first instance are resolved through conciliation. What we are dealing with in terms of collective sanction actions is less than 1 per cent of the circumstances. I do not think we should overdramatize the problem. If there is one incidence of a failure to come up with an appropriate and reasonable agreement, obviously there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
I am sure all members of the House would agree the right to free collective bargaining is one of the fundamental principles of any democratic society. The right of association is the one written in civil codes, human rights declarations, and so on. Indeed, I would go further and argue that the right to withdraw one's labour is an equally fundamental right that should accrue to anybody who is involved in an employment situation.
I might say with the right and the choice to exercise that right, the individual is also opting to take certain risks in terms of what might happen to the employment they thereby choose to leave behind. Nevertheless it is as fundamental a right of the individual to choose to withdraw his or her labour as it is to have free collective bargaining.
Unions developed over 100 years ago as a result of oppressive working conditions in factories. It is an outcome of the industrial revolution and, indeed, of abuse by employers taking undue advantage of the power of their position to at times have people working in unacceptable circumstances. We have had a tremendous development of trade unions, not just in this country but
Private Members' Business
throughout much of the world. A very important role is played on behalf of employees by the unions to which they belong.
Some people in this country argue it has gone too far and that unions are too powerful. I personally do not think that is the case. If a union is powerful it is because the membership has chosen to transfer that power to it which it exercises, and as long as it acts within the law it is a perfectly legitimate circumstance.
The problem that exists today is not the problem of power but the problem of usurpation of power for political purposes by union leadership. This is inevitably what leads to a lot of the problems, including the one we had last year with the Public Service strike, where the leadership of unions took advantage of their position to pursue their own political ends, notwithstanding the best wishes of the membership.
It is important to remember that the role of a union- and this is my definition-is to protect the employment and interests of the members. That is why unions exist. That is why union members pay union dues.
I worked for the Nova Scotia teacher's union for 10 years and although a lot of people looked to the teachers' union to provide leadership in education, which we tried to do, and for professionalism within the teaching profession, which we tried to do, as an employee of that union it was my responsibility to remember that the reason they paid my salary was to look out for their interests. The most important aspect of their interest was that they had a job and good working conditions and reasonable benefits. That was why the union existed. That is why all unions exist.
Similarly, when I was a member of a union, a member of ACTRA, I paid my union dues in the expectation that the union would work for me. Some union leaders in this country seem to have forgotten that is why unions exist. Rather we see a situation where some union people see the union office as a vehicle to personal power. They see a chance to pursue their own opportunity for development and to move into the political domain.
We have seen an increasing intrusion of many unions away from its role and toward political intervention. One need only look at the relationship at the national level of some national trade unions and organizations like the CLC and the CAW with the NDP.

April 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
The linkage one sees between the CLC, the CAW and the NDP seems at times to make them indistinguishable. Does this mean that all union members who pay dues know those dues are supposed to be used for the purposes of the New Democratic Party? I do not think so.
Does it mean that all union members support the NDP? I know it is not so. I have union members serving on my executive and it galls them that their union dues are in part used to subsidize the NDP. I am sure the same feeling exists with some of my Liberal colleagues opposite and, indeed, maybe the independents who sit in this place as well.
When there is a conflict, does one assume that the unions are always going to take the position that is in the interests of the membership, or will they do what they think is in the interests of the NDP? Do all NDP positions reflect the best interests of union members? I am not so sure they do. Where is Bob White, Shirley Carr and Nancy Rich when the interests of the union members conflict with the interests of the New Democratic Party? Well, I am not so sure about that. I know that when I worked for the Nova Scotia teachers' union we felt that because we had to deal with government we should stay out of partisan politics and stick to what we were there for.
Unfortunately my former colleagues have forgotten that and got involved in a terrible partisan dispute last year with the Government of Nova Scotia which has not served the interests of teachers in Nova Scotia and, indeed, in many instances has not reflected their views.
In summary, the message to be made is that collective bargaining is fundamental and essential. When unions and their leaders forget why they exist, they may no longer serve a useful purpose to their membership and they certainly may not serve as a useful contribution to this country.
Parliamentarians are elected to govern, that is their job. The job of unions is to look after their membership.
I again congratulate my hon. friend for bringing forth this issue. I look forward to hearing what my hon. colleagues opposite have to say.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, it was very entertaining, but very evident that the hon. member for South Shore was once a member of ACTRA and has not forgotten the skills he learned there. Nor has he forgotten, or maybe he has forgotten, that while he was working for the Nova Scotia Teachers' Federation that he of course did not use any of the skills he learned whilst working on behalf of those teachers for his own personal gain, and of course never ever used any of those skills to become a member of Parliament. I am sure he had all those skills before he went to work for the workers.
I really find it quite interesting that the hon. member across the floor happened to mention, when discussing the private member's bill to have an independent commission undertake an in-depth study of labour relations in areas of federal jurisdiction, that less than 1 per cent of the unions under federal jurisdiction are up for bargaining, and that we find ourselves in a legislative quandary in this House of Commons dealing with back-to-work legislation.
If you take a look at those 1 per cent disputes, you will probably find 90 per cent of all workers under federal jurisdiction encompassed under Canada Post, the Public Service Alliance, et cetera, so it might be 1 per cent of certifications, but I would suspect it is far closer to 90 per cent of the people working under federal jurisdiction who have been legislated back in the last number of years.
I think it is important to note that a study done by Leo Panitch at York University showed that the Canadian government has the worst record of the G-7 nations regarding freedom of association. I thought it was veiy interesting to hear the hon. member for South Shore, from the the government side of the House, say that he was adamantly in support of freedom of association and the right to withdraw one's labour.
The United Nations ILO, which is the labour management arm of the United Nations, has had to deal with more complaints from Canada than from any other G-7 nation. Since 1973, one-third of all the complaints that
April 27, 1992

went to the ILO regarding freedom of association by unions came from Canada.
From 1973 to 1984 we enjoyed, with a brief interruption, 11 years of Liberal government. From 1984 to 1992 we have enjoyed eight years of Tory government. In that period of time, from 1973 to 1992, one-third of all complaints at the ILO have been from Canada concerning the area of freedom of association.
The ILO has cited the Canadian Conservative government twice in recent years for violation of the international law governing the rights and freedoms of workers. Railway and inside postal workers in Canada, both in 1987, were slapped with back-to-work orders. In fact, the ILO found the government wanting for having introduced and passed that legislation.
This past year the government supported the UN very strongly in its call for us to go to war. It was the first time in 40 years. This government supported the UN very strongly. But when it came to the rights of workers and UN international treaties governing the rights to freedom of association and protection of the right to organize that we signed in 1972, we ignored that. I think it is important we recognize that in the last number of years under both Liberal and Tory governments we have had eight back-to-work pieces of legislation under the Tory government. I am talking now since 1966. From 1966 to 1982 we had 12 Liberal back-to-work pieces of legislation. Since 1984 to the present day we have had eight Tory back-to-work pieces of legislation.
When we talk about the collective bargaining process under federal jurisdiction, I think it is important that we talk about respect and dignity. It is important that we talk about the motivation of employers and unions to bargain. I think the hon. member who has put forward this resolution is a very moderate and thoughtful man. I think his motivations were excellent in putting this forward.
What we have seen is a collective bargaining process where there is no compulsion, no motivation for the employer to get the point and fully and frankly bargain at the bargaining table. Nor is there a motivation for the union because everyone knows if you go through the steps, down the line you cannot put off the inevitable; you will get back-to-work legislation. Everyone can
Private Members' Business
blame the government and no meaningful bargaining, nor meaningful building of a relationship.
Every time we have a labour dispute, particularly one that is unresolved by the two parties and has an imposed resolution by the government, there is no healing that takes place. There is no renewing of co-operative effort. That is reflected in productivity. It is reflected in future negotiations. It is a reflection on the government and in fact reflects on how we all operate in our community.
I believe it is very important that there be a renewed look at how the collective bargaining process works and how it is failing in the federal jurisdiction. Whether it is legislative or whether it is attitudinal, I think there is a combination of factors that is causing the collective bargaining process to lead us constantly into conflict.
My goodness, in the CUPW dispute they were legislated back to work before they even went on strike. That is hardly what one would call free collective bargaining with the right to strike.
I think we also have to be aware of the fact that collective bargaining is a two-way street. The government's role should be one of facilitation. The government's role should be one of providing the forum and the facilities for both parties to come to the table and resolve outstanding issues.
It is not meant to be used as a hammer. Ultimately one has to make some effort that will make both parties sit up and pay attention. It should be the absolute last final resort.
One has to wonder why the conciliation process is not working. We saw in the Public Service Alliance negotiations with Treasury Board this past year conciliation board after conciliation board coming out with decisions and the government ignoring them. What is the point of having a conciliation board review if the government interferes or chooses to ignore the conciliation board report?
We then found ourselves in the heat of battle. The reactionary response of the government created such bitterness in the federal public sector between employer and worker that I suspect it will be a long time before that bitterness, hostility and lack of trust can be overcome in the public sector.

April 27, 1992
Private Members' Business
The other thing that is important is what motivates people to come to an amicable solution, what motivates people to work together to achieve a common outcome. Collective bargaining is about give and take. Collective bargaining is just that; it is bargaining. It is two sides coming to the table and working at resolving an issue. When we have provision for facilitation through legislation then that provision should be respected as well. We cannot expect those at the bargaining table, both employer and union, to respect the process if the government does not respect the process.
I close by saying that I think it is long overdue that there be a review of the collective bargaining process under federal jurisdiction, and I look forward to participating in it.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the government member for South Shore who spoke just before the last speaker are a good example of why it is high time that a motion like this one was brought before this House and that a thorough look at how we can have better labour relations in this country was undertaken.
Why I say that is that the government member demonstrated everything about what is wrong with an adversarial, confrontational approach to management and to labour relations in any sector, but particularly in the public sector. Especially coming from a government member when the government has the power as employer to avoid all its obligations to negotiate collectively because it knows it can rely on legislation instead of negotiation to come to a contract with its employees. With that kind of power, government members should also realize their responsibility to respect people's rights to have decent and fair working conditions, to be able to negotiate with their employer, and to be treated with respect and with dignity in what should be an equal relationship.
In case there is any doubt that we need a new look at labour relations, let me remind the House of a few things that were and were not happening when the Woods task force was set up to look at labour relations in Canada.
Man had not yet stepped on the moon. There was no such thing as a VCR. We had never heard of AIDS or compact disks. Computers were something that occupied whole floors of buildings rather than a little comer of a
desk, and we did not know that we were destroying the environment.
We had a situation where the majority of women were not in the work force. The majority of women, especially women with young children did not even consider working. We were just a decade out of the time when if one happened to be a married woman one was not allowed to be employed in the Public Service. We certainly did not believe that people with disabilities could be employed for what they were able to do rather than unemployed and left out of the work force because of what they were not able to do.
Canada had a largely white population. It did not have an official bilingualism policy and we had a totally different work force than we have today.
In 1968 the first of the baby boomers were just hitting the work force. Everybody had a job. Anybody could get a job, virtually whatever job they wanted. That went on for nearly a decade as this huge swell of young people bom after the Second World War were entering the work force. Employers had a large number of employees from whom to choose because this expanding bulge in the population was coming into the work force.
Obviously things have changed since then. People in the work force are interested in issues that were not even put on the bargaining table 25 years ago. Women are in the work force and so child care and the issue of who is caring for the elderly and how that fits into one's working life are increasingly issues for discussions between employees and their employers.
There is the question of leave so that one can manage family life when two parents are in the work force at the same time. Employees in the work place, like all Canadians, are worried about how their working environment is affecting their own personal health and safety. Social attitudes have changed. It is no longer acceptable to assume that only white, middle aged males will rise to the ranks of management, that they can expect all the opportunities and rewards that the work place offers, and that women and others should be satisfied to work for a fair bit less because they are not quite as important. Those attitudes are no longer acceptable.
We are also in a changing work force. People cannot go into a job any more and expect that the same job will be there five years from now, ten years from now, and certainly not thirty years from now, as they were able to
April 27, 1992

expect a generation ago when they entered the work force. Education and training are part of what needs to be discussed in relationships between employers and their employees.
We cannot afford redundancy any more-the world is changing too fast-whether we are a private sector or a public sector employer. Functions can become redundant but we are wasteful and stupid if we allow people to become redundant.
I think it is important for the government to set the tone, to set the leadership. It is the government that is responsible for taking us into the future and for setting new directions. I think that is equally true as an employer as in any other area of policy.
There is real need for leadership here. There is real need to say that the world of the next century is a different world, that we cannot afford friction and conflict, and that the strong winning over the weak, whether it is economically or physically, is not the only way of resolving disputes.
If we look at the competitiveness and the global challenges we talk about so often in this House, the bottom line is whether Canada can meet its commitments. We cannot meet our commitments if we cannot ensure that management and labour can collaborate and co-operate to get the job done, whatever that job may be.
We can no longer afford this adversarial us and them attitude. As someone said recently before a legislative committee of this House, we need change at the top, not from the top.
The role of management, after all, is simply to facilitate the work of front-line employees. Management does not produce anything. It is simply there to assist in organizing things in a way that people on the front line can do their job: produce the automobile, grow carrots, look after children or pick up dogs on the street. Whatever the job of that employee is, the role of management is to allow that employee to do his or her work.
We can no longer have this attitude that because people are up there on the employment scale they are
Private Members' Business
somehow better and know better than those who are actually doing the work. We cannot wait until things blow up. The opportunities this country needs and our people need will be lost to us if that is the way we handle problems. It is in the best Canadian tradition for this kind of an approach to be taken when we see the need for change and see the need for collaboration in solving problems.
The Canadian tradition is that we solve problems. We do not allow them to blow up. We accommodate. We sit down and we solve differences. That is the only way. The motion proposed by my friend from Kenora-Rainy River will allow us to have a serious look at how we can have co-operative labour relationships in this country to free up people to use the best of their potential and to recognize workers as human beings who should be and want to be partners with their employer in having a good company, making a good product, delivering a good service and making this a better country.


Mrs. Monique Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me a few minutes to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River about appointing a commission of inquiry to examine labour relations.
If I had more time, I could talk about the various commissions appointed during the past 25 years, such as the Finkelman commission in 1970, the Baida commission in 1975 and the Bairstow commission in 1978. Each commission concentrated on one specific theme, remaining within its terms of reference. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River went on at length about the report by the Woods task force in 1968. I would like to take a few minutes to consider the difference between 1968 and-.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.

April 27, 1992
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the interests of Canadians
would be best served by an immediate federal general election.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to lead off this debate after spending some two weeks in my home riding of Cape Breton-East Richmond. All I can say is that Canadians in that region of the country are hurting. They have asked me what the Government of Canada is doing to assist people who are in need and why it does not care.
I had a hard time answering their questions. I said I did not know why this government did not care, but all I do know is that this government is quick to blame others for its troubles. It blames its own public servants. It blames provincial governments. It blames the Liberal Party of Canada. It blames Canadian business for not being competitive and it blames Canadian workers for being greedy and inefficient.
Everywhere in this great country of ours there are those who suffer from this government's misguided policies and its gross negligence. Simply put, this government is tired. This government is aimless. It has lost its direction. This government is spiritless.
It is bankrupt of people with a sense of public duty and it is bankrupt of ideas. For the past three and a half years this Conservative administration has interpreted the results of the last election in a narrow manner and has used its majority to force ill-considered views and policies on the people of Canada.
Based on a steady downward trend in the polls, we can see why the government is totally paralysed in attempting to cope with the results of its own policies. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister contemplated abandoning his government's sinking ship to become Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The essence of democratic government is that governors govern with the consent of the governed. The
mandate concept of parliamentary government is a distortion of the principles of parliamentary democracy. When the people elect a Parliament they do not intend to elect a five-year dictatorship. Those who command a majority in the House of Commons have not received a licence to do whatever they want whenever they want.
Depending on the issues debated in the election campaign, those who command that majority may claim to have the permission of the electorate to take certain initiatives, but they have no claim, no claim at all, in being free to follow policies that are both of questionable wisdom and unquestionably unacceptable.
If the present government can lay claim to having received a mandate in the election of 1988, it was a mandate that was abused. It was a mandate that was limited in scope and a mandate that has long since expired. It was a mandate obtained under false pretences, a mandate that disintegrated in the face of political and economic reality.
That is why the opposition has brought before the House today a motion calling upon the Government of Canada to call an immediate election.
In the limited time given to me today I want to examine some of the record of the Progressive Conservative Party during the last eight years.
In 1988 the government sold free trade to Canadians as the wonder drug for the ills of the Canadian economy. It promised unlimited access to a market of 250 million consumers and it promised an agreement that would make Canadians immune to American protectionism.
Speaking in this House on December 22, 1988, the right hon. Prime Minister said that under a free trade agreement:
We will have a genuine shield against U.S. protectionism, whether
from the Congress or the administration.
Strong words indeed but meaningless for the workers at Moosehead Breweries who were laid off last week because of the threatened U.S. duties on Canadian beer.
But beer is not the only industry embroiled in trade disputes; softwood lumber, pork, carpets, automobiles as seen in the made-in-Canada Honda case. Now there is talk of disputes in the high-tech industries of computers. So much for the genuine shield.
April 27, 1992

Even the deputy trade negotiator, Gordon Ritchie, now sees the failings of the free trade agreement. I quote a statement made by him on December 20, 1991.
There is mounting evidence that the U.S. administration in Congress are simply unprepared to honour the spirit or in some cases, even the letter itself of the free trade agreement.
That is why, as noted in the Angus Reid poll two weeks ago, 69 per cent of Canadians want to renegotiate the free trade deal. That is the position of the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada who has made that statement in the House as well as outside the House.
The workers should be asked whether or not they want to have this free trade deal renegotiated. We should ask the workers of Amco Petroleum in Calgary, Alberta or the workers of Cambridge Footwear in Cambridge, Ontario or the workers of CANFOR Plywood or, indeed, the workers in Dorion, Quebec who lost 175 jobs as a result of the free trade agreement.
In 1984 this government committed itself to a national child care program. It was promised in elections and subsequent throne speeches as late as 1991. But what did Canadians get from their majority government? They got an unfocused, inefficient child benefit package. The minister of health stated that the national day care program had been abandoned because he wanted to help abused and hungry children.
Yet for the past seven years this same government has cut back on every support for these same abandoned and hungry children, including transfer payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, health care, and now in the most recent budget, family allowances.
Not only did the minister live up to his government's promise, but on February 27, 1992 the Minister of National Health and Welfare even bragged about breaking the government's commitment, and I quote:
I have the privilege on day care, as I have had on many other issues like VIA Rail, to be the killer.
Supply
Members on the other side of the House, such as the government House leader, wonder why the public has such a low opinion of this government and of this institution.
On the issue of unemployment insurance, we find that the government has abdicated its responsibility to workers of this country by imposing Bill C-21 on a battered economy.
By reducing the benefit period to claimants, the government has created a new statistic not officially kept. This statistic is the group called exhaustees, who are found, unfortunately, in every part of this country. This group of people eventually finds itself on the welfare rolls because this government has given up on them.
This government once tried to deindex seniors' pensions. It had to retreat quickly on this initiative and one would have thought it would have learned. But once again this Tory government insulted seniors of this country by giving a 37 cent increase on their pension cheques and then travelled the country bragging about it. It will not even buy a loaf of bread, a litre of milk, a cup of coffee or even a newspaper.
I said earlier that the essence of democratic government is the consent of the people. In an election, the choice of who shall govern may be determined for the next four years, but those who are chosen are obliged throughout that time to assure that they have the consent of the people to the general direction and methods of their government.
In Canada the principal institution for the exercise of democratic obligations is the House of Commons. The House not only passes legislation but it holds government to public account. The whole democratic system is one of give and take which is designed to assure that even though there are people who view themselves as winners or losers, in any political decision, those who perceive themselves as losers in one case continue to accept the process on the premise that they have a chance the next time around to be winners.
This is not how the present government understands democracy. It sees no need to assure on a continual basis that the nation consents to their governing. It thinks that on November 21,1988 it got a renewed licence to dictate to Canadians and that it has no obligation to listen to

April 27, 1992
Supply
dissent and criticism or to ameliorate its policies in light of popular rejection.
It thinks that on November 21, 1988 the Tories and their big business patrons were the winners and the rest were losers and were to be kept that way as long as could be. This is most clearly illustrated in its attitude toward the House of Commons. Despite their majority control of the House, the Progressive Conservative administration has been so unwilling to hear criticism and dissent that in seven and one-half years in power it has used closure more than all previous governments put together.
I want to indicate to the House that under Prime Minister Borden it was used seven times, under Prime Minister Arthur Meighen once, King once, Bennett twice, St. Laurent four times, Pearson once and Trudeau six for a total of 22. The right hon. Prime Minister who happens to lead this government, 14 times it was moved, 9 notices given, some not moved for a total of 23. That has been the trademark of this government.
Since the 1988 election, the government has moved closure 16 times. In this Parliament, the government has used closure to force through the gutting of the unemployment insurance plan, the clawback of family allowances and old age pensions and to push the GST down the throats of ordinary Canadians. It even tried to use closure on the debate on the gulf war.
On several occasions, the government has used closure to suspend the rules of Parliament because they prevented it from getting its way as easily as it wanted. A little more than one year ago, it used closure to force new rules on the House that had three effects. First, it reduced the number of days each year the House sits so that there would be less opportunity to criticize the government. Second, it reduced the ability of parliamentary committees to hear witnesses from the public on the potential effects of proposed legislation. Third, it made it even easier to use closure on debates the government just happens to find inconvenient.
The government does not want to hear dissent to its actions. It does not care who stands in its way. It believes that the last election gave it licence to do anything it
wants and all that can stop it is a new election. That is why a new election is needed and needed now.
The government's budgetary record under the guidance of the former Minister of Finance was a dismal failure. The new Minister of Finance, trying to work on the mess left to him by his predecessor, had to adopt two points of the Liberal Party's emergency economic plan in the 1992 budget having to do with housing. The strong response from the housing sector has impressed even the most optimistic supporters of these measures.
While we welcome these initiatives, we maintain that over all the budget lacks a clear strategy oriented toward economic growth. In fact, the Minister of Finance admits that even he expects the current recovery to be weak by historical standards. On page 41 in the 1992 budget paper, he says and I quote: "Annual growth this year and next remains well below the 4.7 per cent average of growth in the 1983 and 1984 recovery period".
In addition to forecasting sluggish economic growth, the most recent budget also forecasts prolonged high unemployment. The Department of Finance predicts that unemployment will average 10.1 per cent for 1992 and 9.5 per cent for 1993. Once again the Minister of Finance is making overly optimistic predictions. For the vast majority of the 1.5 million people now looking for work in this country, the recession will not be over for a long, long time.
After the release of the spring review of the Conference Board of Canada, chief economist Jim Frank said: "The employment results of the past month are nothing short of disastrous".
Ibday in Canada the unemployment rate is 11.1 per cent; 1,525,000 Canadians are without work. Over 414,000 youth are unemployed for a rate of 16.9 per cent. Unemployment among young males is 19.3 per cent and for young females it is 14.3 per cent. Over 615,000 women in this country are without work for an average of 10 per cent of unemployment insurance.
The employment results of the past month are nothing short of a disaster. The facts speak for themselves.
Since Confederation the average time between federal elections has been three years and eight months. We
April 27, 1992

have now almost reached that time since the last election. Our motion calls for an immediate election.
Many who are watching this debate today may ask why we are calling for this in such a politically delicate time. It is precisely for this reason that we are calling for this action. From the beginning this government has not given leadership. This government was elected under the guise of providing choices and new policies. The people of this country, in my view, were deceived; they were promised sacred cows and all they got was bull. If we in the Official Opposition do not fight for our vision, the vision millions of Canadians have, I believe we would be irresponsible in our deliberations.
This government has lost the moral authority to govern. We must make sure that the Canadian electorate has the opportunity to give moral authority to a government with a vision and a direction for this nation of ours to grow to its fullest potential.
In this country we are threatened by a government that has no vision. We are, at this early time in our nation's history, threatened by a government that just does not care. It does not care about the economy and it does not care about the livelihood of working people. It has no vision of the future. I suggest respectfully that the people of Canada do have a vision and it is time to let the people decide.
In the words of Oliver Cromwell as he dismissed a Parliament that had outlived its usefulness, words which were also echoed by Leo Amery to an exhausted and morally bankrupt British government in May 1940:
You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart,
I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.
I say to this government that its time has now come. If it is confident of its policies, if it is confident of the direction in which it believes it is taking this great country, it should afford Canadians the real opportunity by placing them before the general public and letting it decide.
The essence of democracy is the exercise of that right, the right to vote in a Canadian election. I have heard that the minister of constitutional renewal now seems to be contemplating his future, whether it be some ambassador's appointment abroad or not running in the next
Supply
election. Whatever it might be, we hear and see signs every day of a tired government bankrupt of ideas, bankrupt of caring for those who need the caring of the state. I am humbly asking on behalf of all those Canadians, the 1.5 million who are unemployed, the million or so who are on unemployment insurance and those millions of Canadians who have had to suffer the indignity of having to go on welfare, on behalf of the regions of this country who are crying out for leadership from a national government that the Government of Canada do the honourable thing, call a general election and allow the people of Canada to decide.


