1992-02-03

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, member for the electoral district of Saint-Leonard has been appointed as a member of the Board of Internal Economy in place of Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier for the purposes and under the provisions of chapter 42, first supplement of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, entitled an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West) moved: that Bill C-270, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of allegiance), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise in debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-270, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.
This bill attempts to amend by way of the founding document of our Constitution, the oath of allegiance
members of Parliament must swear before they take their seats in this time-honoured Chamber. All members of Parliament, from Gander-Grand Falls to Saint-Maurice to Saanich-Gulf Islands, who put forward their names on ballots for general elections to the Canadian House of Commons and who win the privilege of taking their seats must swear an oath of allegiance before the Clerk of the House.
What is the nature of an oath, Mr. Speaker, be it to Queen, to country, or a general notion of collective values? Members of legislative assemblies across the world swear some type of oath after being elected to or in some cases appointed to national legislative councils. In one sense an oath is a legal requirement, in another sworn for dutiful or moral reasons.
The English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, states in his writing on liberty that an oath is a manifestation and part of the social contract. As Mill states: "What are called duties to ourselves are not socially obligatory unless circumstances render them duties to others. The only purpose for which legislative power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a community against the person's will is to prevent harm to others. His own good is not sufficient warrant."
In other words, an oath is not to be taken lightly and bears on the conduct of each member of this House. The oath of allegiance reminds us of what our primary responsibilities as members of Parliament are; the creation and passage of legislation beneficial to the common good of our country. We are sent here with a mandate from our electors with their faith and confidence in us, and we are rightly expected to act in accordance with the oath we swear before taking our seats in this Chamber.
As we all know, Canadians hold their elected representatives in less and less esteem, with less and less confidence to act in accordance with their best interests. I believe that if we are to reform our institutions, we must build from the bottom up. We must begin this process before we assume our seats in this House or take office and before we put into motion any sort of new constitutional mechanisms.

February 3, 1992
Private Members' Business
At this time when many Canadians, elected and non-elected, are thinking about what their Constitution should prescribe, let us first begin by subscribing to values of what we, as members of Parliament, are entrusted with upholding.
Last summer I was listening to a discussion phone-in program on CHML radio in my riding of Hamilton West. The particular program is hosted by a very knowledgeable, colourful individual by the name of Roy Green, whose discussion centres around issues in the public eye, issues of importance to many people.
During one particular week, Roy was talking about the oath of allegiance in relation to public institutions in Ontario. The subject matter of this particular program dealt with the removal of the oath of allegiance from the police act. People were very upset that the oath was being done away with. More recently, the Law Society of Upper Canada did away with requiring the oath to be taken by new members joining the Canadian Bar Association. That one has still got me scratching my head, Mr. Speaker.
Anyway, Roy Green's show got me thinking about our oath. When I called the Clerk's office for a copy of the oath I had sworn to-I must confess, I could not remember all the words because of all the excitement of the moment-and when I checked back to the oath, there was only mention of the Queen, period. There were no guiding principles, there was no mention of Canada.
As we are revisiting our Constitution, I believe it is high time that members also swear an oath to Canada as well as the Queen. Many people were very upset with the way the oath was being cast aside and wanted the oath to remain as is. Other callers to the radio show said that there should also be an oath sworn to Canada. I took this notion from Roy Green's show and decided that, instead of doing away with the oath as it stands, I would build upon it to recognize our history, to recognize our traditions. I decided I would swear an oath to the sovereign, but recognizing our maturing nation I would similarly swear an oath to uphold our Constitution, our laws and the institution of Parliament.
Since 1774, there has been an oath of allegiance in our legislatures which has not borne any mention of Canada. Today members swear the same oath as that prescribed
in the Constitution Act of 1867 and not a single word has been changed to reflect the idea of a sovereign nation called Canada. It is because of my respect for our institution and our traditions that I stress again my intention, through this bill, is not to do away with the oath as it stands but to build upon it.
Some members may wish to do away with the oath to the Crown entirely during these times of constitutional change. Others may wish to keep it, and it alone, as the oath they must swear before taking their seats. I propose an alternative which I believe not only recognizes and respects our past but brings home what we are and how far we have come as a country.
Contrary to what some people may think, the Quebec Act of 1774 provided for the protection and promotion of the French community. The act provided that despite attempts to religious conversion from Great Britain, Roman Catholics could hold public office. The Roman Catholic church was established by giving it the power to collect taxes. The civil code was recognized in law and the boundaries of the province were extended. The oath of allegiance did not have to be taken by any person professing the religion of the Church of Rome, recognizing that in order to ensure peace, order and good government, French members of the community would have to be treated as equal members of the community. In 1774 the oath was almost as long as that British members of the Privy Council swear to today.
It was not until the passage of the Canada Act of 1791 that legislatures were created in both Upper and Lower Canada. The oath members at that time swore to is, incidentally, the same oath that members of the British Parliament swear to today; however, even when our Constitution was patriated in 1982, when we broke all legal ties with Great Britain, our oath remained the same.
We often hear debate over what is actually Canadian identity, Canadian culture. Our identity and culture have grown since 1791 and 1867, indeed since the presence of French explorers as early as 1605. Again I say that keeping the reference to the monarchy is not because we are subjects of Her Majesty. In law we are not, although many people claim loyalty to the Crown. By keeping the oath to the Crown, in addition to an oath to our Constitution and our laws, it is to merely recognize and respect our history.
February 3, 1992

I say to those quasi-judicial bodies and government institutions which have discarded the oath to the Crown that they cannot ignore and refute our historic past. In recognition of our history and the future before us, we must build upon our traditions, not to judge them but to honour them. True, the sovereign plays less and less of a role in our society today than ever before but it is also a notion which preserves in part our identity and our history. The oath members and ministers of the Canadian cabinet must presently swear before taking their seats and offices is this: "I, Stan Kazmierczak Keyes, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second."
By contrast, members in the mother of Parliaments, Westminster in Great Britain, swear the following oath: "I do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God."
The Queen is still referred to as the Queen of Canada. It is only by looking back into history and not washing our hands of what has transpired, by not washing our hands of our common history, that we see the role of the monarchy more clearly. It is not something threatening, not something divisive; it is a treasured part of our history.
Therefore we must begin to be more assertive in who we are and what we represent as a country. If members of Parliament and perhaps an elected Senate-heaven knows, I do not wish to scare my colleagues down the hall-do not swear an oath to what is Canadian, what can we swear to?
My proposal, if passed through this House, would have members swear this oath:
I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws and the Constitution of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen and as a duly elected member of the House of Commons of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, while I have the floor I would ask for the unanimous consent of this House to adopt the motion
Private Members' Business
which I will table with you right now. In a nutshell, it asks that this bill be put to a legislative committee.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Deblois):: Negatived.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill before the House today is to amend our Constitution. According to the proposed text, each member will be obliged to take the following oath: "I will faithfully observe the laws and Constitution of Canada".
This is a most relevant reminder of the importance of the Constitution in protecting and enhancing the lives of Canadians. The Constitution Act, 1982, the fundamental law of our country, includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, our freedoms did not originate with the Constitution. The Constitution merely recognizes the four freedoms enjoyed by all Canadians: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has a very special place in the hearts and minds of all Canadians. Those among us who are aware of the lack of freedom that exists in various parts of the world understand the value of the charter as a guarantee of our freedoms.
The equality rights recognized in the charter are particularly appreciated by anyone who has ever been discriminated against either socially, politically or legally.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine most members of this House have at some time met disabled persons, native people, members of visible minorities or members of linguistic minorities among their constituents. Such meetings make us realize how important it is to guarantee equality rights in this country. The government has submitted to Canadians 28 proposals on the future of this country. Their purpose is to strengthen the Charter of Rights and

February 3, 1992
Private Members' Business
Freedoms. Seven proposals concern more specifically the recognition of our common citizenship and of this country's diversity. The government suggests amending the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include property rights. It also proposes to restrict the legislative power of Parliament and the provincial legislatures to opt out of certain provisions of the charter.
The votes necessary to invoke the override clause would be changed from a simple majority to 60 per cent of the members of Parliament or the provincial legislature. However, the government realizes that all Canadians should have their say about any major changes being suggested. The government is taking steps to encourage the participation of the general public and, more specifically, contributions by Canadians to the work of the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada. To broaden the scope of the committee's work, the federal government has initiated a series of national conferences on four major components of its proposals for shaping Canada's future.
Each of the first four conferences is sponsored by an independent institution and focuses on a specific group of federal constitutional proposals. Three conferences have now been held, the third one in Montreal, on the weekend. Canadians have told all of us what they think about the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, the reform of institutions, especially the Senate, and last weekend, about the importance of economic union. Next weekend in Toronto, the Niagara Institute will sponsor a conference on Quebec as a distinct society and on the proposed Canada clause and the charter.
At the fifth conference, sponsored jointly by the institutes and the government and to be held in Vancouver, incidentally, the results obtained in the four previous conferences will be summarized and an effort will be made to arrive at a general consensus which will help the governments act. As I just said, this conference will be held in Vancouver.
By attending the conferences and taking part in the committee hearings, Canadians show what they mean by freedom of opinion, expression, assembly and association.
By encouraging the public to participate and citizens to contribute to the hearings of the joint committee, the
government is showing its deep attachment to the spirit and intent of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that almost all the aspects dealt with in our national dialogue

those in the government's proposals, those that will be discussed by the joint committee and those that will no doubt be presented by the public-have an impact on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Recognizing Quebec's distinct character, recognizing native peoples, affirming the Canadian identity, making political institutions more receptive, streamlining government operations and preparing for a more prosperous future all directly or indirectly affect our Constitution, our rights and freedoms and our future as Canadians.
The government presented 28 proposals to foster open, animated, informed and productive dialogue with reasonable Canadians all across the country. It openly invited everyone to take part in this great enterprise of establishing a new common goal, defining the Canada of the 21st century. It proposed a partnership in peace and prosperity, a partnership in which all citizens, regardless of their age or social status, can achieve their potential and benefit from a society that today is the envy of much of the world. But for all Canadians to have their say in guiding the future of the country, hon. members should respect the spirit and intent of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In our debate this morning, Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that members of all parties in this House respect the spirit and intent of the proposal submitted to us by the hon. member for Hamilton West. Nevertheless, before the House considers the proposal to amend the oath of allegiance found in the Constitution, I would like to ask the hon. member the following questions: Would he agree that in the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all Canadians should have an opportunity to participate in constitutional renewal? Before the solemn oath that members of Parliament and senators must take is put in the Constitution, would he allow us to discuss this proposed amendment as part of the public debate now under way on constitutional renewal?
In that way, Mr. Speaker, to conclude, we would know for sure what reform and what changes our fellow citizens consider most appropriate.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a very great pleasure for me to participate in the private member's motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West. It could not be more timely, especially when we are talking about reforming the rules of the House of Commons and are debating reforming our Canadian Constitution from coast to coast to coast. This topic could not have come at a better time than on the opening day after coming back from the winter break when politicians and Canadians had time to sit back and reflect on what Canada is all about.
Let me share my experience of 40 years ago when I was attending a rural school in Saskatchewan. You know what a rural school was like, Mr. Speaker, where you had grade one to grade ten in one room with 30 students and one teacher. Each morning we were asked to rise and salute the Canadian flag, the kind of flag next to you, Mr. Speaker, which stood in the comer of this rural school house. We had to take an oath of allegiance, a pledge. We had to recite: "I pledge allegiance to this flag and to the country for which it stands, one country indivisible for the benefit of all".
This rural school teacher borrowed a bit of that oath from the U.S. pledge, but she put it into her own words. That pledge stuck with me through my whole life. It instilled in me a love for Canada, a knowledge that this is my country. When I look at that flag, I know I have to fight for the country for which that flag stands if any harm is going to come to it. I will put my life on the line. I grew up with this kind of pledge. I think what is missing in our country are these kinds of oaths of allegiance for elected politicians and for every Canadian.
Just two weeks ago I wrote an open letter to the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada. I urged the committee to look into the possibilities of a pledge that all school children could memorize as they go through our school system. This would give every Canadian something in common, a pledge to be a Canadian, a pledge that states what it means to be a Canadian, and states the duties and responsibilities of being a Canadian.
Private Members' Business
In all of the constitutional debates taking place across Canada that I am watching very closely, everyone is asking: "What is there for this group? Will the Constitution guarantee this for our region? Will the Constitution guarantee my individual rights?" Nowhere in the Constitution and nowhere in the debates do I hear: "What are my responsibilities as a Canadian citizen?"
Perhaps we should set an example by taking an oath before we take our seat in this House. We have to do that by the parliamentary rales and forms that guide us. In 1979, when I was first elected, I looked at the oath I had to take before taking my seat here. It read: "I, Jesse Flis, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II". I felt uncomfortable with that oath. I took it because I knew the Queen stood for all of Canada. She is the Queen of Canada, so I took it very proudly and obediently, but I felt uncomfortable. There was something missing. Therefore, I read the alternative I could have taken.
By the rales of the House, members who object to being sworn may make a solemn affirmation if the taking of an oath is contrary to their religious belief or if they have no religious belief. That oath or affirmation would say: "I, Jesse Flis, do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare the taking of an oath is according to my religious belief unlawful and do also solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II".
It is not against my Catholic religion to take an oath. I was uncomfortable with that form also. For 10 years this oath of allegiance has bothered me.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I raised a question of privilege in this House when one member took the oath, took his seat in this House and then went across the river and washed his hands of the oath. That should never be allowed. Such a member should not be sitting in this House. The Speaker ruled, and I accepted the Speaker's ruling.
I was very shocked after the member for Hamilton West completed his debate, giving excellent arguments why he wants to preserve our allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and then adding the very vital part which I feel we should all swear before taking our seat: "I will faithfully observe the laws and Constitution of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen". That

February 3, 1992
Private Members' Business
is what has been bothering me for 10 years as a parliamentarian. That was the missing link and the member for Hamilton West gave it to us. "I will faithfully observe the laws and Constitution of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen", leaving in all the rest: "I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II".
Many Canadians of non-British descent will say: "I am not British. Why should I swear to that?" I am not of British or French descent. But our Parliament is based on the British parliamentary system and by leaving that in we are respecting our heritage. By putting the additions in we are respecting all the other heritages that go into making up this country: of the aboriginal peoples, of the francophones, of the anglophones, et cetera.
We could have made history in this House of Commons on the opening day, but we blew it. We blew it because the whip of the government party does not read the order papers. He did not know what was going to be on the Order Paper. His first question was to the member for Hamilton West: "Did you negotiate for an agreement?" After all we heard on the TV programs, how we were going to bring decorum back to the House, how we were going to co-operate, these were the whip's opening remarks.
The member for Hamilton West is not asking that this be made law today. He wants it referred to a legislative committee. The hon. member opposite asked if there could be participation and input from Canadians. Yes, the committee could recommend that.
What is wrong with referring this to committee for further debate, further study, and improving our whole parliamentary system? It is very sad for the Whip to stand and say: "Did you negotiate an agreement?" It is very sad to open on such a note.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to making some comments on this particular motion by the member for Hamilton West.
I guess first off I will agree with the member for Parkdale-High Park. I also spent some time in the constituency over the Christmas break and found out that the people of my constituency were concerned
about constitutional reform. As with all of the comments made so far in this debate, that discussion about this particular motion is specifically lined up toward an important part of constitutional reform.
I question the relevancy at this time of this particular motion. In all of the discussions that people in the area I represent and following the discussions in these various meetings that are happening right now with the joint House-Senate committee, never once did we hear this one particular issue.
The members of my riding wrote quite a significant report on the various proposals brought forward by the government and the discussions that are going on right now. Not once did I hear this particular issue come up.
I am not saying it is not important because I think it is. The member for Hamilton West has brought forward quite a significant issue. We are concerned about the economy. We are concerned about Senate reform and, as the member for Parkdale-High Park just commented about parliamentary reform, is this the time or the place to be discussing the change of the oath of allegiance?
I say not. We should get on to the issues that are really important to the people of our country. I am not saying that this issue is not important. Unfortunately the people in my constituency and the people throughout Canada have never raised this issue. Nobody has come forward to me and said: "Mr. Bjornson, as our representative would you change your oath?"
In terms of the relevancy of this particular motion today, although I think sometimes we should take a long hard look at it, what we should be doing is listening to our constituents right now and reacting to their concerns. They have some very legitimate concerns. We should be going out and doing the parliamentary reform so that we do not have the comments that were just made by the member for Parkdale-High Park.
It is important to re-evaluate this motion. It is unfortunate that we do not have questions in this type of debate, but I would put this question to the member for Hamilton West and I probably will after the debate is finished: Why has he not taken this to the joint House-Senate committee for discussion? Why has that arena not been used to forward his specific motion rather than
February 3, 1992

the House? I think we would all feel a lot better if the discussions were brought forward in what I hope and suspect we will get from the joint House-Senate committee. Would there be unanimous consent on a group of motions to be brought back regarding constitutional reform?
It is very important that we all get involved in the constitutional reform debate. Quite possibly during that debate maybe the member for Hamilton West will stand in this House and restate his position, which he feels very strongly about. I hope he does take the time to do that.
I would like to close with a comment to all members of the House. The best way to resolve our constitutional problems is to listen to our constituents. Sometimes we have to go to our constituents and show them that there is a certain need for discussion. Maybe this debate today is doing just that, showing that there is a need, a need for this specific issue to be brought forward in the discussion. To deal with this today, when we have a Constitution that has to be revised, is not the time and not the place.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the matter that is really right at the heart of what we do and who we are as members of Parliament in this House of Commons.
After being elected but before each or any of us take our seats in this House, each one of us did take the oath of allegiance. For each of us, taking that oath stands out as a very proud moment, a moment when we realize the full weight of the tradition that stands behind us in this House.
In this bill the member for Hamilton West suggests that we expand the scope of the oath to include fidelity to the observation of the laws and Constitution of Canada and to the fulfilment of duty as a Canadian citizen and as a member of Parliament. Members may be aware that with this proposed addition, the oath for members of Parliament becomes quite similar to the oath taken by new citizens of Canada. The oath for the Canadian citizen is:
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, her heirs and successors, according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
Private Members' Business
A question which may be in the minds of members is this: Why does the member for Hamilton West suggest that members of Parliament swear a new oath, one that parallels or even may duplicate the oath for citizens?
This oath sums up some of the responsibilities of every Canadian citizen: To be loyal to the Queen of Canada and her representatives and to the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors, to be loyal to Canada, to obey Canada's laws, to respect the rights of others, to respect private and public property, to care for Canada's heritage, to support Canada's ideals.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all Canadians the right to vote in federal and provincial elections, the right to be a candidate in federal and provincial elections, the right to enter, remain in or leave Canada, the right to earn a living and reside in any province and minority language educational rights.
The principles of citizenship is a subject which may not receive the attention that it deserves. I think my colleague from across the way has raised this. Citizens by birth and by choice have equal status, enjoy identical rights and privileges and are subject to the same duties and responsibilities. Citizens are loyal to the country with allegiance to its institutions, the Canadian Constitution and the law of the land. Citizens have both knowledge and understanding of Canada's system of government, its political and cultural history and official symbols. Citizens also accept that Canada is a united federal structure and that its character is multicultural. They have a knowledge of at least one of the official languages of Canada, that being either English or French.
Citizens do promote pride in Canada, in its institutions and its various communities by striving to enhance the quality of Canadian life. They use their knowledge of the nation's structure and language to participate fully in public affairs. We have seen that quite clearly over the past few months.
Citizens honour, respect and value the contributions of individuals from various and different cultures from coast to coast. They enrich Canadian life. They contribute to the linguistic and cultural diversity that really is a hallmark of this nation.
Citizens acknowledge their responsibilities as members of the global community to support and to respect fundamental human rights everywhere and to honour all
February 3, 1992

Private Members' Business
international covenants and obligations to which Canada encompassed by the spirit and the intent in the existing is a signatory.	law concerning citizenship.
Citizens encourage the acquisition of citizenship by all who qualify and invite such persons to become equal members of the Canadian community, thereby enriching the nation and sharing in the advantages that it offers the citizens.
Citizenship is a bond of faith among all Canadians. We share values; we share commitments; we share a unity of purpose. And we do this while enjoying the diversity of so many cultures. We believe in freedom, dignity and respect, equality and fair treatment and the opportunity to participate. We care for the disadvantaged. We prefer peaceful solutions, not quarrelsome disputes.
The government has recognized that as we approach the 21st century, Canadians want to discuss, articulate and reaffirm the principles of our citizenship. This is the reason the government has proposed a Canada clause for our Constitution, a clause that acknowledges who we are as a people and who we aspire to be. The proposed statement outlines such characteristics as equality of women and men; fairness, openness and full participation by all people without regard to race, colour, creed, physical or mental disability or cultural background; tolerance for individuals, groups and communities. These are just a few points to be included in the proposed Canada clause.
Certainly over the past few weeks, indeed past few months, at the various hearings that have gone on in Canada-one in Halifax, one in Calgary and, indeed, just this past weekend in Montreal-we have heard so much about Canada being a caring nation and how people all across our country want to expand the Canada clause to make sure it represents all of us and our true feelings.
Since we are in the midst of a major comprehensive renewal of our Constitution, I suggest to hon. members that it would be prudent to incorporate the major aspects of the bill before us today into a general discussion, into a review and into the renewal of our Constitution.
Many questions regarding citizenship which are raised by this bill of the hon. member today are already
Before we proceed with this bill, I suggest that we consider the views of many Canadians who are not members of this House but who are truly interested parties.
The principles of citizenship which I outlined would prompt us to be responsive to the wishes and recommendations of all our fellow citizens. By introducing this bill, the member for Hamilton West has brought before us many, many important questions. I join with other people in this House today to participate in dialogue, not only with them but with constituents, my constituents in Calgary Southwest, and with many thoughtful people all across this country, all of whom greatly value the privilege of being a Canadian citizen and seeing what we do as we go into the next century.


Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. The bill before the House today raises a number of important questions about the roles, rights and obligations of the members of this House.
I would like to touch on certain aspects of this bill that are generally related to the renewal of our Constitution.
I think there is ample evidence that many Canadians across the country are anxious to formulate our fundamental law, the Constitution, in such a way that each and everyone of us can be proud to be a Canadian.
Some of the media claim that Canadians are sick and tired of hearing about constitutional reform. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. Actually, 1,550 private citizens sent letters to the Conference Secretariat to reserve seats at one of Canada's five conferences. The fact is that many Canadians have the impression that the present Constitution does not recognize the kind of rights and status they should enjoy as citizens of this country; in other words, they believe they do not have everything to which they are entitled as Canadians.
I think the hon. member for Hamilton West is to be commended for explaining his position on this subject. The bill presented in the House today reminds us of the responsibility each and every one of us has to look at the
February 3, 1992

Constitution of this country, to prepare proposals and to present them in order to ensure the renewal of our Constitution. However, I have one major reservation.
We are now engaged in an attempt to bring about a thorough reform of our Constitution. This massive national effort concerns, first of all, the citizens of this country, especially where the reform of our institutions is concerned, and I am thinking more specifically of the House of Commons.
The hon. member proposes to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 with respect to the House of Commons. Since all citizens who wish to do so are taking part in the current debate on the federal constitutional proposals, I think Canadians should be asked for their opinion in this instance as well. We must not deprive the citizens of this country of their right to take part in parliamentary reform. The bill under consideration is not an ordinary amendment: it affects the Constitution, the basis of our parliamentary democracy. Although the proposed amendment is short, it is very significant. Therefore it should be considered carefully.
I believe that members of all parties are perfectly aware that reforming Parliament, and especially the House of Commons, is too important to be left to members of this House alone, Mr. Speaker. Some people claim that the reputation of Parliament has suffered and that reform is necessary. Whether this criticism is justified or not, I think it is extremely important to react appropriately to the general interest shown across the country for parliamentary reform. We should therefore co-operate fully with the people and institutions in seeking ways to improve Parliament. It is most important as well to show that we are prepared to co-operate.
At the very moment when the whole country is trying to find a consensus on the reform of our main institutions, we in the House of Commons have taken it upon ourselves to make changes without widely consulting Canadians.
Some will say that Canadians are not interested in the reform of their Constitution, their institutions and their Parliament. Some will also claim that Canadians have clearly shown that they are primarily concerned with the economy, unemployment and their own security.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is an accurate assessment of Canadians' state of mind. Of course our
Private Members' Business
fellow citizens are interested in the economy and employment and their material security, as we all are. But Canadians, well informed as they are, realize full well that prosperity and unity are inseparable and that Parliament is in the best position to defend national unity. It is a forum where we can and must debate the issue and then agree to act so as to ensure a prosperous future for our country.
The amendment before us proposes to include in the oath of allegiance found in the Constitution the duties of citizens and members of Parliament. Obviously, the hon. member for Hamilton West considered his bill for a long time.
We must thoroughly amend our Constitution and in 1992, all Canadians must have a chance to take part in the process. And, despite what some of the media would have us believe, many citizens are ready to suggest quite specific parliamentary reforms that they think are not only applicable and relevant but also an important contribution to the process.
Many people proclaim that in its present form, the House of Commons is no longer the representative, democratic and equitable legislative body that 21st century Canadians need. Mr. Speaker, I think that we must avoid taking amendments out of context; instead, we should do so as part of the over-all process of constitutional renewal.
Mr. Speaker, we have already begun this process of renewal.
I would hope that the hon. member for Hamilton West will see that it is really in his interest to make his proposal part of the over-all constitutional reform process. That is how we must act and that is the procedure which I propose to follow.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak very briefly on Bill C-270.
I have to say that Bill C-270 goes right to the heart of a matter which concerns every member of this House. It is an amendment to the Constitution, one which proposes reform of one of our parliamentary traditions. I believe that every member who knows, loves, and respects this

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
House is committed to reform, to revitalize and rededicate this, our own institution.
Every one of us here representing the people of Canada must simply be determined to win unquestioned status for Parliament as the pre-eminent form and recognized champion of democracy in this country.
We have before us a formidable task: to reform parliamentary procedures, to foster more free votes, to enhance the role of members in committees so they can be more effective in amending bills, to allocate more time and higher priority to private members' bills and to ensure that seats do not remain vacant, thus denying people their representation, and major sweeping reform of the Senate.
It is indeed a formidable agenda. It is an agenda which has been placed firmly before us by the people of Canada. They have decided these are changes they want. These are changes whose time has come and our constituents have demonstrated amply that they want us to take action now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate third reading of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan.
This bill has come back from committee without substantive change. The factors that made this legislation necessary at the time of the February budget have not changed.
I will take a few moments, if I might, to describe what the bill seeks to do and why it is necessary, given the fiscal realities of the federal and provincial governments.
As part of the government's restraint program, this bill will continue the ceiling on the growth in federal contributions under the Canada Assistance Plan to the provinces not receiving equalization payments. A 5 per cent ceiling on CAP transfers to these provinces covering the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 was introduced in the 1990 budget. This legislation will extend those ceilings through to 1994-95.
The bill has been carefully designed to balance our concern for needy Canadians and our desire to avoid placing unnecessary burdens on Canadians in future. The government is well aware of how important these dollars are in providing assistance to the neediest of Canadians.
CAP contributions help to provide the most basic requirements of life-food, shelter, and clothing-as well as social support in a variety of ways.
Broadly speaking, CAP allows the federal government to share the costs incurred by provinces and municipalities in providing key social services, social assistance to persons in need, welfare services, and certain work activity projects. While the federal government specifies the conditions under which a particular program is eligible for cost sharing, the provinces are responsible for designing and delivering the programs and ensuring their comprehensiveness. Programs supported by CAP help low-income Canadians by attacking the causes as well as the effects of their problems. In addition to support for many welfare support programs, CAP payments allow people to get back on their feet and working by helping to pay for tools and equipment needed to carry on a trade or other employment.
The success of CAP is not measured by how many people are dependent on it, and that is what we hear about today, but how many people it can help to regain personal independence. This independence would be worthless without a healthy economy and the jobs to go with it. It is to ensure the long-term health of the economy, threatened by the debt problem this government inherited when it came to office, that we must put certain limits on the funds we give the provinces for these purposes.
February 3, 1992

This bill reflects a balanced approach to spending restraint. It takes into consideration the needs of Canadians during this period of economic difficulty as we recover from the recession we have just weathered. At the same time, it allows us to keep our course of deficit control because we know it is the only way to build a stable, long lasting recovery. None of the steps we have taken will compromise the social programs that are a key characteristic of Canada's sharing society. Rather they ensure that we will have a strong economy that will be able to afford these programs in the future and provide opportunities for those in financial difficulty to find independence and self-respect.
I am sure that all rational observers will agree that Canada's deficit and debt represents a major threat to this country's social and economic well-being. They threaten our goal of sustainable economic growth and our ability and the ability of all governments across the country to provide the social services that we are so proud of as Canadians. Canada's more than $400 billion debt burden and the deficits that add to it is a national problem affecting all Canadians.
It results in higher taxes, inflationary pressure, increased interest rates and long-term uncertainty. Because interest costs are such a large share of the budget-about $43 billion, or 27 per cent of total expenditures-the debt consumes funds that might otherwise be used to assist Canadians in need and to support programs Canadians want.
To effectively deal with our debt we must get back on track to reducing the deficit. This is the threshold step to get the debt under control and on to a downward path. Deficit reduction requires spending restraint. That is why we brought forward this legislation. It is part of a broad program of spending control needed to establish a positive economic environment for this country.
National problems demand national solutions. For this government to live within its means, spending restraint must be shared with the provinces. Federal transfers to other levels of government are simply too large to ignore in the effort. The financial support provided by the federal government to the provinces represents a large and growing part of the budget. That support has grown significantly.
Government Orders
During the period 1984-85 to 1990-91 that support has grown by almost 6 per cent annually. That is a much higher rate of increase than the 3.7 per cent growth in over-all program spending over the same period. As a result of this growth, total federal expenditures or contributions to the provinces, both cash and tax transfers, will reach nearly $37 billion this fiscal year. The cash component of these transfers will represent about 20 cents of every federal revenue dollar. We simply cannot afford to let this spending grow without any limits.
Measures to control the growth in one major transfer, Established Programs Financing, have already been introduced with Bill C-20. That was passed by this House last year. Complementing this legislation, the bill before us today seeks to continue the ceiling on the growth in federal contributions under the Canada Assistance Plan to the three fiscally strongest provinces. Even with the measures we are proposing, growth in federal transfers is expected to run at 3.7 per cent annually between
1991-1992 and 1995-1996, in contrast to just 3 per cent for all federal programs over the same period.
The level of CAP spending and the rate of growth over the past few years have meant that we cannot ignore this program as we work to contain expenditures. Since 1984-1985, federal CAP contributions have grown at about 7 per cent annually from $4 billion to more than $6 billion last year. In contrast again, I remind the House that federal program spending has grown at only 3.7 per cent over that same period.
Simply put, the government would not be a responsible custodian of the taxpayers' money if we allowed these contributions to grow without any restraint. We cannot spend our way out of problems with money we do not have. Some would have the electorate believe that but it is just not true. We cannot borrow the funds. Let us face it. The more we borrow, interest rates rise. There is a very high price for us to pay today and of course for our children tomorrow.
I would like to assure members of this House and all Canadians that the limits on CAP growth do not put this nation's welfare system at risk.
The assistance provided under CAP by the federal government will continue to flow in every province. For seven provinces there is no gross ceiling on federal

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
contributions. We will continue to match eligible spending on social assistance in these provinces, dollar for dollar.
For the three wealthier provinces, CAP contributions will also continue to grow but to a limit of 5 per cent annually. Even with the growth ceilings outlined in this bill, we estimate that during the five-year period in which the CAP ceiling will be in place, federal CAP contributions to all provinces are expected to grow from $6 billion in 1990-1991 to more than $7.3 billion in 1994-1995.
CAP contributions to these provinces will continue to grow at a rate that is even faster than the growth in total program spending by the government. As I am sure all members are aware, we have introduced legislation to restrain the growth in most areas of our program spending to 3 per cent annually after 1991-1992.
The three affected provinces are those best able to share in the restraint necessary to build a stable fiscal foundation for this country's economy. Each of these provinces face interest costs that are considerably less than those of the federal government. These costs represent a much lower percentage of provincial spending.
For example, the national debt I mentioned earlier in my remarks now stands at over $400 billion, equal to almost 60 per cent of the country's Gross Domestic Product. Interest payments will consume 33 cents of very dollar of federal revenue in 1991-1992.
In contrast, the combined debt of all the provinces is expected to total about $113 billion for 1991 or 16 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product and provincial debt payments will represent about 11 cents of every dollar of provincial revenue. In particular, these changes are estimated to be 11.6 per cent of every revenue dollar for Ontario, 8.3 cents of every dollar for Alberta and 4 cents of every dollar for British Columbia.
The actual financial impact of the 5 per cent ceiling on the affected provinces will vary with its level of spending. We estimate that social assistance spending in Alberta has grown less than the 5 per cent limit placed in 1990-1991. Consequently we expect that federal contributions will continue to match the growth in Alberta spending dollar for dollar for that year. The total federal
contribution will be about $530 million. For 1991-1992, the federal contribution will reach some $565 million.
However for British Columbia and Ontario, the growth ceilings will come into play limiting CAP transfers. Federal contributions to British Columbia will still top $715 million for 1990-1991. For 1991-1992 they will grow to more than $750 million. Ontario will receive for the fiscal year 1990-1991 about $2 billion, roughly one-third of the federal CAP contribution. For 1991-1992, Ontario will receive $100 million more for a total of $2.1 billion.
By taking the measured step contained in this bill, we are seeking to live within our means and the means of the guy who pays the bill, the Canadian taxpayer, while still ensuring that those most in need are fully protected. The financial discipline that we are asking for is essential if we are to further reduce inflation and interest rates. It is only in this way that we can strengthen the economic upturn that has already begun.
The fiscally responsible approach we have taken is the only way that we can generate productive long-term jobs and ensure renewed, sustainable prosperity. It is the only way to bring down inflation and to create a positive environment in which all Canadians can confidently plan for their future. It is only by ensuring a prosperous Canada with a sound financial foundation that we can maintain a strong social safety net for Canadians in need.
I would also like to point out that there is a review of all major federal transfers to provinces currently under way with an eye to improving their effectiveness and tailoring them to the changing needs of the 1990s. On the fundamentals to this discussion, I am sure there is already full agreement. The permanence and success of Canada's social programs depend on wealth and prosperity of the country as a whole. I need not remind my fellow members that prosperity cannot be legislated.
I am sure that all members of the House agree that the best assistance for Canadians in need is meaningful, permanent jobs. Job creation through sound economic management has been a priority of this government from day one.
The government's restraint efforts are even now showing results. The economy began to turn upward in the second quarter of last year and continues to grow, albeit slowly. We are expecting a growth rate of about 2.7
February 3, 1992

per cent in 1992. The OECD expects Canada to lead the G-7 in economic growth.
The conditions are in place for growth, but we are well aware that many Canadians are still experiencing the effects of the past recession. Without a doubt, we have work to do to ensure that the recovery is sound and long-lasting. If we waiver, if we let the deficit rise, inflation and interest rates will follow, choking off growth. The balanced measures we have taken, combined with economic recovery and lower interest rates, will push the deficit down.
During the recession of 1981-82, the government of the day chose a different path, allowing the deficit to balloon by $23 billion from 1982-83 to 1984-85 to a total of $38.5 billion. It is this burden of debt that we have inherited, all Canadians have inherited, from the previous government which has made the legislation we have before us today so necessary.
There are no quick, painless remedies to our debt problem, only difficult responsibilities we owe to Canadians. The extension of growth ceilings on CAP transfers flows directly from these responsibilities. I urge all members of this House to support this motion and to join us in accepting our fiscal responsibility to all Canadians.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for his remarks. Of all the ministers in this government, he perhaps lays it on the line most clearly. The fact that he has not been able to change the line of the government, change its thinking on this piece of legislation and change its thinking about what is going on in this country, is a testimony both to his own honesty and to the stupidity of the government.
In taking a look at this particular piece of legislation, I am struck by the fact that no matter what group has appeared in front of the committee, no matter which speeches have been given in the House of Commons, no matter which commentator you follow, no matter what the courts have said and no matter what evidence has been presented to this government, this government has failed to change one part of this legislation or one iota of its strategy.
This piece of legislation, Bill C-32, was considered at length by the committee on finance in a special set of hearings that attracted not the usual business oriented

Government Orders
groups to their finance committee, but a long line of groups interested in social policy.
This is not strictly a budgetary act, but is the implementation of a very Draconian social policy. One of the strategies followed by this government since 1985 has been the use of the budget to introduce pieces of legislation which have undermined the current social policy developed in this country since the 1930s.
The evidence is now overwhelming that Canadians are being hurt by the strategy of the federal government. It does not only apply to the reality of the recession. I cannot believe I heard it, but I think I heard the minister say the past recession. If it has passed for him I guess his cheque comes in every month, but it has not passed for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are still looking for work or who are still facing personal and corporate bankruptcy and are wondering where to turn next.
The fact that members of this House, after being away for six weeks to talk with constituents and to visit with different groups in our areas, can come back and give the same line is a sad commentary on the quality of representation that many Canadians are now receiving.
I must point out that during the hearings some of the groups making presentations pointed out to the federal government that there is a legal opinion that the strategy it is pursuing in Bill C-20 and Bill C-32 is illegal. In an unusual move, the House of Commons committee agreed to attach this legal opinion to the document submitted to the House and it is there for all members to review. We brought in officials from Finance and officials from Justice who were struck by the logic of this particular position. I am surprised that the minister, after having two months to consider this, has not in any way changed the government's position vis-a-vis Bill C-32.
Bill C-32 should be withdrawn by this government and fought by the opposition because the situation in Ontario is so dramatically different. To have this historical image that Ontario is a place where there is such economic growth that you can cap expenditures and make people who live there pay a price totally misses the point. Anybody who represents southern Ontario should be aware that the needs of people living in and about

Government Orders
metropolitan Toronto and in cities such as Brampton are greater than they were two years ago and that families do require the assistance of the provincial government to a greater extent than ever before. That means they need the support of the federal government to pay those budgets. This has not been recognized by the federal government. It continues to keep its head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge the importance of reforming the social policy system instead of burying people under budgetary items.
Subsequent to the introduction of this legislation, there has been a series of media accounts as to what it means to be poor in Canada. During a debate like this we should pause and think about some of the statistics and the people in this country. Do not forget that this is a process begun 50 years ago to shore up the economic reality that from time to time we go into a tailspin and from city to city, from different parts of the country, people cannot compete and cannot live in the economic system.
One of the failures of Conservative policy, not only in Canada but in the United States, has been to balance the economic and social objectives of our society. If you look at the constitutional front, we have this desire for an economic union which was trashed on the weekend in Montreal because people asked: "Where is the other side of the coin? Where is your social policy? What are you going to do to help people out?"
This marketplace that we talk about, and we on this side of the House support very strongly, also needs to protect people. It is there to serve us, to further our individual interest and to further our small business. It is not there simply to enslave us in such a way that we end up being bankrupt after a lifetime of work.
The fact that dozens of people at a meeting came to this conclusion and had to quite literally re-route the constitutional process in order to make their point is again an indication that this government does not understand the significant feeling to protect the social policy of this country.
As an aside, I would point out the constant reminder of this government about deficit.
It is very interesting that it should constantly stand up and remind the House of how poorly it has done on the
only objective it set for this country. In order to respond to the recession in the early 1980s, the Liberal government ran up a deficit for two years, a serious deficit. Since then, this government has treated this as being the reason for the collapse in the federal treasury. In the meantime, it has created by conservative estimates about $210 billion debt of its own. If you look at a similar parallel conservative coalition in the United States, in which Ronald Reagan and now George Bush convinced Americans that they had to vote for the Republican party in order to save their treasury, what do we find out? We find out that the Republican party has increased the debt more substantially than generations of Democratic governments.


An hon. member:: A trillion dollars.


David Walker: A trillion dollars, I am told by my colleague. If you look at a parallel development in Canada, the debt created by this government, whose whole raison d'etre was to eliminate debt and to create economic growth, is astounding.
It is nice for the minister to remind us of the government's failure, but I think instead of reminding us of its failure it should at least have accomplished one of its objectives. Heaven knows that the people who need money on social policy, who need money on medicare, who need money on post-secondary education, are doing without. It is about time that this government understood just exactly the price being paid by a false objective which it has not even come anywhere close to fulfilling.
According to an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 19 of last year, the average family income for Canadians has dipped for the first time since
1985.	Canada had more than one million children living in poverty last year, an increase of 150,000 from 1989. The last time Canada had more than a million poor people was in 1985 when 1,047,000 were below the federal data-gathering agencies' low income cutoff line. These statistics all come from Statistics Canada.
This report also revealed in a very challenging fashion the difficulty that Canadian families were having, even during the surge in the economy of the late 1980s. When that so-called surge in the economy failed, family incomes dropped by 1.6 per cent. Young parents, families headed by a single mother, and two parent families trying
February 3, 1992

to get by on one income were among those hurt the most. Those are the people who form the backbone of family life. When you are trying to deal with the support systems for children and trying to deal with child poverty, these are the families we should be trying to shore up and not destroy.
As a whole, the 1980s marked an end, at least temporarily, to huge decade-by-decade jumps in family standards of living. In other words, the government's own agency now reveals that the Liberal strategy from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and the 1970s was a strategy that produced a support system for families and increased the wealth of Canadians. Even during the Depression and again during the Second World War we managed to better protect Canadians than during the tremendous economic growth of the 1980s.
Just think how miserable this government would have been if it had had a recession for the last seven years; it would not have known how to cope. It does not know how to create wealth. It does not know how to create jobs. As a result, all it can do is use its budget to come down with Draconian measures such as Bill C-20, Bill C-32 and previously Bill C-69.
Canadians from coast to coast are arguing and are presenting briefs to this government saying: "Back off, we have had enough, we can't withstand this any further". All this government can do is indicate through every signal, in the speech by the Minister of Finance and in the speech we just heard in the House of Commons a few minutes ago, that this path will be continued. It is as if the complaints on individual levels to individual members of Parliament and complaints made across the country though briefs to this government are just put aside and not heard at all.
In responding to this report on child poverty by Statistics Canada, the Toronto Star in its editorial castigated the Minister of Finance who had responded in the pat fashion he has that he cannot do anything about it. I quote: "What he is really saying is that Canada, one of the world's richest countries, cannot help its poor, sick and jobless". Stop and think about what that means for Canadians. We have always put ourselves in the G-7. We have always argued that we have one of the most productive economies, that we have been able to generate tremendous wealth. Yet, when it comes down to the basic question of maintaining a society that is liveable for
Government Orders
all people, we are now saying that we cannot do it any more.
Canadians hear these speeches in which somehow or other the implication is that you should feel guilty that you have spent all your money and that you should not be asking us for any more. Canadians have not spent all this money. Since 1984, the federal government has spent all this money. It has blown the opportunity. It should step aside and let Canadians with a more responsible idea of society take over and show other people exactly how to rebuild Canada. The sooner this happens, the better. As I say, Mr. Speaker, that is about the only question I am asked when I am back home in Winnipeg.
Another article that appeared in the media during the period of time since we last met was headlined "What future for kids in poverty's grasp?" It also repeated the figure that the number of poor children increased 15 per cent from 1989 to 1990 and that they now number more than one million. Think of it, a 15 per cent increase in child poverty in one year.
In 1990, two-thirds of children in single mother families were poor, making up nearly 40 per cent of the total number of poor kids. Ontario's welfare bill is now $5.45 billion.
Here are some other stats. Girls whose families are on welfare have 3.9 times the rate of poor school performance than other girls. Boys on welfare are 1.4 times more likely to do worse than other boys. Almost one-third of children in subsidized housing have psychiatric disorders compared to one in seven children in other homes. More than 40 per cent of children 12 to 16 in subsidized housing do poorly in school. However, children on social assistance who do not live in subsidized housing do even worse.
Child poverty rates are directly tied to adult jobless rates. There is a broad consensus around the need for better job training programs, agreements on pay equity for women and higher minimum wages. The point is that it requires a strategy.
We on this side of the House have spent the last year thinking about these issues and working with Canadians to develop a strategy. We believe very strongly that this government's strategy is incorrect and that what we need to do is again unite the two principal purposes we have for the federal government in this country; that is

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
economic policy and social policy. Unless they are working hand in hand, we are not going to be able to redevelop the country that we were once so proud of. It is very important that we all recognize the significance and the imperative of integrating the two objectives of social justice and economic development.
For us on this side of the House, social policy has always represented an essential component of what we try to do as government. If the message from 60 years of Liberal government is that we have best represented the whole nation, that we have best articulated national values, aspirations and purpose, then that is why social policy has been so fundamental to the way we have governed in the past. In order to make ourselves a society distinct from the United States, and without being negative in the nationalism but being proud of Canada, surely the social infrastructure that we set out, the best example being medicare, is the way that we have challenged people to see Canada a different and a better place to live.
That is why we have opposed this government's strategy of integrating the two economies in North America without having a social policy agenda. That is why in many respects the strategy of the Europeans in integrating their economies is more forward looking and more helpful to all people. That is to say, they recognize there is a social side to the coin and that what they should be doing is making sure that workers are looked after properly and that families are looked after. The fact that there is no social policy in the original FTA with the United States, and it does not sound like there will be one in the future with Mexico, is the reason why this party, a party traditionally of free trade, has been so upset with the ramifications of the 1988-89 free trade agreement with the United States.
The Conservatives by contrast have never known what to do. On the economic side, and it is very interesting to think about this, their regimes parallel three major collapses in the Canadian economy: 1930,1960 and 1990. In the two major constitutional crises-in the early 1960s when the FLQ began to develop a base in Quebec; and in 1990, in this recent constitutional crisis, through
1992-the Conservatives were in charge.
On the other hand, if you look at the economic issues of the NDP and the experience we have had in the west, the collapse of the Manitoba economy from 1970 runs parallel to the NDP government taking power in 1969.
The decline of the Saskatchewan economy is very much parallel to the NDP being the government there. All the headlines indicate the panic that is riveting throughout the Ontario economy with the NDP in charge. It has only been the Liberal Party which over the years has been able to maintain an economic growth rate which has allowed the federal government to support provinces directly and to build up a base of expenditures, not indebtedness, which have created the social consensus which has kept this country together. This is why the Liberals have fought this piece of legislation with such determination.
The reason we are having such great difficulty putting the Constitution together right now is the fact that people do not see that this consensus and this coalition to do things, both on the social and the economic side, is no longer there.
In many areas, instead of cutbacks, we could be reforming. We would advocate during this session in the House and through the budget that the government begin to look at ways of supporting Canadians instead of ways of undermining their support systems. We could be doing more in areas such as income support, child care, health care, settlement policies, English as a second language, French as a second language, immigration, fair taxation, skills training, housing, post-secondary education, regional economic development and greater support for small businesses and entrepreneurship.
With the emergence of such a program, we would begin to see Canadians being more confident in their government and therefore beginning to make investment decisions on their own, whether as consumers or investors on the business side.
Since 1984, by contrast, the Conservative government has ignored the undeniable link between social and economic policy and made deficit reduction the top priority of the government.
The cumulative effect of the policy direction taken by this myopic government has been devastating for many Canadians. The result has been high unemployment, drastic increases in poverty levels and skyrocketing welfare rolls, a near bankrupt economy, little reduction in the deficit and, most important, little hope for a turnaround in the future.
The Conservative agenda has failed to achieve its stated goal of deficit and debt reduction. Over the past seven years, in spite of successive tax increases for low and middle income Canadians-the same Canadians