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member, I am reminded of what I read this morning in Jeffrey Simpson's column after he got back from a trip to Japan. He considered the way we approach politics and current events in Canada and felt it was rather parochial. When we are talking about the well-being of all Canadians I think it is very important to make sure we are talking about the right things at the right time and that the subjects we are raising are the important ones.
Earlier, in the debate that preceded this one, we heard a request for a commission of inquiry into the state of labour relations in the public service, and there were references to problems that seem quite incredible today. Opposition members seem to forget that the situation may vary from year to year and that is not necessarily what they claim it to be.
For instance, to get back to the debate we had earlier, in 1966 we had 600 strikes in Canada, compared with 460 in 1991. In 1966, 412,000 workers went on strike or were locked out, compared with 249,000 in 1991. Production time during work stoppages was three and a half days in 1966 but only one day in 1991. There always seems to be a tendency to identify major problems with a government that may have changed in the meantime. I must say I find it extremely difficult to debate issues with the opposition, because instead of looking at the facts they tend to exaggerate and to forget there are contingencies we cannot avoid, although the government is doing its best.

April 27, 1992
Supply


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has obviously made my case. The hon. member has just said that the government opposite does not want to accept responsibility for the economic mess that it got us into. What does the government do? It blames someone. If it is not provincial governments, it will be labour.
Let me give one example of how the Government of Canada has accepted responsibility for its actions. That was the strike it caused with regard to the Public Service of this country. Any government that cannot manage its own human resources surely cannot deserve the respect, the admiration or the confidence of the people of Canada to get on with building a strong economy.
I know it is quite fashionable in some circles to point to the Public Service and to point to labour as being greedy and inefficient. That is very saleable in some quarters. The fact of the matter remains that this government will not accept its responsibilities for the carnage, for the disastrous economic numbers we have with us today.
The hon. member's question is answered by her own rhetoric. I ask the hon. member why she is shifting the responsibility on to others and not accepting her own responsibility for the mess which she and her party got this country into.
The government is always quick to stand in its place and take credit for anything that may happen internationally which may have a good effect on Canada. But it is never prepared, no minister of the government opposite is ever prepared to stand in his or her place to accept the responsibilities for what they have done to cause such economic chaos and such a mess in this country.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend's speech this morning.
He touched on the free trade agreement. He talked about some companies that were critical of the free trade agreement, although I can name as many or more that are in praise of the free trade agreement. They support it and they will tell the hon. member that they have established here or expanded here because of the free trade agreement.
The latest is Northern Telecom in my riding which just moved quite a bit of manufacturing from the United States. That company found it was more efficient and better done in Canada and has moved all its production to Canada and is hiring.
We can name company after company. Kodak Canada established a chemical plant just recently which I had the pleasure of opening. The president of Eastman Kodak in the United States stood up and said: "Because of the free trade agreement, we established this plant here".
The hon. member can give all the examples he wants. He is extremely critical of the free trade agreement. What I want to know today is what his government, if his party ever had the opportunity to form a government, would do with the free trade agreement? What exactly is the policy of the Liberals?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member rising in the House to pose a question. I am wondering if he has the same sort of confidence with regard to the free trade agreement now that workers at Caterpillar in his own riding have lost some jobs.
The hon. minister is kind of slow to get off the mark, and to understand certain realities. We on this side of the House, and I am sure most Canadians, for quite some time have found nothing inherently wrong with the concept or the intellectual arguments of free trade. That is the first point.
The second point is where the hon. member goes astray. I want to say that he has gone astray on many occasions. On this particular one, this free trade agreement must be renegotiated with the United States. Do I have to indicate to him the irritancy in terms of pork? We just had the beer situation. We have just had a situation with softwood lumber. We had the Honda situation.
All of those factors underline the deficiencies of the free trade agreement with the United States.


John Horton McDermid: The beer thing was GATT.


David Charles Dingwall: We will get to that. The hon. member fails to understand what the Leader of the Official Opposition has said clearly in this House, in debate with colleagues to the left and on the public record, that it is the position of our party to renegotiate the free trade deal with the United States.
April 27, 1992

It is in its interests as well as in our interests.


John Horton McDermid: What would you renegotiate?


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member should give us the opportunity to present the case in which 69 per cent of Canadians agree that the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States must be renegotiated.
The whole issue of subsidies, for instance, has not even been touched on by the government opposite. We now know that there are volumes of studies with regard to subsidies in the United States but this government will not share them with this Parliament, nor will it share them with Canadians.
I say to the hon. member that if he had listened carefully to the speech he would have heard very clearly that we would renegotiate the deal with the United States on a variety of fronts.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the opposition House leader. I must say in view of all the facts and political implications of the speech I thought that for him especially he was rather restrained and considerate.
I compliment his speech writer and/or his own contribution to what he said here in the House.
But my question is directed to the larger issues, not like some of the questions that have been taken up at the moment. I was interested that he touched upon the question of an election and where we are in the constitutional negotiations.
Seriously, I would like to ask the opposition House leader if he really does not think that the constitutional package, hopefully, could be concluded and then either a referendum or an election held so the public could participate.
And what does he say specifically about the fact of holding a consensus on the Constitution? If the Prime Minister did what President Johnson did in the United States during the height of the division in that country over the Vietnam problem, which was very horrible, and made an announcement that he would not be involved in the succeeding election, would this itself not help per-
Supply
haps to get some consensus on the constitutional package, if the Prime Minister made such a declaration before a referendum or an election?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I should thank my hon. colleague for his questions and particularly the preliminary remarks that he made before his questions. If the hon. member is suggesting to me and to others that we ought to make representations to the government opposite, either for the purposes of signing a petition or making additional representations to the Prime Minister to get the Prime Minister to resign or to announce that he will not run again in the next federal election, that this somehow may have a positive effect in terms of the constitutional discussions, I think there would be a strong argument and a strong body of thought across this country that would probably agree with the hon. member that it may be of some help to those negotiations.
Now, with regard to the whole constitutional renewal process, we do not have a clear proposal from the Government of Canada. We do not know what its agenda is. On one day there is no referendum, the next day there is a referendum, and the day after that there may not be a referendum.
So the point that I have made is that we should clear the air and give a new administration an opportunity to put in place some things that must be put in place and then we can deal quite quickly, if there is an election held soon, to get on with rebuilding the economy, and of course addressing our concerns with regard to the Canadian Constitution.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate participating in the debate today. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I just want to make a couple of comments on my friend's responses to my question.
He first of all mentioned the Caterpillar company in my constituency. Indeed, unfortunately, Caterpillar closed down in Brampton and moved its operations back to the United States. The president of Caterpillar stood up and made it very clear that the free trade agreement helped Caterpillar in Brampton. It removed the tariff on the equipment that it was producing there to be shipped to the United States.

April 27, 1992
Supply
The one thing that my hon. friend forgot to mention in his comments, and which unfortunately the decision was based on, was two major strikes by the CAW in a matter of two years which were lengthy, which were nasty, and which unfortunately the company could no longer tolerate. Therefore, we lost that business in Brampton, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because that was the reason.
Now we have just recently seen the same thing happen in the United States to Caterpillar, by the way. In the United States it got an agreement with its workers, but it got it the hard way, the tough way, and it was not a pleasant situation.
So, I feel as badly as the hon. member does about losing that industry in my community. But to blame it on the free trade agreement is totally erroneous.
The second thing he talks about is the disputes we have with the United States in trade agreements. Now let us put this in context. Our trade with the United States is the largest trading between any two countries in the world. If they go back and take a look at my speeches during the free trade debates they will see that nowhere did we say that there would be no more disputes. If we thought there would be no more disputes because of the free trade agreement, we would not have put in a dispute settlement mechanism.
That is one of the glories of the free trade agreement. We have that mechanism now. Disputes will arise. When you have the largest trading partnership in the world, of course you are going to have disputes. That is only natural. We now have a method to solve those disputes and that is what is so very important.
The second thing he raised was beer. He brought up the problem with beer trade between the United States and Canada. Heavens, we have problems with beer trade between provinces in this country; we cannot trade beer between provinces, let alone between Canada and the United States.
I might remind the House and hon. members that this was a GATT decision. The GATT found that Canada was using unfair practices in the sale of beer and imported beer. That decision was made some time ago, and Canada has been delaying for some time the change in marketing procedures. The United States had had
enough. It said that the GATT had ruled and had found Canada wrong.
What we in Canada were trying to do was negotiate a phase-in. We finally did. We finally reached an agreement that seems to be suitable to all parties.
That is how you solve these problems. You do not solve these problems by calling an election out of the blue because problems arise, certainly problems arise. Governments have mandates to work on those problems and solve them and that is exactly what we are doing.
The opposition suggests in its motion today that in the opinion of this House the interests of Canadians would be best served by an immediate federal election.
The last time the Liberals called an early provincial election, in Ontario, as I recall, they called it before their mandate was even close to being up. They were taught a lesson and we in Ontario are sorry they were taught that lesson, but they were.
They called it early. They were a little over three years into their mandate, as this government is, and they had quite a split in the vote. We in Ontario know what happened. We got an NDP government. I will let the public decide whether that was a good thing. I have my own opinions which I am sure would be of no surprise to anyone who is here in the House or watching today.
The opposition is suggesting now that a radical change in policies would be the best thing for this country; that under new management, its management, Canada's current economic difficulties would be solved easily and painlessly. That is what it is trying to tell the Canadian people.
It is worth noting once again that the opposition has not matched its call for change with any proposals of its own except the one I asked my friend about, the free trade agreement, and he said the opposition would renegotiate it. When you negotiate something, you are after something, but you have to be prepared to give up something if you are going to get something. That is how negotiations work.
The opposition is not telling us what it is prepared to give up. It is not prepared to tell us what it wants in return. It is saying, "elect us, trust us, and we will renegotiate it". That is all it is saying. Things simply do not work that way.
April 27, 1992

The opposition did not bring any proposals. It failed this morning to convince the Canadian people that they should have an election at this time. The reason for the failure is obvious. The opposition identifies no substantive policy alternatives because it has none, at least none that does not involve higher debt, higher taxes and higher inflation.
The only thing I have heard from the opposition to solve all our economic problems and the unemployment problems in this country is a make-work project for sewers and roads. That is it.


Mr. Fontana:: A 5 per cent RRSP premium.


John Horton McDermid: The member says a 5 per cent down payment on an RRSR The government has done that, so it is done.
My hon. friend, to his credit, is saying, "congratulations, very good". I appreciate that. That is the first bit of thanks the government has received from the opposition benches. I thank my friend from London East for those comments. I know his constituents feel the same way.
We all know there are changes Canadians are looking for. They want unemployment brought down. We want unemployment brought down. They want a return to economic growth. We all want a return to economic growth. They want interest rates to stay down. They want inflation to stay down. We know that. These are the goals our government is pursuing, the objectives that our policies, including February's budget, are designed to support. It is exactly what we are doing.
It is not just the absence of viable policy alternatives that makes today's motion invalid. First, it ignores the real driving force behind our current economic difficulties. The economic slowdown is taking place around the world and especially in the U.S., our largest export market.
My hon. friend says: "You blame it on everybody else, you don't blame it on yourself". We have been judged by those analysts around the world as following the right policies. When you produce in this country and 25 per cent of that production is shipped to the United States of America, and when one-third of your jobs rely on trade and things slow down around the world, things are going
Supply
to slow down at home. That is exactly what is happening. It is exactly what we are seeing now.
It is not surprising. It is not difficult to understand. I am sure Canadian people are not sucked in by the thought that everything that is happening here in Canada now, the high unemployment and so on, is entirely the fault of this government. Canada plays in a much bigger market than its own little island, its own little 10 provinces and 2 territories. It is up there with the big boys.
We rank 31st in population. We have the seventh or eighth largest economy in the world. We are rated by the United Nations as the most desirable country in the world in which to live-number one. If one listened to my friend this morning, one would think we are living in a Third World country. That negative talk is damaging to the psyche of the Canadian people. It is extremely damaging because we have a great country.
We have problems. God knows we have problems. We are concerned with those problems. Any member in this House, any member from any party who goes home on the weekends and meets constituents or over the last two weeks spent time in the constituency or around the country, knows we have problems. We know we have problems, and we are doing a number of things to try to alleviate some of those problems. They all take time. It is not going to happen overnight. There is no magic solution. An election is not a magic solution.
We in Canada, in going through this tough economic time, are in a very good position to come out of this economic morass we find ourselves in as the economies around the world recover.
Last week the International Monetary Fund issued its world economic outlook report and predicted Canada will record the largest economic growth of any major industrialized economy this year and in 1993. These are not spectacular numbers. I do not want to mislead the people by saying these are wonderfully huge numbers and our economy is just going to soar. They are modest numbers, but in being modest they are at the top of all industrialized economies. We are in a very good position.
I quote from the International Monetary Fund's research director at a news conference when the report was released:

April 27, 1992
Supply
More work needs to be done on the fiscal imbalance but I think one would say there is greater confidence concerning both past accomplishments and future actions than there is in several other important industrial countries and that should aid confidence and recovery in Canada.
I want to get back to what I said a little earlier by stressing the positive, by talking positively about this country. We are celebrating 125 years. Let us talk positively about what we have in this country such as our good educational system, our good health care, our good industries, our good service sector, our wonderful world-class universities, all the positive things we have in this country. We must talk about them. When I say that, I do not want to down-play the real problems we still face, because we do have them. There are too many Canadians out of work. There is anxiety about the threat of job loss by those who are working and economic confidence is low. Business confidence is up dramatically, however, and I am pleased to see that. But the solution to these problems does not lie in vague promises of change from the opposition. In particular, the solutions will not be found in the tragic formula of higher spending, higher taxes and higher deficits. We tried that before and some of the provinces are trying that now. It does not work and we know that.
Instead, the solution lies in sticking to the policies that are setting the foundation for that renewed growth as confirmed by the IMF. Our prospects for that growth will be made even stronger as Canadians recognize the positive factors we have worked hard to put in place.
Let me remind the House of some of the economic developments that demonstrate why there is good reason for renewed confidence in our economic prospects. The commercial prime bank rate is 7.75 per cent. That is a drop of 7 percentage points since May of 1990. Mortgage rates have also fallen substantially; 9 per cent on a one-year conventional mortgage compared to 14.25 per cent a mere one year and a half ago. For a $75,000 mortgage amortized at 25 years, that is a saving of $273 a month or about one-third of a family's mortgage costs.
Underlying this progress is a substantial drop in inflation. Year over year increase in the Consumer Price Index this March was 1.6 per cent. Over the last three months it has held pretty well steady at that level. That is one of the lowest levels since the early 1970s. Each of these factors represents important progress in putting a
strong foundation for renewed confidence, competitiveness and sustained growth. Lower mortgage rates, easing inflation and new house prices have improved housing affordability to one of the best levels in 10 years. That is important because that is a very important part of our economy.
We have taken further action. My friend from London East mentioned very briefly the 95 per cent insured mortgage from CMHC providing a down payment of 5 per cent, and 12,500 people have taken advantage of that in the first two months of operation and the RRSPs for a home purchase. We have not yet found out exactly how many are taking advantage of that, but I am sure those figures will be available in the not too distant future. The housing market has been responding to lower rates. I will not go into the statistics today, but needless to say there are improvements in housing. The March starts were down somewhat, but the homebuilders and CMHC are not concerned.
We need jobs in this country and the place we are going to find those jobs is in trade. In a trade dependent nation like Canada, we need to maintain and create new jobs, but it is the private sector that is going to create those jobs, not the government. As politicians, if the unemployment rate drops we take great pride and say we created it. We did not create those jobs at all. Those jobs were created by business, small business primarily, small and medium-sized business, but large businesses as well. We have to encourage them to create businesses and to grow. I am pleased to see a number of businesses starting up now. Mayor Peter Robertson of my community announced yesterday that he had been opening new businesses in Brampton at about five per week over the last period of time, ranging from employees of two to thirty-five and forty. That was good news. We are starting to see some very important activity.
We need the right atmosphere for those businesses. We need low interest rates. We need inflation down so that they can borrow and be somewhat dependent on setting prices to know that they will be competitive for the near and medium term. That is very important.
It is no accident that during this last period of time Germany and Japan have kept interest rates and inflation down. Their economic growth has been pretty good. They are into problems now for a number of reasons.
April 27, 1992

I see the Speaker is indicating that I have a very brief period of time left. Let me just conclude by talking about our exports. We hear about the free trade agreement and how it is not doing the job. Our trade is up rather dramatically. It is up 5 per cent since the free trade agreement was signed. I might also say that the surplus is about $15.5 billion. As The Globe and Mail indicated, Canada is in the early stages of an export led, productivity driven economic boom with manufacturing in the feature role. Exports to the United States are climbing; $91 billion last year. That is a climb of almost 30 per cent in four years.
Therefore we have the results of the economic policies we are following. We are reducing spending in order to cut taxes. Recovery is slower than expected, but it is slower around the world, not just here. Our major trading partners are experiencing it as well.
We have results. We are delivering. We will continue to do so. It is no wonder that when it comes to proposing policies of alternatives the silence of the opposition is deafening.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member that I listened attentively to his remarks. I agreed with him when he said that our interest rates are the lowest we have had in years. I agreed when him when he said that our inflation rate is practically zero right now.
In spite of those numbers, those strong economic indicators, the confidence level of this country is flat. It is very low.


John Horton McDermid: Not in business.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The minister says: "Not in business". Absolutely in business. The confidence in small and medium size businesses in this country is very low. The minister can selectively give an example of four or five businesses in his riding or selectively pull out the example of Caterpillar, but if he talked about the 1.5 million entrepreneurs from coast to coast he could not sit here and tell me their confidence level is really booming. He could not tell me that they are in the hiring mode. They are not. The restrictions on spending patterns show it. There is a tremendous crunch from the
Supply
banks. They are holding back in terms of available credit, especially for small and medium size businesses.
The government is spending or is about to spend close to $15 million today on a television campaign saying: "Yes, we can do it". I am sure the only tactical reason it is doing that is that it recognizes the confidence of this community and of this country right now is very low.
One of the problems of this government is that it has not listened to Canadians and it has not listened to the opposition when they tried to put ideas forward.
Does the member really believe that the current tax design this government has put forward in the past few years is something that is acceptable to the Canadian public? If he does think that it is acceptable then I concur with the hon. member: let us go to the streets and test it.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question specifically as to whether I think people agree with taxes and tax proposals, no of course they do not. When a new tax is introduced which replaces an old tax nobody knew they were paying, it is very difficult to explain to the Canadian people. I would be the first one to admit that.
However it was the right thing to do. It had been recommended by royal commissions the Liberal government had set up for many years. Of course, the Liberals rejected it for obvious reasons, political reasons rather than practical reasons. That is very obvious.
The hon. member talks about confidence. He is absolutely right. I think he will find that business confidence is up and in fact up significantly. Consumer confidence is not, and I agree with him whole-heartedly that it is not. It is a problem. It is a problem everywhere, not just in this country. It is a problem in all countries where people are paying down the debt they accumulated in the eighties, in the halcyon days when spending was quite prevalent and credit was being built up.
The hon. member knows that full well. He knows the statistics on consumer credit and so on. People now are concerned. They are not out spending but rather paying down their debt or investing in RRSPs and savings. The savings of this country have gone up over the last couple of years as well. I agree with that.

April 27, 1992
Supply
The point I was trying to make in my remarks is that if people stand in this House day after day and say how terrible things are, how awful this country is-and I do not mind the government being criticized for its policies and so on and so forth-then how can that instil any confidence in the Canadian people? That is my concern. I do not mind people criticizing us because we have differences of opinion on how to achieve it. We all want to achieve the same goals; there is no question about that. We have different methods of getting there. That is what makes our political parties different.
In answer to the question, business is up. Business confidence is up. Consumer confidence is flat. As far as taxation is concerned, I might say to the hon. member that we have high personal tax in this country. The United States has lower personal tax but a much higher social tax than we have. Our social tax is very low, extremely low. When we balance them off, we are not tremendously ahead of the United States in our taxation levels when we take in the social taxation and the income taxation.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. friend and as usual find myself disagreeing with most of what he said. However, I respect the fact that he has a right to hold those views. I do not know if he has travelled very much in Canada, because what he says is certainly not what I have been hearing.
I have a question for my hon. friend. It is fair to say that he, his colleagues and the Prime Minister have imposed on Canada what I call a corporate agenda, a Conservative agenda, and have made major changes. They have introduced a major free trade policy with the United States. They are now about to conclude one with Mexico. They have introduced the goods and services tax. I have just read through a list this morning of 33 tax increases which they presumably feel are in the best interests of the country.
I think it is fair to say that most Canadians feel their lives are certainly no better today than they were four years ago or eight years ago.
My friend has said that now is not the time for an election. His leader has indicated that four years is a good guideline and that he would respect the four-year term. I remind him of what happens when governments go beyond four years. I think of people like Mr. Vander Zalm who went the full five years and ended up as a
remark in some history book. I guess that will be his claim to fame one day. Mr. Devine in Saskatchewan was sort of obliterated from the political landscape and he waited a full five years. I remember my friends in the Liberal Party when Pierre Elliott Trudeau was Prime Minister back in 1978. He extended it to the five years and he disappeared in the next election.
If my friend does not think now is the time to call an election, when does he think would be an appropriate time to seek a mandate from the people of Canada? If it is going to be some time into the future, would he indicate what is left of the Tory agenda to impose on the people of Canada in the intervening months?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, a lot of questions were asked there. In the Canadian government the responsibility for calling an election is the Prime Minister's and the Prime Minister's alone. I would not even pretend to speculate as to when he might call an election. That is his prerogative.
There are many scenarios that everybody, all the whiz kids in the press, are laying out these days as to when we should have one or if there should be one, and so on. However that is a decision the Prime Minister has to make. I am sure that he would be appreciative of any advice that my hon. friend might give him, within reason. I am sure he would listen to him. He may not take the advice, but I am sure he would listen to him, as he usually does. I see the hon. member slipping over and talking to the Prime Minister quite often here in the House. I am sure that he listens to what the member has to say.
I am not going to touch with a 10-foot pole whether we have an early election or a late election and so on and so forth. The hon. member who introduced the motion today said that the average period of time of a government is three years and eight months when an election was called. That was average. I want people to understand that he said "average". I was in a government in 1979 that lasted eight months and then we had another election.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Eight months too long.


John Horton McDermid: There are actually a lot of people today who wished they had kept that government. If we take that eight months off we find that elections go after the fourth year, as we did in 1988. We were four years and some months into our mandate before the election was called.
April 27, 1992

The hon. member asked if the election would be in the future. Yes, that I can assure him; the election will be in the future.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my hon. friend, the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization who has just shared his views with us that perhaps the best thing he and his government could do for the people of Canada is to follow the general rule which, as he has indicated, is to have an election every three years and eight months on average. That would put it at about July 1. I could tell him that the people of Canada would not be happier to celebrate the 125th birthday of Canada on July 1 than to have the Prime Minister call an election to allow them to decide on the future of the Mulroney government. I think that would be a wonderful present for the people of Canada.
As my hon. friend suggests, perhaps I will slip over later and have a chat with the Prime Minister and give him a great suggestion in terms of how he can respond to the wishes of the people of Canada, perhaps in his case, for the very first time since 1984.
I want to begin my comments by saying that I am trying to reflect on the way the country is today, and why.
I decided to look up the definition of what a Tory is. What is a Progressive Conservative? I went to Webster's Dictionary, which says that the origin of the term Tory originally was given to those in the 16th century who plundered people in the bogs of Ireland. They were lawless in their behaviour. They were rogues. They were bandits. They were robbers. They were outlaws.
What an appropriate name for the present political party that is leading the country; robbers, outlaws, bandits, rogues and people who plunder others. The government has lived up to its historic name. I would suggest that more people in Canada would agree that if you are going to look at the behaviour of the present government, those terms would certainly describe its behaviour in the way it treated the average Canadian family.
Not long ago, Canadians had a very positive view of their country, of their lives and of their future. Canadians shared a vision and that vision was very simple. It existed until very recently. People felt that if you worked
Supply
hard and generally followed the rules and so on, you would be rewarded for that, your life would be better economically and in other ways, and your children's future would likely be better than yours.
That has been the Canadian dream year after year, generation after generation. Most of us in the House when we reflect back to our own family backgrounds would recognize that was the world of our parents. They worked hard and they knew that they worked hard. They followed the rule that their lives would be better than in the past and that their children's lives would be better than their lives.
That Canadian dream has now turned into a nightmare because of this Tory government. I would not say that this is the only reason. It is fair to say that we do live in a global community, but by and large, as others have indicated, much of what we face economically in Canada today is a result of the fallout of this government's policies.
That dream of having a better life, of being able to afford your own home, of being able to start your own business or run your own farm or ranch is gone for more and more Canadians every day. It is disappearing.
We have all been in our constituencies in the last little while. People came to me and said their kids cannot afford to go to college. They cannot afford to go to university. Some said they have not worked for six months or a year and for many people it is a lot worse than that: "My three children are having difficulty affording school".
What does that mean? We know today that what you earn in the future is what you learn today. Without being able to learn today, your earning power is going to be reduced.
What has led to this nightmare? What has led to the fact that the Canadian dream that we have known now for our entire history has been shattered by this government? What has changed?
I believe that if we trace the origins of this collapse of the Canadian dream, we would find that it is a result of this government's policies. We can basically summarize them as a set of corporate policies. It is a corporate agenda set on Bay Street or Wall Street or Kabuto Cho

April 27, 1992
Supply
Street in Tokyo; in other words, set on the main business avenues. This government's policies are built around the notion that what is good for General Motors is good for the country and good for Canadians.
Most Canadians do not believe that, but this government does. It has introduced, with its industrial, economic, fiscal, monetary and tax policies specifically, the notion that if you give the wealthy corporations benefits, if you give the wealthy people of Canada benefits, they will spend their money and invest and the results will eventually get down to the regular folks. This is called the trickle down theory.
People are sick of being trickled on by this government and its policies. We are sick of it, and people are fed up with the notion that they have been trickled on and trickled on. It has become clear that these policies are not working for Canadians. The policies of this government are not working for Canadian families.
We are now, regardless of whether the government is prepared to admit it or not, in a form of economic gridlock. The country is simply not moving. We do not find expansion in the farm community. We do not find enthusiastic expansion in the small business community, in the industrial community or in the resource community. One would have to look very hard to find much encouragement at all in terms of what is going on in the Canadian economy.
As my friend indicated earlier, the level of investor, entrepreneurial and consumer confidence is low because people do not trust this Prime Minister and his government.
Look at the statistics. I am not going to bore the House with a long list of statistics today. Let us go back to November 21, 1988 when this government took over and compare it to November 1991 from which we have good statistics. Unemployment for example in November when the government was elected was 1 million; now it is 1.4 million. Manufacturing jobs were 2.13 million; today they are 1.48 million, a significant drop. Business bankruptcies in 1988 were running at 7,721 annually; in the first 10 months of last year they were up to over 11,000. Consumer bankruptcies were 26,000 in 1988; in 1991 they were already for the first 10 months at 52,000. Housing
starts when the government was last elected were 222,000; this past year they were 152,000.
Look at the deficit. The deficit was the great reason the government introduced these policies. Therefore, one would assume that the deficit has gone down. In 1985, the deficit was $30.6 billion. This past year it was $31.4 billion, and probably when the facts come in it will be a lot higher. TTie debt, when the Conservatives took over back in 1984, was less than $200 billion. Today it is in excess of $400 billion and climbing.
Is it any wonder that the people of Canada do not trust this government and do not trust the Prime Minister when they say they are acting in our best interest? People know dam well that they are not. I remember in this House not long ago the Prime Minister stood up and said that before the next general election we will have a comprehensive national child care policy in place. Then his minister recently said he has decided to kill that program. He killed VIA Rail before that and he killed the Katimavik program and now he has said that he would kill the national child care program.


John Horton McDermid: Killed VIA Rail? It's finally making a profit.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Now my Tory friends are asking about VIA Rail. They should come to western Canada where communities that were once served by VIA Rail do not have VIA Rail, period. They should come to Atlantic Canada and central Canada where communities that had VIA Rail service for years and years do not have any service at all.
Let us talk about the adjustment program. When the free trade agreement was brought in the Prime Minister said: "We know there will be jobs lost, that people will have their jobs disappear and there will be major dislocations. We are going to introduce an adjustment program that will be among the most generous brought forward anywhere in the world". We are still waiting for that adjustment program. Tens of thousands of Canadians are waiting for that adjustment program. It is simply not there. It was another fabrication.
I could go on and on. I have lists here of broken promises, one after the other. Let us talk about the biggest promise of all. The Conservatives were elected, they said, in the last election to go ahead with this free
April 27, 1992

trade agreement with the United States. It became very clear that they did not have the majority of Canadians supporting it they thought they had and they therefore imposed it using the most Draconian parliamentary tactics we have ever seen in the House. They imposed the free trade agreement with the United States.
The result was that the Prime Minister said: "If we do this, what we are doing is not popular but it is right". He meant right wing. It catered to the right agenda in that sort of father knows best approach to government: "I know that Canadians do not understand what we are doing, but what we are doing is the right thing and they will realize this later".
Since that free trade agreement has been signed, we have lost in excess of 200,000 manufacturing jobs alone and they are gone permanently.
I could go on and on, tens of thousands of jobs gone, gone, gone. The corporate presidents make their announcements: "Yes, we are closing down our plant in Ontario and we are moving our plant down to North Carolina. We are closing our plant in Quebec and moving it down to Tennessee. We are closing our plants here right across the country and moving them down to the southern states or Mexico". Now the government says: "Listen, if you thought free trade with the United States was a great idea, we have an even better one. We are now going to sign one with Mexico".
I have just come back from Mexico. I spend three days in the Maquiladora zone, going through various plants, talking to the workers. I asked what the average pay was. I found that some plants paid 40 cents an hour and others paid up to $2 an hour, but the average was 92 cents in all the plants I toured. The average age of the employees in the plants I toured was 18. This is the idea of the level playing field this government wants. It wants us to compete on a level playing field with businesses that pay 92 cents an hour, that exploit their workers and ignore the environment.


An hon. member:: You wanted them to be poor.


An hon. member:: Forty cents an hour is not getting rich, Blaine. It is child slavery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. MacDonald (Rosedale)):: We
should give the hon. member for Kamloops the opportu-
Supply
nity to make his presentation and if other members wish at the end, I am sure he will be delighted to receive questions.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. I have obviously touched a nerve with my colleagues over there.
Let us talk about leadership. In a democracy it has been commonly assumed that the leader of the country listens to the people and then carries on and introduces policies that reflect their goals and aspirations and so on. By asking Canadians across the country, we find that the rating and public esteem held by our Prime Minister is the lowest it has ever been in Canadian history. No Prime Minister has been held in contempt like this Prime Minister has been .His party is literally out of the picture. The Prime Minister and his party have the lowest public support in Canadian history. They have abandoned the people of Canada. They have not listened. We have a government that is directionless, there is no leader.
It reminds us of the old story by Robert Louis Stevenson called "The Wreckers". The wreckers were unscrupulous types along the rocky beaches of an island. They built huge bonfires at night so that ships laden with goods would see them and think they were lighthouses and as they approached the beach would hit the rocks and their contents would be then plundered by those unscrupulous types on shore. That is what this government is doing. Robert Louis Stevenson was describing the Prime Minister and his cabinet. They are destroying the Canadian economy.
My friends opposite should talk to their constituents and ask them if their lives are better today than they were five or six years ago. Is their confidence in their future and their children's future better than it was? Do they have hopes and aspirations for their children that are greater today than they were five or six years ago? The answers to all of those questions would be no.
There is a sense that this government is taking us down a suicidal course, economically, socially, culturally and politically; that what is good for George Bush and his Republicans in Washington is good for Canadians through our Prime Minister and his Conservative government. They are both the same. They have the same vision of the future.

April 27, 1992
Supply
Now it is tax time. Canadians have been filling out their tax returns in the last few weeks and there are only another couple of days to go. We are all reminded of what the Conservative government has done to us.
I have a list here that I was going to read into the record but it is so dismal, it is so disheartening, it is so sad that I do not think I will. I have 33 examples of how the Conservative government has increased taxes on working Canadian families since it has been in office, 33 different tax measures. I am not going to read them. If people are interested they will certainly be able to see them.
It is not simply the taxes that are imposed on the people of Canada, it is the unfair nature of the taxation. Canadians do not mind paying taxes as long as they are getting a good return. They realize that a lot of people are not paying taxes. Wealthy people are able to use a whole set of loopholes and the statistics are all here by Statistics Canada. They are able to use the loopholes and not pay any income tax.
The Minister of State for Finance knows that in some years the banks in Canada, which are the most prosperous sector of our country, because of the tax loopholes in the system, do not pay any income tax at all. The teller pays income tax, the accountant pays income tax and the people cleaning the bank pay income tax, but the bank itself, in spite of the fact that it is making hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, pays no income tax in many years.
When the Royal Bank of Canada or the Bank of Montreal or the Imperial Bank of Commerce, pick your bank, in some years paid no income tax at all in spite of the fact that they make hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, and the teller, the cleaning lady and the person running the parking lot pay taxes, then we say there is something wrong with that tax system and Canadians know that.
Some of the best sellers at this time of the year in any book store are the books on how to use all the loopholes to avoid paying taxes or to defer paying taxes. These books are the best sellers. Good accountants and tax lawyers write the books and they are the tax advisors. They say there is a myriad of ways that you can avoid paying taxes.


An hon. member:: If you have money.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not by doing anything illegal, but by taking advantage of what this government and subsequent Liberal governments have brought in to allow people to defer paying taxes.
I look at one here, for example, the capital gains matter. In other words, if you make certain amounts of money on capital gains you do not pay taxes or you pay at a much lower rate. Is that right? In the United States you do not get away with that. In the world of Ronald Reagan or George Bush they say that when you make money on capital gains you pay taxes on them, but this government says that you do not have to pay taxes on certain capital gains.
People know that this government has introduced and maintains a very distorted tax system, a very convoluted tax system, a very complex tax system to allow certain people to take advantage of it, which they do. We all know examples of this and we could repeat them at some length. For the average working person, the average working family, there are no loopholes, there are no tax exemption programs. They pay through the nose. They know that they are paying more than their fair share. They know they are paying more than they should. That is why there is a whole growing underground economy today as people seek ways and means of avoiding paying into what they perceive to be a very unfair tax system.
It is fair to say that if there was ever a time to call an election it is now. People feel that we are like a rudderless ship, that the country is going nowhere. Some people are benefiting. Some large corporations are benefiting, but for the average working family, for the average small business owner, for the average farmer, things are not getting any better and for many they are getting a lot worse. There is no sense that we are going to change course. There is no sense of a new direction.
We hear the Minister of Finance, the Minister of International Trade, the Prime Minister and others saying: "Yes we have confidence. We are going to continue on here as we have been."
Canadians want a change. They want to deviate. They want to move into a more progressive era with policies that reflect their benefit and their families' concerns. I remember the Prime Minister standing up and saying that he was going to wage this great war on drugs in this country and do all these things to counter drug use and abuse in the country. I am looking very hard and I do not find much evidence of this in communities across the country. I do not see that there was a serious effort on behalf of the government.
April 27, 1992


An hon. member:: Literacy.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There is the literacy issue. We can go on and on, but my time does not permit it.
Let me simply summarize by saying this. I listened carefully to my hon. friend, the Minister of State for Finance. I listened to his comments describing what this government has done for the people of Canada. It tells it all. Listening to him, to what he had to say, listening to the government's agenda that is being introduced and continues to be introduced, is the best reason to call an election today to let the people of Canada decide what kind of a government they want, which will certainly be a government that is different from this one.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the House leader for the New Democratic Party has probably been the most frequent and outspoken critic of the government over the past few years. Usually it has been on themes such as patronage when he would talk about hacks, flacks, and bagmen. It is always from the exalted position with the inference that "we would never do that"; the pure socialists who have never been in federal office are pure because they have never been in office.
He started his speech by saying it would be good to have an election on July 1. The people of Canada would welcome that. I suspect that the people of Ontario would welcome it if the premier of Ontario would call an election for July 1. They would be just as happy as the member suggests others might be for a federal election.
Now that we have had a few provincial governments in office, I would have hoped that this member would lose some of his aura of sanctimony and self-righteousness and purity. I read The Vancouver Sun on Saturday. The New Democratic Party is in office a few months, sitting in the legislature only about a month. The headline reads "Workers slam NDP for lies. New government using Socred rules, union says. The New Democratic Party lied to health care workers when it promised before the election that an NDP government would be different from the social credit administration, bitter members of the hospital employees' union charged Friday".
Supply
The editorial page of the same paper says: "Why this appointment? Blatant political patronage, making room at the public trough for yet another failed New Democratic Party candidate is not the only thing with energy minister Anne Edwards' appointment of Dick Gather-cole as the $100,000 a year head of a new provincial energy council".
What was this man's credential? He used to sit on a citizens' advisory group criticizing B.C. Hydro for energy exports. What is his new job at $100,000 a year? The council's first task is to make recommendations on firm long-term electricity exports. Is that not patronage?
Look at the column of a few days ago by Vaughan Palmer. The Barbie and Ken of the revolution, Mr. Ron Johnson of Vancouver Centre, failed candidate for about three times, and his wife, Johanna den Hertog, failed candidate for about six times. Between them they were rejected by the Canadian public, by the B.C. public and by the Vancouver public, nine times. Mr. Johnson and his company get a contract for $400,000 and Johanna den Hertog gets an appointment at $60,000, I believe.
I have long held in this House, and I would repeat it again, that every government that is elected is entitled to appoint people to positions who believe in its philosophy. The New Democrats are entitled to do the same thing.
Why wrap around them the cloak of sanctimony when others do it, when they intend to do the same thing themselves and now have done it? Why would the member criticize this government for having done that when his own colleagues in other administrations are doing the same thing?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from the lower mainland obviously was not in the House to listen to my speech. I intended to point out the very unfair tax system that this government has imposed and a long list of tax increases that the government has imposed.
I spoke about the leaderless nature of our government. I spoke about the fact that the government had imposed what I termed a corporate agenda on the people of Canada that would benefit a handful of rich industrial giants at the expense of everyone else.

April 27, 1992
Supply
I do not remember talking about what he referred to as the hacks, flacks, and bagmen in the Senate. Now that he has raised this, I will.
If there is one aspect that binds Canadians together, if there is one aspect that Canadians would almost agree on, to the last person, it is that we should do away with this undemocratic institution that has been perpetuated by Liberals and Conservatives since the very beginning. It should be done away with.
The most obscene gesture we have seen in the history of this House was when the Prime Minister appointed his Tory hacks, using the most bizarre and brutal tactics, to jam and pass the GST through the Senate. There was an effort by some senators to stand up against that. It was a phony war because they had six different occasions before the appointment of the Tories to the Senate was made when the Liberals in the Senate could have actually stopped that legislation but chose not to. What turned the tide, what frustrated and angered Canadians the most, and my friend from White Rock would agree, was when the Prime Minister appointed those Tory hacks. That was the end of any credibility left of our Prime Minister.


John Horton McDermid: I have one point that I would like to make with my hon. friend, because he made some statements during his speech with which the New Democratic Party does not generally agree, with which at least his provincial friends in Ontario do not agree. First of all, he talked about the low wages in Mexico. He knows very well that wage rates are a part of production but not the only thing. As a matter of fact, if he checked his facts he would find that turnover rates and so on are far greater there. At the same time, I would hope that rather than have the government hand out grants or help a country with aid, it can improve its lot by creating employment and creating meaningful jobs. As countries do that, they grow with salaries, they grow with conditions of employment, and so on. We have seen it in Singapore and we have seen it in many, many other countries of the world
that started as Third World countries and are now starting to improve their lot entirely. Korea is another one.
The Premier of Ontario made it very clear in a speech not too long ago that salaries are not one of the considerations in the negotiations whatsoever and that he considers that a kind of phoney argument.
I sat with my colleague, the hon. Ed Philip, Minister of Industry, Science and Technology from the Ontario government, on Thursday morning in Mississauga. We had a trade seminar on the NAFTA agreement, the North American free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated. There were people there from the United States, Mexico and Canada, and interested business people and academics from Ontario and throughout Canada were also there. Ed Philip spoke very positively about the free trade agreement and spoke positively about NAFTA, if what we have in the free trade agreement is protected. He expressed concern about a couple of areas, the same concerns that this government has.
When my hon. friend gets up and wails away at these things, he should take into consideration some of the facts, some of the important facts. We are a trading nation. I do not think he wants to hold Mexico down, I would hope he does not. The way the New Democratic Party talks it sounds like it wants to keep it down, suppressed, rather than allow it to grow like any other country in the world would want to grow and flourish.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will try to give a short answer. My hon. friend's idea of perhaps helping somebody in need is to beat them about the head. If my hon. friend really believes that what is going on in the Maquiladora zone is helpful to Mexican families, if he really believes that by paying people on average 92 cents an hour, living in poverty, with no benefits, with virtually no enforced environmental regulation, with virtually no enforced work and safety regulations-if he thinks this is in the best interest of Mexican workers, then I say he is wrong, he is dead wrong.


John Horton McDermid: When did I say that? I did not say that.
April 27, 1992


Nelson Andrew Riis: If he is saying that what is going on in these free trade zones is something that we should buy into and support and encourage, I disassociate myself from that statement 100 per cent.
I say that the free trade agreement with the United States was a bad deal for Canadian workers and Canadian families, and I say that a free trade deal with Mexico included will be even worse.


Mr. Harvard:: The new plantation owners.


Nelson Andrew Riis: He disagrees with me. As he said, this is what politics is all about. That is why we need an election, as my hon. friend indicates. Those Canadians who think the free trade deal with the United States is a good one and a trade deal with Mexico is the way we should go, can vote Conservative.
If you believe that we should build Canada through a sound industrial strategy, you can vote New Democrat. Let people decide on those two programs. That is why we are saying an election seems to be so important today.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I feel privileged to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.
Before I came to the House today, I tracked down some work that was done by an economist by the name of Tom McCormack who has a company in Oakville, Ontario, called Strategic Projections. I am sure that many members of the government have heard of Mr. McCormack because, quite frankly, most of his work basically agrees with the thrust that the government has been taking.
I recommend his paper to all members in the House. It talks about how we are going from recession to expansion. It is a very thorough paper. This particular paper is weighted to Ontario, but it gives a pretty good sense of some of the things that are happening in the various sectors, not just in the last few years but going back for the last 10.
In fact, he makes the argument in this paper that this recession is not as bad as the recession that we had in 1991-92. You might think if it is not as bad, what is the problem that we are having in pulling ourselves out of this recession if we do not have the same depth or the same distance to come from.
Supply
I reiterated some of his points when I questioned the Minister of State for Finance earlier about the fact that today we have the lowest inflation rate in over 20 years. It is near zero.
We have interest rates that are the lowest they have been in 21 years. In spite of the monetary policy of this country, which has driven these numbers to what they are, in spite of what the Canadian people have gone through, in spite of the economic pain that Canadians have gone through, instead of at the end of this period looking forward to an expansionist mood or a positive attitude, I have never seen and I think most members of Parliament have never seen the confidence of the nation so low.
We have a genuine crisis in the confidence of people in this country. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the only reason why the government is spending $15 million starting today on a campaign called "We Can Do It" is because it recognizes that it does have a serious problem with consumer confidence in this country.
As members said earlier today, we have been in our constituency offices for the last two weeks listening to Canadians. I remind members of the government that our responsibility as opposition members is not to come back here and just talk about the fact that the inflation rate and interest rates are low. Our responsibility is to also bring to the government's attention some of the real problems that are out there.
One of the real problems that we have in this country right now is the fact that close to 3 million people are not working. There may only be 1.5 million on unemployment insurance, which is an awful number, but you also have to take into account the number of people on welfare. Close to 3 million people in this country right now are not working and that is the bottom line.
The Minister of State for Finance suggested in his remarks earlier today that opposition members were part of the problem because we were being negative. I do not think in any way, shape, or form it is being negative by bringing to the floor of this House the concerns of the people who are not working, the concerns of the people who are losing their homes, the concerns of people who are losing their businesses and their farms. That is our responsibility.

April 27, 1992
Supply
The other thing the government is always saying to us is that we are not putting forward ideas on this side of the House. We have been putting forward ideas for the last year. We have been putting forward ideas in a constructive way. We have talked on many occasions about "The work for tomorrow: Employment Opportunities for the '80s" that was done in this House many years ago. There were close to 185 ideas that all members of this House worked on, ideas that would put Canadians back to work. Many of these ideas would not cost the treasury of Canada a lot of money. Many of these ideas have to do with training. They have to do with giving those Canadians in our country who are suffering from illiteracy an environment so they can be retrained. It seems to me we are not advancing on a lot of the ideas that are being put forward.
I had a group come to my office just last week called Soma Film and Video company, a young entrepreneurial couple who have been award winning. They have developed ideas: "You are out of a job. Now what?" They have put forward repeatedly to various levels of government how through film and video they can put ideas into the marketplace on how people can be retrained, how they can get back into the work force, how they can maybe move from one sector, if the manufacturing sector is falling off, into a service sector. These are young entrepreneurs trying to access to their government, trying to get help, and these are the kinds of people who will help others get back to work. They are constantly being frustrated. That is one of the problems we have.
It seems when times are going well, the people of Canada do not really need as much support from this House, but when times are as tough as they are right now they count on us to accelerate those ideas through the system that will put people back to work. It seems to me this government is so possessed by its one-track mind of inflation and interest rate reduction it has gone overboard on it.
We know for every drop in the interest rate there is close to $1.4 billion saved in terms of the deficit reduction requirement of this country. Why can we not take some of that room picked up on the interest rate reduction and the inflation rate reduction and throw it at the entrepreneurship that is out there trying to create new jobs? Why not review the tax design in this country?
There are very few instruments left to mobilize the spirit or galvanize the will of this country.
The government is way ahead on inflation numbers and way ahead on interest rate numbers. Why not take some of that and use it to get the entrepreneurship of this country moving again?
Two weeks ago in my riding I spoke to a small group of businessmen. I asked how their banks were treating them. I heard conflicting signals. I went to the Minister for International Trade before the House recessed. I said: "Mr. Minister, the cartels of banking institutions in this country are being very tough on small and medium size businesses". He said: "Not so, that is not the case". I could not find one person in the two weeks I was in my riding who felt that their bankers were really treating them fairly. In fact many of them felt their banks were being overly aggressive in reducing their credit lines and cutting them back.
For example, could you imagine the bankers shutting down the Reichmanns? Can you imagine what would happen? There would be an outrage. The Reichmanns, and I say this with all due respect to their entrepreneurial spirit, do not create as many jobs as the 1,700,000 entrepreneurs that exist in this country. What do we do to get the banking institutions to pay a little bit more attention to that group within our country?
I have said in the House before that if every entrepreneur in this country were to go out and hire one person over the next 60 days, it would be a much better country. We are positioned in terms of interest rates and in terms of inflation. It is now up to them to lead. My colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond is so right. If you are going to stay rigid in your ways then call an election; let us go to the people and let the people decide. Let the people decide if the direction you are taking this country in is the right direction.
I happen to believe that most Canadians are tired of just following everything that is done in the United States. This is one of the most creative countries in the world. We create, we design, we manufacture products that are world class. Right now, the manufacturing and the creativity of this country is practically frozen. People are working from pay cheque to pay cheque, payroll to payroll, quarter to quarter. It is a desperate situation. We have to do something to take advantage of the suffering that the people of Canada have gone through in the last
April 27, 1992

two years. We have suffered long enough. There is no reason for it to continue.
What Canadians are looking for is leadership, not only from this House but leadership from business and the media. I remember during the last election when the government wanted its business friends to advance its position on free trade, it took out full-page business ads promoting the merits of free trade.
Where are those same businessmen today? Why do they not buy full-page ads today to help pump up the marketplace, if it is as good as the Minister of State for Finance says it is? He mentioned earlier in his speech that business confidence is returning. Why do they not buy those same full-page ads today that they did during the free trade debate? It is the same thing with the national media.
The national media are probably as divisive as anyone when it comes to the spirit that exists in this country today. When you open a newspaper today, look at a television show or listen to a radio show, it is constant bad news. There is a responsibility for the national media to try and promote some of the good things that are going on out there. It is only when we have a feeling of confidence in this country that people who have resources will start hiring again and start firing up this economy. This government cannot lead. Obviously it is showing that it cannot lead. I concur with the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that the government should call an election, go to the people and let them decide. The way things are going right now the damage in every sector of this economy is becoming so much a part of the psyche of this nation that it is going to take us years and years to recover. There is no necessity for it lasting as long as it has.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member concerning some of the fundamentals he mentioned in his speech. He emphasized a number of times that some of those fundamentals are there and that they are correct. I refer specifically to interest rates and the rate of inflation. Most businessmen are looking at those two indicators as being very important ones in terms of investing in the economy of Canada.
Supply
In line with that I am thinking that those fundamentals have to be there before investors do invest in an economy. I am sure the member has thought about this as well, being a politician.
I suggest that the Canadian economy is showing some promise in those areas and other areas as well. But, given time, as they do recognize those strengths within Canada's economy, the economy tends to get going again and move in the right direction which obviously, regardless of political stripe, we all want to see.
Is that not what is in back of this motion today? These guys just might succeed again if the economy moves in the direction we see it moving because those fundamentals are there.
I do want the member to respond to that in all honesty, that the fundamentals are there and time is on our side. We are not going to pull the plug on ourselves today or any other day. We have to have time for those fundamentals to work.
Could the member respond to it in that sense, please?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member that we had this discussion in this House about three months ago. How much more pain do you want to exacerbate in this Canadian economy?
The bottom line is that you do not seem to accept the fact that there is enough room in this economy right now to relieve some of the pain. You have done absolutely nothing in the last 90 days in terms of tax reform or new tax designs. You have done nothing to shake the financial institutions, to ask them to become a little more progressive in the way they are handling small and mediumsized entrepreneurs.
If you really wanted to, you probably could have already turned this economy around in the last 60 days. You knew 90 days ago what the inflation numbers were going to be. You are working on models and projections. The point is that you keep dragging it out.
The Canadian people are saying: "We have endured enough pain. There are enough people unemployed. Our tax burden is crushing us. Our creativity is being stifled. All we are doing is following the United States. We are not leading on our own. We want to get our own

April 27, 1992
Supply
policy going here and right now all we are doing is reacting to our neighbours to the south".
In answer to your question, this is not politics. We are playing with lives here. People are getting stressed out. This is an incredible strain on our health care system across the country. This is not a political game. How much longer do you expect Canadians to put up with this? Quite frankly, I do not care when you call an election because Canadians will never forget what you have put them through.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but join in here. I listened to my hon. friend, as I frequently do. In fact, he is one of the few members on the other side who from time to time makes a little bit of sense on economic issues. But there is absolutely no sense in the proposition his party has put before the House today. Here is this country at the crossroads of its history in terms of the constitutional situation and they are saying: "Create uncertainty by calling an election".
It is well known that the mandate of a government runs five years. It is common practice with a majority government that it goes four to four and a half years and then an election is called. Instead, he and his colleagues are saying: "Throw the country into uncertainty now. Let us have an election. For eight weeks let us have uncertainty."
The member talks about the economic situation and suggests that within three months this recession could have been overcome by the government. I listened to what he and his colleagues have been saying to us and what they are saying is to go out and spend money. That is what got this country in a mess in the first place. It was the profligate spending of the government of his party not so very long ago. I am appalled to hear that suggestion.
I have a question for him. The member says: "Don't pay any mind and talk about what is going on in the United States". Twenty-five per cent of the production of this country is exported to the United States. I would like my hon. friend to explain to me, given the fact that there is a recession throughout the western world, how
he expects action in this country alone to resolve that recession?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to compete on the voice level, but I do want to say that if we changed this government then most of the uncertainty would be removed. This government has enshrined uncertainty.
If you want to compare us to the rest of the world, because of your tax increases, because of your rigid policy, we have lower inflation and lower interest rates probably than most parts of the world. But at what expense? That is the point you do not seem to be hearing. There are close to three million people out there who are not working and are losing their dignity and their homes. But the other 85 per cent feel almost as nervous as the people who are not working and that is the thing you do not seem to be paying attention to.