February 3, 1992

who are having their support system removed by Bills C-20, C-69 and C-32-and the Draconian cuts in transfer payments, annual deficits have been stalled at approximately $30 billion and now the national debt is expected to reach $450 billion by the next general election.
Federal social spending as a percentage of GDP has declined from 8.1 per cent in 1984-85 to 7.1 per cent in 1990-91. One lesson to be learned from this experiment by the Conservatives is that spending cuts without social investment simply do not work.
The way that we have proceeded for many generations and will continue to proceed in our social policy in contrast with the government is as follows: First is a recognition that medicare is the practical and symbolic cornerstone of Canada's achievement as a caring society. The Liberal Party began medicare. We funded it properly, we shored it up with the Canada Health Act and we will do whatever we have to do in the nineties to maintain it.
Second is a recognition that tax reform and social policy go hand in hand. Today an increasing number of working families cannot make ends meet. One purpose of federal tax policy should be to ensure that working Canadians have every available opportunity to get jobs, day care, education and housing.
Third, economic growth and social policy are two sides of the same coin. You cannot have one without the other.
Fourth, child poverty does not begin and end with children; it is intergenerational. Eradicating poverty among Canada's children requires us to deal with child care, nutrition, family violence, job preparation, housing, among several other programs.
Fifth, because social policy is an integral component of Canadian identity, the protection of a Canadian way will be included in all international trade agreements.
There are choices that Canadians can make. Through pieces of legislation which may appear minor and are short in their text, Canadians are being presented with an agenda which is very negative and very destructive to their well-being. Canadians are turning to other parties, not so much for support for their position, because I think Canadians all feel that way, but because they want
Government Orders
us to present alternatives. They want to see that other parties are thinking about ways of improving their society.
The policy process within this party, within this caucus, has been a very active one for the last two years. Thirty position papers have been produced on a whole number of issues, including social policy and tax reform. There will be a national convention in February which will present many of these ideas to the nation for consideration. There will be preparation for the next general election. People will see that at least one group of men and women have spent their time productively in the last four years, that it has not only been in opposition to the government, but it has also been in support of doing things a different way.
Perhaps through this process of formulating new ideas Canadians will begin to appreciate the protest parties, whether it be the BQ in Quebec or the Reform Party in the west. For example, Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform Party, says he would abolish the Canada Health Act. That would mean abolishing universality and allowing the introduction of user fees.
Perhaps once these debates begin to take place seriously, Canadians will understand where they should turn to for support for programs as fundamental to the future of this country as medicare, as well as CAP and a number of other programs, one of which, believe it or not, is day care. At the very time that this government has been hinting with one announcement after another that there is going to be a broad initiative dealing with child poverty, it has also gone about capping CAP, which has had exactly the opposite effect. It cuts down the room that provinces have to manoeuvre within the fundamentals of our society.
For the last year and a half a subcommittee of the House of Commons has been reviewing issues of poverty. This committee heard from one group after another. Our caucus committee heard from many other groups. We began to formulate some ideas about what should be done to deal with this issue. We stood up against Bills C-20 and C-32 and will continue to fight Bill C-32. However, we have also seen that Canadians are anxious that something be done right away. If you are creating debt, let us be clear about it. This government does not create wealth; it creates debt. It creates about $30 billion worth of debt a year and does not know what to do with it all. Instead of creating debt, which then in turn has to be

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
handled by every working Canadian, we should be trying to create wealth.
People form governments for a reason. The economy has a power of its own, whether it be within this country, Europe or the United States. The power of society generally rests in the economy. There has been a 200 year struggle in this country-against the family compact to begin with, against Britain, against the United States-to form a government as an expression of political power. You express political power for a reason: in opposition to the economic forces which are undermining your life, to balance off the marketplace. You have to aggressively support a government against those forces. People get very upset when they see that the government they have voted for, the institution that they spend millions and millions of dollars supporting, refuses to respond. Why do Canadians spend their time voting? Why do they spend time following the news if at the heart of the matter their institutional arrangement cannot respond to them? We are trying to reach out to Canadians and to say that there are ways we can respond. We understand as clearly as they do that this government does not understand. However, there are members of Parliament, not only from this caucus but from other caucuses, who appreciate the anxiety and would like to translate it into initiatives.
When the subcommittee's report on poverty was presented to the House in the last week of the session before Christmas, we applauded the efforts by members of all three parties who sat through many hearings and the efforts of the majority on the committee to bring these issues to the attention of the public. The fact is that they did get a lot of public attention and that should be honoured and respected.
On the other hand, we found the report lacking in a focus that could help Canadians see their way through the next few years. I think it is time that we as politicians set aside our differences and begin to provide Canadians with some support systems.
During our deliberations we presented a minority report. In that report we came out with eight recommendations which I think contribute to the debate on how we go about rebuilding confidence in the economy and confidence in social policy.
I would like to review the recommendations from our child investment strategy presented before Christmas. First, the Liberal Party recommends that the federal government immediately participate with provincial and territorial governments through boards of education and in conjunction with community volunteers in the provision of nutritionally balanced breakfasts, lunches and snack programs in schools throughout Canada. In other words, the major report said that we should urge others to do it, but that is not sufficient.
These programs already exist in major Canadian cities, not through any free choice but through people recognizing that if children do not have a properly balanced diet they cannot study. If they cannot study they fall behind. If they fall behind, their families fall behind and it perpetuates the weakness in our system. We want to make sure that weakness is not perpetuated and that Canadians understand there are people in Ottawa wlw* realize how desperate they must be to go to food jjatiks, how desperate they have to be to have their children given a meal at school and how much that is a denial of their dream as a Canadian to look after themselves and their family and to be put into a position where other people have to feed their children, starting at 7.30 in the morning.
Second, the Liberal Party recommends that the federal government recognize the negative impact of the recent changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act and immediately restore entrance requirements and duration of entitlements to pre-Bill C-21 levels.
In my own city of Winnipeg there is a great deal of difficulty dealing with youth, particularly aboriginal youth. They cannot get access to programs because they are not UI recipients and all the training moneys in the employment department have been moved over to look after UI recipients. If you cannot get started in the job market, how can you get training? If you cannot get training, how do you get started? You enter a vicious circle of denial.
In five years we are going to be looking at those young people who will then be 26-30 years of age and saying: "You have never been trained. You do not have a job. Where do you fit into this job market?" We have an underclass forming and none of us recognizes just how severe the crisis could be. The only way to stop it is to begin to act now, put aside legislation such as Bill C-20,
February 3, 1992

put aside Bill C-32 and Bill C-21 and begin to talk among the parties in the House of Commons as to how to reconstruct the social support system in this country.
Third is the removal of these pieces of legislation and perhaps have an all-party committee begin to review ideas such as the one put forward by the premier of Ontario and others on the social charter. Perhaps we should review other initiatives and see where we are headed in order to protect people, particularly in terms of international competition.
Fourth, the Liberal Party recommends that the federal government redesign the tax system to make it more equitable, to help families cope with the added expense of raising children and simplify the child care benefit system by April 1, 1992.
In other words, in the measures being presented in this budget, let us deal with the fact that families are having a difficult time.
Let us not just talk about the people who are on social assistance. Some families make between $20,000 and $50,000 a year but cannot make ends meet because of the cost of housing or because they are temporarily on UI. The tax system is burdensome for them. We cannot turn around and say they should be able to do it themselves. The reality is they cannot do it by themselves.
Metropolitan Canada has changed in the last 10 years, and our tax system has not caught up with the cost of living for these people. I am sure every member sitting in the House today can present stories from his or her own constituency about these living conditions.
We turn away from families in that income range and tell them they should be okay and we have done enough for them in the tax system. They do not sympathize with other people who are getting assistance. Instead of having a coalition among the different groups, you in fact create divisions. Creating divisions only exasperates the social harmony we require in this country at this time.
Fifth, the Liberal Party recommends that the federal government immediately establish a winter job creation program to counteract some of the damage already done by anti-employment policies that have had a direct impact on child poverty. In other words, as the newspa-
Government Orders
per article said and as just about every expert says, when you talk about poverty, you have to talk about the fact that the head of the household does not have a job.
With the UI system being what it is, there is a real crisis developing in this country. As people move from unemployment benefits to social welfare, the burden is going to be transferred tremendously from the municipality to the provincial government. This government can perhaps take satisfaction that its deficit is going to hover around $30 billion instead of being higher, but in reality it is creating tremendous public debt for other governments.
The historical responsibility of the federal government is to ensure that Canadians have access to jobs. When the private sector collapses as dramatically as it has over the last two years, we have a responsibility to make sure that people who want to get back to work have a program in front of them.
Some people say that all we are talking about is make work programs and they do not work. Of course they do not work, but there is a real backlog of infrastructure decisions that have to be made in this country. There is probably several billion dollars worth of work that can be identified by municipal leaders almost overnight. It is the same on the provincial side, but they need access to funds. A dollar put forward by the federal government is going to create more dollars by others.
We should not take the attitude of Canadian Conservatives in the 1920s and early 1930s, that they will all get back together again, so do not worry about it. During Diefenbaker's government they refused to respond to the 1960 recession. We have to respond. We have to show Canadians that we are not self-satisfied and we understand that they need work. We understand that people want the chance to be off social assistance, even if it is for 10 or 20 weeks.
They want to build roads. They want to replace sewers. They want to create spaces in day care, perhaps. There are things we have to do, and we are obliged as a Parliament to find ways of doing them. If we are in debt for $30 billion and do not offer Canadians any hope, then why not take the initiative, deal with that in a Keynesian sense and use the federal government's borrowing powers to create wealth and get people back to work.

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
I do not apologize for one minute for mentioning this possibility. People are paying taxes and people are on UI already. We are doing nothing for them. How do we think we make them feel better by doing less? The answer is that you make them feel rotten. It is time we developed a passion for this. Some of us represent constituencies where 30, 40, 50 or 60 per cent of the people are looking for some sign of help. Absolutely nobody is responding and saying they are sorry. Tough.
All of us here have a real obligation. We may feel sorry but we get paid. Every Canadian knows who gets paid. We get good money from those Canadians yet we are not able to do anything for them. It is with great apology that I have to go back to my constituency and tell the people in Winnipeg I am sorry, but I cannot convince them to help you. It is a horrible feeling. It is a horrible feeling when the government has been able to help others, bail out economic projects it should never have been involved in, or in the case of Ontario, help out a major aircraft builder when it can give people on social assistance only 2 per cent.
What kind of society begins to set that up? The people who have decried that for generations, turn around and choose the corporations over the people on social assistance the first opportunity they get. That is what makes Canadians crazed. That is what drives them into other parties and other forums. They want some semblance that people here are listening.
The sixth recommendation coming from our report, and again we have tried to get this economy started immediately, is that the federal government announce its intention to have an accelerated job creation program for students and youth in place by the summer of 1992.
The cashless student is becoming a focal point of the younger generation. They are not able to find summer work and are facing tuition increases somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent compounded annually. Access to programs they want are severely limited. They are forced to extend their programming over four or five years, which took many of us in another generation three years to complete. This is slow impoverishment. This is a slow death for students. What they need is work.
In the 1970s the Liberal government responded with several innovative programs. Students enjoyed working and had an income. They went to school and participated in the work force to become ready for the economy. This government does not want students to get ready for the economy, yet it turns around and talks about training and the competitive society. How do you get trained if nobody has a job or income for you? The answer is that you do not. You get limited to a very small percentage of the Canadian population which can afford to play by these rules. You need a level playing field. You need the chance for students to have access to jobs and support so they can get on with their education. We have no room for them in this Conservative-driven economy. There is no job creation taking place. There is a responsibility to help people find work.
There is no use speaking about this in May. You have to start thinking about it now. You have to include money for students in the budget .There is no plan coming forward. There is no consultation with students. It is time we came forward with some ideas to get this economy going.
Briefly, there are two other recommendations. We want to see the House of Commons deal more directly with issues of aboriginal poverty. In cities across western Canada in particular, the issue of aboriginal poverty is tied to the decline of funds being made available through CAP. They must be able to get some money to these families. In the report of the Conservative majority, one-half page dealt with aboriginal poverty.
Finally we have recommended, as we have several times, that the federal minimum wage be raised to $5 effective last January 1 and raised another dollar effective January 1, 1993. Historically the federal government has set the standard, and in this case as in so many cases, it is the bottom of the barrel.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, as we stand again to debate the cap on CAP, it is with the same strange sense of deja vu. Only a year ago we were debating legislation which we in the New Democratic Party felt was the beginning of the end of Canada's social programs. Then we were debating Bill C-69 which legislated drastic cuts to health and post-secondary education, and contained the original cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.
February 3, 1992

At the time, those on the government side accused the critics of this legislation of fear-mongering or exaggerating. Our predictions have come true and the government continues to follow this erroneous path of cutting funds to those Canadians who are most vulnerable: those Canadians who are living on something around 50 per cent of the poverty line. As if that is not bad enough, the government's purpose here is to reduce the money available to the poorest of Canadians even further. The government says that British Columbia, Ontario, and Alberta are fiscally strong and can afford to take the cuts they are being given. I think we have seen over the last little while that even these richest of Canadian provinces are finding it difficult to make ends meet, and are not fiscally strong.
Regardless of that, the people receiving social assistance that will be directly affected by the cutbacks in Bill C-32 are not fiscally strong. They are the poorest of Canadians, as I have pointed out. Half of Canada's poor live in these three provinces affected by Bill C-32. Being poor in a rich province is the same as being poor in a poor province.
I suggest that when those government members from British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario visit their ridings, they meet those Canadians who are the brunt of this bill. Most of them are vulnerable children who have nobody to speak for them. They are the weakest of the weak. These children are the ones who will be most affected by Bill C-32 because children make up the largest group of recipients of social assistance. When we take money from social services, we take money from children and food from their mouths.
There are over 1 million children living in poverty in a wealthy society like Canada. It is not just statistics. These are real children, real people. Yet just before Christmas I was appalled to read a quote in The Globe and Mail from the spokesperson from the office of the Minister of Finance, who said that everyone is not as rich as they once were, but this is Canada. Everyone is still pretty affluent.
This exhibits an incredible lack of understanding of the problems faced by millions of Canadians who live in poverty in this country. Everyone is not still pretty affluent and, of course, there are hundreds of thousands
Government Orders
of Canadians who never were affluent. We are not talking about reduced corporate profits here. We are talking about families who do not have the means to provide the basic necessities of life.
Food banks are not popular because people like to go to food banks. People go to food banks because after the 19th or 20th day of the month there is simply no money left to buy food to put on the table. There is no money for children, and no money for the parents either. People go to food banks because they do not want to starve. It is not a question of luxuries. It is a question of survival.
When the finance committee heard witnesses on Bill C-32, as was the case when witnesses appeared on previous pieces of legislation imposing a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan contributions to Ontario, B.C., and Alberta, nearly every witness talked about how disastrous this bill would be for Canadians trying to subsist on welfare. All those who worked the front line trying to help poor Canadians pointed out how this bill would make life worse for those Canadians who are already suffering the most.
One witness said that to the federal government the Canada Assistance Plan is one of many budget items on an expense sheet. It is just a line. To people living on social assistance the Canada Assistance Plan is a lifeline. Welfare is their means of livelihood. It is not an intellectual exercise to try to balance a budget.
We have overwhelming evidence that social assistance benefits across this country are woefully inadequate. This inadequacy affects children disproportionately in a totally unacceptable way.
Yet this government is planning to continue the cap on CAP. It is taking millions and millions of dollars out of money available for social assistance in the middle of a recession when the need is greatest. It affects children the most. When the Prime Minister recently ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, he adopted many commitments to placing children ahead of other charges on the national revenues.
He committed himself, his government and Canada to putting children first as a charge on national resources. Yet Bill C-32 will attack those very children once again by reducing the money available in those three provinces for the basic necessities of those children.

Government Orders
Article 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child says that Canada, among other nations: "must recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development".
Quite clearly, with social assistance rates at around 50 per cent of the poverty line, this commitment on the part of Canada is far from being met, and Bill C-32 will make it even more difficult to meet. Rather than heading toward responding responsibly to our commitments to the international community and to Canada's children, we are making matters worse for them. Surely this is the rankest of hypocrisy.
The ratification of the convention is not a public relations exercise, it is a commitment that Canada made to putting its children first. I hope the government will finally see the light and agree that following the regressive policies being pursued is making children worse and making Canada's commitment hollow.
The recent changes in federal social and tax policies have not helped Canada's poor, they have made matters worse. There is a litany of government initiatives which have attacked Canada's poorest, making Canada's poor pay for the deficit, pay for the extravagances of former federal governments and this federal government. It was not the poor who generated this deficit; they are the least able to respond to it and yet they are being asked to pay to get this government out of its fiscal difficulties.
It is not just Bill C-32. Bill C-21 makes unemployment insurance harder to get and it makes it run out more quickly. We have seen hundreds of thousands of new unemployed workers across this country as a result of this government's economic policies, as a result of free trade and as a result of the global competitiveness that Canada is finding it so difficult to respond to. We have more unemployed workers who are moving into social assistance more quickly because of the adverse changes made to the unemployment insurance program.
The partial deindexation of family benefits means that families who need money get less each year. The clawback on family allowance and pensions, also not fully indexed, means that the threshold for the cutoff of benefits gets lower each year. Further cuts to social
assistance and health and post-secondary education are threatening the future of medicare and accessible postsecondary education.
There is still no child care strategy, which is so necessary to ensure that many Canadian care givers can also take part in the workforce. We saw the GST and the tax credit, again not indexed, so more and more of Canada's poorest will be denied their GST tax credit as time goes on. In my province we have now seen the GST attached to water, a basic necessity, something this government said would not take place. The government committed itself to not taxing necessities when the bill was introduced, but we see it nonetheless expanding.
It is clear that this is more than just financial; this is about politics, it is about a philosophy, it is about a way of responding favourably to the government's friends and attacking those who live a life of poverty and hunger.
The minister talked about how necessary the Canada Assistance Plan was and how necessary it was to make these cuts; presumably, therefore, how necessary it is to worsen the situation of the poorest of Canadians. He pointed out what the Canada Assistance Plan does-it helps the poor. Why would this government want to cut a program that helps the poor? He talked about how the Canada Assistance Plan is useful because it provides an opportunity for people who are in need of assistance to receive that assistance, and then go on hopefully to form a part of the work force later.
By cutting the resources available to the Canada Assistance Plan, this government makes it more difficult to reform the system, makes it more difficult to assist Canadians to re-enter the job market. That is what the government says it wants to do.
There is no real commitment to employment by this government. Unemployment is getting worse. No government since the war has committed itself to a policy of full employment. That is the core of this issue and that is where I would like to end up.
It is critical if we are ever going to address the problems of the poor, which are placing demands on government resources which the government responds to by cutting the resources available to those poor, that
February 3, 1992

this government commits itself to full employment as a central core, as a central goal of government. That means a commitment to putting the creation of jobs first and foremost of the aims of government. It is more important than controlling inflation or controlling the deficit.
It means that employment is not sacrificed in order to deal with problems with the deficit, problems with interest rates, problems with inflation. It means that unemployment is not created in order to deal with these other economic problems. They are admittedly important economic problems but they should not be dealt with on the backs of the unemployed and on the backs of the poor.
Unemployment should not be created in order to reduce inflation. It should not be created in order to control interest rates. It should not be created in order to deal with other economic problems. A commitment to full employment means that other economic indicators will be dealt with in other ways, but we will ensure that all Canadians have the opportunity to adequately paid, decent jobs.
The government has not been very successful in its job creation efforts, again as committee after committee of this House has heard. We have seen increases in parttime, temporary and low wage jobs in the service sector, but we have not seen any net gain in decent paying jobs in the manufacturing sector. In fact, we have seen net losses.
If the present federal government wants Canada to be competitive, which it says it does, then why has it cut funding to education more than any other government in the history of Canada? Why has it burdened provincial governments in such a way that it is unable to function effectively to respond to the needs of the competitive world market?
If we are serious about solving our social problems, if we are serious about solving our economic problems, we cannot continue to pursue the policies that this government has pursued. We have to put full employment at the top of our agenda with all the ramifications involved including education, technical training and the need to ensure that there is a child care policy which enables people to take advantage of job opportunities. We need adequate housing, again a commitment which this gov-
Govemment Orders
emment has broken with regard to co-operatives and social housing. We need to ensure that we have a fair tax system so we have the resources needed in order to cover the costs of the programs that Canadians view as so important.
We do need a commitment to full employment. That commitment to full employment, where it is being pursued across this world by social democratic governments, has been successful in reducing the costs, the burdens of social assistance. In countries like Norway, for example, the child poverty rate is 5 per cent; in Canada it is 25 per cent. It is not an accident. There is a strategy which is available to this government if it wants to pursue it. No Liberal or Conservative government since the war has even begun to think in these terms.
It appears that we have to concentrate in dealing with this government on emphasizing the economic costs of dealing with the situations we have. It is not enough for children to be poor in this country to get this government to respond. It is not enough for people to be unemployed in this country to get this government to respond. It is not enough that students cannot attend university to get this government to respond.
It is important to recognize the economic pay-offs as well as the social and humanitarian benefits of dealing with these social problems. Fewer poor people will translate into increased tax revenues as they work and contribute to the government's efforts as well as government savings resulting from reduced demand for social security, health care, subsidized child care, subsidized housing and so on. A better educated and trained work force would not only be an important solution and response to poverty, but essential to Canada's economic survival and prosperity.
A more effective and lasting solution rather than to slash spending on social programs would be to cut the demand for social programs, to be preventive in our approach, to try to respond to the economic, social and health damage caused by unemployment and low wages, by pursuing economic policies directed toward full employment and decent paying jobs.
As we know, Canada spends billions of dollars on unemployment insurance for the jobless, on social assistance for the long-term unemployed and single parents who cannot find child care and a job, on income supplements for the elderly who work for low wages and

Government Orders
on other social and health programs which attempt to deal with our labour market induced poverty.
Why do we not concentrate on stopping that poverty and developing economic policies which ensure that people do not become poor? In this country we have put up with unemployment rates well above those of other developed nations, our competitors, without addressing those real concerns. We need a different approach and a commitment to help those who are suffering in poverty. We need a commitment to social rights.
As we heard in Montreal on the weekend, Canadians believe that we should commit ourselves to the health care programs we all view as so important to the social safety net which we have seen eroded by this government over the last seven or eight years.
We saw that commitment in Montreal and we see it across the country as we go about our business as MPs. We see people who want Canada to recognize that our social programs and our health care programs are critical to our national survival. They are critical because they provide a safety net for people so that when we attempt to deal with the economic problems that we clearly face, those people can do so with some confidence in knowing that they will not be poor and that they will be able to feed their children in the event that they might lose their job.
This government is not listening and that is why it is at record lows in the polls. If it wanted to look at what happens when governments do not listen, it should just look at those provincial governments across this country that have not listened to the complaints and the concerns of those who are most badly treated. Those governments are being defeated and that is what will happen to this government, although not before it creates so much damage. That defeat cannot be soon enough.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the speech of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. I agree with much of what he said.
I want to ask him to explain to the House why he is able to be so critical, and deservedly so, of this government's disgraceful performance in the field of education and health as evidenced in particular by this bill we are discussing today. Recently the New Democratic Party
government in Ontario, of which I know he is a staunch supporter, reduced the transfers to hospitals and universities in the province to a 1 per cent increase during the current financial year. I think he would agree with me that is perhaps both ill timed and inappropriate, particularly in the case of the universities which, according to his political colleagues in Toronto, have been chronically underfunded for years.
I wonder if he could explain to the House the fact that it seems the government in Toronto behaves exactly as the government in Ottawa does. They are both Tories and there is really no difference in how you vote.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I was expecting a question in that vein from my colleagues. Clearly, it is the case that provincial governments across this country, even those in the richest provinces, are squeezed for revenues.
They have looked in the short term to what changes they might make both on the revenue side and on the expenditure side to deal with these concerns.
Part of the problem, of course, arises as a result of accumulated Liberal debt in Ontario while the government in that province voted Liberal. Where spending was profligate to say the least in good times, the Liberal government in that province borrowed, even when it should have been salting away money for the tough times after it was defeated.
Part of the problem revolves around the creation of the debt by the Liberal government of Premier Peterson. Part of the problem and a very important part of the problem is as a result of cutbacks in transfers to Ontario. Indeed, most of the deficit in the first budget of the New Democratic government in Ontario was as a result of federal cutbacks.
While cutbacks to universities and health care raise concern, at least if they go on in the long term, in the short term it is unfortunate that they needed to have taken place. It is clear that unlike the Liberal and Conservative governments across this country, the New Democratic Government of Ontario, as with the New Democrat governments in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and the Yukon, are committed to bolstering those institutions in the long term rather than continuing to attack them.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I too agree with a good deal of what the member was saying.
In Victoria last week the minister responsible for constitutional affairs indicated, if my ears were correct, that one of the reasons his government does not want equal representation for each province in the Senate is that the have not provinces would control the Senate.
I found that astonishing for somebody who believes in sharing, in compassion and that sort of thing, a new minister of an NDP government, to say. I compliment the member's own provincial premier for in effect endorsing a Triple-E Senate. I wonder if he has any comments on what appears to be the attitude of the new NDP government in British Columbia.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I saw that exchange between the member from Edmonton and the minister of justice in British Columbia. I believe the minister advised the member from Edmonton to stop while he was ahead after getting into so much trouble with his line of questioning.