An hon. member:: The UN says there is not a better place in the world.


Dennis Joseph Mills: The consumer spending habits of this country right now are at a standstill and you know it. In spite of what you put Canadians through, do not pat yourself on the back for low inflation and low interest rates. Pat the Canadians who have made the sacrifices, pat those Canadians on the back. They are the ones who should get the credit. Do not take the credit to yourselves.
Now that you have done this to people give people a little breathing space. Give them a little break on their taxes. Do something to get the entrepreneurship of this country excited again because that is where the jobs are going to be created.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a brief reply more to the remark by my colleague from the South Shore. He mentioned the report of the IMF. I would encourage him to read the editorial today in the Halifax Daily News which comments on that very report.
The government has been quick to trumpet the results of that report saying that we are going to have positive growth next year exceeding that of the other G-7 countries. But the fact of the matter is that the base from which that growth is coming is far lower. That is why our growth will be more positive than the other G-7 countries. It is because Canada's recession has been deeper
April 27, 1992

and longer than all of the other industrialized countries that report compares them with.
That is also in the report but conveniently the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have chosen to ignore the full contents of the report, which is that Canada's growth is expected to be higher precisely because its recession was that much deeper than all of the other countries in the industrialized world.
That is one of the reasons we are calling for an election, because Canadians cannot stand to be further put through the kinds of economic policies which have led this country to this dismal economic state.


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


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Elections Act prohibits inmates serving sentences in federal penitentiaries and in provincial jails from voting. This is as it should be.
I was very disturbed when the Federal Court of Appeal and the Ontario Court of Appeal said that this restriction was unconstitutional. I am glad to see the Department of Justice is seeking to appeal these decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I agree with the federal lawyers that taking the vote away from prisoners is justified in a free and democratic society. By breaking the law, individuals have broken the social contract they have with society. It is only appropriate that they surrender their privileges within society during their incarceration.
The vote should not be extended to prisoners.


ALGOMA STEEL CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, during the Easter adjournment an important agreement was reached concerning the reorganization and restructuring of Algoma Steel Corporation in Sault Ste. Marie.
Only a year ago the company faced bankruptcy, thousands of workers faced the loss of their jobs, and the city faced the loss of its principal industry and employer.
The agreement comes with considerable costs in terms of jobs and wages for the workers and heavy losses as well for investors and shareholders. However, compared to the situation facing the steelworkers and the community only a year ago this agreement is infinitely better.
Employee ownership provides an incentive to ensure the company is competitive and viable in the years ahead.
The community of Sault Ste. Marie has rallied behind the steelworkers and the company by establishing the Community Action Team to support their negotiations, securing over 20,000 members and making strong representation last fall to both levels of government.
The real challenge begins now for workers and management alike to make the restructured new Algoma Steel a viable and dynamic steelmaker, able to compete in the markets of the world.
We congratulate all those involved in this agreement and wish them well in the years ahead.


GUN CONTROL
Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, proposed gun control regulations are now before this House. This new act and these new regulations have been developed and brought forward primarily because of public and media pressure from gun control lobbies including women's advocacy groups who, it would seem, have chosen to make this a feminist issue. So be it.
Most reasonable gun owners, gun clubs, hunters and fishermen do not object to most of the new measures. They certainly support any measures that will contribute to safety.
Yet, why is it that the full cost of these measures is to be borne not by those who have demanded them but by those who have not?
On behalf of many hundreds of responsible gun owners on the south shore of Nova Scotia I vigorously object to and oppose the 400 per cent increase in the cost of a firearms acquisition certificate. If these measures are in the public interest then the public should bear the cost of them.

April 27, 1992
I strongly urge the government to leave the fee as it presently is.


FISHERIES COMPENSATION
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, there are 85 families without unemployment insurance or any other form of compensation as a result of the closing of the FPI processing plant at Catalina and Port Union because there are no northern cod to catch.
I have written the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I have questioned him. I have submitted motions on the Order Paper and I have spoken about it many times in this House since it happened in early February. Some of my colleagues here in this House and in the House of Assembly in Newfoundland have done similarly.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans focus his attention and show some compassion for his fellow Newfoundlanders who are in such desperate need at this time and light a fire under the Minister of Employment and Immigration to get some action on this issue before this day is out?


HOUSING
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, last week I was privileged to visit Delaney Street in San Francisco. No, Delaney Street is not a street. It is a housing project built and operated by its residents without one cent of taxpayers' money. The residents are former drug addicts and convicts who come to Delaney Street either directly out of San Quentin penitentiary or right off the street. They, the residents, performing 95 per cent of the work themselves with little professional outside help, have built a magnificent triangular shaped home for 500 men and women. It is financed entirely by a number of small businesses operated by the residents themselves.
If we are ever going to house the 1.2 million low income Canadians who cannot afford to house themselves, our non-profit and co-op housing resource groups, who are understandably concerned about reductions in government funding for assisted housing, must start to adopt the Delaney Street model.


VIA RAIL
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a sad day for the people living along the Hornepayne-Capreol line of VIA Rail.
It was the first day of VIA's new schedule that leaves local residents and camp owners without transportation. This train is the only means of transportation in and out of those areas.
VIA trains will no longer pick up or disembark passengers along this line unless-there is one catch to this-there are 10 persons or more at a flagged stop. VIA rail justifies this decision by saying that it must speed up the transcontinental route to gain more tourist traffic.
I would like to inform you that VTA has now cut off the only means of transportation for year-round residents along this route. It has also made it almost impossible for recreational campsite owners to use their property.
The local tourist industry will also suffer a major blow. Cutting off access to a remote area is simply not acceptable. This will end access to homes and campsites for hundreds of residents.
I urge the Minister of Transport-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Your time has expired.


INCOME TAX FORMS
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, what do 18.168 million Canadians have in common?
The answer is the complicated personal income tax form that we all are required to file at this time of the year. Many of my constituents let me know that they find the present tax forms overly long and complicated. One needs the services of an accountant, even for a basic personal income tax filing.
The constituents of St. Albert and, I believe, many other Canadians want their income tax forms to be simplified. They want the information and the questions on the form to be put in plain words, English or French, so that everyone can understand what is being requested of them.
April 27, 1992

I call on the government to revise the present income tax forms with a view to simplifying the method of taxation and the language of the forms for next year.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of the preparatory committee meetings held this past March in New York, there is widespread concern about the fate of the Earth Summit to be held in Rio de Janeiro this June.
We call on the Canadian government to act in good faith and follow up on the commitments made by the Prime Minister in the 1989 declaration of The Hague to "do all that can be done to preserve the quality of the atmosphere".
Canadians emit per capita more carbon dioxide than virtually any other nation, in good part because the federal government presently spends over 100 times more dollars to encourage greater consumption of fossil fuels than to encourage the more efficient use of energy.
To ensure the Earth Summit is a success, will the Prime Minister back up his rhetoric, commit Canada to a reduction in C02 emissions and make a substantial contribution on behalf of all Canadians?


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth  Uirner@Halton-Peel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with this House some of the frustrations being felt by some of my constituents regarding the political process.
Kathleen Jams of Burlington writes:
I am tired of listening and reading and watching on TV the arguments about the Constitution. Will Canada ever find itself? I have always lived my life as a Canadian and I was proud, now I am fed up. Will all this meddling about the Constitution ever be settled?
Art Hawes of Limehouse says:
I just feel we need to pull our country out of the control of the legal and media professions and away from the intellectuals. The fine theories of these people make sense only on paper, but in practice need a large jolt of common sense.
Finally Tirlochan Singh of Burlington writes:
My future and of my family and relatives from my own village in India depend upon the unity of Canada with Quebec in it. People who wish to kick Quebec out in English Canada must be mentally sick or prejudiced due to some other reason. Breaking of Canada will be very painful, horrible and terrible for me and for the family.
Please keep it together at any cost.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of National Revenue announced changes to the GST aimed at simplifying the tax for small businesses.
This is not the first time the government has tried to make it easier for businesses to pay their taxes. Even the minister admits that the past 16 months of GST have been a learning experience for the department.
Some reports claim that it has cost billions to collect the GST. Businesses have had nothing but trouble trying to figure out how to comply with the tax.
The government must learn that you cannot make a bad tax a good tax no matter how much fine-tuning you do with it. After 16 months of this oppressive tax, the government has realized that small businesses are confused by its complexity.
The government should realize that even if Canadians may be confused by the tax itself, they are not confused by who has forced this tax on us. The government maybe slow learners, but Canadians will teach them a hard lesson before another 16 months of GST have gone by.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, in 1867, two groups, one French-speaking and one English-speaking, decided, despite their differences, to join their destinies by freely signing the British North America Act. A new country was bom: Canada.
What daring, courage and vision Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier and Sir John Alexander Macdonald had in uniting on a new territory and in a new world what the English Channel had always separated.

April 27, 1992
Enriched by the presence of native people and new arrivals, this country, which is only 125 years old, is first in the world when it comes to quality of life.
In this short time, through our common efforts, our open-mindedness, our search for compromise, balance, tolerance and justice, we have attained first place among all the nations of the world. The ultimate goal is now to remain on top.
Let us pay tribute to the founders of this country, to our Prime Minister who tirelessly defends this quality of life and let us unanimously hail those Canadians who want to build rather than destroy.


CANADIAN WOMEN'S ICE HOCKEY TEAM
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this House I wish to congratulate the Canadian women's ice hockey team who yesterday won an impressive 8-0 victory over Team U.S.A. in Tampere, Finland to win the 1992 Women's World Championship.
Team Canada finished the round robin section of the tournament undefeated and out-scored the opposition 38 to 3. Other teams participating at the championships included Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and China.
The victory marks Canada's second straight women's world ice hockey title. Canada previously won the inaugural world championships in 1990.
To the players and the coaches of Canada's newest world champions we offer our congratulations and appreciation for the excellent manner in which they played and represented our country.


NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Today marks the beginning of National Consumer Week. The theme of this year's National Consumer Week is It's Everybody's Business.
It focuses on generating public interest in marketplace issues. The theme also highlights the important role consumers, educators, businesses and government play in addressing marketplace issues.
It is an invitation to all Canadians to collaborate in order to maintain a fair and efficient marketplace.
National Consumer Week will provide Canadians with an opportunity to become better informed on marketplace issues that concern them, as well as their own rights and responsibilities in the marketplace.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, five years ago today, on April 27,1987, a United Nations report called Our Common Future was released urging the world's governments to work together to preserve and protect our ailing environment.
This report, known commonly as the Brundtland report, urged the heads of nations at the United Nations to hold a global conference to find a common strategy to put the world on the path to sustainable development.
In just over a month the world community will try to meet this challenge and hold the largest international conference ever in an attempt to reverse the momentum leading the world to environmental destruction.
While the major stumbling block to success at Brazil '92 appears to be U.S. President George Bush, Canada has a major role to play. President Bush has not acknowledged that the planet's survival depends on our understanding of the fragile connections between the global resources and the economic policies of nations.
Canada must accept this principle and use its influence with the President to achieve success in Brazil.


ARMENIAN GENOCIDE OF 1915
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 77th anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915. The systematic execution of the Armenian people of Tbrkey began on April 24, 1915 and claimed 1.5 million lives. The Armenian genocide was an intolerable state-engineered
April 27, 1992

slaughter of a people. People, organizations and governments around the world are becoming more aware of the details of the destruction of the Armenian people and are lending sympathy, understanding and support.
We must continue working together to ease the nightmares of the survivors of the genocide and teach the younger generation the importance of remembering this terrible and chilling mass extermination.
In closing, I call upon the Government of Canada to officially recognize the genocide of 1915.


HAMILTON SURVEY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, the question is: Is this government, through its fiscal and monetary agenda, doing what is right for Canada? The answer is no.
Privileged as I am to bring Hamilton to Ottawa and not the reverse, I am duty bound to report the findings of a 110 page marketing study by six McMaster University third year commerce students. The three-month study, contracted by yours truly, surveyed 222 people from all corners of Hamilton in a non-partisan fashion, including 55 business owners and managers.
The survey highlighted the fact that 36 per cent of employees surveyed are worried about losing their jobs; 52 per cent of business people surveyed believe they will lay off staff this year.
Among the recommendations; the government ought to be spending more money on such things as infrastructure and improving Hamilton airport.
In conclusion, Canadians love their country but worry about this government's shortcomings. The bottom line, it is time we had an election.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
OLYMPIA & YORK
['Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and Income Tax Act, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the motion.']
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
The newspapers report that the government has received a request to give loan guarantees to the creditors of Olympia & York. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me whether it is true and why the government should now advance money to Olympia & York's bankers.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the government has been monitoring the Olympia & York situation.
Our main concern is to stabilize the economic situation here in Canada. We are continuing to watch the restructuring plans of Olympia & York very carefully. No decisions have been made yet as to what, if any, position the federal government will take in conjunction with the provincial Government of Ontario.
As I said, we are keeping a very close eye on the restructuring plans at the present time.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question.
What will be the grounds the government will use to intervene in that dossier and can he inform us what kind of guarantee in terms of jobs and investments that these guaranteed loans will provide for the Canadian economy?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to my hon. friend, our interest in this is the stability of the financial community in this country. That is the most important thing. It is not a bail-out for Olympia & York or anything like that.

April 27, 1992
Oral Questions
No decisions have been made. Once and if those decisions are made, an explanation, of course, will be made to the public explaining the government's procedure. At the present time it is a watching brief.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, is it the view of the minister that it will be better for the market to know exactly where the government stands at this moment? The type of answer given by the minister, rather than helping, is causing more instability because of a non-decision by government and no policy on the matter.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I find that comment rather interesting because the Government of Canada is working with the marketplace in this matter, as the hon. member has said, in watching what is going on and taking a very active interest.
I am surprised at the hon. member making such a blanket statement like that. It is totally incorrect.

[ Translation ]


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Since the government has just given American brewers better access to the Canadian market, what will the government do to ensure that the Americans remove their own barriers to Canadian beer and respect their GATT obligations?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Tirade):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend is well aware of the fact that we have challenged the beer marketing practices of the United States before the GATT. A GATT panel will be reporting on this Thursday and after that I would be able to respond to my hon. friend's question.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the government has already turned on the tap for American beer to flow into Canada, but at the same time not one
U.S. trade barrier against Canadian beer has been lifted.
Having already given up the best bargaining chip that Canada has, what leverage does Canada now have to insist that the Americans remove their barriers against Canadian brewers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the sense of my hon. friend's question is really quite astounding. The Liberal Party is forever holding out the importance of the GATT process. We have been following the GATT process. We have been found-


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: You should have waited three days, Michael.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My hon. friend should let me complete my answer. Canadian beer marketing practices have been found contrary to GATT international trade guidelines both in 1988 as well as earlier this year. Together with the provinces we have agreed that we must comply with these practices and we must comply with them according to the GATT timetable. The GATT timetable has certain requirements.
The proposal that my hon. friend is suggesting is that we should break that timetable and not do anything until we have a proposal from the GATT on Canadian exports into the United States. That would be bound to result in retaliation against the Canadian industry. If that is what my hon. friend is suggesting, let him say so.
Sic *	*



Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In the last two weeks, all hon. members, I am sure, visited their constituencies and discussed the situation in the country. Obviously there is an economic crisis and especially a crisis of confidence in the future of our country. With an unemployment rate rising every day, a rate that is over 11 per cent nationally, it is very hard for Canadians to have confidence in the country's future.
With unemployment rising daily and the number of people using food banks, what is the government prepared to do to improve the situation and give Canadians confidence?
April 27, 1992


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Leader surprises me with her question. She talks about gloom and worry in the land, while the International Monetary Fund has just said that this year and next, Canada will lead the world in economic growth and in job creation and have the lowest inflation of all industrialized countries. That is encouraging. I see that the New Democrats' leader has trouble taking good news, but that is very good news for job creation and for the whole country.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Like many Canadians I would like to hear good news, but we cannot ignore the fact that even when it is not in the headlines the rate of unemployment in this country is for most Canadians not just a recession but a depression.
I would cite for the Prime Minister several examples of the desperation that people are feeling in this country. Just last week 290 people applied for one single job at $6.50 an hour in Kingston. In another town in Ontario, Napanee, 2,700 people applied for 130 jobs. In Quebec it is reported that some 34,000 people applied for 135 jobs with the provincial auto insurance program there.
I want to ask the Prime Minister when this government is going to abandon its policy of creating unemployment and invest in the Canadian people so that we can become the competitive country he speaks about so often and get Canada back working.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my hon. friend, with respect, that her question perplexes me no less in English than it does in French.
In point of fact, the reports published by the IMF world economic outlook indicate that Canada is going to lead the industrialized world this year and next in economic growth, in employment growth and in low
Oral Questions
inflation. We will have the lowest inflation in the industrialized world.
The combination of these factors indicate that the fundamentals are in place for what we hope will be an impressive and durable economic recovery.
My hon. friend from the Liberal Party says: "What about employment?" He is quite right. Even though we are encouraged by the fact that employment growth in Canada will be 1.8 per cent next year and 3.1 per cent in 1993, namely the best in the world, the fact of the matter is that there are too many unemployed in Canada today.
When this government was sworn in, taking over from the Liberals, unemployment was 11.7 per cent. We reduced it to 7.3 per cent and it is back up to 10.3 per cent. That is what we must concentrate on very vigorously-
I think my hon. friend would be encouraged by the fact that all of the fundamentals are in place that will inspire job creation, thereby lowering the unemployment rate. Surely, even with this difficulty, the hon. leader of the NDP should be ready to stand up and acknowledge this. When the rest of the world is saying that Canada is number one, why does the leader of the NDP not take some pleasure in it as well?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Prime Minister start listening to Canadians. Certainly the Prime Minister will have to admit that out of the G-7 countries, Canada has the highest unemployment and that is a tragedy for Canada and for Canadians.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that he has no intention of changing the economic direction of this government. I say to the Prime Minister then that the country will ask for that direction change. He should call an election and let the people of Canada make their comment on this government's economic policies.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to accede to a lot of requests of my hon. friend, but that is not one of them.
I share the fact that she is less than pleased in regard to the employment situation. On the one hand we are encouraged by the rapid rate of growth in employment foreseen for 1993, but we are concerned by the high rate of unemployment. It is a structural problem that successive governments have had serious difficulty with. The

April 27, 1992
Oral Questions
Government of Ontario is wrestling with this problem now along with the Governments of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. It is a structural problem that is going to take-


An hon. member:: You brought it on.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says we brought it on. We have lowered it. We have lowered the unemployment rate in Canada and we have put in place low inflation and strong economic growth that are the only ways unemployment can be reduced on a durable basis.
I come back to my earlier point. In the last week the IMF and the United Nations said that Canada was the best place in the world in which to live and my hon. friend cannot find any sunshine in that news.


Mr. Speaker:: We do have to move on.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The government appears not to have any clear procedures for the awarding of its defence contracts. Over the past few weeks the minister has made a whole series of announcements on the acquisition of new equipment.
How does the minister justify the fact that some of these contracts were made without any public tendering process when, first of all, that is contrary to Treasury Board guidelines, and second, is contrary to the professed statement of his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, a week ago who bragged about his success in creating a procurement system that was more visibly open and fair to all potential suppliers. How does the minister answer that?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is very simple to answer that. We have created a system which is much more open and fair. As a matter of fact I have been informed by my officials that in the last three years we have increased the percentage of tendered contracts by 8 per cent. I can tell the member that we have sole source contracts. There always have been sole source contracts in this countiy and in most other countries. He will notice the sole source contracts were to Canadian companies which have an international expertise and ability to make those goods.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence. He has announced base closings in Toronto, Moncton, and elsewhere and the construction of new bases, contrary to the recommendations of his department and before a report of the special committee he established to recommend a fair and impartial process for base realignment.
How can the minister proceed on base rationalization contrary to the recommendations of his department and in the absence of any recommendations whatsoever from his own advisory group on defence infrastructure?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, some base closures to which the member refers arise from the 1989 budget and are now under way across Canada.
Second, we did set up a committee that is to report to us at the end of this month on the criteria that we should use as a government in deciding on closures.
Third, some projects are under way, including the one concerning the Montreal depot that you refer to, and the first part of this decision was made before the committee reported. I also wish to tell the member that the minister did not go against the decisions of his department, but worked in very close communication with it on this new distribution of depots in Canada.


AKWESASNE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This morning the RCMP detachment in Cornwall, Ontario, confirmed that the Tribal Council of Akwesasne had acquired from the U.S. military trucks, landing crafts and two torpedo retrievers. Given the history of violence at Akwesasne, a community which is still a high security area patrolled by five different police forces, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs immediately contact the U.S. government and ask that this transfer of military gear be terminated forthwith?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to look into the matter for the hon. member and confirm what he has just said. I am certainly prepared to say to
April 27, 1992

the House that this is the first I have heard of it. I would be very happy to confer with my colleague and find out exactly what the facts are.


Don Boudria: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I was also informed this morning that the U.S. government had given the Akwesasne band council the military equipment in question for free. Given the threat of violence afflicting the Akwesasne community, is the minister prepared this very afternoon to contact Mr. Baker in the United States to ensure that this transfer of equipment is cancelled today? The equipment is there, on location in Akwesasne, and it is confirmed by the police forces!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well, regarding these events, that the Prime Minister and I and everyone are against violence, at home or abroad. Also, arms control and arms control between countries is very important and a priority for this government.
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will find out the facts. The answer is the same in French; I will find out the facts and then answer the question.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the recent announcement of the purchase of helicopters and light armoured vehicles, Given the potential for untimely controversy, would it not have been better if the purchase had been made within the context of a clearly articulated defence policy which would have justified that purchase and a tendering process that was seen to be clear, transparent, and accountable?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, first of all the member mentioned two aspects of some recent announcements on purchases. Buying the vehicles in London, Ontario, only made sense since we bought some there last year. You want to run around with one set of spare parts, not two sets of spare parts. It is only common sense to do that and to try and keep things together. In the case of the helicopter purchase,
Oral Questions
we have gone to one helicopter. We will be retiring over time three helicopters. Therefore, again, we are consolidating and making a much more intelligent buy for the Armed Forces in its new mandate.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister does not even know how many helicopters they are going to buy, so it is difficult to trust that kind of judgment.
My second question is for the Minister of National Defence, if the Minister of National Defence is awake.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would put the question directly.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: My supplementary question is this: would the minister not agree that it is a fair question for Canadians to ask how come it was so easy to so quickly spend $1.8 billion for defence when we cannot afford day care and we have not yet developed a sensible civilian industrial policy??