An hon. member:: While he was behind.


Chris Axworthy: Yes. He could have stopped while he was behind. That would have been an even better piece of advice.
It is clear that we are not going to have an equal Senate across this country. I do not think we need to spend a great deal of time on it. We are not going to have the province of Prince Edward Island having the same number of senators as the provinces of Ontario or Quebec and I do not think it has anything to do with the discussions that we are having today with regard to cuts in social programs.
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I want to comment first of all on the excellent comments by the member from Saskatoon.
I would be intrigued with observations that he might be able to make on the fact that CAP was a cost-shared program between the federal and provincial governments. It had strings attached. I would be interested in his observations and a comparison with some of the other programs we have in the country, in fact, federal spending on post-secondary education and health. It
Government Orders
used to be tagged to ensure that that funding did get spent in those areas. Of course, it was changed under the Liberal's six and five program.
I would be interested in his observations on the benefits of that kind of system and some of the difficulties that there might be. He will know, just for background, the difficulty of the former government in British Columbia. It was alleged in any case that it spent a great deal of post-secondary education and health money on highways. I would be interested in his observations and how he might try to resolve that issue so that we can ensure that federal transfer payments are spent in the places they should be.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, so many of these are issues that do not affect one province alone. Canadians are relatively mobile, at least in provinces outside of Quebec. They move across this country. People from Newfoundland go to Ontario, people from Saskatchewan go to British Columbia, and so on.
When we are dealing with issues of education, health care or social assistance, we are dealing with matters of national importance which affect Canada in a national way. A university in British Columbia services not only British Columbians, but Canadians from all across the country. That is why it is important that the Government of Canada respond in a national way to this issue, respond to the question of funding of universities and colleges across this country in a national way, and recognize that there is a benefit to Canada as a whole from those universities and colleges all across the country. It is important for Canada to know on what it is spending its money. It is important that the provinces spend the money that comes to them for health, post-secondary education and social assistance on those very programs.
In the social assistance area, we have seen that the tied nature of the program means that the provinces do spend the money on social assistance recipients in their provinces. Not only in British Columbia, but in New Brunswick and in other provinces, we have seen Social Credit, Liberal and Conservative governments spending federal dollars for other purposes than were desired.
Then we saw the federal government less desirous of making sure those provinces spend health care dollars

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
on health care and education dollars on education, allowing those provinces in effect to spend Canadian dollars, dollars from the federal government which were designed to recognize the national importance of health care and post-secondary education on provincial highways, about which there is not a national interest.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak on this bill on the first day of resumption of debate here in the House of Commons. We all have had time to go to our ridings and listen to what people are saying in terms of priorities that are on their minds, the concerns that they have.
Without a doubt, the number one preoccupation of Canadians, not just in my riding, and we heard this when we had caucus meetings earlier this week, is unemployment. We must develop ways of putting people back to work. In the last month to six weeks, people with jobs are even more concerned about the unemployment problem than the people who are without jobs. They naturally feel that any day or any week could be the week where either they are going to be laid off or their company could be one of the companies that is being shut down or is forced to go into bankruptcy.
It is really important. I salute the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing who talked in his speech about the issue of unemployment being right up there. I only wish he could transmit that message to his premier, the NDP premier in the province of Ontario. Just last Friday, a few days after that premier gave a speech on how important it was to put people back to work, he and his minister of municipal affairs, without even hearing a formal presentation on a job creation project just north of Toronto that would have created 17,000 jobs-the Queensville Properties project-a project that included an environmental university, some light industry and
5,000	affordable homes, was canned. They cancelled it without having a formal briefing.
I am really concerned about some of the hypocrisy that takes place when we get into this debate. I go back to the remarks of the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization when he led off this debate today. He said that this bill, this cap on CAP, is important because of the fiscal realities that we are dealing with in this country.
He said it was important because they must maintain their government's restraint program.
He talked about this bill helping put people back on their feet. This bill hurts those people who need it most, at a time in our history when we have probably never experienced such deep economic pain. How the government can rationalize this bill at this time, this cap on CAP, is beyond me. It is a further example of when this government sees a shortfall in revenue, instead of trying to figure out ways to create more wealth, it cuts. This is a government that for seven years has been retreating from its responsibility as a national government. Whenever it runs into a difficulty where there is a shortfall in funds, it cuts it, privatizes it, caps it.
We have now reached a point where this national government is so stripped and so decentralized that this institution can barely function as a national government. The people of Canada are aware of it. Quite frankly, if there is one thing that I learned in the last six weeks, it is that most Canadians think that this Parliament is irrelevant. Most Canadians believe we are not doing anything. In fact, most Canadians believe that if anything, we are making the situation worse.
I think to have this bill on the agenda the first day back, when people were looking for some leadership and some hope from this national government, is the height of cynicism. I really do. What we should be doing in this House of Commons today is debating morning, noon and night ways and means to put Canadians back to work.
If we were putting people back to work, this bill would not be necessary. The problem that we have, and the government is nervous about this, is that this year our unemployment- insurance draw will reach close to $20 billion and the welfare draw across this country will reach close to $10 billion. Just in those two funds alone, it is equal to the entire deficit of this country for the whole year. In terms of logic and priority, if we could take that unemployment fund and move it to the productive side of the ledger, we would not be debating this bill. There would be no demand on special support for those most disadvantaged in our society. The extra demand for cash would not be required because people would be leading productive lives
.

February 3, 1992

The one thing that I heard over and over again during the last six weeks in my riding in downtown Toronto is that people who are on welfare and on unemployment insurance are feeling guilty about taking that assistance. A lot of people, for the first time in their lives, have had to go on unemployment insurance and welfare in the city of Toronto. Our welfare rolls have doubled in the last year and a half. We have got people saying: "Gosh, I'd much rather be doing something in the community. Give me something to do".
There has always been a slur or an aspersion cast upon people who in the past have taken unemployment insurance and welfare. It is as though most people who are on welfare want to be on welfare. That is not the case. We have to figure out ways to get the people who are on welfare and unemployment insurance back into that work force.
We cannot just stand here and criticize the government. There are ways. I would like to start off by saying that there are 900,000 entrepreneurs in this country. I remember in 1981 when the member for then Winnipeg-Fort Gariy, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who was the minister of employment at that time when there was also a very deep recession in this country, came up with the NEED program in which for six months the Government of Canada guaranteed 50 per cent of a person's wages. For the next three months it guaranteed 25 per cent of it. When it analysed that program after its completion, it was ranked to be one of the most successful programs in terms of getting people back to work quickly.
That is the kind of initiative that we need in this Parliament of Canada today. Just because it happened to come from a Liberal minister of employment, the government should not feel shy in taking that idea, dusting it off and using it again.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I understand this is a piece of government legislation which normally requires a minister to be here in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Fee):: I have been advised that it is the custom and tradition of the House that we not mention the absence of any member. We will just resume debate, please.
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: I think my colleague, our critic responsible for social development for the Liberal Party, is naturally concerned that on a bill like this we have a bit more support from the government side. We are not just trying to be critical of its policy, we are trying to put some ideas forward that will allow us to put Canadians back to work.
I want to repeat that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had a program in 1981. It was called the NEED program. In about 90 days we put about 300,000 Canadians back to work. We used the 900,000 businesses in this country to become active and take a chance on the human capital not employed because of the deep world recession. Why can we not do the same today? Why can we not find ways to enhance our municipal infrastructure which needs rebuilding, which needs repair?
What are we waiting for? These are things that would not cost the treasury that much because they are jointly shared programs. The province puts in one-third, municipalities put in one-third, the national government puts in one-third. By the time we figure what we are already paying, that $30 billion on unemployment insurance, plus welfare, if we turn that into a productive labour force, that would get this economy kick started again.
These are the kinds of things that Canadians want to hear us talking about in this Parliament of Canada. They want to hear us debating ways in which we can get people back to work. When people are back to work, there is less stress on the health care system, less stress on family life, and less stress on all the other social services, which ultimately would mean that this cap on the Canada Assistance Plan for those most in need would not be required. We would not need to be debating this legislation in the Parliament of Canada today.
Once again the government is using this almost tunnel vision approach to facing the deficit and debt of the nation. It is an incredible thing. It has almost brainwashed Canadians into thinking that deficit and debt are the priority one issues in this country.
It has almost brainwashed Canadians into thinking that for the last seven years this government has lived within its means. This government has not lived within its means from the very first day it came into power. It came into power with a $180 billion deficit and half of

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
that $180 billion was the social cushion that we as Liberals put forward during the worst recession of the early 1980s. It was not just on unemployment insurance. We never capped CAP. We also had the special recovery projects in which we had all kinds of municipal projects going coast to coast.
When this government talks about living within its means, from $180 billion it took it to $410 billion. This government seems to somehow think that Canadians are so stupid that they will not realize that this government is responsible for $210 billion of that debt. What has it got to show for that $210 billion? It has dismantled Crown corporations which serve public policy. It has sold off lands across this country which serve public policy instruments. It has made cutbacks in every initiative.
I was in the Middle East last week, in Aman, Jordan talking to a group of Canadian small and medium-size businessmen. This government talks much about global trading and there is billions of dollars worth of business opportunity for Canada in the Middle East. In that entire region there is a very warm hearted feeling toward Canada. I must say it is mostly because of the previous Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, not this government.
This government talks about globalization and trade and yet these businessmen had their PEMD grants cut. This government has not supported global trading in the last six months for the business people of this country who want to go over there and try and write up orders that could come back here and fill our factories and create jobs. There is a total inconsistency with what its stated objectives are in terms of this fiscal responsibility and what its actual actions are. This government has not done a thing in the last six months to take a chance on the human capital that exists in this country. It has not come up with one job creation program in the last six months. People are telling us day in and day out that we have to do something to stimulate this economy, to get people back to work.
I am not saying to throw more money at it. I am not saying we should ignore the deficit or the debt of this nation. The only way we are going to tackle the deficit and debt of this nation is through full employment. The only way we are going to get full employment is by some
inspiration and support to the 900,000 entrepreneurs who are currently employing 85 per cent of this nation.
As we start this new season, this new Parliament, when Canadians are looking for some hope, looking for some initiative from this Parliament of Canada, we have to figure out a way to communicate to the government that it should take a chance on Canadians. It should stop listening to the officials in Finance who are so obsessed with the deficit that they are exacerbating it. They are stifling creativity. I know there are many good members on that side of the House who are in their own way solid, performing entrepreneurs with good ideas.
The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister must listen and give support so that we can get people back to work. Once we reduce the unemployment problem, which is the paramount issue in my mind and in the minds of any of the constituents I talked to in the last six weeks, the draw on the assistance plan is going to subside.
There will be no need to bring in this bill. Right in the middle of a period of cold winter when people need help most, the government, on its first day back, comes out with a bill that wants to restrict payments to those most in need in our society.
I think it is bad timing. I think it is in poor form, poor taste. Let us shift the direction of this House of Commons to the number one issue, job creation, even if we have to debate it around the clock until we figure out ways on which we can all agree to get people back to work immediately.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague.
I represent the riding of Sudbury. In the 1980s there was a major recession and our area was extremely hard hit. I have the voice of experience when it comes to what timely make-work projects can do to a community and the kind of boon it can be, and the kind of stimulus created. As a result of these stimulants injected into our economy in the Sudbury area in the early 1980s, today we perhaps are one of the regions hit the least, at least in northern Ontario. That should not prevent the government from preparing some kind of measures to help those other areas which are equally hard hit now. The regions may have changed. Some of them are the same.
February 3, 1992

One of the things that really strikes me with this bill which is a cap on CAP is that it will in essence curb the spending in certain areas that are considered the rich areas.
I do not know where this government has been living for the last year or so, but there are really no more well-off areas. All you have to do is look at the unemployment statistics in southern Ontario. You might as well not bother looking in any of the regions of northern Ontario because there are absolutely no jobs there, and the prospects are not looking very good. If you look at the resource sector, the mining sector, there are just not very many wealthy areas, including the west.
I am wondering why this government is pushing ahead with a piece of legislation which is behind the times.
What we have to do now is work together to redress the problems that have been created in this country and not try to shift them to people in certain areas. The people in Ontario, the people in Alberta, and the people in British Columbia are no better off than the people in other areas of the country. Why would you insist on pushing this bill further and not deal with the economic problems? Perhaps you have some statements to make to this.


Dennis Joseph Mills: In reacting to my colleague's comment, as I said earlier in my speech, this kind of action the first day back in the Parliament of Canada shows me that this government's level of creativity is really suspect.
There are literally hundreds of ways that we can put people back to work in this country. Look at the tourism opportunities in this country right now that we could be taking advantage of which would put people back to work right away. Instead of spending $30 million in promoting government programs and services, let us spend $30 million in promoting people to travel and come to Canada.
I think Canadians would like to see all of us in this Parliament locked in this room and not let out until we come up with a program that will put people back to work. In the private sector, if your business is going badly or you are having a tough time, you do not work nine to five Monday to Friday. You come in at six or seven in the morning and work until late at night. You work Saturdays and Sundays. That is what the government should be doing. It should be taking the lead and have emergency
Government Orders
debates on employment. It should work Saturdays and Sundays until everybody is back to work. Then its problem with CAP would be eliminated.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you and my colleague that it is very tough for a young entrepreneur like myself to understand why the government is not doing this. There are hundreds of thousands out there right now who fear maybe not being able to meet a payroll, or that the bank manager will not extend their line of credit when times are tough. They are counting on this House of Commons to try to solve their problems. I hope we can this week.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood has made an excellent speech. I wonder if he is despairing of the opportunity to proceed with the debate along the lines he had suggested. The reason for my asking about his possible despair is the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the government to listen to the debate, evidenced by the fact that not a single minister is here to hear his excellent presentation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that it is not according to the rules to-

It is against the Standing Orders to mention the presence or absence of another member in this House.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, but it is also customary in this House for a minister to be present during debate on a government bill.

In any case I ask the hon. member for Broadview- Greenwood if he could perhaps indicate whether there are problems getting an urgent debate on a subject like this in the House, trying to restore employment to acceptable levels in Canada, and if in fact he thinks the government is serious in its efforts to get Canadians back to work.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, most Canadians think we are irrelevant in this House of Commons. That is one thing we certainly felt listening to people when we were home

Government Orders
during the last six weeks. I know most members on this side of the House must concur with the feeling that most Canadians have. Time and time again we put ideas forward from this side of the House and they seem to fall on deaf ears. The government says that it listens. I challenge the government to initiate an emergency debate on the number one issue in this country: the issue of full employment.
I can only ask the government, and I repeat myself, to please listen to Canadians. Let us make this House respectable once again and get a program for full employment on the floor of this House before the end of the week.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, it is not a pleasure to get up and speak on this bill today. I have spoken on it at two other stages of its passage through this House. I would have thought after being home for six weeks to witness firsthand the carnage the recession has left in every single constituency in this country that the government would have come back perhaps a little kinder, gentler and wiser. It must understand this is exactly the type of legislation which will not just drive Canadians further over the abyss, but will create untold millions of throw-away people-our children-in the future.
I want to speak specifically. I have very limited time before we go into Question Period. There is something very disturbing about what is going on in this country.
Bill C-32 puts a cap on CAP. I heard the minister say this morning that this bill and this government have made sure that those who need the help the most are not affected. I hate to tell the government and the minister this, but poverty does not know geographical barriers.
I am sure the poor in metro Toronto do not think they are any better off because they live in Toronto or Ontario than the poor in Manitoba or Nova Scotia. If you are poor, you are poor and that is it. The government has come in with this amount of flimflam and said that all it is doing is capping the growth of its contribution to the Canada Assistance Program in the wealthiest provinces.
It should check its head offices and have a look at what it has done in the Ontario economy. It has driven the Ontario economy from being one it considered overheated two years ago-it attempted to anaesthetise it by putting interest rates up outrageously-into recession. It drove hundreds of thousands of children across this country into poverty.
One of the members earlier was talking about children and poverty. I looked over to the minister and his buddies and they were having a good guffaw. I do not know what the heck they were talking about, but I will tell you if anybody here ever doubts whether or not we are doing our job, talk to a mother or a father who cannot feed their kids nutritious food.
Thlk to parents who believe they are not the best thing in the world for their kid because they have to live in substandard housing. They are living in places with rats and termites and their kids go to school in worn out clothing, with no food in their bellies. It is not just happening in the slums, it is happening right across this country.
This government has some nerve to come in here today, as my hon. colleague from Broadview-Greenwood said, after witnessing firsthand the carnage that is out there, and proceed with this regressive bill. There are some pretty disturbing statistics out there. If we could strip our partisanship down just for a few seconds, we might figure out that as human beings we have a responsibility to do something here.
This is not Bangladesh, it is Canada. Yet in Canada we have over 1 million children living in poverty. Those kids do not vote. They did not vote for this government or the opposition. Damn it, they are children who did not choose to be bom into poverty. They were born of parents who live in a country where you should expect better treatment. It is a country that is wealthy enough that no one who has the skills, ability and desire should have to see their dreams collapse or their pride or integrity go down the drain because they are living on $650 or $700 a month on municipal welfare. What a great life.
There were some statistics quoted this morning. They are one of the reasons I wanted to get into the debate before two o'clock. This is not just one of those bills to fix, extend, broaden, or plug some tax loophole or some nicety of fiscal manoeuvring between one government and the next.
I am going to quote my hon. colleague from Winnipeg who has led for us in debate and has done an incredible job. He quoted from a Globe and Mail story dated Saturday, December 28. You can read this and weep. It says that between 1989 and 1990 the fate of Canada's poor children got worse. Their numbers rose by 15 per
February 3, 1992

cent in one year to over 1 million children living in poverty.
Another part of the article says that girls whose families are on welfare-listen to this one-have 3.9 times the rate of poor school performance compared to girls whose families are not on welfare. There are one of two things happening. Either those people who eventually find themselves out of a job and on welfare have kids who are not as smart, or because they are on welfare and perhaps not getting nutritious food, those children are not able to perform in the school system to their fullest potential.
You can go a little further. On the next page it said: "Child poverty rates are directly tied to adult jobless rates." It means that if a child is plunged into poverty because the government has not created the economic climate which will allow that parent to participate in the economy to the fullest of his potential then it is creating a cycle of throw away people.
I have three children of my own and I would do anything in the world to make sure that those children have every opportunity to develop to the fullest of their potential. I can imagine how I would feel or how any member of this House would feel if we knew our children could not find a job and that having to live below poverty in this rich nation would lead to their children not being able to dream about the successes that should be theirs. This government constantly denies the reality of the facts that are before us.
My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood indicated that what we need is a government which is concerned, not about keeping people on welfare below the poverty levels, but a government that is concerned about putting people back to work, making them productive, allowing them to dream, allowing them to plan for their children and for their children's children's future.
This government has done absolutely the opposite in the last two and a half years. It has come in with a series of regressive measures that has taken money away from training, job support and job creation. My goodness, look at what the Liberal government, that members opposite love to criticize all the time, did in the last recession. We came out with programs. We had a special capital
recovery program to put people back to work, to give people their dignity back.
The Speaker is motioning to me. I think my time is up, but I will continue this a little later, Mr. Speaker.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, my hon. colleagues from Hamilton East and Hamilton West and I have inquired about the government's plans for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
We have been assured that the government intends to keep this world class facility open. Yet late last year a Treasury Board document indicated that the Minister of Labour was asked to prepare a plan to close the centre. This was to be completed by mid-January of this year.
To close this unique information centre would be a tragedy for Hamilton and for working people across Canada. The centre has been living in limbo for long enough.
I call on the government to give some indication of its commitment to work place health and safety in this country.


HOUSING
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate today the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister for the announcement that 5 per cent down payments are now available to first time home buyers.
This initiative will increase home ownership, encourage personal initiative and reinforce family values. Many Canadians can afford mortgage payments for a home, especially with the present lower interest rates, but they cannot afford the down payment. CMHC calculates that 5 per cent down payments will allow an additional
200,000	Canadian households to own their own homes.

Past National Housing Act experience shows that the risk of mortgage default is virtually no different with a 5 per cent rather than a 10 per cent down payment.
In addition, this initiative should create hundreds of jobs at a time when they are desperately needed.
This announcement sends a very clear message that the government understands the current economic difficulties faced by Canadians and intends to do something to help.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration recently announced changes to the foreign domestic workers program which instead of improving the program has actually eroded it further. The changes fail to recognize work experience and, by forcing domestics to live in, leaves them vulnerable to abuse by employers.
The six month full-time training program criteria will make it virtually impossible for people from the Caribbean and other developing countries to qualify for these programs because they do not exist.
This Tory government is reverting back to the good old days of the British Empire and European trained nannies while paying lip service to multiculturalism.
I call on the government to deal with the recommendations submitted long ago by the domestic worker support groups which it has not answered. The work provided by foreign domestics must be recognized as an occupation needed in Canada. Foreign domestics must have the right to live out and their relevant experience as care givers and housekeepers must be recognized above formal training.



Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, many a Canadian child has been cradled in the arms of a nanny from another country. These women come usually from the Philippines and other developing countries and provide services greatly in demand as housekeepers, child care givers or parents' helpers. Domestics work for very little money but often feel it is reward enough to
have a job at all, coming from countries where their futures are defined by poverty and lack of opportunity.
Therefore it is hard to comprehend why the Department of Immigration is tampering with the foreign domestic program. It is setting unnecessarily high educational standards, asking for the equivalent of almost a college degree for new applicants and in effect killing the program for those who come from developing countries. It is telling them they are no longer welcome in Canada and if they come, they must live in. This is blatant discrimination aimed at those least able to defend themselves. Life has already dealt these women enough misfortune.
I urge the minister of immigration not to add to it. Restore and improve, not destroy, the program in the name of equality and human dignity.


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to convey congratulations and appreciation to the Prime Minister on behalf of grain farmers of western Canada for providing another avenue by which we can market our wheat.
The help provided by our government will not only assist our farmers but will encourage new economic aid and investment for Russia. We are helping the Russian people become democratic while ensuring that the future of Canadian agriculture will be sustained and strengthened.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, since 1988 I have demanded that the minister of health act to safeguard the health of Canadian women and remove the Meme breast implant from the market. At the same time, women from across this country who have expressed their concerns that their health was being endangered by other silicone breast implants were dismissed as being hysterical, irresponsible and uninformed.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Meme is off the market and the U.S. food and drug administration has called for a moratorium on the distribution and use of silicone
February 3, 1992

implants. Belatedly, this government has followed the U.S. lead.
Scientists have known for 30 years that the presence of silicone in the body can be a contributing factor to a host of auto-immune diseases. Both the FDA in the U.S. and the Health Protection Branch here in Canada have been aware of these problems and yet have allowed women to be used to test implants. Dr. Pierre Blais raised the alarm and was fired. Pierre Blais has been vindicated and it is obvious from what we know now that we cannot rely on the manufacturers to prove the safety of implants.
This government has dithered, dodged and denied its responsibility-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


AEROVOX CANADA INC.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of December the American parent company of Aerovox Canada announced it was closing the Amherst, Nova Scotia branch plant of Aerovox and moving all production to the United States.
This came as a surprise to all involved as the plant had just announced an expansion a few months earlier, along with a plan to move all production to Canada. The Amherst plant is more competitive and generates over 15 per cent profit on sales while the U.S. plant generates only 6.5 per cent. While generating only 12 per cent of the total Aerovox sales they contribute 24 per cent of the profit in Canada.
Based on common sense and normal business practice, the Amherst plant should be the one to stay open. Meanwhile discussions have begun with Industry, Science and Technology in an effort to locate a new product or owner for this factory and a local community committee has been formed to search for solutions. As well, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology is committed to assist in any way possible.
I urge the minister to take a personal interest in this issue because what happened to the employees in this factory in Amherst just should not have happened.


S. O. 31 TRADE
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, despite almost daily assurances in the last session of Parliament, this government appears to have given up on its efforts to negotiate a strengthened and protected Article XI in the current GATT negotiations.
This government has not yet gone the last mile to protect our supply management system which has provided stable prices for our dairy, poultry and egg producers and secure supplies for Canadians for more than 20 years.
I call on the Prime Minister to enter into bilateral negotiations with his counterparts in the United States and the European Community, directed at gaining support for the clarification and strengthening of Article XI. Also I call on the Ministers of International Trade and Agriculture to do the same with their counterparts.
As well, every effort should be made to establish negotiating ties, bonds of support with other countries which may be inclined to support our position, including Japan and South Korea.
We have had enough idle talk. Let us now see some concrete action for the dairy, poultiy and egg producers of our country.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian supply management system has fostered stable, viable poultry, egg and dairy industries in Atlantic Canada. By contrast, the American system has led to a highly integrated, highly concentrated, centralized industry.
Expectations of Atlantic farmers are that if the draft agreement put forward by Arthur Dunkel at the GATT negotiations is implemented, it will lead to the wiping out of vast numbers of Atlantic fanners.
Our farmers are pleased with the position taken publicly by the Government of Canada and with the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has taken an unequivocal position on the need for the maintenance and clarification of Article XI.

February 3, 1992
However, farm organizations are being told by sources at the Geneva talks that Canada has been less than aggressive at the bargaining table.
When it comes to negotiations, the U.S. and Europe play hardball. We must be prepared to do the same. I urge the Prime Minister and the government to direct its negotiators at the table to be vigilant, tenacious and when necessary aggressive in continuing to press the position taken by the Government of Canada at the GATT.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in metro Toronto and other parts of Canada the plight of people out of work is desperate. Those who have run out of unemployment insurance benefits see themselves as being forced to seek welfare assistance. That is not fair. The government talks of recovery but is unwilling to stimulate the economy and thus generate jobs for Canadians. It is irresponsible to tell the unemployed to go on welfare. It is irresponsible to expect municipalities and municipal taxpayers to foot the bill for this government's mismanagement of the economy.
The federal government should extend the benefit period for the unemployed, take steps to stimulate the economy to create new jobs for those who are trying to re-enter the labour force and for those seeking their first job.
Unemployed Canadians are in a desperate situation. All they want is a chance to work.


IMMIGRATION
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, last week while the House of Commons was in recess and the lights of the TV cameras were absent, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced changes to the foreign domestic workers program.
He said that the changes would help domestic workers. But the many workers out in front of Parliament today protesting do not agree. The government is again using
the guise of competitiveness to implement unfair policies.
The requirement to have a grade 12 education, a six month training course in live-in care and the ability to speak French or English will slam the door on women from the developing world.
These new requirements are not requirements for Canadians. A full high school education in the Philippines does not meet the Canadian grade 12 equivalent. There are no courses available for domestic workers in most of the Caribbean or in the Philippines.
Instead of addressing the unfairness of the current program such as violence and abuse, the minister is creating these needless standards and shutting the doors to Canada.


COMMUNITY FUTURES PROGRAM
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings -Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the Community Futures Program. This program has been the subject of many positive evaluations and reviews.
The Community Futures Program helps to plan strategies and develop initiatives that enhance a community's long-term development and improve the quality of the labour market.
A total of 221 Community Future areas, covering most of small town, rural and remote Canada, are participating and improving their local development capacities through this program.
The North Hastings Community Futures Committee and the Land O'Lakes Community Futures Committee have both offered a unique approach to addressing the needs of my large rural eastern Ontario riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington.
A third area in my riding, Centre Hastings, has applied for funding under the Community Futures Program. I am hopeful this area will be able to benefit from this program which has received a positive reception from community leaders and has contributed to a great many success stories in my area of eastern Ontario.
February 3, 1992


THE FAMILY
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important elements in our Canadian society is the family. In recent years the Government of Canada has clearly demonstrated its commitment to the family unit in this country. This has been done through adjustments to the child tax credit and through various initiatives to address family violence. More work, however, must be done not only by governments but also by family organizations and by society at large.
One such family oriented group is called "Kids First". Kids First is a national organization of parents who raise their children at home. Formed in Calgary in 1986, its thousands of members right across Canada are working hard to ensure fairness in our tax laws. Kids First is fighting for a fair deal for parents who choose to care for their children at home. Let us all support Kids First.
Let us work together for a better future for our children. Let us all work together for a better Canada.


ROBERTA BONDAR
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on January 22, 1992 Dr. Roberta Bondar from Sault Ste. Marie became the first Canadian woman astronaut to travel into space. This flight culminates eight years of training and preparation by Dr. Bondar who is a medical doctor and a neurologist.
During the eight-day flight she carried out a series of difficult scientific experiments involving more than 200 ground based scientists from 16 countries including Canada.
Dr. Bondar said before she blasted off into space that soon she would be granted the privilege and honour of touching the earth with her eyes, her heart, her mind, and her soul. She carried out her task in space with admirable courage and ability.
It is not only the people of Sault Ste. Marie who are proud of Roberta Bondar. Every Canadian admires her tremendous efforts for Canada and the world. I am sure that every member of the House of Commons joins me today in congratulating her on her tremendous achievements for mankind by this mission.
Oral Questions


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


THE LATE GED BALDWIN
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my condolences to the family members and friends of Ged Baldwin, a former member of Parliament for Peace River who passed away on December 16.
Ged Baldwin first came to this place in 1958. Over all he won eight consecutive elections. He was a good constituency man, easily and capably relating to the diverse challenges that a large and remote riding presents.
He was also a great parliamentarian and will be remembered as the father of Canada's Freedom of Information Act. His expertise in parliamentary procedure made him an invaluable member of Mr. Diefenbak-er's government.
An author, a lawyer, a farmer, a decorated World War II veteran, a civil libertarian, a pursuer of world peace, Ged Baldwin did it all. He was awarded the Order of Canada and numerous other honours and tributes befitting a statesman.
I wish to express my personal condolences to Beulah, Gerald, Bruce, Greg, Pat, Barbara, and Gwennyth, the grandchildren and the great-grandchildren. I say to them that a member of Parliament can have no finer example to emulate than Ged Baldwin.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome you and all members of this House back to this session.
In the past six weeks we all went to our ridings and got a very clear message from Canadians. They want to make Canada work again.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

February 3, 1992
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Last Friday my party proposed an emergency plan in a few points that are quite clear: a lower Canadian dollar, municipal infrastructure, training and retraining, more money for food banks, and a program to stimulate housing in two points.
Today the government has decided to implement one of them: to reduce from 10 per cent to 5 per cent the cash payment for a new house. I congratulate the government on accepting that.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The second half of our proposition involves the use of RRSP funds. That will stimulate very much the housing industry. Is the government prepared to proceed immediately with this proposal as well?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that I agree with his observation that Canadians want Canada to work. They want the country to be united and they want economic activity.
I welcome the five-point proposal that the hon. leader on behalf of his party presented on Friday. Just to go through them, the first one was the 5 per cent minimum down payment for first-time home buyers. That was under active consideration. It was announced today by my colleague, the minister responsible for housing.
The second point was to permit the use of $7,500 from RRSPs for first-time home purchasers. I can tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition that that is under active consideration.
He talked about intensifying basic skills and training initiatives. I want to remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that in 1991-92 we are spending $3.1 billion on training programs and $3.4 billion for 1993-94.
The other measure suggesting emergency federal funding for food banks and the larger one of the shared cost infrastructure improvements, those issues have been floated around for consideration. Those points were raised at the First Ministers' Conference.
The hon. leader may want to indicate how he would pay for this $3 billion initiative when Canadians pretty well made up their minds that they are not prepared to accept higher taxes or higher deficits.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, a very nice way to pay for that is to stimulate the economy in Canada. That will bring more revenue.
On Friday the Canadian Home Builders' Association said that if our program was to be implemented, the two parts of it, it would create 100,000 new jobs immediately and create 60,000 more new homes in Canada right now. I understand that to implement the second part of our proposal on housing with the use of RRSP money to pay the down payment on a house calls for a piece of legislation.
I would like to inform the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that if they want to introduce a piece of legislation now that will in fact complete the program on housing, we will make sure that this piece of legislation is passed in this House of Commons and in the Senate before the end of the week.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that would be a change from the normal practice of the opposition and I welcome that very much.
Obviously the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that there are some concerns about this particular aspect. We are trying to weigh some of the technical difficulties that might be addressed in a manner that would still provide for the usefulness of the RRSP proposal.
I might remind the hon. member, while I am on my feet, that housing starts in the fourth quarter are running at an average of 185,300 units per year. Housing affordability is at the best level it has been since the early 1980s. So there are many positive indicators.
The fact is that interest rates have come down enormously. Housing is an interest sensitive industry. I think the most important thing we can do for the housing industry is to keep interest rates down over the long term. That will provide stability and security for future home owners.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the opposition offers to co-operate with the government, the government wants to make it into a partisan debate. I want to tell the Minister of Finance
February 3, 1992

now that our plan can be implemented immediately. The home builders' association reported 152,000 housing starts in Canada last year and expects at most 156,000 this year. With the measure we are proposing today, there would be 210,000 housing starts in Canada this year. Why does the government not want to follow this plan, which would create 100,000 new jobs right away, in housing alone?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to the hon. gentleman earlier that this was a matter that was under active consideration, and that it is.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Even with the government's announcement today of lower down payments for homes, there will still be hundreds of thousands of construction workers without jobs. The Minister of Finance himself admitted last week that they had little or no prospects of going back to work this year. Does the government not realize that they can go back to work if it takes more action now, together with the provinces, municipalities and private sector?
Therefore I ask the Minister of Finance: Why won't the government immediately adopt the plan outlined last Friday by the Leader of the Official Opposition to create a national community public works program, an infrastructure program, to create needed improvements in our roads, our bridges, our pollution control and transportation systems, and to get more Canadians back to work not next year, not some time in the vague future, but now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know this may come as a surprise to the hon. member, but construction output has increased for the eighth consecutive month in the last month. We recognize the recovery is sluggish primarily due to the slowing down of the world economies, and particularly that of the United States. Obviously the hon. member suggests that we drive up the deficit further or we tax Canadians more. It is one thing for the hon. member to suggest the expenditure of $3 billion; it is another thing to find out where we will find the money.
Is the hon. member suggesting that we should add $3 billion to the deficit? Or, is he asking that we should tax Canadians more? If so, where?
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says the economy is sluggish. Why does he not level with Canadians and say it is not only sluggish, the recovery is slowing down because this government is doing nothing?
I ask the minister this: Why won't he adopt the Liberal community works plan which will get Canadians back to work, cut government spending on unemployment insurance and welfare, create wages for workers, profits for business, and generate revenue that will get the deficit down and help Canadians? Why won't this government adopt a practical plan that will create much needed hope and confidence for Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I thought this program was a Federation of Municipalities of Canada program. I am rather surprised that the Liberals have adopted it.
I repeat the answer to the hon. member: If he could provide me with some insight as to how he would pay for the $3 billion works program-


An hon. member:: A billion.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: All right, a billion dollars. Is he proposing that we increase the deficit by $1 billion, $2 billion or $3 billion? Or, is he proposing that we increase taxes? If so, who does he want to tax?


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Over the course of the last six weeks I have spoken with hundreds of Canadians, Canadians who have one message for this government, and that is that things have to change. There is a phenomenal lack of hope and sense of despair out there that is crippling this country. Right now this government's policy creates unemployment. I want to point out to the Prime Minister that unemployment is not a no cost option. Taxpayers are paying over $30 billion for the unemployed and those receiving social assistance.
I want to say to the Prime Minister that the best way to bring down the deficit is to bring down unemployment. Will the Prime Minister assure Canadians that there will be some hope in the February budget and that he will bring in a budget with job creation?

February 3, 1992
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are very deeply concerned about the level of unemployment. Because of the industrial restructuring program that we are going through, the prospects are not as buoyant as we would like, but we are not alone in this. Other industrialized nations in the world are going through the same difficulties as we are. The recession and the restructuring are very much a part of the transition that economies around the world are going through.
I can assure the hon. member that we will be doing everything we possibly can within our limitations to provide a ray of hope and a signal of confidence to the Canadian economy. As I have gone through my pre-budget consultation process, I have heard many good ideas. I am still receiving them. If the hon. leader of the NDP has any constructive suggestions I can assure her that I will take them seriously.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. There is one thing the workers of this country understand: unemployment. For instance, on Friday, 700 employees at the railroad workshops in Montreal were paying taxes and had jobs. Today, Monday, they have lost their jobs and will have to apply for unemployment insurance. What we have here is 700 workers or more who are jobless.
Is this the way to create the prosperity the government is always talking about? To have a healthy economy, this country needs a sound transportation infrastructure. Why hasn't the government invested in the transportation industry? Why hasn't the government invested in infrastructures? Why hasn't the Canadian government invested in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the most important thing that governments can do is to create a climate of confidence and a climate wherein productive investment can in fact take place.
One of the issues, that of high interest rates, was certainly a mitigating factor against that kind of investment activity. We have been successful in bringing interest rates down. We have been successful in bringing inflation and inflationary pressures down.
What we have to do now is put in place the kind of economic environment that will encourage and foster investment because through investment we can create jobs. That is the government's main preoccupation and it will provide long-term, durable jobs.
I might remind the hon. member that Canada is still a good place to invest. Witness the investment of $170 million or $175 million that is coming into the province of Quebec that was announced yesterday by the Prime Minister of Quebec.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the minister is fond of saying that they do not have alternatives except to create more unemployment. We have to create some hope in this country and hope for young people.
I want to suggest to the minister that there are alternatives and Canadians are crying out for this government to listen. Withdraw the GST and bring in a fair tax system. That is one alternative. Abrogate the trade deal. That is another alternative. Lower the dollar. That is another alternative. Establish a Canadian investment fund where pension funds can be used to invest in Canada. That is another alternative. Bring in an infrastructure program for Canada. That is another alternative.
Will the Prime Minister, as the leader of this country, give Canadians hope, try some new ideas, listen to the alternatives that Canadians and this party are putting forward?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asks if I will listen to new ideas. Indeed I will. She indicates that one element of her platform is to withdraw the GST. Perhaps she could tell us what she would replace it with.


An hon. member:: Read your mail.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend from the NDP says: "Read your mad". I will tell you what I will do. I will read my hon. friend a comment from the premier of British Columbia. When speaking in New York, Mr. Harcourt promised his government would eliminate its growing deficit before its first term expired and he stressed the need for government spending cuts and wage restraints. "We are determined to lower our deficit. You cannot spend your way out of a recession", Premier Harcourt said.
February 3, 1992


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
The principal justification for the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was to secure access to the U.S. market, yet in a number of crucial sectors the United States government is impeding Canadian exports.
Both the chief Canadian negotiator and his deputy have now concluded that the United States, and I quote: "is getting dangerously close to systematic abuse of the letter and the spirit of the agreement".
What is the government doing to ensure that such protectionist abuse is eliminated?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well that thanks to the new free trade agreement context we have a dispute settlement mechanism under article 19.
Under article 19 when there is a dispute between the two countries, instead of the United States which is ten times the size of Canada always having the upper hand, we have one Canadian, one American and a neutral chairman. We have equality with the United States which allows us to resolve these disputes and gives us equality when we have a dispute with the United States.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows perfectly well that article 19, the dispute settlement mechanism, is not working. That is precisely what the deputy chief Canadian negotiator said this past weekend when he spoke of there being no question that the United States has bent the agreement and has broken it in places.


Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: We told you
so.


Roy MacLaren: What is the government doing about this? After all, Canada faces a tough trade dispute year with a protectionist minded U.S. Congress. Moreover, the Canadian government has pursued the very policies that are least likely to enable Canadians to benefit from the free trade agreement.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: We told you it would not work and it is not working.


Roy MacLaren: Can the government state today how its proposed North American free trade agreement will prevent the abuses that it has been unable to prevent in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman poses these questions with a lack of enthusiasm because he has always felt that liberalized trade was the way for Canada to go. As he poses these questions about the FTA I think he knows the answers.
I will put to him the record. I have the details here. We have had four panel decisions rendered during 1991 and three involved review of U.S. agency determination. There was also a decision issued by an extraordinary challenge committee which confirmed our position on pork exports to the United States. The United States as a result of this ceased collecting duties on Canadian pork exports and duties totalling approximately $20 million were refunded to Canadian exporters. That is how the free trade agreement is working for this country.


BOOK PUBLISHING
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, first the Americans dictated our film policy. Now we learn that representatives of the American book industry met with Canadian government officials last March to have Canadian ownership restriction rules on book publishing and distribution changed, while at the same time this government was telling Canadian publishers that it was staunchly committed to Canadian ownership while it was busy negotiating it away with American conglomerates. Can you tell us why the double-speak?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no double-speak. The policy which I announced last week received acclaim from both the Canadian industry across the board and from affiliates operating in this country. The purpose of the policy is to ensure that we have Canadian ownership of book publishing in Canada and to ensure that Canadian book publishers are soundly financed.

February 3, 1992
Oral Questions
I am delighted with the support my colleagues have given to supporting the Canadian book publishing industry in making this important contribution to the unity and the strength of Canadian culture.


Mr. Speaker:: In recognizing the hon. member, I know that she will want to put her next question through the Chair to the minister.


Sheila Finestone: I am terribly sorry, Mr. Speaker. Through you to the minister, I just thought the minister would like to know that the Canadian culture policy was supposed to be off the table, not under the table. People are not exactly happy, as the minister would like to have us think.
Our television and radio industries were built through decisions of successive governments to limit foreign ownership of broadcasting in Canada in the sixties. Now in the nineties, will the government have the political will to apply the same measures and recover and ensure a book publishing policy for Canada in the Canadian interest?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my hon friend says that people are not enthusiastic about it. All I know is what I read in the press and it is always accurate. The Edmonton Journal of January 29 states "Publishers give Beatty rave review"; the Winnipeg Free Press, January 29, "Publishers hail protection and money injection".
We have one goal and that is to strengthen the cultural fabric of Canada. The measures which we took in the course of the past week will do precisely that by creating conditions in which Canadians will be encouraged to take over the book publishing industry in this country. There will be support to ensure that Canadian authors can get published and that Canadians will find that there are Canadian books available to read.
I think when the hon. member publishes her first book, she will be grateful for that, even perhaps when she buys her first book, she will be grateful for it.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I have a question for the Prime Minister.
All Canadians participated prior to the last election in an intense debate about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Currently there are negotiations between Canada, U.S. and Mexico and no intense debate.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to present to this House a draft of the Mexican-Canada-U.S. agreement, if such a draft exists, so that this House has the privilege of debating what this government may be committing us to.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the government has made it clear to the House many times what our objectives are. Let me just repeat them: in the NAFTA negotiations, improved access to a very growing and important market, the Mexican market; improved access to the U.S. in areas such as government procurement and financial services; greater access to North American, including Mexican inputs, to permit Canadians to compete better in world markets and also strengthening ourselves as a preferred site for domestic and foreign investment; safeguard mechanisms to protect our industries under a new trading arrangement; finally, a fair, transparent and expeditious dispute settlement mechanism.
All of these are very worthy goals and we are veiy proud to pursue them.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister if he was prepared to place in front of this House a draft of the Canada-U.S.-Mexi-co free trade agreement. Such a draft does exist and it is being kept secret from this House.
I would like to ask the minister to explain why in a phone call, Ms. Pat Norman, the press secretary to Carla Hills, acknowledged to my staff today that such a draft exists and has already been made available to Mexican senators to discuss in their caucus before it goes to the chamber. I have also spoken to the press secretary, Mr. Rosenzwaig, of the Canadian Embassy in Mexico. He confirms that a draft bracketed treaty has been made
February 3, 1992

available. The brackets are the areas where disagreements exist in the treaty negotiations.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, why this government is keeping that draft secret from Canadians while it is available to Mexicans.


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, just so the Press Gallery does not think there is any news in that question, all of the bracketed items that he has suggested have been in fact the points of negotiation that we have been discussing for months.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
There are 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work and 2.3 million Canadians who are on welfare. While the country is on its knees, this government has taken a do nothing, cross your fingers approach. I would like to ask the minister of employment specifically: What programs does he have to put Canadians back to work?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is no magic solution to put people back to work. If there were the magic to do it, I guess we would pull it right away.
There is the hard, every day work of preparing the road for recovery through fiscal restraint, through sound monetary policies and through helping our workers improve their skills.
Our efforts are beginning to show. Inflation is dropping. The prime lending rate is at its lowest level since May 1973. Through my Department of Employment and Immigration we have provided some $3 billion in training and assistance for Canadian workers last year.
We intend to spend as much in the new year trying to put in place programs which are relevant to a work force that has to compete in a global competitive economy.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, a lot of consolation that answer is to the million and a half Canadians who are unemployed.
Oral Questions
Surely the minister must be aware of how desperate the situation is. Surely he must be aware of the pain, the suffering and the anguish. Surely he must be aware that Canadians are losing their jobs and their homes. Their lives are being ruined.
I would like to ask the minister: What specifically is he proposing to put the country back to work? Is he the minister of employment or is he the minister of unemployment?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is incredible. It depends on the place you occupy in this House. I remember unemployment being at 11.8 per cent without a peep from the hon. member.
The issue is: Can we go out and make believe that we can buy our way out of the problem overnight? I know it is the recipe of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberals gave it to us in 1981-82, and I remember what happened then. Interest rates, 10 years ago this morning, were at
20.3	per cent and today they are at the lowest level since 1973. The recovery, that is the way it will occur. Those programs we have in place are intended to equip the work force with the tools and skills it needs to be competitive in a sustainable and growing economy.


DOMESTIC WORKERS' PROGRAM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Last Friday the minister announced some major changes to the Domestic Workers' Program, which is an important part of the child care system in this country. He said: "These measures respond to concerns raised by various groups and individuals".
The fact is that this weekend across Canada thousands of domestic workers and their employers were on the streets saying that these measures were discriminatory, were regressive and were taken without any prior consultation.
In light of these very serious criticisms, will the minister repeal the measures he has announced so that he can undertake a proper meeting and consultation with domestic workers and that the program can be improved and not destroyed?