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member's question is about defence policy, not procurement, which happens to be the responsibility of another department, I would like to point out that since 1989 budget cuts at the Department of National Defence have totalled $6 billion, and that in the last budget the department contributed $2 billion toward bringing down the deficit. I believe the Department of National Defence is administered in such a way as to allow for the government's requirements in this respect. However, that does not mean we should not have a defence policy? in this country, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Following the Tiananmen Square massacre, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs stated, and I quote directly: "Programs which benefit or lend prestige to the current hard line policies of the Chinese government should be avoided". Yet, the Minister for International Trade in his visit to China last week endorsed or supported China's membership in GATT, clearly a contradiction of that policy.

April 27, 1992
Oral Questions
Considering that human rights groups have evidence that China uses prison slave labour in producing export products, how can the Secretary of State for External Affairs reconcile the Minister for International Trade's business as usual approach in endorsing China's membership in the GATT with her government's so-called human rights policy? When will we have some honesty and integrity in our policy on China?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that in my discussions with ministers I met in China last week, I discussed and put forward the position of the Government of Canada very forcefully as it relates to human rights.
With regard to the question on the GATT, it is in the interests of Canada, of Canadian traders who are trying to export into China and create jobs here in Canada, to have clear trade policies from the Chinese, a more transparent entry into that market, a more transparent understanding of what their trade policies are and what their industrial policies are so that we can trade more effectively into that market.
On the question of sales of products that are being made in prisons, we have checked very carefully with the Chinese. We have been told that none of the products they have sold to us are made in prisons and we are monitoring that question very, very closely.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Five years ago the Canadian Government funded a $15 million feasibility study into what could be the world's largest disaster, the Yangtze River Three Gorges dam project in China.
The feasibility study and the proposed project have been highly criticized by major Chinese and international environmentalists and human rights activists.
Will the government assure us that it will not put any taxpayers' dollars or loan guarantees into the development of the Three Gorges dam project?


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the recent decision by the Chinese government to proceed with the Three Gorges project.
Because of current budgetary restrictions, CIDA is withdrawing from this project. Conflicting priorities mean we can no longer use our limited development assistance funds for this project. CIDA financed the feasibility study submitted to the Chinese government in 1988, as well as a number of complementary studies that were interrupted in June 1989 following the events at Tiananmen Square. The minister has said repeatedly that it was the Chinese government's decision to start the Three Gorges development project. The studies financed by CIDA were only one aspect of the project, and Canada has now informed the Chinese government of its decision.


DOFASCO
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister campaigned in Hamilton during the last federal election saying his trade policies, his tax policies, his dollar policies were going to lead to good times for Hamilton. Last week, Dofasco announced that it was closing the doors on the first foundry which started that operation 70 years ago.
Why is the Prime Minister letting Hamiltonians down? What can he say now to 1,200 people in my riding who were last week declared redundant, largely as a result of the policies of his government?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member might understand that Canadian industry is going through a restructuring and modernization process.
April 27, 1992

The hon. member said herself that the plant was some 70 years old, I believe. Plants do run out of steam and must be reorganized. They must be remodelled and must be re-energized. That is going on not only in this country. It is going on around the world right now.
Dofasco is going through the same restructuring that other industries are going through to be competitive in the world. That is what is happening.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is running out of steam is this government.
I have 1,200 people in my riding who want to work, and they want to work now. The Prime Minister himself did not even understand earlier in Question Period that the unemployment rate in Canada is now over 11 per cent.
I want to ask the Prime Minister who made those promises about the trade agreement how he can justify that in the last six months, 2,200 people in one steel company alone in my community have lost their jobs. Is that what his free trade agreement was supposed to deliver?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, free trade was supposed to deliver more trade between Canada and the United States and thereby new jobs in the new industries.
My hon. friend says it did not. It did. Since 1988, there has been an increase of some 7.6 per cent in trade between Canada and the United States. The amount is-I would want to check the numbers-in excess of $18 billion. That is in spite of the fact that we have been going through some very serious economic difficulties.
My hon. friend quite properly points to the difficult situation that we face in areas across the country-Hamilton is one-in regard to the steel industry where there has been a loss of jobs because of a rationalization process that has been ongoing for some considerable period of years.
Competitiveness, because of new plants in Brazil, because of new plants coming in Korea and in Taiwan, is causing-


Sheila Maureen Copps: We are more competitive than they are.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In point of fact, their market share internationally has grown very considerably in the steel business where ours has dropped.
Oral Questions
That would indicate to international consumers that we are perhaps not as competitive as we once were. The fact of the matter is that with the low interest rates which are at the lowest in some 19 years, with the low inflation rates which are the lowest of the G-7 countries and with an infusion of new investment capital, we should be able to make improvements in some important areas, including Hamilton.
I look forward to working with my hon. friend, the member for Hamilton, to make things better for the people of that area.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who has spoken forcefully of his commitment to human rights internationally. Canadians learned last week of a massive RCMP witch-hunt in the late 1950s and 1960s targeting gay men in the federal Public Service, a witch-hunt which was directed by the cabinet character deviate committee and led to hundreds of people losing their jobs and thousands of files being opened.
Will the Prime Minister now agree to order an independent public inquiry into these shameful practices which in at least one instance that I know of led to a suicide? Will he tell this House when his government will finally act on its promise to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that this will never ever happen in Canada again?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, along with my hon. friend and others I read the report of this that took place some 25 or 30 years ago. The passage of time, based on what I have seen, certainly does not make it any less odious. This would appear to be one of the great outrages and violations of fundamental human liberty that one would have seen for an extended period of time.
I do not know much beyond what I have read because of the manner in which documents are kept, but I have instructed the Clerk of the Privy Council to bring forward for consideration ways that we might examine this more carefully because on its face it would appear to be a fundamental violation of the rights of Canadians and,- if it is as it has been reported, a most regrettable incident.

April 27, 1992
Oral Questions


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's undertaking to look into how a full public inquiry into this matter can in fact take place. However, I want to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question, not with respect to the history of 25 years ago but today.
Will the Prime Minister finally ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act is amended to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces ends its witch-hunts which take place today in Canada, and to ensure that never again will this kind of outrage be perpetrated on any Canadian and that Canadians will be judged on their merit, not on their sexual orientation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have to point out to my hon. friend that I did not undertake to look into a full public inquiry, but I commend him on his fast action in regard to that. I undertook to consult with the secretary of the cabinet and to examine how this matter could most appropriately be handled.
In regard to the question for the future, my hon. friend refers to the Human Rights Act. For my part I believe that anything that discriminates against anyone's rights in any way, any discrimination of any kind, is unacceptable in a pluralistic society such as ours.
The Minister of Justice and others are examining these matters very carefully to see what we can do to advance the cause of the elimination of discrimination in Canada.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Out of 1,700 employees employed at the Transcona shops in Winnipeg, CN's major repair facility, another 97 employees are about to be cut. This is another cut in a series of cuts which has been bludgeoning Manitoba, haemorrhaging jobs away from Manitoba.
Will the minister confirm that this additional cut in jobs is a direct result of this contract of $40 million for 25 locomotives which was given to the United States?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (TVansport)):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I will ask the unemployed whether they agree with the minister. My supplementary is directed to the same minister.
A $40 million contract to build 25 locomotives went to the United States, while other major contracts went elsewhere. Thousands of jobs were lost in Manitoba because of this government's poor policies, including the Free Trade Agreement, the GST, and so forth. When will this government take the necessary action to save the jobs at CN and help other Manitobans who are looking for work today?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, any loss of jobs of course is regrettable, but CN has the commitment to Manitoba and to Winnipeg. As a matter of fact, Canadian National does employ some 5,200 people in Manitoba and 4,700 of those jobs are in Winnipeg.
As a Crown corporation with the responsibility of spending taxpayers' money wisely, it is restructuring and doing what is necessary to maintain a good railroad service in this country for not only Canadian passengers but also for its transportation of goods and services.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The European community fisheries commissioner has talked to a Spanish publication about the European overfishing off Newfoundland. Let me quote him:
April 27, 1992

The percentage of immature fish had been 40 per cent of the
catches, for not using the appropriate netting, which means the
destruction of the stocks.
Undersized fish, illegal equipment, a systematic wiping out of the stock. How much more proof does the minister need? Why does he not do what he has to do and take control of the transboundary stocks on behalf of all civilized nations?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, the problem has never been that I need any further proof of what is happening in connection with overfishing beyond the 200-mile limit.
The problem is that the regime in place in the area outside the 200-mile economic zone is taken by the world to be international waters and no one state has any control over fishing practices in those waters. Therefore, we have to proceed with a campaign of persuasion to try to persuade any country that may be violating proper fishing practices to cease these violations.
I do not have the time to go into all the details of the campaign that we have under way but I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we are having signs of progress and that in a recent trip to Cuba and to Panama we had definite success and definite pledges of support in connection with our campaign.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that Cuba and Panama are not the particular problem. He knows also that his Prime Minister last week caved in to the EC's insulting promise that it would cut back on its quota.
Why did somebody not explain to the Prime Minister before last week's meeting that the EC has no quota out there? NAFO has had a moratorium out there since 1986.
Does the minister not agree that the Prime Minister in his meetings last week did absolutely nothing to advance the cause of stopping foreign overfishing and indeed may have damaged the over-all strategy?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the exaggerated rhetoric of the opposition certainly does not help in solving this overfishing problem, nor does it help Canada's image before the countries that it has to deal with. I suggest to
Oral Questions
the hon. member that he cut back on his use of rhetoric in this matter.
The Prime Minister took a very firm stand at a meeting with President Delors and the Prime Minister of Portugal last week. We are making progress. We had a positive response from them. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, so we will see what happens in the next several months. But there is nothing to be gained by gratuitous insults and allegations of the nature that the hon. gentleman makes from time to time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture who knows that thousands of Saskatchewan producers have been left without predictable bankable individualized coverage as a result of unilateral changes made by the province of Saskatchewan to the Gross Revenue Insurance Program. Indeed, even as we speak Saskatchewan producers are gathering at the legislature in Regina to protest these arbitrary changes.
Has the minister consulted with the province of Saskatchewan? Has he in fact encouraged the province of Saskatchewan to consider reverting to the 1991 GRIP program or, at the very least, to come forward with a similar program which respects the fundamental principles of the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, the fundamental principles which involve individual coverage and predictability?


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why our colleagues in the New Democratic Party are a little touchy about my colleague's question.
My colleague is accurate. The producers in Saskatchewan wish to have a predictable program. They wish to have a bankable program. They wish to have a program which they can rely on.
That was changed by the new government in Saskatchewan. I have assured that government that the federal government would return to a 1991 GRIP. We are prepared to pay the full cost on the federal government side. I encourage the Government of Saskatchewan to return to the farmers in Saskatchewan the predictability,

April 27, 1992
Oral Questions
the bankability and the certainty and comfort that the GRIP program of 1991 gave them.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Earlier today the Minister for International Trade, in response to a question from a colleague from the Liberal Party regarding the beer wars and GATT, reiterated the government's position that it supported the process of GATT and would comply through GATT's requirements.
On March 27, 1992 the minister received a letter from Mr. Howard Collins, acting general manager of the Brewers Association of Canada, asking the minister to support the brewers' contention that GATT's rulings against the Americans had not been pressed by the Canadian government.
Could the minister inform the House why he is agreeing under a GATT ruling to go along with the American demands while at the same time a GATT report examining U.S. federal state measures affecting beer and wine found that over 60 measures in 39 states were violating GATT regulations?
Why give in to the Americans on one and let them get away with their own violations on another?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada brought that action against the Americans before the GATT. The GATT has not formally reported on it. That report will come on Thursday. At that time we will take every action necessary to enforce the rulings of the GATT if it found those rulings in our favour.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, GATT has found the violations in the U.S. state laws. GATT has also indicated that in some cases there are direct financial benefits. In the case of New York, $651,000 savings per brewer because of tax benefits; Ohio had savings of $1.5 million annually; Kentucky, $375,000; Rhode Island, $300,000; and Minnesota, $115,000. The list goes on and on.
Why have we caved in to the demands of the United States on GATT and not insisted that the same respect
for GATT be given by the Americans? This is already known. We do not have to wait until Thursday.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend holds the GATT up on a pedestal and says we must respect the GATT. The GATT has not officially reported.
What my hon. friend is referring to is what is in the public domain according to rumours flowing from the expected GATT decision that will be reported on Thursday.


David Barrett: Oh, oh.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Perhaps the hon. member would let me complete my answer. If the GATT officially reports on Thursday consistent with the reports that my hon. friend is hearing in the news these days that he has just talked to, my hon. friend can be assured that we are going to take every action possible to ensure that the Americans comply with the rulings of GATT.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister of Canada.
The attack on the Iranian embassy more than three weeks ago is an embarrassment to Canadian security. According to the recommendations of the committee reviewing the act establishing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Solicitor General should play a key role in anti-terrorist activities.
I want to know what the minister has done to explain this failure of the security service to the Canadian people.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will be aware that the Solicitor General is out of the House today. He will be back on Wednesday.
As I indicated the last occasion on which the hon. member raised such a question, the Security Intelligence Review Committee is looking into this matter and will be making a report. If the hon. member has any information he believes they should have, he should turn it over to them.
April 27, 1992


Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I find that answer very interesting.


Mr. Epp:: We do, too.


Eugène Bellemare: My second question is again for the Prime Minister and is about another Canadian security organization. The Communications Security Establishment collects foreign intelligence on matters such as the storming of Iranian embassies around the world last April 5. Surely the Communications Security Establishment had prior knowledge of these similar incidents.
Can the Prime Minister assure Canadians that the CSE did in fact have this information and transmitted it to either CSIS or the RCMP?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's question very interesting as well, as he finds my answer interesting.
As I indicated earlier, the Security Intelligence Review Committee is looking fully at all matters related to the Iranian embassy incident. The Solicitor General will be back on Wednesday. He would make any answer that is appropriate at that time.
If the hon. member has anything other than allegations to make, if he has any evidence as such, he should turn it over to the committee which is non-partisan and which will certainly look at it very closely.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of Her Excellency Noemi Sanin, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
Routine Proceedings WAYS AND MEANS TABLING OF NOTICE OF MOTION


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and Income Tax Act, and I ask that an Order of the Day be designated for consideration of the motion.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) of the House of Commons, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1991.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 34 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

April 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations on WHMIS and for most who do not know what WHMIS is, it is the operations on the exclusions to the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System.
I would like to thank all the members of the Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs for doing a lot of hard work in preparing this report.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



AUDITOR GENERAL ACT


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act (reports).


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable the Auditor General of Canada to report to the House as often as he sees fit, rather than only once a year as is the present practice.
It would also make it possible to refer immediately to the Public Accounts Committee any report tabled by the Auditor General of Canada. This bill will make the Auditor General's reporting system more efficient, will make the reports more up to date and relevant and will ensure better management of government finance by giving the Public Accounts Committee the ability to consider the Auditor General's observations without delay and to recommend the required corrective action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Mr. Gauthier 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
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions I want to present today.
The first one is with respect to constituents of mine who believe that the Constitution belongs to the people. They want a referendum and ask that Canadians be able to vote on constitutional proposals. They ask that there be a majority nationally and a majority in each province, that both territories be considered as one province for the purpose of this referendum and that the referendum results be binding on the Parliament of Canada.
I present this with a great deal of pleasure.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from petitioners who want Parliament to ensure that the CRTC regulate the use of foul language on radio and television.
They believe that foul language is inappropriate at all times, that it counteracts family efforts throughout the nation, that foul language and explicit sex scenes are not necessary to entertain the general public.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from a host of petitioners from across Canada who believe that Canada's major challenges in the social science field are many.
They refer to violence, the environment, the Constitution, aboriginal issues, new reproductive technologies, illiteracy, various forms of abuse. They condemn the merging of the SSHRC and believe it is a step backward.
April 27, 1992

There was no consultation and they want the decision deferred so that there can be consultation and study before it is finally made.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my final petition is with respect to various incongruities, contradictions and unfairness in the tax system.
These petitioners believe that because certain tax receipted day care is tax deductible and others are not, it is unfair. They believe that various family models are taxed differently and that is, in fact, true.
They want the various systems attempting to help the family to be combined to make it simpler and fairer for all Canadians.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House petitions bearing over 2,000 signatures which call upon Parliament to reaffirm the historic principles embodied in tax free status for the printed word by restoring the zero rate by amendment to the GST legislation and regulations.
These petitions were signed at the bookstore of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 2,350 people from the communities of Edmonton, Calgary and Hobbema who note that the Alberta Court of Appeal has found there was evidence in the trial of Wilson Nepoose to indicate that there was a gross miscarriage of justice in that case.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to convene an independent public inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Wilson Nepoose for the murder of Marie Rose Desjarlais.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions today from people who object strongly to the government's decision to cancel the Court Challenges Program.
These petitioners submit that the Court Challenges Program allowed many individuals and minority groups
Routine Proceedings
to clarify in the courts their constitutional, linguistic and equality rights.
The Court Challenges Program has been and should continue to be an essential tool that makes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms accessible to all Canadians seeking justice through the courts.
The Court Challenges Program is an inexpensive government initiative that directly benefits all Canadians and costs approximately 10 cents per person per year.
The Court Challenges Program continues to be essential in the development of legal precedents involving the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To this end the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to consider the advisability of reinstating the Court Challenges Program which facilitates the accessibility of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to all Canadians.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions, the first two being from the good residents of Lavenham, Manitoba who petition the government to have a referendum much like my colleague from St. Boniface petitioned. They ask that the proper legislation be put forward.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, the third petition comes from a good number of constituents of Mississauga and that part of Ontario. It calls upon the government to recognize Ukraine's independence and asks the government to establish full diplomatic relations with the government immediately to confirm the vote of the Ukraine of December 1.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is from a few hundred people from the riding of Portage-Interlake which I represent. It calls upon Parliament to support for restraint by unanimously passing the proposed law limiting government spending which we heard in the last budget by our Minister of Finance. They support this action 100 per cent.

April 27, 1992
Routine Proceedings PROUD TO BE A CANADIAN PROJECT


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the community of Kemptville in my riding which is petitioning the government to use its power and influence to promote pride in Canada.
This particular project is put forward by the Kinsmen and the Kinette Clubs all across Canada. It is destined to be a success. It is called the "Proud to be a Canadian Project". The petitioners are asking other communities to join in and participate. It is an opportunity to promote our flag and the heritage of our country in a very positive way.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, on behalf of the residents of Clearwater, British Columbia who are very concerned about a noted plan by a Vancouver based company with connections in California to dam the North Thompson River and divert part of the water flow into canals and basins to be destined for the Los Angeles area.
The petitioners oppose this plan very strongly and ask the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will never permit our freshwater rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce -Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present and support a petition signed by some 277 citizens from my riding of Bruce-Grey and other municipalities of western Ontario.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to withhold the approval of the drug U-486 used specifically to induce abortions of unborn human beings and which has already caused the death of one woman and caused serious health problems to many others during clinical trials in France.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to present a petition signed by many constituents in the national capital region; Nepean, Ottawa, Gloucester, Vanier and Kanata.
These petitioners call on the House to ask the government to deal with the question of refugees in a compassionate way. Many refugees have been separated from members of their families for a long period of time.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present petitions signed by approximately 700 Canadians from 20 communities from Prince Edward Island to Vancouver Island.
The petitioners are appalled that the government listened to the ill-informed cheap partisan attacks on the co-operative housing program by its own backbenchers and axed the program. Therefore they are calling on the federal government to recognize housing as a shared federal-provincial responsibility, to maintain the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation and particularly to reinstate its commitment to the federal non-profit co-op housing program.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents, most of whom are residents of the town of Rocky Mountain House.
This petition has been certified correct as to form and content and it calls upon the government to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people with respect to constitutional amendments.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is from many people in my riding of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso who are very concerned about the consequences of CN's decision to sell the rail line from Sydney to Truro. They want to bring to the attention of this House the urgency and the importance of that line to the economic welfare of eastern Nova Scotia.
They call upon the government to intervene to prevent CN from concluding this sale and putting in jeopardy one of the vital rail links in Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from the communities of Margaree, Cheticamp and Inverness, a petition from the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of those communities concerning the "Proud to be a Canadian Project" which is being sponsored across Canada by the Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada.
April 27, 1992
[Stage Direction]
It is a way of supporting and encouraging pride in our flag and in our heritage as Canadians. I would ask that this be supported by all members.
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present petitions signed mainly by citizens of Quebec.
These petitioners are concerned with the illegal traffic of Haitian workers between Haiti and the Dominican Republic and with the treatment of these workers.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to encourage the government to take some significant action which would require these nations to respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first is from the Bells Corners Legion of Nepean, Branch No. 593, and also from the Nepean Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs. These petitioners support the "Proud to be Canadian Project" as an opportunity to nurture a positive life-long relationship with our heritage and our flag.
They ask that all members of this House support this concept.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, the second petition with 200 signatories, some from Nepean and the Ottawa area generally, but there are signatures from right across this countiy, concerns the two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, who have each been sentenced to 28 years in a Brazilian prison. They have suffered miscarriages of justice, cruel and unusual treatment in Brazilian prisons and the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine and David and return them to Canada at once.
Routine Proceedings


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: No. 250, 256, 265.


Mr. Rideout: Does the government intend to close the Canadian Forces Supply Depot in Moncton, New Brunswick and, if so, on what information or reports did the government base this decision and when is it to be closed?


Marcel Masse: Yes, five Canadian Forces supply depots in Moncton will be closed.
The decision to close the supply depots follows a lengthy review of depot rationalization, during which the department considered a variety of options. A major consideration was the total force structure which depots must support.
The decision to close the depot is consistent with the domestic and international developments of the last two years, and the current realities. It is militarily logical and will result in substantial savings. In short, it will contribute to improving the operational capabilities of the Canadian Forces.
It is consistent, as well, with developments in private-sector business practices, and it takes advantage of newly available technological capabilities.
Starting immediately, activities at the Moncton depot will be drawn down, with the final closure forecast within the next three years.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Has the Department of Transport taken any measures concerning possible overload failures of the RAMP software system at the Moncton Area Control Centre upon the Centre's amalgamation with the Halifax Terminal Control Unit and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: No, the
design of the radar modernization project software for area control centres already has enough capacity to amalgamate the Halifax Terminal Control Unit.

April 27, 1992
Supply


Mr. Mifflin: Has the Department of National Defence given serious consideration to distinguishing rank insignia on naval officers to denote the naval service of Canada as distinct from other marine services in the country?


Marcel Masse: The Department of National Defence has considered this issue but does not have any immediate plans to change the Canadian Forces rank insignia worn on naval officers' uniforms. The current insignia meet the operational needs of the forces.