February 3, 1992
Oral Questions


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in a previous incarnation, if I recall, brought changes to this program. Everything we did in the decision announced last week follows a court decision of the Federal Court of Canada and a period of review which involved extensive consultations with both employers and employees in question.
We have taken the decision to reconfirm the thrust of this program because there is a labour market need in Canada.
My prime concern under the program was to provide these persons with the protection they need. With the counselling measures that are being introduced in the new program, it will allow for a more secure environment for these workers.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that I have in my hand letters from various organizations representing domestic workers and asking why the government has not consulted with them.
[Translation\
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. According to a study by Employment and Immigration, the government is concerned that most domestics come from the Third World. It doesn't matter where they come from: these women do an excellent job. Why is the government slamming the door on women from the Third World? Why doesn't it withdraw these unfair measures and consult with foreign domestics to improve the program?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says this closes the door on part-time workers from the Third World, but I may remind the hon. member that these people who come to Canada as temporary workers may eventually become Canadian citizens. Considering how vital certain qualifications are in order to enter the labour market, it is in the best interests of the people concerned and of this country to have people with better qualifications and that was the purpose of asking these workers to have the equivalent of Grade 12.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I might say through you to the Minister of State for Small Businesses that if there is no news in what the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca said, perhaps the minister could table the document he is referring to under tabling of documents in 15 minutes time.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Surely the Prime Minister must realize that the GST is bleeding the country to death. Retail outlets are shutting down all over the place, people are cross-border shopping en masse, and the Prime Minister says that there are no alternatives to the GST.
I ask the Prime Minister: Doesn't he realize that if he was not bought and paid for by the Business Council on National Issues there would be lots of alternatives to the GST?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


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


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, if they are looking for alternatives to the GST-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Will the Minister of Finance consider as an alternative to the GST getting rid of the manufacturing tax credit, the dividend tax credit, the interest deductibility rule, the business and entertainment tax structure, and a variety of other loopholes and tax shelters that we have been suggesting for months as an alternative to the GST?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the New Democratic Party continually harping like an old broken record when it knows at least six royal commissions, all-party parliamentary studies and committees categorically concluded that the old manufacturers' sales tax had to be replaced. The question was whether to raise taxes, raise deficits, or replace it with a modem tax like the value-added tax used in 48 other countries.
February 3, 1992

Let me quote a constituent from the hon. member's province and riding. This is a small businessman who says: "I run a small company employing 12 people and sales of around $1 million per year. The GST has improved our ability to compete and export to the U.S. market. We spend a trivial amount of time administering the GST. In fact the only problem with the tax is that it does not apply to everything".
That is the feeling of many businesses across the country.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on finding the one small business person in Manitoba who supports the GST.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he not realize that the country, in combination with the FTA and the GST, is bleeding to death? What is needed now is a tourniquet. Scrap the tax. Don't slash our throats by adding a North American free trade agreement on top of what is already devastating the country.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member another example. I have a letter here from the Consumers Distributing corporation, which is a fairly large organization in Canada. After taking off the manufacturers' sales tax and adding the GST to its pricing, in its catalogue this year prices were reduced across the board by 2 per cent. If we add inflation to that, that is a reduction of 5 per cent. That is why some people support the GST.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
William John Vankoughnet: Mr. Speaker, my question through you is for the Minister of Agriculture.
As we all know, the GATT negotiations have entered a very crucial stage. Will the minister reconfirm to this House, as well as to the agriculture community in Canada, its balanced negotiating position? Do the Government of Canada and its negotiators continue to support a clarified and therefore strengthened article XI?
Oral Questions


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks an important question. We are in delicate stages of negotiations within GATT. A text has been put out by the director general of GATT, Mr. Dunkel, which ignored the position put forward by Canada and five other countries.
We have said that we were both dismayed and disappointed. Along with the supply management groups and with the provinces which have supported the position that Canada is putting forward-after all, the provinces and the supply management groups helped Canada develop the position-we will continue to put that position forward.


COMMUNITY FUTURES PROGRAM
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It refers to Community Futures.
Colchester county in Nova Scotia is completely surrounded by very successful Community Futures areas and finds it cannot compete without the futures infrastructure. Colchester applied for a futures program in November. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether Colchester will be successful in its bid.


Bernard Valcourt: As the hon. member may know, Mr. Speaker, we have decided to announce the second round of funding for that program. Second generation support will be available through a process of reselection of communities which can demonstrate continuing need. Local EIC officials will have the details of the reselection process. When the review is complete I will advise the hon. member of the outcome of the Colchester application.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Environment. In the Oldman ruling, the Supreme Court unequivocally confirmed federal jurisdiction over the environment.

February 3, 1992
Oral Questions

Given that decision, will the government be seeking an injunction to stop further filling of the Oldman reservoir until such time as the Federal Assessment Review Panel has completed its review?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the Oldman decision rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada reflects the position that the government had stated. In fact I had stated on behalf of the government in front of the Standing Committee on the Environment how constitutional and environmental issues should be dealt with.
On the specific decision on the Oldman dam case, we are now examining the consequences of that decision and will make a determination of how we think we should proceed. As soon as we do that I will be happy to inform the hon. member.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. The fact is that the dam is now filling up and there is no time. The minister has had over 10 days in which to make a decision.
The problem in Oldman is that the federal government's jurisdiction was ignored by the provinces. In the future how can the federal government hope to gain the co-operation of the provinces if it fails in this particular instance to insist and to enforce its authority now that it has been confirmed unequivocally by the Supreme Court of Canada?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to offer an example of co-operation to the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard. The day after the decision had been rendered on the Oldman dam, the Government of Canada signed an agreement with the Cree, the Inuit and the Government of Quebec on an environmental assessment for the Great Whale Project, something that the hon. member and all members on this side of the House had wanted to ask. In fact I think we had repeatedly stressed to the hon. member, on that specific issue, how important it was for us, as a government, to seek the co-operation of all
parties when faced with these delicate problems or dossiers of environmental assessment.
We intend to continue on that path with the same success.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Finance has said repeatedly in recent weeks that Canada's economy continues to grow at a very slow rate, primarily because of a lack of consumer confidence. The Minister of Finance knows that consumer confidence is lacking because this government has refused repeatedly to change the economic game plan that has put Canada in the economic mess we are in today.
Given that Canada was given a new Minister of Finance in 1991, given that Canadians are waiting for some indication of change on the part of this government, can the Minister of Finance tell Canadians, at least today, whether or not his new budget, when it comes, will represent a departure from the existing economic policy of this government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I think the hon. member would agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to maintain consistent policies both from a domestic point of view and an international point of view.
One of those policies has been to bring down interest rates on an ongoing basis and to keep them down, as well as bringing down the pressures of inflation because in bringing them down you bring down prices and reduce the cost of living. That is important to all Canadians.
It is also important to get the fundamentals right so that we can have the kind of investment necessary to generate the kind of economic activity and to accelerate the restructuring and transition, the very painful transition that we are going through.
Canada is not alone in this. Canada is joined with many other countries which are experiencing the same thing. Collectively, as a member of the G-7, we are
February 3, 1992

working in concert to bring about, in a co-operative way, improvements to stimulate growth and strengthen the economy, not only in Canada but indeed around the world.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance talks about accelerating the recovery but StatsCanada, as recently as Friday in its leading economic indicator, said that the recovery continues to "decelerate" in this country.
The government has made some small recognition that there is a problem in announcing the reduction in the down payment today on housing from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, but that is a small recognition. If you want to change consumer confidence, Canadians' confidence, the feeling of confidence in this economy there must be a change of economic plan.
I ask the Prime Minister: Prime Minister, we have a new Minister of Finance, is it not time to get rid of this used budget and bring in a new economic policy for jobs in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only assume, by the tone of the hon. member's question, that he wants the deficit to go up, inflation to go up and interest rates to go up, because he cannot have it both ways. We have to deal with the fundamentals.
He talks about negativism. I have here the February 1 Financial Post: "Financial markets point to recovery". February 3: "GDP hits upswing by summer". Quoting Ruth Genner, senior economist of the Toronto Dominion Bank: "I think we stand in a much better position than most of us realize. I think the worst is behind us and we are coming out of this recession." That is the kind of optimism, that is the kind of hope and that is what will inspire confidence.


Mr. Speaker:: We must proceed with a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have forwarded a copy of my draft remarks to members opposite and to you, Mr. Speaker. They run some 12 or 13 pages. This is a question of privilege in relation to the failure of the Minister of Finance to lay
Privilege
before Parliament an order made pursuant to section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff.
The facts on which my question of privilege is based are simple. On December 30, 1988 the Governor in Council passed an Order in Council enacting the order respecting the suspension of privileges granted under the free trade agreement pursuant to section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff. The order was registered as statutory order and regulation 89-54 and was published in the Canada Gazette on January 6,1989. This order was made for the purpose of delaying the elimination of Canadian tariffs on certain plywood and related products in retaliation for a U.S. decision not to lower its own tariffs as required under the free trade agreement.
Subsection 59(5) of the Custom Thriff provides that-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Scarborough- Rouge River is presenting to the Chair and to the House a question of privilege. I should advise the House that I have had considerable notice of it. It is a complicated matter and I know that all hon. members would want to give to the member the courtesy of listening carefully to the points he is making in order of course for an appropriate response to be given if that is necessary.
I would ask hon. members to give the hon. member the attention that all hon. members deserve.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, I know that our colleagues are delighted to be back and they have a lot of views to exchange among themselves here this afternoon.
In any event, this provision required that the order respecting the suspension of privileges granted under the free trade agreement be tabled in this House on April 21, 1989 at the latest. I repeat the date, April 21, 1989. In fact this order was laid before the House on December 12, 1991, some two years and eight months after the expiry of the tabling deadline fixed by Parliament in the Customs Tariff.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the failure to table this order for nearly three years after it was made amounts to contempt of this House. I want it to be clearly understood by the House, however, that while the principle of ministerial responsibility, in the words of section 59(5) of the Customs Thriff, requires that we hold the minister accountable for the failure to table the order at the time appointed by the statute, I fully recognize that the practical responsibility, if I can use that expression, lies with the minister's servants.

February 3, 1992
Privilege
The failure of the minister's officials to advise him of his obligations is all the more inexcusable in this case in that the non-tabling of the order was drawn to the attention of an assistant deputy minister in the minister's department in a letter from the joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations dated May 8,1989. Officials of the same department were reminded of this on two subsequent occasions prior to December 12, 1991.
I turn now to the claim that the minister's failure to obey section 59(5) of the Customs Tariff amounts to a contempt of this House. Mr. Speaker, as you said in an October 10, 1989 ruling:
Broadly speaking, contempts are offences against the authority and dignity of the House of Commons. They include situations which cannot specifically be claimed as breaches of the privileges of this House.
Mr. Speaker, you then cited Erskine May's 20th edition in which it is said that contempt of the House includes "disobedience to its legitimate commands". You went on to mention that:
In summary, all breaches of privilege are contempts of the House, but not all contempts are necessarily breaches of privilege. A contempt may be an act or an omission; it does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a member, it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results. Matters ranging from minor breaches of decorum to grave attacks against the authority of Parliament may be considered as contempts.
In this instance, Mr. Speaker, the facts establish that the Minister of Finance failed to comply with the tabling requirement set out in the Customs Tariff for a total of some 964 days. There remains to determine whether this omission had in your own words, Mr. Speaker, "the tendency to obstruct or impede the House" or its members in the exercise of their duties as legislators or the tendency to diminish the authority and dignity of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of laying requirements is well known. Parliament will require documents to be laid before it in instances where it determines that the formal transmission of a document is necessary for members of Parliament to properly discharge their responsibility of holding the executive accountable for its actions.
In the present instance it was the decision of Parliament that Orders in Council suspending trade privileges
granted to the United States by Parliament should be brought to the immediate attention of both Houses.
It is through the tabling of these orders that members of each House gain knowledge of them and can, if they think it necessary, question the government in relation to suspension of trade privileges.
We cannot fulfil this role unless we are informed of those decisions. In this case, the failure to table the text of the order of April 21, 1989 means that the House was not officially informed of an important government decision until nearly three years after it was made.
I note that pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), the order, when it was tabled on December 12, was referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. This committee and its members were effectively deprived of their right to review the order as contemplated in our Standing Orders for almost three years as a result of the minister's failure to meet his legal obligation under the Custom Thriff. This is a serious matter in terms of effective and proper operation of the committee system of the House of Commons. So long as Standing Order 32 is in place, any failure to table a document amounts to a denial of the appropriate standing committee's jurisdiction to study and review that document and to report to the House if it thinks fit.
There is another element to this and it is the lack of respect for Parliament that is reflected in such carelessness and persistent disregard for the law made by Parliament. In this regard I remind the House that senior officials of the department for which the minister is responsible had been informed of the omission in May 1989.
Subsection 59(5) of the Customs Tariff is a statutory provision and statutes are the highest form of command that can be given by this House. In my view, the disregard of that legislative command, even if unintentional, is an affront to the authority and dignity of Parliament as a whole and of this House in particular.
The eventual tabling of the order on December 12, 1991 does not cure the situation I have described. The basis of my complaint is not that the order had not been tabled, it is that it was not tabled in a timely fashion as required by law.
February 3, 1992

I am aware that it has often been said that it is not the role of the Speaker to interpret or to enforce the law. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that I am not asking you to interpret the Customs Tariff. There is no need for any interpretation here. The law is clear and the only matter you are called upon to decide is whether the facts confirm that the order respecting the suspension of privileges granted under the free trade agreement was not laid before Parliament by April 21, 1989 as required by law. This is a question of fact rather than a question of law.
I also emphasize that the duty imposed by subsection 59(5) of the Customs Tariff is a duty that is owed to this House in its collective capacity. Any legal duty gives rise to a corresponding right. In this case it is the right of this House to have a copy of the order tabled in the House for the information of members and for review by one of its committees.
The courts of this country are not the proper forum before which the Commons can enforce this right. In the first place, the House of Commons does not have the legal capacity to initiate court proceedings.
Second, even if this was not the case, I submit that it would not be in keeping with the position of the House of Commons and our system of government for the House to appear as a plaintiff before the courts of justice over which it enjoys pre-eminence in any event.
A right which cannot be enforced is no right at all. For the reasons I have mentioned, it is not possible for the House of Commons to ask the courts to enforce its right to have the order tabled, nor would this course of action be in keeping with the constitutional position of this House. I submit the remedy lies with the House itself. The Minister of Finance was under a legal obligation to furnish this House with a copy of the order made by the Governor in Council within the time prescribed by statute.
I submit that the House has the ability to sanction the non-observance of a legal obligation established for the collective benefit of its members. I believe that the appropriate sanction for any failure to obey a tabling requirement is found in the contempt powers of the House.
In deciding whether there is a prima facie justification for an eventual decision of the House on this question,
Privilege
the Chair is not asked to enforce the law. The Chair is asked to decide whether the failure to obey the law has consequences in terms of the collective privileges of the House and in terms of the members' ability to discharge their duties as legislators. In short, does the omission to table a document, legally required to be tabled, impede or obstruct the House and its members in the discharge of their functions or does it have the tendency to do so. As stated in the 20th edition of Erskine May, contempt of the House includes any case of disobedience, whether or not intentional, to a legitimate command of Parliament.
It is difficult to conceive of any command of this House that can have more legitimacy than one contained in a law passed by this House. I am confident that the minister's disobedience to that command was not intentional. This, however, does not change the situation.
Nowhere can I find authority for the proposition that this House can only deal with intentional contempt. In fact, in the recent incident involving the member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, the Chair found that a prima facie case of contempt existed even though the hon. member had expressly stated to the House that he did not intend to show contempt for the House or for the Speaker. I submit that intention is not a consideration at this stage and that the House should be permitted to deal with any facts that amount to contempt regardless of whether there was an intention to show contempt for the House. The question of intent is for the House itself to consider at a later stage.
In closing, allow me to reiterate that if this matter cannot be raised on the floor of this House in the way I have, then it can be raised nowhere else. There is no other forum outside of this House which is competent to pronounce or to enforce a legal duty that is owed to the House of Commons in its collective capacity. Subsection 59(5) of the Customs Thriff creates such a duty and the House has the right and responsibility to sanction the non-observance of that duty.
Mr. Speaker, if you do rule that there is a prima facie case in this instance, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. I have forwarded to the member opposite two drafts of such a motion. We have not had an opportunity at this stage to discuss the appropriateness of either.

February 3, 1992
Privilege


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that two sentences in the speech by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River stuck in my mind. The first one was:

In this case, the failure to table the text of the order by April 21, 1989 means that the House was not officially-

I emphasize the word officially, Mr. Speaker- [English]
-informed of an important government decision until nearly three years after it was made.

That was one of the sentences I found rather interesting. The other one was:
I am confident that the minister's disobedience to that command was not intentional.

Mr. Speaker, I think that what the hon. member described was a rather unfortunate situation. I believe he agrees, and I am sure you will agree, it was not the intention of the government or the Minister of Finance to avoid tabling an order within the prescribed timeframe. I think everyone here understands that.
Unfortunately, when all the free trade documents were tabled, this particular order was not tabled with the rest of the FTA legislation which, as you know, was impressive because of its sheer volume.
What the hon. member did not point out, and what he should have mentioned in this connection, is that the order was published in the Canada Gazette-after consideration and approval by the special committee-on January 18, 1989. This means that as of January 18,1989, the order was in the public domain. It was also available to members of this House, since to my knowledge, the
Canada Gazette, a bilingual publication, is delivered to each member's office.
We should also recall that the free trade agreement, as tabled, contained a reference to the timeframe for eliminating the tariff on plywood and related products. This reference was contained in the documents tabled in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I think that any self-respecting Canadian citizen or member of this House who had a problem with the subject we are looking at today was in a position to know what was happening-on the basis of the facts available-whether we are talking about the free trade documents or the Canada Gazette. And as a result, there was no breach of privileges, either of the members here or of the general public, and I think that in the circumstances, the hon. member's conclusions are a bit exaggerated.
Mr. Speaker, on November 21, 1991, officials appearing before the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations promised the order would be tabled before the holidays, and that is what happened. On August 12, 1991, and October 21, 1991, the minister had promised the order would be tabled. He also indicated he had set up a procedure to prevent any recurrence.
I think the minister and the government acted in good faith. For the Chair to respond favourably to the hon. member's comments, I believe there would have to be evidence of bad faith or perhaps of someone having suffered a loss of some kind. The hon. member, however, argued that no one's interests had been harmed, and he also said he believed the minister had acted in good faith.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should consider the incident closed and revert to the normal business of the House.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to emphasize the point that my friend from Scarborough made with respect to this matter.
The point is that the contempt occurred as a result of the wording of the statute and the wording is very clear. I simply re-emphasize it to you: "The Minister of Finance shall cause a copy of any order pursuant to subsection 59(2) be laid before Parliament".
February 3, 1992

The parliamentary secretary has pointed out that there was plenty of warning given with copies, et cetera. That is not the point. The point is, and the statute is clear, that the minister shall table this before the House within the 15-day period as set out. In this particular case, even after a letter in May 1989 setting out the provisions and the fact that it had not been conformed with, it was not tabled until late last year.
As the member has pointed out, it was almost three years after the original legislation. What has to be totally understood by the public watching and by the parliamentary secretary is that Orders in Council and regulations are laws that affect all of us, that do not come for debate before the House of Parliament, and the provisions are set out for a reason.
In this particular case, as has been pointed out by my friend in the Liberal Party, the minister has turned his back on the matter unintentionally, through oversight or by lack of proper documentation or advice by his ministerial advisers. The point, I believe and I simply want to emphasize this before closing, is that this is mandatory. It is obligatory for the minister to do this within that specified period of time and intentionally or unintentionally he has breached his duty to the House, I would submit. That in itself is contempt of the House.
As the member has pointed out, this is the only forum in which that can properly be dealt with.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened very carefully to the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River-

-and the hon. parliamentary secretary. I especially thank the hon. member for his statement in which he clearly said that it was not the minister's intention, but I think that some consideration is necessary before I render a decision.

I thank also the hon. member for Okanagan-Similka-meen-Merritt and I have listened carefully to his comments. I also thank the House for co-operating with the Chair and hon. members while this important and complex argument was put to the House. I shall try to respond as quickly as possible.
Tributes
I do take into account the fact that there seems to be general agreement. There was not an intention on the part of the minister. I also must say that the law seems very clear, and I shall have to deal with it as I see it. I thank hon. members.


TRIBUTES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take just a few minutes in this House to pay tribute to two of our former colleagues who passed away over the holidays and whom I knew in a special way. In a sense, they were very similar because they were real gentlemen and were respected on both sides of the House. I refer to the former member for Champlain, Jean-Paul Matte, and the former member for Peace River, Ged Baldwin.
Jean-Paul Matte was a very good friend of mine. He was elected in 1962 and remained a member until 1968. Later, after he lost his election, he had the opportunity to work in my office. He was very unpretentious, a businessman who was quite involved in his community in Champlain and particularly in the town of St. Tite. He was really close to the people and extremely dedicated.
I would call him the salt of the House of Commons, the kind of member who did not seek publicity but was always watchful and attentive to solve his constituents' problems. He had quite a good sense of humour, outside this House, yet while here, he was very modest and pleasant. When he was sent on delegations abroad, members very often came back saying that Jean-Paul was the most popular member of the delegation. His pleasant manners, down-to-earth language, sense of humour and extreme kindness made him a first-class diplomat, although he was in fact, with great honour, an ordinary businessman from rural Quebec.
His death will be a great loss to me personally, to my wife and to my children. When I went down to the riding of St. Maurice, we very often shared the same car and we

February 3, 1992
Tributes
spent many hours together. Not only I but also my wife and children and especially the people of Champlain appreciated his kindness, sense of humour, generosity and graciousness. On behalf of my party, since he was a Liberal, and my family, and in my own name as well, I would therefore like to extend to his family and those who were close to him our most sincere sympathies. We must all keep in mind that he was a real gentleman.

I would like to say the same about Ged Baldwin. When I arrived in this House, there was this gentleman who had been in the House for many, many years. He came from a part of Canada for which I have a special attachment, northern Alberta. Many of his constituents were francophones from Farrow and from other places which I have had the pleasure of visiting.
Ged Baldwin was everyone's friend. He was a great person in the House of Commons. He knew the rules very well. He would use them effectively. He was a competitor with Stanley Knowles regarding rules. He and Allan MacEachen would play games among themselves and exchange their knowledge which was somewhat too thoughtful or too specialized for the ordinary member to understand.
He could be tough too. When he had a good case, Ged Baldwin would get up and he would cut pieces out of ministers once in a while. I must have been the victim of some of his attacks. These were always done with class. He was a reflective man. For me what is so good about this House of Commons is that people come from all over the country with different personalities, different backgrounds, and yet we all serve the same cause. Through the years, you realize that sometimes the people you are most comfortable with are on the other side of the aisle because they are not really competing with you. Ged Baldwin was probably consulted throughout all his career by a lot of Liberals, asking: "Why am I having problems?" Because he was a gentleman, you were sure he would tell you honestly what he thought.
He was a great member of Parliament and the people of Peace River had many reasons to be proud of him. His family must be very proud of this great gentleman, Ged Baldwin, who served his country so well.


Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to join the Liberal leader in his eloquent
tribute to Jean-Paul Matte, the former member for Champlain, who was elected three times as the member for the electoral district of Champlain: in 1962, 1963, and 1965.
Mr. Matte died on January 6 at the age of 77. He spent his last years in Saint-Maurice, in the riding of Champlain, but spent most of his life in Saint-Tite, in Filles de Caleb country. He was the first member of Parliament from Saint-Tite, where my family comes from. I think it was Mr. Matte who first gave me a taste for public life. I remember when he was elected in 1962. I was only nine years old, and my father was one of his best friends. Mr. Matte often came to our house, where we listened to him talking politics. I must say I was very impressed.
Interestingly, he was beaten by the Creditistes in 1968, as a result of some tricky political manoeuvring. They found a candidate whose name was the same as his, which caused considerable confusion at the time. However, he continued to enjoy the respect of the voters who had elected him since 1962. In fact, a major electoral reform which amputated part of his riding and gave him part of the electoral district of Portneuf was the main reason why he was defeated.
Mr. Matte was not known as a partisan politician. He rarely made fiery speeches. In fact, he always had this ability, which has become increasingly rare nowadays, to avoid political partisanship, and he always subordinated his own interests to the interests of Saint-Tite, the riding of Champlain, Quebec and Canada.
I spoke to him several times during the past few years, and I must say I found his advice very useful on many occasions. To the very last, Mr. Matte was a faithful Quebecer and a faithful Canadian, and I think members on the government side will wish to join me in paying him this special tribute today.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues today in recognition of the contribution that Mr. Matte made to this House of Commons, to the people of Canada and to the people of his riding for a number of years.
I was not here when Mr. Matte served his constituency and his country, but we know him by reputation as an individual who struggled on behalf of his constituents for a number of years and would have continued had it not been for a serious redistribution of his constituency.
February 3, 1992

On behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party we want to say that our hearts, thoughts and prayers are with his family today.
I also want to join with my colleagues in recognizing the passing of Mr. Ged Baldwin who served for 20-some years that great district of Peace River in northwestern Alberta. He was a fine and distinguished gentleman.
As a House leader he distinguished himself in terms of the understanding and use of the rules in appropriate and yet creative ways to advance the cause of his colleagues and his party.
His reputation as a parliamentarian is demonstrated by the fact that he was elected time and time again with excellent majorities.
If we could all have a model in terms of parliamentary behaviour and how to conduct ourselves on behalf of our constituents and our country, it would be to follow in the footsteps of a gentleman like Ged Baldwin.
Again our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers go out to his wife and his family today.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to say too much about Ged Baldwin, having earlier today paid tribute to him.
I simply want to say that he was a fine man, a real gentleman and in many ways respected the best and represented the best of this institution, having made a positive contribution to it for many years.
It was my privilege to follow him. He is an example I often look to in terms of behaviour and attitude. He is a man who paved a lot of roads for me within my own constituency.
Personally, I am very thankful to him for all that he has done for my riding and for the country and for our party and also for this House.
At the same time I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kind words. I know that Ged's family will appreciate that, and also the kind words of the New Democratic House leader. Ged's family will appreciate that as well.
Routine Proceedings


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Last October, the hon. member for Richelieu raised a point of order following an exchange between between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Shefford. He asked the Chair whether the words "hypocrite" and "stupid" could be considered parliamentary. I answered him that in general, the word "hypocrite" is not parliamentary, but the context in which it was said must be considered. Nevertheless, I promised to look into the matter and make a ruling on it.
I very carefully examined Hansard for October 9, 1991 and I am now ready to render my decision. I concluded that the Prime Minister's words, at the time they were spoken, did not lead to disorder in the House. I therefore refer the hon. member to my decision of February 10, 1986 and I consider this matter closed.