Kenneth Albert James: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dingwall (p. 9682).
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the motion which has been placed before us today by the opposition House leader calls for an immediate federal general election. I believe he feels that he and his colleagues perceive such an action to be the best way to serve their interests disguised in the venue as the best way, as he says, of serving the interests of Canada.
In some respects I am tempted to agree with him because an election would force the opposition to face the realities which are confronting Canada today and to truly focus on the best interests of Canadians. Rather, however, I believe this motion really focuses on their own perception of their own best interests, prompted solely by polls which give them delusions of grandeur. This motion is really not motivated by the best interests of Canadian citizens at all.
It is interesting to see how the political fish rise to the bait, blind to their real responsibilities by the flash of perceived opportunity and perhaps triggered also by just a little touch of fear.
Imagine the hint of butterflies in their bellies when they realize that their own poll standings have peaked and the government ratings, as low as they have been, have actually commenced to turn? What noble purposes are inspired when we hear the opposition say to themselves: "We had better act now, the news is starting to get good and the government is starting to come on strong".
In the perceived best interests to themselves, and really with no regard to the interests of Canadians at all, the opposition would like to have a federal election before the sands of time run out on them for the third consecutive time.
As I say, I can almost agree with my hon. friend from Cape Breton that a general election should soon be called, except that it would not be in the best interests of Canadians at all, not just yet. A better time will come for the only real poll that counts and it will come after this government has fulfilled its responsibilities in the fashion for which we were elected only three and a half years ago.
But first we must finish our task of serving Canadians and then, in due course, a federal general election will follow. When it comes, there will be a finished and lasting foundation of real service on which to launch it. There will be a clear and compelling vision of the future and the promised potential of that future with which to lead it.
So please mark those words carefully. When that election comes it will not be one designed to serve political purposes for political parties, as this frivolous motion does; rather, it will be one designed solely to serve the people of Canada and to help lead them to their potential. I use the word frivolous advisedly because even the members who advanced this motion know full well that Canada is currently coping with critical concerns that an election would not cure, at least not right now.
What they also know and what Canadian citizens are slowly but surely coming to realize is that this government is addressing those concerns in comprehensive and constructive ways, and cures for them are coming closer
April 27, 1992

and closer. In fact, the consensus is getting stronger and the news is getting better almost every day.
Let me give you some examples. First, we all know that the entire world is struggling through a deep recession. Here in Canada the effects are very distressing on many people. We certainly have a lot of progress yet to make in turning our economy around and helping Canadians get back to work.
Yet, as difficult as our share of this recession may be, we are establishing strong footings for our recovery with actions such as an inflation rate currently under 2 per cent and interest rates which have dropped by almost half in little more than a year. And no less an authority than the International Monetary Fund has predicted that Canada will lead the G-7 countries in the path upward out of this recession, predicting solid beginnings of growth in the last half of 1992 and strong economic performance in 1993.
Second, about the good news, it has become common knowledge that over the decades of Liberal government Canada's productivity and our industrial competitive position eroded dramatically by world standards. It seems that the entire Canadian workplace became caught up in the easy life of higher spending and lower performance which characterized the 1970s and the early 1980s.
With the introduction of the free trade agreement in 1989, Canadian businesses were offered the prospect of the largest single market in the world in which to sell their goods. They were also compelled to face the reality of world competition where productivity really counts.
Naturally, we experienced some difficult adjustment problems and the transition to free trade has not been easy. But the direction has been the right one.
It must indeed be gratifying to all Canadians, and indeed worrisome to the opposition, to read business reports last week that indicate Canadian manufacturing is soundly re-developing its competitive edge and our industries are on the mend. This is another strong signal that the right policy actions are producing successful and extremely important results.
Third and best of all, it is little wonder that the opposition members are in a state of panic for a federal election when they see the handwriting on the wall. It says that despite the recession, despite our economic
Supply
difficulties, despite our constitutional dilemma, despite the criticism that has been heaped upon the government, despite the sense of malaise that seems to have gripped our entire country and to which the members opposite have contributed in this debate thus far today, despite it all, the United Nations has just declared that Canada is the best place in the world in which to live.
What a powerful and momentous testimonial that surely is. Yet I am sure that it really does not surprise most Canadians, for many of us know just how fortunate we are to call this country our own.
Just stop to think of it. While the United Nations has not said that Canada is perfect by any means, it has said that we are favoured with the highest quality of life of any nation. Surely there is a message in that for all of us. Surely that means that we should turn our faces into the winds of the world. Surely we should stand a little taller and walk a little quicker and talk a little stronger. Surely it is time that we Canadians from all walks of life come to our senses and commence to concentrate on our profound potential and not on our few passing failures, on our strengths and not on our weaknesses, on our assets and not on our liabilities, on our hopes and dreams and not on lost opportunities.
I think this motion really is an insult to Canadians because it attempts to wrap up all of our problems and all of our potential into a veil of partisan politics. It endeavours to trivialize the struggle we are going through to build our nation by reducing that mission to an opportunistic election call. It demonstrates the apathy, the irony and indeed the hypocrisy of the opposition members in their bewildered and exhausted and frustrated view of our nation as nothing more than a prospective instrument for their own gratification.
Canadians know that it is not quite time yet for an election. They also know that there are real issues to be more fully resolved before we go to the polls. Canadians also know what the United Nations is telling us about our country, that it is almost too good to be true, that it is a model for economic prosperity even in these worst of times, that it is an example of social justice to be the envy of the world, and that it is a nation where entrepreneurial spirit is moved to flourish, that we are a people who give priority to environmental stability and cultural integrity, that we are virtually the promised land for the coming century.

April 27, 1992
Supply
This motion before us today does little more than attempt to add to the spirit of negativism in Canada with its ill-concealed hand-wringing of distress and discouragement. Do you think that Canadians will really believe that an immediate general election will cure our economic problems or will bring resolution to our constitutional deliberations, or will advance the initiatives of the green plan for environmental renewal, or will advance the development of our diversified cultural identity? No. They will see this motion for what it is, a weak and dispirited response by the opposition to all of the great issues of the day for Canada, a statement of ineptitude to effectively deal with those great challenges except by the desolate call of the empty politician with nothing left to offer except "let's call an election and hope for the best".
It is time to stop that negative talk in Canada. We have too much going for us in our future and it is time to move on with vigour and momentum, with confidence and courage. It is time to stop beefing about everything that is wrong with our country. It is time to start bragging about the much larger abundance of what is right with it.
To state it plainly, and hopefully not at the risk of using unparliamentary language, for every Canadian in every corner of this country and for every politician of every party, it is time to change our attitudes. Particularly to those on the opposite benches I would say this: Truly it is time to stop bitching about Canada and time to start boasting about it. The future is ours. Let us seize it.
The enviable position which Canada is developing among the nations of the world is not happening by accident. It is the result of the Canadian population and its government committing to some fundamental principles. They have been instrumental in guiding us to make difficult decisions which have pointed us in sound directions.
First of all, Canadians generally and this government in particular have been willing to face the stark realities of excess and inefficiency from previous administrations and to demonstrate the will to cope with the need for change.
We have accepted the responsibility to find new solutions and we have introduced difficult and sometimes daring measures to create and accomplish them.
The first principle has been to accept our responsibilities and not to hide or run from them, as calling a premature election would be the opposition's way of doing this.
The second principle has been to recognize the lasting truth about democracy. The government must always be of the people, by the people and for the people. The ultimate creation of progress in any society is through the combined efforts of its citizens. To a greater degree than ever before in our history Canada has been governed in close consultation and in continuing communication with its population. That second principle displays the knowledge by this government that it is the role of government to serve the people of Canada and to serve them consistently and well until our mandate to do so has been fulfilled; not as this opposition would have us do, merely to seek re-election when the time is perceived to be right for the opposition.
The third principle, which the previous Liberal government ignored for more than a decade and a half, is that a strong economic foundation is fundamental to the total well-being of any nation. Without economic health and prosperity that will eventually touch the lives of all Canadians it would be impossible to deliver lasting social justice.
Unless our country's economic house is in order we would never be able to sustain its social furnishings. Thus, this government has committed itself to a plan of economic initiatives that is already producing effective results and providing a strong basis of confidence to carry us into the next century. As the opposition well knows, those economic signals will become even stronger as the next federal election draws ever nearer.
The fourth principle is the most important one of all-the determination to keep Canada whole. It is to realize the total power and potential of this country is greater than merely the sum of its parts. It is to ensure our rich diversity is nurtured and maintained. It is to reaffirm that Canadians always come together as one proud and unified country. That principle has been challenged and tested in recent years almost to the
April 27, 1992

breaking point, and yet the bonds of unity still hold. New evidence is emerging every day that lasting Canadian unity will prevail.
In the months ahead we shall see confirmation of those commitments for the constitutional integrity of our country and this government will ensure the constructive conclusion of that process. It is hard to imagine how even the opposition would dare to dally with election talk until Canada's constitutional resolutions are in place.
Those are some of the principles and there are some more by which this government and the people of Canada have conducted their public affairs on behalf of this nation over recent years. It is worth reflecting upon some of the policies, programs and actions which have been taken to fulfil those purposes as contained within those principles.
The programs and the priorities of this government were signalled in the throne speech of 1989 when five specific directions were identified: financial stability, economic growth, environmental integrity, a caring and compassionate society, and the lasting unity of the nation. Those commitments have continued to move steadily forward, all part of a deliberate plan to fulfil the goals and aspirations of Canadians. We still have a long way to go but truly we can take heart and encouragement from the recognition that even in these early stages that plan for the coming century is succeeding.
In terms of public financial stability the government has acted decisively to control its own expenditures and costs. Major long-term moves for economic growth have been made. The free trade agreement has opened the largest market in the world to Canadian entrepreneurs.
Equally in a world context, the environmental imperative cannot be ignored. This government continues to act aggressively and invest wisely to implement the principles of sustainable development. Nothing more dramatically illustrates Canada's environmental commitment than our Green Plan, the first major initiative of this nature by any nation. It is a comprehensive spectrum of projects, programs and measures being systematically introduced and carried out over a six-year period at a total cost of $3 billion. There are many more initiatives of that nature to contemplate.
Supply
As a caring and compassionate society, Canada has been demonstrated to have few peers. Our social safety net is one of the best in the world and our unemployment insurance program and our medicare system are the envy of even our largest neighbours.
Finally, and more fundamentally challenging and compelling than any other current issue before us, we must preserve and sanctify the political and spiritual unity of our country. No government in Canada's history has ever committed itself so strongly and so completely to that task.
I know I am running out of time and I would like to say that, truly, these final constitutional measures or movements which our country is experiencing at the same time must be the most meaningful developments in the mandate of this government. As significant as all of the other principles and policies and initiatives may be, they pale by comparison to the great challenge of preserving Canada as a strong and unified nation. Frankly our promise and potential for the future hinge on keeping Canada whole.
That remains the primary purpose we must pursue and it is one that we must simply bring to resolution in fulfilment of our responsibilities and our mandate.
That is the goal that I remain confident we will soon achieve and it is in that fashion that we can absolutely best serve Canadians in this and future generations.
On the occasion of the 125th anniversary of Confederation, the reality of one Canada must continue to be a compelling commitment and our proud legacy to the next 125 years of Canadian history yet to come.
Then and only then, with the constitutional resolution firmly in place before us and with the consensus for Canadian unity clearly established beneath us, the prospect of a federal general election will undoubtedly be addressed by the sole leader who can make that decision. When that time comes I predict that the official opposition will not be nearly so anxious for it as it so hungrily appears to be today.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, the unmitigated gall of this government knows no bounds and that is certainly reflected in the remarks made by the previous speaker.

April 27, 1992
Supply
Of course we all agree in this House that Canada is the best country in the world in which to live, but imagine the nerve and the audacity for this government, for that speaker, to take credit for that success of Canada. He knows and the world knows that his party has been out of power for most of the first 92 years of this century. If there is any party that can lay claim to that success it certainly is not the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada-the unmitigated gall to make that kind of claim.
When it comes to unmitigated gall, he knows as well as anyone that Canadians are starving for an election. Every poll shows it. Every piece of mail that I get indicates that. What does the speaker say? What does the government say? They sneer, "oh, well, you will get your election when the time comes and we will decide when the election comes".
That is the kind of audacity this government has.
Let us talk about the proposition that is before the House, the call for a federal election now. We heard speakers earlier talk about the economy and how it is in tatters. We have heard about the unemployment figures. We have heard about the high rate of taxation and so on, but there is something else that has not been touched on in any great length and I want to touch on it. It has to do with Canadians feeling despair that they are losing control. They are losing their independence. They are losing their autonomy. They are losing their democracy. They are losing it because they know that this government is pushing our economy and our entire country and our democracy into its kind of continentalism.
It is asking Canadians, after this great success the country has had, to surrender Canada to an alien kind of political culture that is across the border. We may have to accept things like no minimum wage, as in the southern United States. Perhaps we would have so-called right to work laws in this country. We may lose our social programs, the kind of experience that is felt every day in the United States. That is what Canadians are concerned about and they have a right to pass judgment on that in a federal election.
My question for the previous speaker is: Does he not have to agree?
Mr. Bird Mr. Speaker, what the members opposite really lack is any sense of vision. The only sense of vision they have is another opportunity to go to the polls in the hope that they might win an election.
I was disappointed in the member for Broadview- Greenwood, for whom I have the utmost respect. Even he was speaking of despair and misery and contributing to the malaise that is gripping this country at this time. We are supposed to be leaders. We are supposed to have a sense of vision. We are supposed to have a plan for this country. This government has had a plan for the past eight years. It took over from a Liberal government that left us deeply entrenched in debt, a burden that we must carry on and on and on with compound interest; a government that had taken us to as high as 22.5 per cent in interest rates. It was a government that had spending growing at the rate of 14.6 per cent through most of its mandate; a government that spent and spent and spent with no sense of what it was trying to create and accomplish. It left us bereft financially. It left us bereft constitutionally. Then to have these members of Parliament, in some frivolous degree of self-interest, call for an election in the midst of serious efforts to turn this country around is on the verge of irresponsibility.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member.
The government is forgetting about the disadvantaged people in our community. I am not saying that it does not care. When we were home for the last two weeks, as you have been home, I am sure you have been hearing from the people who are doing well, but you are also hearing from the people who have lost their jobs. Maybe some of them have lost their homes or some of them may even have lost their businesses. I thought it was part of our responsibility as members of Parliament to come back here and figure out ways of advancing debate to tiy and change that condition in which we have all of these unemployed people and business confidence that is not all that strong.
Earlier, when I gave my remarks, I gave the government full marks for the lower interest rate and the decrease in inflation. It is not all your doing. The people of Canada should get some recognition for that as well. We are saying you ratcheted down inflation enough. People need some help out there. I am not speaking for

the winners out there today. There are lots of them and I applaud them. I tend to be a positive person but right now there are people out there crying for attention and for some leadership, the leadership that the member talks about. Part of our responsibility is not just to say things were never better and this is the greatest country in the world. It is the greatest country in the world and I will be the first to say that along side you.
At the same time, we cannot forget about those who are disadvantaged. Governance is not just for the advantaged, it is for those who are disadvantaged. That is the purpose of this debate today, to try and shake the government a little bit out of its singular focus on inflation. Let us give a little breathing room to the entrepreneurial spirit of this country so that it can start hiring people again. How can you, as a former entrepreneur, disagree with that?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the greatest leadership that we can give is a leadership of positive spirit; a leadership of confidence; a leadership of vision; a plan for the future; an undertaking that we will help Canada to realize its potential.
There are disadvantaged and we all ache for the disadvantaged. We realize that quick fixes are not the solution. Structurally, we have to prepare our nation for the future.
The first thing we have to do is to unify this nation. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood I know in his heart realizes that a federal election at this moment in the constitutional deliberations would be catastrophic. It would be the last thing in the world that we would want.
There will come a time for it. Perhaps there will come a time for it at the pinnacle of those constitutional deliberations. It is not for me to say. Now it would be disruptive not only of the constitutional deliberations but terribly disruptive of the economy. He knows that, and I am disappointed and discouraged to see him playing that little political game that is conveyed by this motion.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated veiy much my hon. colleague's very stirring speech and his comments.
Supply
I was disappointed that he did not mention the sudden change of direction that the Reform Party took over the weekend when it announced that it is now for the goods and services tax. It was calling for an election to throw us out when we brought that in. It is the same party that would recall their members of Parliament whenever they did anything difficult and tough in this House.
I wonder if he would comment on what he thinks of those actions and how they relate to this ridiculous request today.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the response of the Reform Party which I had not heard until now is very much like the response of the Liberal Party to the same types of issues.
For example, with respect to free trade, it was going to scrap it and now it is going to amend it. Then it is going to renegotiate it. With respect to the GST, it was opposed to it but now it is prepared to live with it.
The fact is it is easy to get on the coat-tails of a good plan, and that is what everybody is trying to do.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking for 10 minutes. From now on members of my party will be splitting their time with another member.
I am very pleased to take part today in this debate which calls on the Prime Minister and the federal government to call an election immediately.
The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the interests of Canadians would
be best served by an immediate federal general election.
I certainly agree with that motion, and I will be voting for it.
This government has led our country into a very long and lingering recession. Its Prime Minister has not delivered on the many promises that he made in the last two elections. This government has lost all credibility with Canadians.
I think the best way to restore credibility to Parliament and to the Government of Canada is to call an election. Call an election and let the people decide who they believe would be the best to lead this country through these very difficult days.

April 27, 1992
Supply
In my province of Prince Edward Island, the unemployment rate is 17.1 per cent. Since I was elected to Parliament in 1988, I have never known a time when so many people have talked to me about the employment situation. They are people who are looking for jobs, or if they have a job they are concerned that they may lose it.
I have never had so many young people come into my office looking for employment. It is a tragedy that approximately 400,000 young people are unemployed in this country. As I stated, it is not only young people. People from many age groups are really suffering.
Every weekend when I return to my constituency, I talk to people of all ages who are feeling stressed out with the anguish of not being able to properly provide for their families' needs. They are feeling the stress of trying to make the mortgage payments or the rent payments, the car payments, put food on the table and to clothe their families adequately. The statistics that I referred to really do not show the whole story. They show the unemployment rate, but that does not include an estimated 99,000 jobless Canadians who have given up finding work. Half of that 99,000 are between the ages of 25 and 44 and almost one-third are from Atlantic Canada. Those 99,000 are people who are also looking for hope. They are people who have given up on this government. They have lost faith in this government's ability to do anything about the economy.
Certainly one of the best ways to get these individuals back on their feet is by calling an election and bringing in a new government to deal with these issues from a fresh perspective.
There was a recent Angus Reid-Southam News poll that provided some evidence on the need for an election. This poll indicated that Canadians believed by almost a two to one margin, and that is a large margin, that the Liberals are best equipped to deal with the economy.
I think it is safe to say that if we had an election today, the election of a Liberal government would immediately pay dividends in rekindling consumer confidence and reinstating economic growth in Canada.
It is very interesting to note that the same poll showed almost the identical two to one margin of confidence in
the Liberals' ability to handle the national unity problems.
The Prime Minister has in recent days hinted at the possible need to hold a national referendum. Certainly our party has been advocating that approach for some time, so it is with pleasure that we recognize and we welcome the Prime Minister's comments. Canadians want to have a say in our constitutional future. In fact, a recent Gallop poll indicated that 62 per cent of Canadians favour a national referendum on any reforms that would amend the Constitution. In Atlantic Canada three out of four easterners are in favour of a referendum and only 6 per cent are opposed.
To have a referendum today with the government at 16 per cent in the polls, with the Canadian economy mired in a recession, with the lack of confidence that the public have in this Prime Minister and this government, it would not be easy to ensure that Canadians vote for a renewed Canada rather than against this Prime Minister and government. There is a danger that the public may be inclined to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the Tory government by voting against the referendum.
The best way for this government to ensure that this does not take place is to call an election. Let the people decide who they want to lead this constitutional battle.
I know that my time is getting short so I simply want to sum up by stating that Canadians are disenchanted. The once buoyant, the always reserved Canadian confidence appears to be diminishing. Many Canadians, as I have stated, have given up on finding a job or they are really worried about the job that they have because they may be laid off.
We need a new government that can rekindle our pride and rebuild our confidence in ourselves. We need a Prime Minister who people do not regard as a source of distrust but as a source of inspiration.
Our countiy is going through some veiy difficult times in our history. We have pulled together through difficult times in the past and I am confident we can do it again.
The problems before us today are very great indeed and the efforts and participation of all Canadians will be needed. It is essential that the leadership of our countiy have the respect, the support and the ability to motivate Canadians. The present government does not have that respect and support.
April 27, 1992

Therefore, in the interests of our economic potential, national unity and our future as a nation, we call upon this Prime Minister today to do what is best for our country. He should call an election immediately so that Canadians can once again be led by a government that holds their trust, their confidence and their support.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member opposite. As she was speaking, I was reflecting that when I joined the Progressive Conservative Party in May 1988, I think they were around 24 or 25 per cent in the polls. I am sure that at that time there were many Liberals and NDP members howling for an election because they felt the Canadian people had lost confidence.
I find it rather sad when members of Parliament forget that Canadians elect their representatives to serve them through difficult times and to make difficult decisions. I mentioned earlier how recently the Reform Party in the west who have sold thousands and thousands of memberships on the basis that they were going to kill the GST are now saying that they are going to keep the GST. They are not only going to keep it but they are going to expand it to food and other things of that nature.
I just cannot quite understand this sense because we are in difficult times. The government has made some difficult decisions that have brought about very, very stable fundamentals in our economy. We now have inflation down to a very low level and low interest rates. The country is now in a situation where international organizations are predicting that we are going to be able to take off in the next year and really have a very strong recovery. I cannot understand that hon. members opposite would be saying that this is a time when the people of Canada are saying they have lost confidence in their government.
I see it much more that the people would just now be realizing how difficult the chore has been to deal with the debt the government from the other side left us and how difficult a time we have had to straighten things out.
Supply
Surely they can wait a few more months to see the fruits of our labours.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, the government's record is what is at stake here, its record in dealing with the issues. As I said, we are going through a very difficult time in this country. There are a lot of important issues.
The public has completely lost faith. It has lost confidence. It has lost trust. When you get to the point where Canadians have lost hope, certainly we need an election. We need a new government. That is what I said when I spoke in the last 10 minutes. We need a new government that will come in and provide Canadians with hope and give them new ideas, give them confidence and trust that they have a government that is going to look after their interests and get them through this very difficult time in our history.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, just a short comment.
I want to mention, along with my colleague, that the government seems to be forgetting that it has had some 32 tax increases since assuming office. It has taken close to $50 billion in new taxes out of the system. If there is any credit for the low inflation and low interest rates right now, we cannot ignore the people of Canada who have been as much a part of that as anyone else.
What my colleague has been saying and what we are saying is: Lighten up a little bit; let us get the spirit of this country working again. I cannot believe anyone on that side of the House is really opposed to that. Somehow they have to realize that they have caused enough pain and it is time to ease off.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, government members keep saying that Canada is the best country in the world. I agree. The UN study reached this conclusion on the basis of a number of factors. It comes as no surprise to us. We know what these factors are, but I would like to take a few moments to explain,

April 27, 1992
Supply
for the benefit of people outside the country, why Canada is such a good place to live.
There is no doubt we compare favourably with the country that considers itself the richest in the world, in material terms, and I am of course referring to the United States. Does it have an old age security pension like the one in Canada? No. Do they have the kind of health insurance plan we have in Canada? No, of course not. We have other programs as well which provide a better balance in our society. In other words, our philosophy here in Canada-the culmination of many years of hard work-is that we are our brother's keeper.
If my neighbours are well off, the chances are that I, as a member of the same community, will be as well. But if my neighbours are not doing well, chances are that I won't be doing well either. For all practical purposes, we are in the same boat. When we think about it very few countries in the world have evolved this way. It is only fair to say that over the years these policies and programs were put in place by the former CCF, now the NDP, and by the Liberal Party of Canada. After all, the truth has its place in debate, and history as well.
If we look at the history of this country and how we evolved, and if we look at everything we have tried to put in place to protect both individual and collective freedoms, and if we compare our system of post-secondary education with the systems in most countries, it is relatively inexpensive. A lot more could be said, but in any case we know we enjoy tremendous advantages.
What worries me is that what we have achieved over the years is not carved in stone. We cannot assume our social benefits are here to stay, come what may. If we look at what has happened in the past fifteen or twenty years, and if we look strictly at the facts, we see a tax system, something that is fundamental to a democracy, that is completely unbalanced, unfair and inequitable. Very little has been done to improve the system, despite the fact that 25 years ago we were fortunate enough to have a royal commission, the Carter commission.
Recently there was a two-hour radio broadcast recapitulating the events that led up to this proposed tax reform which, in the end, was never implemented.
Let us take a look at recent developments, especially since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. One does not have to be a professor of economics to realize that
the FTA has seriously undermined our industrial production. We have become extremely vulnerable as a result of this agreement, and problems keep surfacing, week after week. It is one of the factors that undermines our ability to maintain a society that can afford these major programs.
What about our tax system and the number of tax increases we have had during the past five or six years? I am not saying the government is entirely responsible, but for the past five or six years they were responsible for running this country. They put an additional burden on Canada's middle class, where taxes-we have almost reached the point of a tax revolt-are the topic of the day. But all this falls on deaf ears.
We cannot go on like this. Ask Canadians whether they think an election should be called. I think it is pretty obvious the opposition House leader's motion clearly reflects the wishes of all Canadians who want to get rid of a nightmare they have been living with for the past few years. As far as free trade is concerned, the financial elite and our big transnational and multinational corporations have only one allegiance: the profit principle. That Canadians think an election is needed to clear the air should come as no surprise. We cannot expect a government that introduced free trade to do anything about it. It will take a new vision to negotiate in our best interests and to renegotiate the aspects that are disastrous to our country.
We cannot maintain an agreement that is diminishing us as a nation, destroying our industrial base and indirectly destroying our social programs. Without the industrial base, the industrial infrastructure to provide revenue and wealth, how can we maintain this social contract to protect each other? We will not be able to, and we realize that.
We have tremendous skills in this country. We have ideas. The past holds the key to the future. We can meet this challenge, but not if we let ourselves be diminished by an agreement which so far has been disastrous. Ontario has suffered the worst, but although it may not look that way, the impact will be just as bad on Quebec. As part of this agreement, our neighbours to the south wanted us to get rid of our supply management program. A system that has been invaluable to Canadian agriculture is now being challenged, and this we cannot afford.
April 27, 1992