Having said that I also remind hon. members that words that in one context may survive the patience of hon. members may in another context not survive it. I would ask all hon. members to exercise restraint and consideration for each other when either putting questions or responding or entering into debate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in both official languages a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government.

February 3, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 36(8) of the Standing Orders, I have the honour to table in both official languages the government responses to 148 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, to my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Earlier today in Question Period the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism referred to documentation regarding the Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade deal. Is there any intention to table these documents in the House so that we may all have a look at them?


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed that particular exchange and I will have to review the "blues" and the words of the minister. We would be once again more than happy to co-operate in any way that we can.


PETITIONS
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to the Standing Order on petitions, to present well over 760 names calling upon the House and Parliament to look again at the government proposals to transfer jurisdictional responsibility to the provinces. This relates to housing. The petitioners are asking this House to recognize that housing is a shared provincial-federal responsibility. They hope that the federal government will continue to support the non-profit co-operative housing program and to maintain the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by my constituents in York West. It deals specifically with the proliferation of drug
abuse in the city of metropolitan Toronto, which is ruining the lives of many youths and Canadian families. It requests that the Government of Canada amend the Narcotics Control Act so that when there are great seizures of drugs and money, the money is channelled not only into general revenues at the national level, but is shared with the local police forces and organizations in the community that are in the front line against the battle on drugs. We would consider that an investment in the battle to try to win our communities and our youth from the proliferation of drugs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present four different petitions. One is a big thick one with lots of names on it of people who are still concerned and have renewed concern about the goods and services tax and what it is doing. They articulate a whole number of concerns that they have and are simply asking the government at this time to eliminate the tax. I think it is a very appropriate petition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, these petitioners from the Kamloops constituency are concerned about the situation in Croatia. They are asking the Canadian government to simply do whatever is possible to bring peace, security and economic development to that part of the world.


Nelson Andrew Riis: These petitioners are from British Columbia and refer to a plan to partly divert one of the major British Columbia rivers into the United States and northern Mexico. They are asking that the government simply announce that this will not be permitted, period.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Lastly, in light of the last petition given by another hon. member regarding increased drug concerns, the petitioners are asking for proper financial support to enable the RCMP to carry out its mandate in enforcing law and order in the country.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 361 am honoured to present petitions from over 100 constituents. They would like to
February 3, 1992

draw to the attention of the House the fact that more than 60,000 foreign domestic workers have come to Canada since 1981 to answer the needs of many Canadians for domestic workers not otherwise available here. Nearly all of these workers are women and most are visible minorities. More than 80 per cent of these workers have been accepted as landed immigrants, indicating their continued value and adaptability to Canada.
They believe this new directive of the minister of immigration is insensitive to the needs of Canadian employers, callously disregards the needs of the women of the world, and contradicts a fundamental principle of Canada's longstanding non-discriminatory immigration policy.
They therefore pray and call upon Parliament to rescind the new directive, acknowledge the contribution of past, present and future foreign domestic workers to Canada's social and economic well-being, restore our Canadian values of tolerance and humanitarianism, and preserve Canada's international esteem.
If I may add, Mr. Speaker, I join them in their petition and I ask the minister to rescind the new directive in the name of equality and human dignity.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce in the House today a petition signed by residents of Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester, Vanier, Kanata, Manotick, and elsewhere in the Ottawa-Carleton region. These constituents are outraged at the price of gasoline in the Ottawa-Carleton region when compared to prices elsewhere in the province of Ontario.
These constituents are calling on the government to take action in order to correct this injustice through an amendment to the Competition Act.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by residents of Canada, many of whom are domestic workers.
These petitioners call on the Parliament of Canada to urge the minister of immigration to give foreign domes-
Routine Proceedings
tic workers the option not to live in the homes of their employers outside of working hours since that often leads to sexual harassment and continued exploitation in the workplace.
They ask that work experience take precedence over any formal training, that domestic work be recognized as an occupation needed in Canada, and that the necessary points be awarded toward permanent resident status.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition on behalf of over 200 signatories who are adoptive parents.
This order is pursuant to Standing Order 36, and these adoptive parents, all from the area of Thunder Bay, are asking the government to reconsider its position with respect to the legislation as it affects adoptive parents throughout Canada, and to stop the discrimination between those who are biological parents and those who are adoptive parents. They are one and the same.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a number of petitions with respect to the CRTC hearings and the Unitel bid.
The petitioners in this particular case are concerned that any widening of competition within the area of telecommunications will unduly affect the affordability of service, particularly to those people in rural areas.
They urge the Minister of Communications to consult with all effective parties, specifically those citizens living outside Canada's urban areas, who will be impacted severely by deregulation. They further urge the minister to hold local hearings in the communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: The other petition, Mr. Speaker, is with respect to the softwood lumber issue and the forests in the province of British Columbia.
The petition is signed by a number of people within my riding from places such as Westbridge, Greenwood, Princeton, Grand Forks and others. They are concerned

Routine Proceedings
that the management of their forests remains in Canadian hands.
The petitioners ask that Parliament terminate the memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber tariffs and return the decision making process back into the hands of Canadians where it belongs.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many citizens of the Ottawa area.

As the hon. member for Ottawa Centre has so ably stated, these constituents are concerned with the high cost of gasoline in the Ottawa area. They call upon Parliament to correct this injustice to Ottawa area motorists. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the same complaint is a frequent one in my own area of Kingston and the Islands.
I am pleased to be able to table this petition on behalf of the Ottawa area residents.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 121,122, 142, 155,156,160,162, 163, 165, 168, 169, 171, 172, 174, 179, 183, 185, 189, 191, 197 and 200.

Question No 121-Mr. Dionne:
Which leases for rented office space over 500 square meters in area, signed by the government between January 1985 and December 1987, were renewed before the previous lease had expired and, in each case, what are (a) the name of the owner(s) (b) the address of the rented building or office space (c) the area covered by the previous lease (d) the period covered by the previous lease (e) the rent paid under the previous lease?


Hon. Elmer MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: For
the period from January 1, 1985, to December 31, 1987, Public Works Canada, on behalf of the Government, in the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario, entered into two registered leases with the private sector which involved early termination of the previous lease.
The appended report provides the detailed information on the previous and current leases.


[Stage Direction]
PWC REGION: NATIONAL CAPITAL
[Stage Direction]
PERIOD:
85/01/01 - 87/12/31
Name of owner
[Stage Direction]
Building Address
Rentable m2 Period of lease / date
PROVINCE:
[Stage Direction]
Annual rent
Bourque, Pierre & Fils Ltee
Louis St. Laurent 555 Blvd. de la Carriere Hull, Quebec
1,624.00	86-12-01 - 95-05-31	$ 129,920.00
8 1/2 years
Bourque, Pierre & Fils Ltee Louis St. Laurent
555 Blvd. de la Carriere Hull, Quebec
38,205.40	85-06-01 - 95-05-31	$ 9,294,748.00
10 years
February 3, 1992
[Stage Direction]
Routine Proceedings
[Stage Direction]
Bourque, Pierre & Fils Ltee Louis St. Laurent	40,796.53	91-08-01 - 16-07-31	$ 8,356,577.49 (Net)
555 Blvd. de la Carriere	25 years
Hull, Quebec
28,504.53	73-07-01 - 88-06-30	$ 1,093,493.00
	15 years + lx5 years	
28,506.00	86-08-01 - 11-07-31	$ 3,145,069.00
	25 years
[Stage Direction]
Les Entreprises Duroc Inc. Place Vincent Massey
352 Blvd. St-Joseph Hull, Quebec
[Stage Direction]
Les Entreprises Duroc Inc. Place Vincent Massey
352 Blvd. St-Joseph Hull, Quebec
Mr. Harvard: During the recent postal strike, was there an extra cost associated with providing the extra remittance forms for corporation returns and employee deduction remittance forms, and, if so, what was it?


Otto John Jelinek: During the recent postal strike, Revenue Canada, Taxation provided 950,000 extra source deductions remittance forms to employers and, in addition, provided 150,000 extra instalment forms to corporations to ensure timely payments of source deductions and corporate taxes through financial institutions.
Costs incurred:
-Printing $65,839.58
-Postage (Third class) $220,782.30
-Total cost $286,621.88


Mr. Caccia: Was the proposal to entrench property rights in the Constitution (a) subjected to an assessment for its environmental impact, and (b) will a public statement be released as required by the environmental assessment reform policy announced by the Minister of the Environment in June 1990?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: The proposed protection of an individual's property rights is raised in the document Shaping Canada's Future Together, tabled in the House of Commons on September
24, 1991. This document was referred to a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons with a mandate to seek the viewpoints of Canadians on these matters, and to make recommendations to Parliament. The process of committee review will give an opportunity for Canadians to bring forward their concerns from a broad range of perspectives in this national dialogue. The committee's review of these matters will assist Parliament in its consideration of constitutional proposals, and contributes to the over all process for constitutional reform which involves the legislative assemblies of provinces as well as Parliament. Therefore, it is premature to consider the question of an assessment of environmental impact.


Mr. Caccia: What policies, initiatives or programs, with respective person-year and dollar allocations, have been launched in response to the recommendations from the Federal Water Policy: A Progress Report in (a) Part I, recommendations 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 2.1.2, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 3.1.1, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.1.5, 5.1.2; (b) Part II, recommendations 2.1, 2.2, 3.3, 4.1, 4.5, 5.1, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 8.2, 9.2, 10.2, 11.1, 11.3, 12.2, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 18.1, 18.2, 18.3, 22.4?


Jean J. Charest: This information will form part of the second biannual Federal Water Policy progress report, which will be

Routine Proceedings
released by the Minister of the Environment in March
1992.


Mr. Caccia: With regards to nuclear electricity generating facilities in Canada, has the government prepared any studies estimating (a) the total cost of decommissioning each of the CANDU nuclear generating plants operating in Canada today (b) the total cost of safely and permanently storing all the spent fuel rods and other radioactive waste and, if so, what are the figures for each of the studies?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Allowances to cover the projected cost for both decommissioning the Canadian nuclear power plants and disposal of the spent fuel are being collected by the provincial utilities through the rates being charged to the customers today. The funds are being accumulated to be available when the expenditures are incurred in the future.
(a)	Decommissioning the twenty-two nuclear power generating units that are either operating or under construction in Canada, including the safe and permanent storage of all radioactive wastes other than the spent fuel rods, is estimated to cost approximately $3.7 billion if the work were to be done today. In fact, the work and expenditure would not begin until the first unit is taken out of service, assumed to be in 2012, and would be spread over many years until the last unit is returned to green pasture in 2072. This decommissioning cost would represent a small fraction of the projected capital of $34 billion (in 1990 dollars) to replace the 15,700 Mwe of generating capability of these stations, particularly when the effects of discounting are taken into account. Current international estimates for nuclear plant decommissioning fall generally between 10 per cent and 20 per cent of replacement cost.
(b)	The reference to "safely and permanently storing all of the spent fuel rods" is interpreted to mean the disposal of nuclear fuel wastes. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has developed a concept for geological disposal of such wastes. A federal environmental assessment and review of the concept, along with a range of related issues, is currently under way, and an independent panel has been appointed to cany out this public review.
Disposal of spent fuel does present a great uncertainty in terms of nuclear power costs. However, as the panel that conducted the Ontario Nuclear Cost Inquiry noted in its report of January 1989: "The time frame extends well beyond the middle of the century-and means that, although the expenditures will be very large ($9 billion in 1988) when they are incurred, because of the discounting, they comprise a small portion of the leve-lized unit energy cost. The funds are being accumulated over the life-time of generating stations and invested over many years so that the charges for this item make up a small portion of the total cost of generating the nuclear-based electricity.


Mr. Harvard: What happened to the $7 million which was allocated for the construction of a Transport Canada hangar at the Winnipeg Airport and which was noted in the Supplementary Estimates B of the fiscal year 1990-91 and in Part III of 1991-92 Main Estimates for Transport Canada?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Although a design has been completed for the construction of a new hangar at Winnipeg, and this item is still included in the Transport Canada capital spending program for the 1991-92 fiscal year, funds have not been allocated for this construction project. The project has been delayed to enable other cost effective options to be evaluated, including the possibilities for sharing facilities with other departments.


Mr. Stupich: Was a regional conference held in Whistler, B.C., on June 10, 1991 for economists, sponsored by CEIC in the B.C./Yukon territory region and, if so (a) what was the cost (b) how often are these conferences held?


Bernard Valcourt: A conference of Managers of Regional Economic Services from across Canada was held in the British Columbia/Yukon region in June 1991.
(a)	Costs of the conference were:
Air travel $11,680
Hotel accommodation 5,517
Meals & incidentals 3,294
Other transportation 1,969
Total $ 22,460
February 3, 1992

(b)	These conferences are held twice a year.


Mr. Stupich: With respect to the CEIC in the B.C./Yukon territory region, has an internal communications survey been contracted out to Tower, Perrin and Co., and, if so, (a) what was the cost of this contract (b) how long have these surveys been contracted out (c) is there a cost comparison available for surveys done internally as opposed to externally?


Bernard Valcourt: Yes. Employment and Immigration Canada contracted with Tower, Perrin and Co. some portions of an internal communication survey.
(a)	The contract cost $35,000.
(b)	In all, there were two surveys conducted. The first survey was conducted in 1988, the second in 1990.
(c)	Most, if not all of our surveys are contracted out. In addition, due to the varying scope and parameters of different surveys, cost comparisons cannot be made.


Mr. Gardiner: How many American citizens have entered Canada to work as professionals under terms of the Canada-U.S. Free Hade Agreement?


Bernard Valcourt: The following is a breakdown of the number of United States citizens who entered Canada under the Professionals category of Chapter 15 of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement since the Agreement was implemented on January 1, 1989.
January 1 to December 31, 1989-1807
January 1 to December 31, 1990-3284
January 1 to November 30, 1991-2961


Mr. Proud: With respect to the Canadian Pension Commission (a) what is the current backlog (b) how does this backlog compare with the backlog three years ago (c) what is the current turn-around time for (i) first decisions (ii) Entitlement Board hearings and decisions (iii) appeals before the Veterans Appeal Board?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (a) For the 1991-92 fiscal year, 6,000 first level decisions were forecast to be completed by September 30-6,671 were actually completed.
(b) Three years ago, in the 1988/89 fiscal year, for the same period to September 30, 5,500 first level decisions were forecast-5,364 were completed.
Routine Proceedings
(c)	Tbm-around time for:
(i)	First decisions-30 days
(ii)	Entitlement Board hearings and decisions-14 days
(iii)	The average turn-around time from the date of the hearing to the promulgation of a decision for appeals before the Veterans Appeal Board was 66 days for the period from April 1, 1991 to November 30, 1991.
The average administrative time for the collection of documents from the department, case preparation, distribution of documents and scheduling, from the date of receipt of a notice of appeal to the date of hearing, was 206 days over the same period. This delay is shared between the board, the department and the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.


Mr. Proud: With respect to the Canadian Pension Commission, (a) how many commissioners are based in Charlottetown (b) are any commissioners based in other parts of the country, and if so (i) how many (ii) has there been a reduction in travel by the commissioners because of the relocations?


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: (a) The Canadian Pension Commission has 16 commissioners based in Charlottetown.
(b) Yes (i) 8 (ii) Yes there has been a reduction in travel by the commissioners.


Mr. MacAulay: 1.	With respect to the rock crab fishery in Prince Edward Island, for each of the last 3 years, (a) how many people have received fishing permits (b) what was the total yearly catch (c) what was the value of the total catch?
2.	Does the government have any plans for (a) making the rock crab fishery a permanent fishery (b) licensing fishermen in the rock crab fishery?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: 1(a) 50 permits were issued in each of 1988, 1989 and 1990. However, log books submitted to DFO indicate landings for only 32, 21 and 6 permit holders in 1988, 1989 and 1990 respectively.
(b)	1988-930,030 lbs
1989-	642,136 lbs
1990-	282,912 lbs
(c)	1988-$186,006.00
1989-	$128,427.20
1990-	$56,582.40
2.	Consultations with the industry will begin early 1992. The following considerations will have to be

February 3, 1992
Routine Proceedings
addressed before a permanent fishery and the issuance of permanent licenses are allowed: stock evaluation, marketing and harvesting limits.


Mr. LeBlanc: With respect to the purchase of the former IDD/ECBC farm in Black River, Inverness County, Nova Scotia from the Government of Canada, (a) what is name and address of the purchasers (b) what was the purchase price (c) was the purchaser's hid the highest one received, and if not, (i) who submitted the highest bid (ii) how much was it (iii) why was this not selected (d) what did the successful bidder undertake to do with the property?


John Carnell Crosbie: a) Herman Vanden Hoogen Bros., R.R. #2, Mabou;
(b)	The highest purchase price was $180,500;
(c)	Yes, it was the highest bid received; and
(d)	All of the potential purchasers planned to use the Mabou farm for agriculture purposes although their individual business plans differed. The successful bidder focused his plans on livestock and dairy operations.


Mr. Axworthy: Has the government created a Children's Bureau within the Department of National Health and Welfare, and, if so, (a) on what day was it created (b) how much money has it been allocated and spent in each fiscal year since its formation (c) how many (i) full time (ii) part-time staff are employed in the bureau in each fiscal year since its formation (d) what mandate has it been given (e) what projects has it undertaken since its formation (f) has it been directed to evaluate the government's constitutional proposals as they affect children (g) has it been directed to evaluate the government's prosperity agenda as they affect children?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: (a) The Children's Bureau was created following the World Summit for Children, on February 4, 1991, by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
(b)	the Bureau has an annual operational budget of $1.2 million.
(c)	12 person-years.
(d)	The bureau's mandate is to ensure co ordination and consistency in federal programs relating to children. The bureau's principal purpose is to ensure the effectiveness of federal policies and programs relating to the health, welfare and development of children. To this end, the bureau promotes co-ordination within the federal govemement, consults with other levels of government and non-government, consults with other levels of government and non-government organizations and communicates federal initiatives relating to children.
(e)	The bureau's first major task is to co-ordinate the development of an action plan to implement the commitments made at the World Summit, and reiterated in the May 1991 Speech from the Throne. The plan will serve as a framework for initiatives that the government has undertaken or will put in place to improve the well-being of children in Canada and in developing countries.
By way of improving co-ordination among federal departments on children's issues and obtaining input for the development of the action plan, the bureau has established an Interdepartmental Committee on Children, comprising of 21 departments. The committee has met twice to discuss the plan.
The bureau held numerous meetings with non-governmental organizations as well as other federal departments. While the bureau does not have the capacity to provide grants or contributions, it has acted in support of initiatives and events contributions, it has acted in support of initiatives and events such as the conference "Canada's Children: The Priority for the 90's" held in Ottawa at the end of October, the "Ceasefire" conference, and next February's "Child Health 2000" conference which will bring together world-renowned experts on child health issues in Vancouver. In keeping with its interest in promoting research on the status of children, the bureau was involved with last spring's conference "State of the Child in Ontario" and the bureau has worked with the Child, Youth and Family Policy Research Centre to organize a small colloquium on the state of the child research across Canada.
(f)	and (g) The children's bureau has not been directed to do this.


Mr. Blenkarn: Do the provinces pay goods and service taxes to the government and, if so, (a) which provinces pay goods and services taxes (b) how many dollars are collected in goods and services taxes from these provinces?


Otto John Jelinek: Purchases made by provincial governments are outside the scope of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) legislation by virtue of the Constitution Act. Therefore, all
February 3, 1992

departments and bodies within the provincial entities do not pay the GST.
Point-of-sale exemption for provincial entities is provided through certificates attesting to the use of and payment for the supply by the province. Purchases must also be billed to the provincial body. In no case will Revenue Canada allow an exemption for cash purchases or purchases made by third parties on behalf of a province.


Mr. Harvey: With respect to the United Nations Human Rights Committee views concerning Communicaton Number 167/1984 Bernard Ominayak, Chief of the Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, has the government received since October 1, 1990 any request or requests for further information from the Special Rapporteur for Follow-up on Views of the Human Rights Committee, and, if so, (a) when did the government receive such request(s), (b) has the government responded to such request(s), and, if so (i) when did the government reply (ii) what did the government reply?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The UN Human Rights Centre, as part of its routine procedure, has requested further information from the Government of Canada with respect to Chief Ominayak's communication following the release of the Human Rights Committee, while finding that an obligation exists to the Lubicon which must be settled, found the Canadian government's offer to be an appropriate remedy. While we have responded to the committee's request for further information, we emphasize that the committee, as a matter of practice, considers the response confidential at this stage and that Canada respects this rule. We cannot, therefore, comment on the content of our response. With regard to more recent developments, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development took the initiative and met with Chief Ominayak on November 1, 1991. That meeting proved productive and a further meeting is planned involving the minister, the Alberta minister responsible for native affairs and Chief Ominayak in February.


Ms. Callbeck: With respect to the reported $5865 in paid expenses claimed by National Transportation Agency Chair, Erik Nielsen during his summer trip to the Yukon (a) what is the breakdown of each item claimed as an expense (b) what was the purpose of Mr. Nielsen's trip (c) what was his daily schedule during that time?
Routine Proceedings


Jean Corbeil: The National Transportation Agency advises as follows:
(a) The cost of travel by the chairman to the Ontario regional office at Thunder Bay, and to the western regional office at Saskatoon and to the northern regional office at Whitehorse was $5,865.28, including mileage allowance and other travel related expenses at rates and amounts established by the Treasury Board.
Ottawa to Thunder Bay to Saskatoon to $ 2.722.83 Whitehorse to Saskatoon to Ottawa
Car rental	334.91
Accommodation	632.32
Meals	1,713.94
Other expenses (incidentals etc.)	461.28
Total claim	$ 5,865.28
(b)	The purpose of the trip was to visit regional offices of the National Transportation Agency; to inspect various transportation facilities and services in western and northern Canada and to consult with individuals, public and private sector organizations and officials concerned with the transportation industry.
(c)	During this period the chairman discharged his normal responsibilities as chairman of the agency through headquarters offices in Ottawa and through the agency's regional offices in Thunder Bay, Saskatoon and Whitehorse. He also participated in the inspection of transportation facilities and in organized meetings with shippers, carriers, industry and government official and others concerned with transportation matters.