To get back to the tax issue, it is a fact that Canadians, especially middle-class Canadians, feel nobody is listening any more. They feel the government only represents corporate interests and ignores their daily concerns. This lack of confidence is extremely dangerous in a country that calls itself progressive. The day will come when Canadians "will not take it any more".
And what will happen in the end? People will be so discouraged and fed up that here in the House of Commons we may end up with any number of parties with extremist views on the way the country should be run, and we will have a real problem. When people feel they have been sold out, extremists become more powerful. This is a very disturbing prospect.
Our leader said in very simple terms, merely expressing the desire of all Canadians, that an election should be called as soon as possible to put an end to the concern and lack of confidence in this country.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should say that it is going to be fun to take part in this debate today. It has been an interesting debate. It is one that I have waited for and anticipated in the last few minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I want to have some indication if your party will split its time.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to use 20 minutes in debate, but I have agreed to split with my colleague to my right. We will be doing that so I will use 10 minutes.
I think the opposition parties are having some fun with this debate today. I was looking forward to taking part in it.
The motion itself calls upon the government to call an election. How many Canadians can sort through that motion? I contend that most Canadians can sort through that motion because in debate today with the hon. member from Broadview-Greenwood I mentioned that the fundamentals are there in terms of the economy.
Supply
This government is doing and has done what has had to be done since it was elected, particularly since 1988. One of the things I am fond of saying, and I say it with great sincerity, is that we are the first generation of politicians that has not been able to go back home to their ridings and sort of make it right with a chequebook.
We have had to face some difficult realities in this countiy, and this government has done that. We will never be able to buy our way into power as the opposition parties were so successful in doing throughout the sixties, seventies and very early eighties. The Canadian public will not buy that any more.
What conceived this motion, I contend, is really the accusation that our agenda is going to pay political dividends at the end of the day. I will be the first to argue and support the idea that this is not so. We have had to go through some very difficult things and we have had to accept some glaring realities as a government.
One of those glaring realities is that we have a mountain of debt that is creating some real problems and we had to do something about them. We have had to do a couple of things that were very distasteful.
The first thing is that we had to take a look at the revenue side. If we want to take a look at taxation, some of the new taxes and some of the things that we have had to do on the revenue side, it has been very distasteful. None of us liked having to support a new system of taxation, specifically the GST.
On the expenditure side, we have had to take a real hard look at spending as a government. None of us wanted to do that either because that does not make us real popular back home. Those are some of the things that we have had to do, and we have done them. I think they are going to pay dividends at the end of the day.
Over and above that, we have done a number of other things which are beginning to create a sense of confidence. We have mentioned some of those things in the House today, one of them being the fact that interest rates are at a 20-year low, as is inflation. Those are some of the indicators that investors want to see when they decide whether they are going to invest in our country or in some other country. It is a known fact that today foreign investment in this country is at an all-time high

April 27, 1992
Supply
simply because Canada is recognized as a good country in which to invest. That is the absolute truth.
The motion itself is calling for an election because given time, given another year or so, when Canadians can see a real difference in their economy, they are going to be willing to put their support with us. I think that was indicated in the last Gallup poll. We do not want to take that too seriously at this point. However, where there is a 4 per cent increase in support for our party in the last statistics brought out by the Gallup people, that is an indication that some of our policies are starting to bear fruit. They can see light at the end of the tunnel and see that what we are doing makes sense.
We have a long way to go and we are not going to be there in another 60 days. That is the reason this motion is totally out of line.
The other thing that I want to remind the opposition of is the fact that constitutionally governments in this country are elected for five years. The opposition knows that. Aside from the fact that governments are elected for five years constitutionally, we have not even reached the fourth year of our mandate yet. Calling an election now would be totally irresponsible. What the opposition is predicating its hopes on is the fact that it will do the same thing it has always done when it has won elections. It has won elections by promising more, by simply getting the pen out and writing the cheque for whatever it had to to win the vote at the end of the day. That is not going to work the next time.
I have a couple of questions that I want to ask. Would an election today suddenly remove the difficulties that face Canada? The answer to that is absolutely not, nothing would change. No matter who formed the government tomorrow, our party or one of those parties opposite, nothing would change. Canadian people are realistic. They know that we are not going to simply snap our fingers and the world is going to be bright and beautiful. That is not going to happen.
Is an election absolutely in the best interests of the opposition parties? The answer to that is pretty obvious. Absolutely, yes, it is in their best interest. If an election were called today it would be in their best interest because timing is on their side.
That is one of the prerogatives of the government in power and the Prime Minister. They can time the election. That is veiy important. We are willing to take the heat for the next year or year and a half, knowing full well the policies of this government at the end of the day are going to work.
Evidence of that was laid before the Canadian people last week. I am going to quote an article from The Chronicle-Herald, of Halifax. The study to which it refers I mentioned quite often last week. I had the opportunity to visit a number of schools in my constituency. It was very interesting. One of the things that Canadian students and the Canadian population recognize is the fact that we are the best country in the world. This article to which I have alluded states how it is. The headline of the article reads: "Mad as heck and living in paradise". It is talking about the Canadian people. We are in a feisty mood. We are not in a real good mood and I guess we have reason not to be because it is not all good out there. But in comparison to the rest of the world we are doing really well. This article mentions the United Nations report which has identified Canada as the single best, the number one nation in the world in which to live.
Last year I spent a good part of the year talking about Canada being number two, which I thought was okay, but this year I am going to have the task of talking and I guess bragging about Canada being the number one best nation in the world in which to live.
Last year, Japan beat Canada but this year we beat the Japanese and we beat every other single country in the world, including that big giant to the south of us, the United States, which came in number six.
We are doing pretty well in this country of ours and it is time that the opposition recognized that. I do not think it contributes anything to the debate when you get up on your hind legs in this House and rail and tilt and criticize. The Canadian people want more than just criticism levelled at the government of the day because the problems that we have to work through are monumental. I only have to mention one of them which might determine whether we do have a country at the end of this year, our constitutional problem.
April 27, 1992

None of us wants to see an election fought around that issue. We want the thing resolved so we can get on with building a better Canada.
There is no party in a better position to do that than this party. We have proven that we are number one in the world and we are the envy of the rest of the world.
We will continue to fulfil our constitutional mandate. When that time arrives or we have to go back to the Canadian people we will do it with a great deal of confidence and a great deal of support from the Canadian people.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member and I was astounded that he started his comments by saying that the opposition party, the Liberal Party in this case, was having fun today.
The population is overloaded with taxes. The government has imposed 32 new taxes. The population has to deal with increasing bankruptcies every day. It is having to live with high unemployment every year with a million and a half Canadians out of jobs. I could go on but I have only a few minutes.
I want to tell the members who just spoke that it is no fun to talk about this government and, as some would say, its bankrupt ideas and proposals. It has destroyed the fabric of this country by destroying the confidence that Canadians had in their own country. It succeeded in doing that. I agree with that.
What we are trying to do today is oppose what this member is saying. Since he has bandied about this so-called UN study, I will quote from a paper from his own area, The Halifax Chronicle Herald. The article is dated April 20, 1992. It starts by saying: "Canadians may feel fed up and broke but they should take heart in the knowledge that their toughed-out and recession-battered country is the best in the world".
It goes on to say that Canadians should not get too complacent about their long lives in paradise. The 260-page UN study does say that Canada suffers too
Supply
much from drug related crime and too many traffic deaths.
It goes on to say: "In addition, wage disparities between men and women, like the income tax gap between the rich and the poor in Canada, is the highest". Canadian women still earn only two-thirds of men's wages for comparable work.
It goes on to say: "In fact, when gender disparities are included in the UN report, Canada slides back into eighth place in the survey behind the Scandinavian countries, France, Denmark and Australia".
Yes, we have a good country. We have worked hard to have a good country. This government is going to destroy the basic fundamental fabric of this country which is a belief, a strong belief, a strong knowledge and faith in the future of this country. This government must be taken to task. It must be called to account before Canadians as to why it cannot take criticism. Why did it abolish over 40 agencies in the last while? Those agencies were independent of us, independent of Parliament, independent of the government-the Law Reform Commission, the Economic Council of Canada, the Court Challenges Program.
Why is it that to go to court you have to be rich? The day to account for what this government has done has finally come, and we hope and pray that an election will be called to clear the air.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the opposition can hope and pray all it wishes. I will guarantee that an election is coming. I am not even the Prime Minister, but I will guarantee it. It is not coming in the next 30 days, however. That is the time frame in which it wants to fight it. Last week, and this is quite interesting, we gained four points in the Gallup poll at the expense of the party for which the hon. member just spoke, the Liberal Party. Again, timing is on our side.
Canadians are suddenly realizing as they watch television every night that we are not unique. We do have our difficulties and I recognize those. We recognize that we have difficulties, but our difficulties are pale in comparison to the rest of the world. There is not one single

April 27, 1992
Supply
country in the world better than this country. All we have to do is work a little harder to make it better.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised today must be seen in the context of all the measures taken by the government to help Canadians hit by unemployment. It must also be seen in the more specific context of the current recession, which we will beat by pursuing our programs to help both individuals and communities.
In the present situation, therefore, I believe it is more appropriate to pursue the programs set up several years ago and adapt them to the new philosophies that no longer consider the unemployed to be social outcasts but offer them everything necessary to train for the new labour requirements so as to return as soon as possible to work and dignity.
The globalization of markets, the economic crisis, inflation, the financial constraints affecting governments and the quickening pace of technological development exert pressure on national economies and demand that these economies make remarkable efforts to adapt and be more flexible.
As a government we have put forward policies to meet these challenges. The economic strategies that we have been applying since 1984 favour sustained growth and increased competitiveness.
Since our labour market problems are systemic and not cyclical we must take a longer term approach without overlooking current initiatives. That is what we are doing. Our government has a good job creation record. Since the 1984 election, 1,280,000 jobs have been created. This month there are 934,000 more women in the labour force than in 1984.
We must focus our efforts on labour force efficiency and skills, as well as on workers' ability to adjust to economic, vocational and social changes.
That is the practical approach we have taken over the past two years, beginning with the passage of Bill C-21, when we resolved to make a more dynamic and rational use of unemployment insurance funds. This is an important change which already shows positive results, and we will continue to benefit from it in years to come.
Using the labour force development strategy as a catalyst, we have emphasized three essential aspects of
the working world: labour force efficiency, partnership and consistency in our social policy.
The government has implemented measures to help groups that would not be eligible for the additional training provided through the Unemployment Insurance Plan.
The federal government, the provincial governments, the private sector and workers co-operate more and more as partners to find the best ways to use their common resources. In the working world, this new partnership is a giant step. All concerned will agree that this new climate of co-operation is essential.
Aid will also be given to welfare recipients, native people and the disabled through special measures like "Pathways to Success" for employing and training native people and the national strategy for integration of persons with disabilities. The commitments made in this regard will be respected.
Our goal, I repeat, is to increase the training provided by governments and the private sector. Through the prosperity initiative we will tiy to upgrade knowledge in Canada. This must be done in partnership with all concerned.
Let me give you two examples of the kind of training that really helps Canadians re-enter the labour force. In Montreal some 400 UI beneficiaries receive training and work experience in bookkeeping and accounting. The placement rates for graduates from that institution is already 75 per cent, which bodes very well for the participant.
In addition, participants do a six-week internship with a local employer and then take part in a two-week job search. That is the kind of effectiveness that we are looking for in developing new programs and adapting our programs to today's realities.
In the new partnership to which we are coming, we must consider training and development as an investment rather than an expense. The public sector must do so and the private sector as well. Investing in human resources is as essential as investing in new technology.
The initiatives now under way in Montreal and Toronto also interest all other regions and communities in Canada. We must come together so that such action is taken in order to make our labour force more competitive and to lead us to prosperity.
April 27, 1992

Supply
After setting forth the main principles that I have just described briefly, our government had to implement them, which means fund them. We have done so.
The 1992-93 budget provides $3.4 billion for activities related to occupational training and employment. With these funds, an increase from $3.1 billion the year before, Employment and Immigration Canada will be able to help some 650,000 people, a very significant number, you will agree.
Funds for training will increase by $300 million. This will be done by favouring active assistance over passive support measures, and in co-operation with the private sector. In this way we will ensure that Canadians are provided more effective training.
In 1992, under this completely new financing method, $400 million more in UI funds will be used for productive purposes. This increase brings total spending to $1.8 billion, three times as much as in 1990. The remaining $1.6 billion will be used for employment planning.
Mr. Speaker, I just spoke to you about some initiatives in Montreal. Let us take some more examples, because they hold valuable lessons for us all. As the saying goes, it is sometimes better to lead by example.
In Fort McMurray nine native people each earned over $40,000 a year working full time in a tar sands processing plant. They were hired after taking a power station mechanic's course subsidized by Employment and Immigration. The course that helped them acquire the skills they needed cost $40, 000 but yielded more than $300,000 in annual income.
I have another example. In New Westminster, a number of women receiving unemployment insurance benefits are also receiving training in a non-traditional and lucrative field: butchering.
This training is provided thanks to the productive use of unemployment insurance funds and the sponsorship of the International Union of Food and Allied Workers Associations.
This is another instance of partnership that works to the satisfaction of all concerned. The government, in partnership with all players in the labour market, has committed itself to providing an effective and comprehensive response to the requirements of Canadians for skill development and adjustment.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the remarks of the member for Laval-Ouest.
I think it is fair to say we are facing some very serious problems as a country, as an economy, and some major readjustments have to occur. The government is right when it talks about the problem of the deficit that it inherited. Indeed, some of the policies of the Liberal government during the 1970s were totally irresponsible. Some of the investment in R and D, the retooling, et cetera, that should have occurred in the 1970s did not occur. It was spending money and really the cause of the deficit in the 1970s was due more to the tax breaks the Liberals created. There was a dramatic reduction in revenues from the corporate side, particularly the financial institutions, the banks, life insurance companies and so forth.
This government has been in power now for almost a decade and we have to ask, what it has done. What sort of leadership has it provided? I am afraid it is not a good record. First of all, this government started on the wrong ideological bent. This party was taken over when the present leader and the Prime Minister captured the party, I suspect with a lot of financial and technological support from south of the border and the right wing part of the Republican Party. It launched the Conservative Party into something that was alien to Canadian politics, a new right wing agenda.
The agenda was that government did not have a role to play. For a long period of time we did not see any leadership whatsoever. To tell the truth, I think what saved perhaps some semblance of public responsibility was the Quebec members in this government because the Quebec members never did buy into that American right wing philosophy. The member from Laval-Ouest talks about some traditional Conservative philosophy but I am afraid the agenda of this government as a whole has been an agenda of the new right wing and that has been a disaster for Canada in the 1980s.
The member talks about a long-term approach. I do not see a long-term approach in this government. Members can see the reductions in science and in education. If we are going to save this country and save meaningful jobs we need R and D and yet we have a dismal record in R and D.

April 27, 1992
Supply
I hear the hon. member talk about a rational approach. There is no rational approach. Ele talks about a new partnership. There is no new partnership. The people of this country are angry at this government. There is not a sense of co-operation and working together because the people do not trust this government and therefore we should have an election and at least get a government the people of this country have some confidence in.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member hit the nail on the head. He says we have no leadership and no long-term vision, but that it is all because of the tax system we have had in this country for x number of years, and that it was the previous government's fault. In the small folder that came with The Budget Papers, it said that in 1984 we had a national debt, and that the debt had doubled because of the interest we had to pay on the debt and because we had to borrow money every year to pay off the debt. Meanwhile, there are a number of priorities we will have to deal with, and that is something we cannot avoid. We can no longer live on credit, travel now and pay later, which is what we have been doing for the past 25 years.
When they say we have no long-term vision, no long-term policy and no leadership, I find that difficult to believe. Earlier I gave a few examples of partnership. What was done, the people did themselves. These initiatives were taken by groups, by native people, by women, and together with the government they were able to develop those programs.
Do not tell me we have no leadership, that the Prime Minister has no leadership, that our party has no leadership, and that people want a general election. Earlier I heard a member say that we were not listening to what Canadians were saying about unemployment. We are listening. We are just as smart as anybody else and we are listening to what people are telling us: Do not put the Liberals back in power for the next 25 years, because we will be in even deeper trouble.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record a few thoughts about the motion that is brought forward by my colleagues on the right, the Liberal Party. This motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the interests of Canadians
would be best served by an immediate federal general election.
They only put that forward because they think they can win it. They said some very scathing things about a government that is hanging on the ropes. They want to deliver the knuckle punch. They want to give them the right hook. We want to give them the left hook.
I have seen this scenario and you can make all sorts of arguments depending on which side of the House you sit on. I remember the period of 1974-79. We were demanding then but Pierre Trudeau took the government in that period right down to the five years.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Five years?


John R. Rodriguez: Five years, from May 1974 to May 1979. Why did he not call an election? He had lost the confidence of the people. You could not sell him in the country. Why? I want to remind my friends to the right, the Liberal Party, that they must remember their history because it is the government that determines when the election is going to be called. It does not call an election when it thinks it cannot win a majority government. They know full well they would not call it when they were 39, 38, 37 and 40 per cent throughout 1979 leading up to the election. They knew that at 40 per cent or at 39 per cent they could not win a majority.
Let us cut all the jiggery-pokery and the bamboozling around and just lay the cards on the table.
The question I want to ask and that I want to debate is: Why would this government, the Tories, call an election now? The question is: Why does it not call an election? I have some thoughts on the matter and I want to share them with my colleagues here.
It is not going to call an election. Remember in our system it is the government, it is the Prime Minister who goes over for tea with the Governor General and decides when we are all going to start knocking on doors or whatever we do to get elected here.
April 27, 1992

You are not going to do that when you are at 11 per cent and you are squeezing up and peaking at 16 per cent. Who is going to call an election when you are peaking at 16 per cent? It is crazy, it blows credulity. That is number one.
Second, and by the way, the government has been consistently between 11 and 16 per cent for the last two years. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that it has lost the confidence of the Canadian people. In fact, I would suggest that this government has even lost the confidence of its own backbenchers. Lately I have not seen any rats defying the old saying that you have to swim away from the ship. I do not see anybody swimming toward the ship these days. They are sitting behind us here. It has lost the confidence of this gang called "Blocs", "Bloc-heads". They are sitting here.


Mrs. Sparrow:: Where?


John R. Rodriguez: There, right in the back. You lost two over there who crawled away from your position on the GST. One of them found a home harbour abetted by the Liberal Party. He is now sitting with the Liberals. You lost the confidence of your own backbenchers.
In fact, the only way the boss can keep them in line is by promising them that their pensions will continue if this Parliament continues for another year. That is the only way of keeping them in line.
I want to say to my colleagues over there: Repent now. It is not too late to repent. Do not go down with the ship. Do not let the Prime Minister take you down with him. I know that there are people of reason back there and I think they should recognize the reality.
This government has lost the confidence of the Canadian people. Period. End of story. That is a fact. It has lost the confidence of its own people. Its own membership in the grassroots are all flocking to something called the Reform Party. Its membership in the House has flocked over to something called the Bloc Quebecois.
All of that is mirrored in the polls. The Prime Minister is looking in the mirror and he is saying: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, can I win this election in the fall?" The answer comes back loud and clear: "You may be the brightest in the land, but not even Hughie Segal can save your hand."


An hon. member:: Did you make that up?
Supply


John R. Rodriguez: Listen brother, I just tell them. I do not explain them.
This government needs, any government here right now needs a renewed mandate. There are so many important issues that will put Canada on a new course and it needs the input of the Canadian people. God knows that this government is incapable of receiving the opinions of the Canadian people. It does not know what that process is.
We have the whole question of a North American free trade agreement, a very massive agreement that will have very, very serious implications for the restructuring of this country economically and culturally. That is number one.
We have a very serious question with respect to renewing the Constitution of Canada. Yet, Heaven knows that this government has no credibility on that issue whatsoever in the land. The people just do not trust the Prime Minister of this country to negotiate a new deal with respect to the Constitution of the country.
The time is ripe for us to renew the mandate by the people of Canada in an election. Why? The first question is as to why would this government not call an election now.
One reason is that it is peaking in the polls. In the mirror we know what it is.
The second reason, and my colleague from Regina- Qu'Appelle referred to it briefly in his question to the previous member, is that it is the neo-Conservative agenda. This government has to embark and complete the task of the neo-Conservative agenda. We know what the hallmarks of that agenda have been. It has been deregulation, privatization and the free trade agreement turning this country into a giant free-for-all for the transnational corporations to take control. That is the neo-Conservative agenda. Keep out of the marketplace.
The market is the new altar at which we are going to make sacrificial lambs of Canadians. We are going to worship at this altar. Is that not funny, how they talk about this marketplace? This is a new marketplace where it is said that government has to get out of the face of business. Get out of my face. The first time Olympia & York has trouble it runs to the government like Oliver

April 27, 1992
Supply
Twist to Mr. Bumble: "Please, sir, can we have some more?" You cannot have it both ways.
We have this corporate agenda that believes in this mindless, blind following of the marketplace and the government has started to implement it with deregulating the airlines. At one time I can remember we had four national air carriers in this country. Now we have two that are limping along.


An hon. member:: For now.


John R. Rodriguez: For now. We have two that are limping along and telling us that they cannot make it.
We had a railway system in this country that was originally built by Sir John A. Macdonald to tie this country together from coast to coast. The government has decimated it. The boys and girls up there in the Transport Department were playing with their planes and their little toy airports. So rail passenger service in this country was killed and it is starting to build it back again.
We then started to privatize. The government removed itself from any responsibility for directing the post office. Now we are going to privatize and we are going to deprive every community of the presence of the federal government. We are going to privatize it.


An hon. member:: Flags coming down.


John R. Rodriguez: The government privatizes and deregulates. It deregulated the airlines and the financial sector. I had enough to say about that when we debated that bill on deregulation.
What is happening now, as I predicted, is that trust companies are all going to fall by the wayside. My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood said that the legislation of deregulating the financial institutions would bring more financial institutions into the business to lend money.
I want to say to him now what I said to him then. I see he is nodding his head and I can only take that as meaning he has seen the light. The veil has been removed from his eyes. What we have seen is that the trust companies are fast disappearing from the scene. You are going to have a couple of Sumo wrestlers tying on their sashes and getting ready to do global war. That is the nature of this government's approach.
I do not really see a difference between the people who sit across there and the ones who are hoping to replace them, the Liberal Party. There is really no difference.
One of the biggest crocks, I will put it bluntly, was brought in by that government in 1972.1 see the member for Ottawa-Vanier sitting here and he will remember. When we wanted to give a break to the very, very wealthy Canadians we set up the trust fund system where they could protect their wealth by putting it into trusts for their sons and their sons' sons and their sons' sons' sons and their sons' sons' daughters and so on. They paid no tax at all on it, but that was only to be for 21 years. That 21-year rule is up. So what do the quasi-Liberals on the other side do? They are going to extend it. That is billions of dollars in there that not one penny of tax is paid on, while ordinary Canadians are crying because the stone of heavy taxation falls on them.
Who was it that allowed these corporations, the largest and most powerful corporations, to write off the costs of lobbying? The lobbyists are floating around Parliament Hill and companies hired them so they could twist the arms of members of Parliament and committee chairmen and bureaucrats. The cost of that is all written off against their income and, therefore, none of it gets taxed. The people who are paying the shot are paying for the corporations to hire their hit people to come up on the Hill to get them more and more benefits. Therefore, the corporations continue to pay less tax and the wealthy continue to pay less tax than ordinary folks.
I have another reason the government will not call an election. It is because government members are waiting for the cavalry to come over the hill. They are like Custer. They are surrounded and are waiting for the cavalry to come over the hill from south of the border to save them. They are hoping that the American economy will pick up and we will get caught in the updraft and we will go up with the flow.
That is another reason they will not. They are hoping the American economy is going to recover enough so that they can have a nice picture and be in a better position to have an election and that all the dynamics will be right, all the ambience will be there and it will see us riding again.
April 27, 1992

The last reason is an important reason and I think this is the real big reason. They have to find a job for the big fellow. They know that they cannot go into an election with the captain of the Titanic on deck. They cannot go into an election in spite of all of the things that Hughie is doing. In spite of all of the opportunities to put him where he is mobbed by his family in public and it is all caught by the camera. It says: "Hundreds mob the Prime Minister". They found out that it was his second cousin, his first cousin, the whole gang.
In spite of all of that, they know in their heart of hearts that they cannot be lead into the election by the captain of the Titanic. They know that. There is no question in my mind.
So what they have to do is get a new leader. They are going to go back into the catacombs and resurrect somebody to lead them. Now the talk is that they will have Peter the Red from Alberta to lead them, the man who took PWA into public ownership.


An hon. member:: Or John Diefenbaker.


John R. Rodriguez: Or maybe John Diefenbaker. But some medium has to be found that can bring a new leader to the Conservative Party. That takes time. The convention call has to go out and it seems to me all of that takes time.
Then the other important thing is what do you do with the guy who has the job and does not want to go? You have to set him up with a job.
Mr. Speaker, may I remind you and members of the House that the first attempt at this failed. Georgie Bush could not deliver the job. That was the job at the United Nations as Secretary-General. That would have been very neat. The Prime Minister of Canada gets the new job, there is a vacancy, they hold an election and they have a new face.
That scenario is not new. Now it has more coinage because of the situation in Great Britain. Now you see, they had to get rid of Margaret Thatcher, put a new face there and lo and behold, success would come their way. But first they have to get the boss a job. Now, I do not know of any openings. Are there any openings?
I am appealing to Canada. I am looking out there and asking: Is there a corporate boardroom that has an opening? Iron Ore is no longer there. That is gone. It cannot go back. Is there some opening? Is there some-
Supply
body out there who can save Canada and give the Prime Minister a job?


Robert Daniel Nault: Ed Broadbent.


John R. Rodriguez: I think this is what they are looking for. In fact they have head-hunters fanning out across the countiy, trying to find the appropriate niche for the Prime Minister. Floyd Laughren has an opening for the head croupier for his casinos, so I think we should put Bugsy Mulroney in charge of the casinos. He is great at rolling dice and he can add up to seven. That is snake eyes. Double seven and you are in.
This government is not going to call an election now because it has to resolve the question of leadership. I say seriously, and I say it to the Conservatives, that I think it is not too late for the people in the back-benches to get together and go to the Prime Minister and say: "You had better jump because we are going to push you. I think you cannot go on without a renewed mandate. The issues facing the country are too important for you to shillyshally and dilly-dally, hoping for a better day and more peaking back down to 14 per cent".
I say to them to screw up their courage and go forward with the job that they have to do. They did it before with John Diefenbaker. They can do it again.


Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I found the speech and comments of the hon. member for Nickel Belt very entertaining, to say the least. It would have been more helpful if there was more content. I did find particularly humorous his encouragement that we should change our leadership. I am sure that is something his party would very much want us to do since it obviously fears ever having to face the Right Hon. Prime Minister again and to be outdone as they were twice before.
I would also like to say that I was intrigued by his comments about the rats that left our ship, the ones that went across the floor. One ended up in the Liberal Party that supports the GST, with some tinkering of course. We all understand what that means, but they are going to keep it. The other one, we hear recently, is now shopping around. He is not sure whether he is going to go to the Liberal Party which supports the GST or the Reform Party which supports the GST. He has even suggested he might come back to us, although I think that would be highly improbable.

April 27, 1992
Supply
I wonder if the hon. member for Nickel Belt could tell us if the NDP in its upcoming Ontario budget is going to do away with its consumption tax, the Ontario sales tax, or does he think it is going to increase it? Could he also give us some comments about his own party's position on that very difficult decision that this party took and how it is going to approach the GST when it goes into the next election? Is it going to keep its position of saying it is going to eliminate it? Will he make a commitment today that his party will go into the next election saying that there will be no federal consumption tax?
Is that his position, or is his party just hiding around this issue, letting us take the heat on it and pretending that in fact it is going to do away with the GST when really all it is going to do is modify it and perhaps increase it to 15 per cent or so?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could have put more content in my speech, but like the Tory policy cupboard it is like a cuckoo's nest.
Let me say where we stand on the GST. We have said consistently all during the fight over the GST that it was not the way to go. Traditionally in Canada consumption taxes have been left as the fiefdom for the provinces. That is how the provinces get their revenues, partly from consumption taxes. I believe them to be regressive. This party said that they ought not to put the GST in place because we saw that as simply a money grab. We agreed that the manufacturers' sales tax was unfair, so they needed to get money if they wanted to eliminate the manufacturers' sales tax. Time and time again we put forward concrete proposals with respect to making the income tax system a lot fairer.
I identified just a couple of points in my speech. One was the trust accounts for the very rich in this country which now total some $35 billion to $36 billion, and not one penny of tax has been paid. How was that accumulated? It was accumulated within an atmosphere of collective Canadianism. It did not just drop out of a tree, brother. I want to say that. Not one penny of tax has been paid on that wealth.
We also said that they ought not to be allowing write-offs to corporations such as the costs of lobbyists. The other one has to do with the rip-off of the three-martini lunch which costs Canadian taxpayers $1 billion.
There are people, individual business types, who are cheating the government on the three-martini lunch during which they are actually entertaining their family and friends and they have nothing to do with the cost of business.
I do not see why the taxpayers of Ontario should bear the burden in terms of the SkyDome while the corporations get a rip-off by being able to write off their box seats at the SkyDome against their federal income tax. Those are just a few of the areas. We can go through the whole list because we submitted it in committee.
There are billions of dollars. That is where to get them. If the income tax system is to be fair, it has to be progressive and redistributive. There is nothing fair about the consumption tax. I pay the GST for a haircut just as much as the person who makes $20,000 a year, $10,000 a year or $5,000 a year. I do not see anything fair about that at all. It is not fair at all.
One of my constituents just wrote to me and sent me a copy of all the GST slips that she has paid. It totalled $1,000 and she got back some $145 for a year's rebate on the GST. They are hitting the poor people all the time. That is what they are doing, and I am telling them that this party will not be continuing a tax that is so unfair and so unjust.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member for Nickel Belt. I heard him give all the reasons why an election would not be called, but I was not sure if he really wanted one or not.
Does he not think, with the condition of the economy, with the number of people unemployed and the lack of creativity coming from the government, that every time we stand and vote against the government on a money bill we essentially are saying that we challenge the government and we risk bringing on an election?
My question is very simple. Is he for an election right now or would he rather wait?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I do not want to deal with hypothetical things. I fail to see the point in spitting in the wind and having all that spittle come back in my face. That is why people who watch this place wonder whether or not we are serious. They are the ones who control calling an election.
April 27, 1992

We should be proposing some constructive ways in a day of debate, for example, on how to make the tax system fairer. That seems to me a constructive debate. But you have put forward a debate just to say that if you were sitting over there you would call an election in this situation. You would not call an election. I will tell you if we were sitting over there and given the circumstances, we would not call an election either. You would not call an election. Let us tell the truth here. This party would not call an election if we were sitting at 16 per cent in the polls and we had another year to run in our mandate. Of course we would do the same thing because we control when the election is called. Nobody calls an election when you are down at the bottom. Nobody calls one when you are down. You did not call one until 1979. You waited five years to call it.
There are all sorts of reasons why they should be taken out of office, but constitutionally they control the date of the election. We can have a nice debate here about all the bad things they have done. That is agreed. The people know that. That is why they are at 16 per cent.
I want to get out our position on a fair income tax system. How do we get rid of this bad GST for something that is more progressive, more distributive? That to me is helpful.
I participated in this to point out all the reasons why they would not. I know why they would not and you know why they would not. So there it is.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I thought as we got to the question period maybe we would find out what my hon. friend and former neighbour was really talking about.
Now I can understand that if the NDP were the government it would change the consumption tax or the value added tax into income taxes. I am sure that all Canadians will be waiting with bated breath for that one. We know what kind of income tax we would see to raise the moneys needed. Also that will trickle down to the middle income people who certainly, if they have not had some shocks, would have some with that kind of income tax. I guess we know where my hon. friend and his party are coming from.
Supply
I thought maybe I would take a little different slant than that of my hon. friend from Nickel Belt. Rather than using so much rhetoric maybe we will try to give a little more facts and talk about what the government is doing, the reasons that it must certainly carry on with doing those things and that it is very important to do that over the next remaining part of its mandate.
Over the last 30 years Canada has had significant growth among the G-7 nations. In fact it is one of the fastest growing of the OECD nations. We have enjoyed through the years a very high standard of living in Canada. We have had significant investment growth over the last 30 years and have been one of the highest job creation countries in the OECD. We certainly have had an enviable record.
Our standard of living is noted as being only second to that of the United States. A recent United Nations study puts Canada in over-all quality as a place to live second only to that of Japan. Certainly we have a tremendous country to live in, a good record and a world renowned reputation.
What has gone on in the past is never a total guarantee of what will happen in the future as far as prosperity is concerned. The world is changing in a lot of ways and in some fundamental ways. There are rapid advances in information. Other fundamental technologies have brought about a globalization of economic production. These advances, coupled with liberalized trade and the formulation of regional trading blocs, are changing the ways of doing business pretty dramatically.
We as a country through our departments of industry, science and technology and international trade are constantly working to make ourselves competitive in the kind of change that is going on.
They create real challenges for our Canadian industry. There is no doubt about it. They create new opportunities for those who adapt quickly and are able to build upon their strength in this globalized environment.
Industry, Science and Technology of Canada of course has been designed to help citizens take advantage of these opportunities. Certainly since this department was created in 1989 it has been the flagship of the economic department. Its mission is to advance Canada's international competitiveness, as I said, and its scientific excellence.

April 27, 1992
Supply
We have sitting in the House today the Minister for Science who has worked so very hard in raising scientific excellence in our country. We want to keep on promoting that scientific and technological excellence because that is what it is all about. We must carry on and do that.
The department therefore plays a major role as a leader and I wanted to bring it to the attention of the House today. We carry on in this mandate as a facilitator, co-ordinator, broker and promoter of a wide variety of interests, Canadian industry, small and medium sized businesses and their workers, the aboriginal private sector and the research and development communities represented by the universities and by businesses and government labs. 1ST looks for a lot of growth opportunities in this mandate, opportunities in some of the strategic technologies, such as biotechnology, information technology and advanced industrial materials.
The department's objective is to work with industry sectors to promote their international competitiveness, as I mentioned earlier. The challenges faced by Canadian industry are many and varied. For instance, Canada's aerospace and defence electronics industry faces very different challenges than does tourism and commercial services. They are complex and they cannot be addressed by single individual programs and initiatives or by just throwing money in, in an effort to buy solutions. That is no way and we cannot keep on doing that sort of thing. That was done by many governments in the past.
Yet certain themes do occur. When we look at the challenges faced by specific industrial sectors in Canada, we can see that the Canadian economy as a whole must readjust in the key areas in order to respond to this global marketplace that we are all involved in.
I would like to take a few minutes today to take the opportunity to highlight some of the programs and initiatives that are ongoing and important that this government continue. The Government of Canada under its economic renewal agenda plays an important role in helping industry respond again to the challenges. Deficit control has been a major element of this government. Government operations now run in the black and I think in the next few years of our mandat we want to carry on with the operations side of this government continuing in the black.
We had to take it as a government from one which was operating billions of dollars in the red to putting it into
billions of dollars in the black. We must carry on with that agenda.
We also have privatized. There are certainly other Crown corporations to privatize. Canadians are very positive and supportive about that. We have a continuing job to do in that regard as we carry on with our mandate.
We have introduced regulatory reform, including major changes to the regulations governing transportation, energy and communication industries. That of course has to carry on and work as we move into this business of an economic renewal environment. Since 1986 the government's regulatory reform strategy has ensured that business is a partner in creating regulations that will affect us. We brought them in and they have been helpful in setting up regulations that are more conducive to business building.
The economic renewal agenda also includes modernizing and streamlining Canada's intellectual property laws. The establishment of Investment Canada which encourages foreign investment has been of net benefit. Certainly in my riding foreign investment is very important with all the major multinationals that operate so successfully there.
Canada's number one trade priority is the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round of the multilateral trade negotiations, the largest and most complex ever taken under the GATT. That of course needs to be completed. Canadians are looking for this government to carry on with its expertise in having those negotiations come to a final conclusion that everyone in the House believes should be done. Certainly the government of the day needs to carry on with its mandate to have that completed.
As we in this House all know, our agenda also included the free trade agreement with the United States. Now that horizon is being expanded into the North American free trade agreement, which again is an important trading bloc that we should form as other blocs have been formed throughout the world which would be important to this market. The combined North American market, just to remind the House, will consist of 360 million people with an economic product of over $7 trillion. That is bigger than Europe. We think of the Economic Community being so vast,. This market is even bigger. It is important that this government carries on with that veiy important job.
April 27, 1992

The free trade agreement has helped Canada's trade position, as was noted by the Prime Minister earlier today in Question Period. We have a trade surplus with the United States that has jumped from $11.4 billion to $17.3 billion. That is a rise of almost 50 per cent. In the last three years, the value of Canadian exports to the U.S. has increased by almost $8 billion. Someone can say that there is something wrong with the free trade agreement, but you sure cannot say it from the statistics indicating that we have had increased trade. When you have major trade with a major country like the United States, you want an agreement set in place so you have some trading rules. Anyone who would say that we are wrong in having a free trade agreement really would have to be questioned as to their business sense.
I see the opposition is coming around and being more and more supportive of us in the free trade agreement, especially the Liberal Party which is now saying that it is the right thing to do but it is going to do some tinkering with it. I am not sure what it is going to tinker with, but certainly it now understands that a free trade agreement is the right way to go and is agreeing with the government. We must carry on with all that work we have to do to expand upon that very important North American trading bloc which is so important to our country.
We certainly have entered into a prosperity initiative. We are looking at how we can be more prosperous and keeping Canadians prosperous. As you all know we lived for many years upon our natural resources and now of course it is very important that we move into the area of human resource development, recognizing and working with the development of all our people so that we are an even more productive country by taking advantage of our human resource development.
As you know, we have tabled two papers that are in circulation and are being worked with and are going to be reported upon. Learning Well, Living Well was produced by the Employment and Immigration department. It assesses a number of learning challenges that Canada must face and will face in this decade. The second paper
Supply
is called The Productivity Through Competitiveness. It was prepared by ISTC. It focuses on five areas in which concentrated effort by Canadians will help us to compete more successively.
First, in learning, is the need to develop skills and creativity of Canadians. The second is innovation, including science and technology. The third need is to improve investment in Canada's enterprises and its innovation. The fourth component of this study focuses on the value of a strongly integrated domestic market as a base for Canadian business to compete outside Canada. The fifth area is the need to open and exploit new industrial markets throughout the world.
The steering committee that is working with all of this is conducting hearings. Certainly a government in place and a government with a continued mandate needs to take that information in and look at producing a presentation to the Canadian people as to how we should be carrying on in this area of learning and prosperity through competitiveness. We will be doing that as we carry on in the next year or so and earlier.
It is very important that this government have the opportunity in its mandate to put forth to Canadians how we should capitalize our human resources concerning the development of people, the education of people and the training and retraining of our people so that they are better able to take on and keep higher paying jobs and more highly technical jobs and to fill in the stream of what we call constant learning, in which our young people must move on into the work place with the basic literacy and numeracy skills to carry on with life-long learning which is so very needed and such an important part of what will happen in the future with our people.
Concerning our young people, we have a 30 per cent dropout rate. At one time there was a 60 per cent dropout rate in high school. The big difference is that the metal bashing jobs are gone. There are going to be higher and higher technical jobs, jobs requiring higher learning, and we must be ready for that. As the government, we are going to be moving our country into a place where that kind of ability will be enhanced.

April 27, 1992
Supply
I would like to again remind the House that this government has an important mandate to fulfil. We are doing that through many departments but today I wanted to concentrate on some facts about what the Department of Industry, Science, and Technology is doing.
I am also talking a little bit about employment and immigration, as we talk about the learning side. We are talking about the many things this department is doing to put our country into an even better economic situation and that is what Canadians are looking for. That is what this government is doing and will continue to do as we carry on with this mandate that Canadians have given the Conservative government twice in a row.
When the day comes when we have an election, undoubtedly they will reflect upon what has been done for the poor, for Canadians, through putting the building blocks together for a dynamic united and highly successful country. It is one of the greatest countries to live in. They will reflect upon what we have done.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member from Sarnia-Lambton. He alluded to the free trade agreement quite a bit during his speech and he knows, I know and every Canadian knows that the present FTA is not working to the advantage of the Canadian public in general.
He knows, I know and every Canadian knows that 400,000 people have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector alone since 1989 when this FTA was put into place. I put this to him very bluntly, because he did not address the motion before the House and since there are negotiations going on concerning Mexico, the United States, and Canada-the NAFTA agreement.
Since the last agreement was passed without a doubt to the detriment of Canadians, I must admit and I tell him right now that there was a consultation. The 1988 election was held mostly on that subject, the free trade agreement. Would he not agree today that before we expand on it, before we go any further into enlarging that FTA to the NAFTA agreement, Canadians should be consulted and it would be the appropriate thing to do for any democratic government to call an election now before it signs this NAFTA agreement?


Kenneth Albert James: My colleague has a sincere interest in the free trade agreement. I am sure when discussions are going on within his party he has to follow along as to which side he is going to fall on.
He said that 400,000 jobs have been lost through the free trade agreement. I do not know whether he could list them all for Canadians and document how they were lost due to a free trade agreement.
Certainly when the free trade agreement was entered into, the government said there would undoubtedly be some dislocation. Certainly some adjustment will go on. He did know that. When you put our companies into a more competitive situation, a countdown is done. Maybe 10 years will not be quite enough. In the case of the major industry in my area, five years is too long. Our industry wants the countdown to be even faster. They do not want to wait five years. They can compete. They wanted the tariffs lowered so they could get into the American market.
As I mentioned earlier, we are not disputing that we are in a global, lowered barriered economy where we have to compete. Canadians want lower consumer spending.
We are getting into the NAFTA. We are talking and it seems to be very open. Writers are writing about it every day. We are getting into a negotiated situation. I do not know whether the Liberal Party does its negotiating in front of the public all the while. It does not appear like it.
In a negotiated situation like this, certainly there are a lot of negotiations that must be done by bureaucrats. The hon. member opposite is afforded the opportunity any time he wants to be briefed on the situation. It will become more and more public as we carry on if an agreement is reached. There is a point in time when an agreement is reached and one is going to receive an awful lot of information.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, it still amazes me to hear a government member who actually believes in the rhetoric. Without feeling embarrassed or without any blush on his face, he stands up in this House and says what a great economic record this government has. He is one of the few government members who actually believes it or seems to believe it.
April 27, 1992

That this member or any member of this House should be so insulated from the reality of hundreds and thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs, their farms, their sources of income, people who are losing every sense of hope for the future, the despair and the depression that exists out there, that he can still stand up in the House today and claim that everything is great, Jack. We are moving right on course. It quite astounds me.
Yes, the international trade situation is changing. There are dramatic changes occurring in the world. The question we have to address and the question the government has to answer is, is the North American free trade agreement and the American free trade agreement the best way we had to deal with it? Is it a good deal? Yes, we needed some agreement with the Americans, though much of the trade already had evolved on an item-by-item basis, where over 80 per cent of the goods we traded back and forth was not affected by any duties.
Not only does this government enter into what we consider to be a bad deal with the Americans, but at the same time it follows a policy of high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar. It is like putting a tariff on all the Canadian goods that we inflicted on ourselves. It is all backwards. We are going into a major recession and the government adds new taxes, the GST. Again it is all backwards.
The economic leadership of this government has been dreadful and Canadians by the hundred of thousands have been paying the personal price in lost jobs, in lost hopes and their lost future.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I will tell one thing to the hon. member. I want to tell him that I have invested in three small businesses. I know what it is like to be out there. Do not give me any lectures, I know. Maybe we can compare what he has invested with what I do. I know what it is like. I have covered all areas, farming, small business, retail, land development and the rest. I know what it is all about. I also know that it is necessary to learn to compete. It is necessary to learn to ring out. We cannot sit back on our laurels.
I have lived on the border of the United States all my life. I can remember as a small boy the kids from Port Huron wore Levis. We could not afford them. They were twice as expensive. We have to compete. We have to get consumer prices down. The only way we are going to have them in a competitive mode is to have a competitive business environment.
Supply
I know what it is all about to go out and invest. I also remember the late 1970s when members across the way were in government, interest rates went to 22 per cent and inflation was at 15 per cent. Does the hon. member want to tell me what it is like to run a business under those conditions? I will tell him we almost went down. We had to ring out. Yes, it is tough medicine to swallow.
It is like the kids who are now 22 years old and are now doing fine, reflecting upon what mother and dad made them do. They did not like it at the time. They did not like to have to come in early. They did not like to be disciplined. When they reflect upon it they always say: "Boy, am I ever glad that my mother and father set me straight".
We are going through tough times and the government had to make some tough decisions. Multiple decisions were taken. I believe Canadians are going to say that this government made those tough decisions and put this country on an economic path that is going to lead us into prosperity.
What does prosperity mean? It means that small business people like myself can carry on and make a decent dollar. In addition, I can hire people and pay decent wages. More than that, the biggest share of their money is not going to the consumables they have to buy. If they make a good salary but there is high inflation their money does not go very far and then they need higher wages. Then we have this escalating, terrible situation we had in the past. We have to level this economic picture out.
With these policies, the government had to make some difficult decisions. The former government, of which the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is a member, had the opportunity to change the fiscal arrangements of this country and they would not do it. They were concerned about votes.
I will tell you that this government is taking these tough decisions. We think they are the right ones and our country will be better for them.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, in the last six or seven minutes left before the House is called upon to vote on this motion, I want to say, as Liberal members before me have said today, that Canadians are dispirited. Canadians are disheartened and Canadians lack any hope, not only in this national government but as a result of the report card and the litany of experiences they have had to endure and survive for the last eight years. This situation has led Canadians, in general,

April 27, 1992
Supply
to be indifferent and cynical toward governments, politicians and national institutions.
When our House leader this morning put before this Chamber a motion of non-confidence, it was done, not for any jockeying back and forth in this House, but it was done on behalf of the mood of some 26 million Canadians from coast to coast to coast. There are by any account, by any poll, roughly 85 per cent of Canadians who neither like nor want this national government. That means that only 15 per cent-and I cannot find them anywhere-still have some confidence in the leadership of this national government.
We think those numbers are alarming, or they should be alarming to the members on the other side, because how are they to lead and inspire a country when, out of 100 people, 85 people do not wish to follow them and, moreover, have said in a number of polls, never again.
I am not suggesting that every poll is right or that every election from here on in is a foregone conclusion. I am not. What I am saying and what we are saying in the motion is that we have a country that is psychologically tired of the direction and leadership being offered by this government.
Poll after poll after poll is suggesting that Canadians do want an election. They do want an election as a way of opening the windows and allowing in some fresh air, some new air to this home called Canada. I am not saying that we are perfect, that we have all the answers or that we will indeed be the alternative. That is to be earned.
We will certainly do our share and work to demonstrate that we are capable, ready and able to capture that if in fact Canadians wish to bestow that authority on us. What we are saying and what Canadians are certainly reflecting is the desire to allow Canadians to decide.
After all, as the fall approaches we will be in the fourth year of this mandate. This Prime Minister in his pre-life as Prime Minister always said that governments should not go any longer than four years. Four years has been a well-deserved tradition in this country. He has said that under no circumstances should a government go beyond four years.
Now we have the same Prime Minister suggesting to Canadians that they should put out of their mind any
election before 1993, the fifth year of this government's mandate. How handy it has been for this Prime Minister now to argue intellectually things that were repugnant to him only a few years ago.
Yet the message that Canadians are sending to this government is that this government is not there for the Prime Minister to tinker with. This is not his country to experiment with, FTA one year and NAFTA another and perhaps play with the different regions, because this country is here for the long term.
This government is only given a temporary mandate. The decisions that we have been seeing since 1984 have been decisions that have gone to the very root of this country. In the opinion of the majority, those, decisions are certainly not in the best interests of this country.
We have Canadians who want the ability to decide and choose a new government. We have Canadians who, economically speaking, are hurting in every region of the country.
What was one mandate of this Prime Minister in 1984? It was economic renewal and the phrase "jobs, jobs and more jobs" overnight on top of it all. Yet, we just spent two weeks in our ridings. You could not go into a cafe. You could not have a constituency appointment. You could not go to a social function on a Friday or Saturday evening without being consumed in discussion after discussion with average Torontonians on the situation of the economy.
I was running into people who for the first time were unemployed and felt undignified in asking how to fill out a UI application. Students who have learned, studied and have degrees cannot find their niches. Older workers, 55 or 60 years old, with a mortgage still and looking forward to finishing another four or five years, are laid off. No one wants to invest in them. The litany goes on.
When you ask Canadians: Do you have economic renewal? Does the FTA help you in Toronto? Do the 400,000 jobs that we lost in manufacturing alone bode for a better future? Does over 10 per cent unemployment in one of the leading international cities of the world, namely Toronto, bode well for the future? On the Constitution, where this government promised national reconciliation, we have a divided House like never before.
April 27, 1992

Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Clancy
MacLaren
Mazankowski
Bosley
Cardiff
Hockin
Martin (Lincoln) Parent
Translation]
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion of the Minister of Finance at third reading of Bill C-56, an act respecting the control of government expenditures.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent in the Chamber to apply in reverse to Bill C-56 the vote just completed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The next vote will therefore be on Bill C-56 at third reading.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Anawak	Bosley
Campbell (Vancouver Centre)	Cardiff
Clancy	Hockin
MacLaren	Martin (Lincoln)
Mazankowski	Parent
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 6.25 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 28,1992