Mr. Assad: With respect to the agriculture infrastructure in the prairie provinces (a) what are the total revenues of the government received under that infrastructure (b) does the government have any intention of calling into question that infrastructure as we know it today?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: (a) Our
data sources do not permit a breakdown of government revenues from agriculture seperately from industries such as mining, tourism and so on. Agriculture accounted directly for 5.3 per cent of the prairie gross domestic product (GDP) in 1986 and much more than that when one considers transportation, storage, process-

Routine Proceedings
ing and related activities. Of 34 census divisions in Canada with over 20 per cent of their total employment on farms, 33 are in the prairie provinces.
(b) The government does not call into question the existing agricultural infrastructure, but the infrastructure has changed considerably over time, and it will continue to evolve in response to economic and social developments. It is the ability to manage change from the status quo that is the hallmark of rural communities and rural families. In line with the demonstrated importance of the sector, the objective of maintaining the income levels of prairie farmers and the infrastructure necessary to support the sector has been pursued by the government through unprecedented assistance. During the 1985-1991 period, net federal program payments in the prairies totalled $9.2 billion.


Mr. Mifflin: With respect to the future of the Argentia Naval Base (a) when does the U.S. Navy plan to vacate the U.S. naval facility at Argentia (b) are there ongoing discussions and/or negotiations under way to study (i) the scope (ii) the feasibility and viability of Canada taking over this base for operational and/or training purposes (c) will this subject be considered by the advisory group on defence infrastructure (i) as part of the Canadian Forces presence in Newfoundland (ii) as a socioeconomic issue?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: (a)
No firm date has yet been established by the United States Navy.
(b) Interdepartemental discussions are ongoing concerning the future of Argentia.
c) The subject will not be considered by the advisory group on defence infrastructure as Argentia does not belong to the Canadian Forces but rather to the United States Navy.


Mr. Wood: Will the government's contribution toward the recent joint initiative with the Ontario government, announced on November 4, 1991, and entitled the Northern Ontario Development Agreement, come out of FEDNOR funds or will it be moneys other than those allocated to the FEDNOR program?


Thomas Hockin: FedNor:
The Northern Ontario Development Agreement (NODA) was not funded out of FedNor funds but rather from the Ontario Regional Development Reserve. The agreement was signed on November 4, 1991 and provides $95 million over a five-year period to encourage economic development and diversification in northern Ontario in the key sectors of forestry, mining and tourism. The agreement is cost shared 50:50 by the federal government and the province of Ontario.


Mr. Peterson: Does the government have any intention of repealing the Postal and Courier Remission Orders of 1986 and, if not, what steps is the government considering to assist the direct marketing industry?


Otto John Jelinek: Several groups and individuals have expressed their concerns to the government respecting the impact of the Postal and Courier Remission Orders on the Canadian mail order industry. In response to these concerns, the government has established an interdepartmental committee to fully investigate and make recommendations on the entire cross-border shopping issue, of which these two remission orders are only a facet. As this matter is still under review by the committee, the department cannot provide details of the government proposals designed to address the situation. The department will be providing the Canadian business communities with the details as soon as they are available.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 99.

*


Ms. Langan: For each year since January 1,1988, has the government assumed any costs related to the (a) furnishing (b) decorating of the Prime Minister's residences at (i) 24 Sussex Drive (ii) Harrington Lake and, if so, at what cost?
February 3, 1992


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The
National Capital Commission informs me as follows:
The Official Residences Council (ORC) was established in 1984 to provide independent and impartial advice to the Prime Minister and the government on the development, maintenance, refurbishing and operation of the buildings and grounds of Canada's seven official residences1.
In 1986, the National Capital Commission (NCC) assumed responsibility for the six official residences located in the national capital region while Public Works Canada assumed responsibility for the Citadel in Quebec City. All major projects and acquisitions require the approval of the ORC before proceeding within the strict budgetary rules and allocations approved by Parliament. Minor projects are implemented directly by the NCC.
As the ORC indicated in its Third Report Summer 1990, the lion's share of public expenditures on official residences is directed to essential rehabilitation, repairs and routine maintenance of buildings, and the restoration and conservation of Crown-owned heritage furnishings and works of art. Since its establishment, the ORC has ensured that public funds are expended only to meet legitimate and verifiable needs.
It should also be noted that, in addition to being large residences, these are aging buildings: four of them incorporate structures that predate Confederation with the remaining buildings built early in this centuiy. All of the official residences are included in the Federal Heritage Buildings Register, a status that requires their protection and preservation for future generations.
From January 1988 until August 1991, furnishing and decorating costs amounted to $39,524 for 24 Sussex Drive and $60,359 for Harrington Lake. For purposes of comparison, the ORC reported that the total operating expenses for the seven official residences for FY 1989/90 totalled $2.8 million of which $1.26 million was spent on Rideau Hall, $107,000 on Stornoway and $219,000 on 24 Sussex Drive.
1 These are: the residences of the Governor General, Rideau Hall in Ottawa and the Citadel in Quebec City; the Prime Minister's residences at 24 Sussex Drive and Harrington Lake; the Leader of the Opposition's residence, Stornoway; the residence of the Speaker of the House of Commons, The Farm at Kingsmere; and the Government's guest house at 7 Rideau Gate.
Routine Proceedings


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask my hon. friend some hard questions, but in light of the fact that he has answered so many questions, I want to hold off.
I commend the government on doing some homework over the break and providing these answers. It is nice to be able to say something positive to my hon. friend for the work that he does.



POINT OF ORDER


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I want to raise this again with my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.
I did not want to raise this earlier today for obvious reasons, but as we all know, tax returns are being sent out to the post offices. They are now being picked up by people, particularly the non-personalized ones. I have received a notice, and I guess we all did, that in western Canada many post offices are announcing that the forms cannot be picked up until after February 13 because they have some forms in one of the official languages but not in the other.
Could I ask my friend if perhaps by tomorrow someone could make a statement, at a critical time when everybody is wanting to get their tax returns filled out, on when they would be available in both official languages, particularly in western Canadian post offices.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member giving me notice of his concerns. I will indeed attempt to find an answer to his concerns and get back to him as soon as possible.

February 3, 1992
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate, the hon. member for Dartmouth had 11 minutes left.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before the break for Question Period I was trying to impress upon the House the true state of the nation with regard to what is happening because of this government's economic policies, as well as the downturn in the world economy, particularly with Bill C-32 which is the cap on CAP bill. Most Canadians who hold an interest in what we do here have at least read about this and perhaps have seen some of the debate on television.
The focus of my comments prior to the break for Question Period was simply this. With all we do in this place, with all of the tinkering and all of the niceties we exchange in debate, one of the things we have to be very clear about is the fact that in this country, which ostensibly should be the wealthiest nation on earth, we now have according to Statistics Canada over one million children living in poverty. The consequences of a child who lives in poverty are real and are negative.
I have three children and as everyone who has children knows, parents want nothing but the best and the finest for them. Even with the great incomes we in this House and people in the business community make, it seems we can never give enough to our children because we desire for them more than what we can have for ourselves. I think that is a fair comment.
The point I was trying to make is that this government, through its economic policies, has made a decision that children born in poverty are not worth rescuing. It has made a decision that the parents of those children who live in poverty somehow are to blame for the situation
they find themselves in, as if anybody in his or her right mind would want to live on $800 a month.
Statistics Canada has told us what it means to be in poverty. It has said that on average a family of four making less than $26,699 in 1990 were living in poverty. There are people out there with families of four who are making $8,000, $9,000 and $10,000 a year. My God, they would think they had won the lottery if they could make $24,000 or $25,000 a year.
This government has made a strategic decision, that those people do not matter any more. It has come in with Bill C-32 and basically said that the poorest of the poor, those who suffer disproportionately because of mismanagement of the economy by governments primarily, have to bear more of a burden of responsibility for the state we find ourselves in than anybody else in this country.
Can you imagine? We are about the wealthiest country in the world. We spend billions of dollars on various programs, yet we have one million children living in poverty. They go to bed with hungry stomachs, go to school with hungry stomachs, go to recess with hungry stomachs, and go home at the end of the day with hungry stomachs.
I talked to educators. I went to schools in my riding, and depending on the part of the town more or maybe less of this will be found. They told me that after three weeks of having a class they can tell which kids are coming to school without any breakfast in their bellies. Kids who are hungry do not learn to their full potential because their brains do not work when there is not enough food.
It seems that we are fully willing to accept the consequences of cyclical poverty. It seems that we are fully willing to say, and pardon me for saying this, to hell with those children who were bom in poverty. That is what we say in this place when we come in with a piece of legislation like Bill C-32 which is a cap on the CAP. We say that the poor will have to do with less because we have mismanaged. While we amend the tax act to give more to those who have, we have with a backhanded slap said to those who have been forced into poverty: "Tbugh luck, Charlie".
I normally do not read in this place, but I want to read from this statistic because it has bothered me a lot: "Boys on welfare are 1.4 times likely to do worse than other boys of their age group in school". This is startling. "Almost one-third of children in subsidized housing",
February 3, 1992

which usually means people who are on social assistance and welfare, "have psychiatric disorders compared to one in seven children in other homes. More than 40 per cent of children ages 12 to 16 in subsidized housing do more poorly in school than other children do". These are kids. This is our future we are talking about.
Think about it. What we are doing here is crippling. We are giving these children a handicap before they even understand what their role will be as young adults or as adults in society.


An hon. member:: It is criminal.


Ronald MacDonald: It is close to being criminal. My colleague from Broadview-Greenwood, who has expressed with a great deal of clarity time after time after time in this House the problems this government has in focusing, would agree with my comment.
Instead of penalizing those individuals and their children who are forced into poverty, we need a 100 per cent effort by the Parliament of Canada and by the people of Canada and a partnership with the businesses in Canada; not to put more welfare payments out there, not to kick those who are down, but to put people back to work. If we can make that effort, break that cycle of poverty and put integrity and self-respect back in the lingo of those who are pushed down so hard, then just maybe the government would not have to worry. Even with its mismanagement it might be able to handle its deficit.
If we put people back to work in this country, if we focus our efforts on re-instilling pride in the work people do and allowing them to dream about doing better, they will be able to look up and see a light at the end of the tunnel. Right now, every time they see a flicker of light, the government comes in with some damned piece of legislation like Bill C-32 which basically says, as has been said before: "If you are poor, tough luck. You people don't vote anyway. Don't you know that? Poor people don't vote". We have all heard that. I guess they are too busy trying to figure out how in the name of goodness they are going to pay their rent and put clothes on the backs of their children.
Government Orders
I thought perhaps the government could have come back from its Christmas holiday a little wiser and asked what Bill C-32 does. It caps the rate of increase on the government's contribution to social assistance programs in three provinces, the ones it considers to be the wealthiest provinces. Well, wake up and smell the coffee. Ontario is quickly becoming a have not province in this country.
As I said earlier, how in the name of God can we differentiate one poor family from another poor family? If you are poor in Newfoundland making $10,000 a year, if you are poor in Willowdale making $10,000 a year, or if you are poor in Vancouver, damn it, you are still poor. To differentiate and say for some reason that because you are in southern Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta, as these payments go up it is not going to participate like it did before. Leave it up to the provincial governments.
This is going to sound strange, coming from the mouth of an Atlantic Canadian, but I am going to tell you. In Atlantic Canada sometimes we are the butt of jokes and sometimes we make Ontario the butt of our jokes. But let's be serious here. The new NDP left-right coalition- the NDP government down in Queen's Park and the Tory government opposite-has done almost the impossible with the Ontario economy. It took an economy which was bubbling over two and a half years ago and not only put the brakes on it, but wrecked the vehicle. It has literally killed the Ontario economy.
The free enterprise spirit has been crushed in Ontario. The high interest rates of this federal government of two years ago, the GST which has completely destroyed consumer confidence, the free trade deal, and a government in Ontario that says "what is another $10 billion in deficit", destroyed the main economy in Canada that allows our federal government to work, that allows us to have equalization programs and transfer payments. By the grace of God, for the last number of years Ontario has been the bread basket and the powerhouse economically in this country, and it has been.
It upsets me that it is being driven over. I do not know but I think the Prime Minister is in the driver's seat. Boy, I do not know if Bob Rae is pulling it over or pushing it over, but the Ontario economy is in deep trouble. For this government not to recognize that to put an addition-

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
al burden on the province and the taxpayers of Ontario right now, when there are record numbers of unemployed which continue to grow, bankruptcies skyrocketing and hundreds of thousands of jobs are lost to south of the border, just belies credibility.
In conclusion, I would hope that government members opposite have taken note of what they have heard over the Christmas holidays. The government determines which bill gets up here on any given day. I would hope that it would come to its senses and stop penalizing those whom it has put in positions of poverty and that it would take this bill and allow it to die on the Order Paper.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, recently I put out a householder in my riding in which I was talking about the thrill it was to be associated with members of Parliament in this House of Commons and the different sort of experiences we have listening to and debating with one another.
I want to say that it is always a constructive experience listening to my colleague from Dartmouth, because he delivers a message that is succinct and to the point. His passion is such that he gives hope to the Canadians out there who are really looking to this Chamber for hope.
I wanted to point out, being a member from Ontario, a couple of little points. First, he mentions that people are poor in Newfoundland and they are also poor in Toronto. That is the case, but I want to say that $10,000 a year in Newfoundland goes a lot further than $10,000 in Toronto.
In my riding a single mother was being evicted from a basement apartment the other day. It was costing her $1,100 a month just for a basement apartment. Sometimes when we talk about Ontario or Toronto we imagine that everybody is rich, we imagine that everybody somehow manages to get through. That is not true any more. If I sounded a little aggressive earlier today when I was saying that the issue was getting people back to work, it is only because unemployment insurance payments and welfare payments do not work in the city of Toronto.
They do not work because they do not even cover the rent in 90 per cent of the cases, never mind clothing and food. That is why those of us in Toronto maybe for the
first time in our lives are experiencing what many other regions of the country have experienced on a cyclical basis, sometimes yearly during different seasons when there is high unemployment.
I would like to remind, with kindness, my colleagues that the suffering which is going on in Toronto right now is good in one sense because it is making us aware of what is going on in the maritimes which maybe in the past we had not quite realized. I just wanted to mention that.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am fully cognizant of the fact that poverty is a relative thing. For those who find themselves in poverty, being from the great peninsula of Newfoundland, that wonderful province, or from metropolitan Toronto, the sting is no less severe.
People are looking for hope. They want a reason to believe that things will get better. Social assistance is not the answer. Surely giving social assistance at a rate that is 50 per cent does differ. A family of four, the average in Canada, at $26,000 or $27,000 is still considered below the poverty line. Look at the actual percentage of welfare payments, social assistance, making up the poverty line. If $27,000 is the poverty line in Ontario even with full social assistance benefits, those people are still 52 per cent below the poverty line.
We spend a lot of money but we keep people poor. We do not give them hope and in many cases we give them just enough to survive in misery and squalor. That is all we do.
I wish to make a comment on the UI system. Certainly the UI system should not be a supplement for good job creation programs. Even the UI system, which is meant to be a net when people get in an economic decline, is meant to be there for a period of time, whether two weeks or six months and hopefully not much longer, so that people can get on with their lives if there is a particular economic downturn in their area. Go to Newfoundland and talk to my colleague from Labrador. He has been in this House a long time and he has never seen people go hungry before in his riding. He sees them hungry today because the government last year made a decision on Bill C-21 that it was going to alter the UI system and it was going to penalize those people who had to rely on UI for a period of time.
February 3, 1992

What it has meant is that people no longer qualify. If they do, their benefits run out more quickly. All of a sudden what happens? They have to rely on their municipality for welfare and when the federal government has cutbacks on the transfers to every single province in this country, it means that those provincial governments do not have the money to do anything. The municipalities almost go belly-up.
It is a much broader problem than it first appeared to be. Most of it can go back to the misguided policies of this Conservative government.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in third reading debate today of Bill C-32.
In doing so, I want to try and outline a couple of things, one of which is an example on how we approach things differently than the government of the day or the official opposition when it was government in terms of our role in society, the role of government, the role of Parliament and the role in the relation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
This bill deals with a restriction on the amount of tax dollars shared with different parts of this country. The three provinces being restricted in that cash flow are B.C., Alberta and Ontario, supposedly because they are the have provinces.
I come from a community that has seen over a thousand mill jobs lost in the last year; a community that has a shaky future as it relates to the grain handling and transportation industry; an infrastructure that is deteriorating.
It is an infrastructure that is totally incomplete because we are still flushing our sewage almost virtually untouched into Lake Superior. We have a government that says: "Ontario, you have to do more on your own. The taxpayers of Ontario have to do more on their own". Ultimately it comes down to that, whether it is through increases in provincial taxes or whether it is through increases in property taxes, which are even more regressive than taxes like the GST. I
I have had the occasion over the last three to four weeks, as part of the break from the House, to talk to a large cross-section of my constituency. Some was formal. I held a series of eight working sessions on the economy throughout the riding over two weeks. I also held a
Government Orders
constituent assembly which attracted people not just from my riding, but from the neighbouring parts of the Thunder Bay-Nipigon riding in the city of Thunder Bay. Out of those meetings came a real understanding for me of the thinking of the people who were there.
In part, it has been paralleled by the conferences that I think have gone extremely well, held in different parts of Canada, to deal with the Constitution. They all relate to this particular bill. They relate to government powers, they relate to government spending, they relate to the trust that is placed in all of us in this House by the people who voted for us and who elected us. It also speaks to the kinds of things that we are hearing across Canada about the need for some protection from the actions of governments.
We saw this past weekend, at a conference that was designed to deal with the question of the economic union, an explicit request that some of those things that we value as Canadians, some of those things that make us different from our neighbour to the south, receive some kind of protection in the Constitution. People call it a social charter.
My leader, the member for Yukon, made a proposal, not last month but last year and the year before about the need to place a social charter in the Constitution. The premier of Ontario, Bob Rae, a former member of this House, formally proposed it as the representative of the province of Ontario. We saw at the conference strong support for it. Based on the constituent assembly that I held in Thunder Bay a week and a half ago, there is strong support there as well.
We raised the question on collective rights and basically asked a group of men and women who represented a fairly good cross-section politically, economically and what have you, if our Constitution should include more guarantees of collective rights and, if so, what collective rights should be included. Eighty-two per cent of those casting ballots said yes and then when we gave them a list to choose from and places to add on, they voted as follows: 78 per cent for a minimum standard of living; 91 per cent for decent health care; 81 per cent for an education and a job; 91 per cent for clean air and clean water; 63 per cent for collective bargaining; 84 per cent for integration of people with disabilities; 78 per cent for participation in the formation of economic and social goals.

Government Orders
The relationship to the bill that we are debating is tied to that kind of response. People do not want us to fiddle with the programs and services that are valuable to them and the fair and equitable treatment of those people who, for all sorts of reasons, do not have the economic strength for full participation. Those people need protection from governments. When the federal government reduces transfer payments to any group, whether it is a province or what have you, that group has to find some replacement funds.
line or a particular corporate mentality; on behalf of all citizens.
At the same time they, like I, recognize that each part of the country is different. We have different needs. We have different desires. We have different realities- geography, history, language, culture, our economic base. Some of those jurisdictions need greater assistance from the federal level in order to help make them more equitable from sea to sea to sea.
We are seeing it in increased taxes, we are seeing it in reductions in transfers to municipalities which means the only things the government can do is either cut services or raise property taxes or user fees. It has no choice if it wants to protect its citizens.
This particular bill, which is extending a previous bill which capped CAP until 1992 and extends it to 1995, is going in the wrong direction. As the previous speaker said, it should be allowed to die on the Order Paper. We cannot necessarily reverse what has happened to date, but we can prevent this kind of change from occurring in the future.

The other theme that came through at the constituent assembly that again relates to this bill is the desire for a strong, central, national government with the power to ensure that there is equitable availability of services from sea to sea to sea, so that no matter where you are you have access to the same quality of health care, the same quality of education. That is not to suggest that there might not be different approaches in each of the jurisdictions, but that the same quality will be there.
They were very strong on that, but they were also strong on not wanting the courts to be the adjudicators. They wanted Parliament to make the decisions, whether it was Parliament in terms of this House or the other Chamber which they wanted retained but reformed to provide more protection for them so that this House, through the government of the day, could not arbitrarily reduce the quality of those services.
In a broad way they were saying: "We want you to do it but we are not prepared to trust you entirely", the "you" being we in this Chamber, the "you" being the government of the day. I
It is fair game if the Government of Canada sits down with the provincial and territorial governments and carves out a new deal. That is fair game because it needs change. Just because we adopted a program in 1960 or 1950 does not mean we should not revisit it to see if it still works in 1992.
As my leader said in one of the constitutional debates, we should not be talking about who has what power in this country but where is that power best placed to serve the people of this country. It may be that the best place is at the municipal level. It may be that the best place is at the provincial level. It may be that the best place is at the federal level, or maybe a mix. That is the kind of approach we should be taking, not an arbitrary decision to cut off three provinces because of a no longer valid assumption about being haves.
Look at the statements from the premier of Ontario in the televised address that he made two weeks ago or the plea to the Government of Canada for almost $1 billion to assist Ontario in dealing with the realities of today. It does not matter who we blame for those realities, they are real.
I think it was a cry for a different way and by proceeding with this particular bill, Bill C-32,1 believe it is going against the mood of the people of this country. They do not want our programs weakened. They want them strengthened. They want the power of this institution strengthened so that it acts on their behalf, the citizens of this great country, not on behalf of a bottom
We have lost thousands of jobs in Ontario and we are losing more every day. Yes, it is because of the free trade agreement and yes, it is because of the recession. Perhaps the federal government was directly responsible or maybe it was the provincial government, but the bottom line is that there are tough times in Ontario today.

February 3, 1992

We all have to work smarter and look for innovations to get people back to work, to keep people working, to provide the training that is needed and to ensure that as people go through transition after transition they have the skills to move forward. We are told that in this day and age, anyone graduating from high school or university can assume that they will have at least three careers during the course of their working days, and they are not necessarily related careers.
At the outset of my remarks I made reference to the loss of jobs in Thunder Bay in the pulp and paper industry. One mill closed entirely and its total work force is out on the streets. Another mill chopped about 400 jobs. In working with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Canadian Jobs Strategy, training packages were developed. We now have men who came out of high school, got a job at the mill and worked there for 20 years. They are back at community college and are taking a broad range of careers. For them they are atypical careers.
Imagine someone going from being a paper maker to a nurse, or someone who operated a fork-lift learning computerization. All those things are possible and all we need are the tools to do them. If you cut off the transfers that provide support to people when they are unable to work, then you are cutting at the very foundation of their psyche, of their ability to get back on their feet, find a new option and new ways of doing things.
I think the federal government would be much better off looking for new innovations in that way, and not reducing the transfer payments to B.C., AJberta and Ontario. It has to find a better way. It has chosen to cut instead of allocating resources in a much wiser and more effective fashion.
I want to give you one suggestion, Mr. Speaker. There is a section in the Income lax Act that allows people to defer their incomes. Teachers use it at the elementary and high school levels, instructors at the community colleges in Ontario use it and the federal public servants use it. In some cases it is called "four over five".
You sign up for the program with your employer and defer one fifth of your annual gross income into a special account. In the fifth year, you leave your place of employment for a year. Some people take training to upgrade and are paid throughout. Some people travel.
Government Orders
Some people get into new occupations or activities to develop their minds, and come back refreshed. All sorts of options are opened.
What it also does, assuming the employer is concerned about creating employment, is create one full-time replacement job over five years for every five people in an operation who participate. That is available to every sector in this country. It has been in the Income Tax Act I believe for at least 15 years, if not longer, but very few sectors have used it.
I want to go one step farther. If we want to deal with the unemployment problem, which in part is responsible for the kind of mushrooming welfare situation we have not just in Ontario but right across the country, we have got to find ways to get people back to work. One of the ways to do that is to provide either interest-free or low interest loans through companies that agree to participate, provided they replace the workers.
What I am suggesting is that this coming year a number of people could take their year off for retraining, to relax, to recharge the batteries, to volunteer at a local hospital or whatever. Then over the next four years, they would repay that income. We just reverse the process a bit. This would allow the creation of some new positions now when we need them, because we have a lot of people out there with a lot of valuable skills that are going to waste.
There obviously has to be some recognition that peoples' incomes will drop, but I am told the experience in the education sector is that when you take off the taxable component, the loss of net income is marginal. At the same time, in the treasury of Canada, Ontario or any of the provinces, by having one more person for every five working in the work force paying income tax, not collecting UI, not collecting welfare, you will have a net gain to the treasury without the kind of investment needed to create a plan; millions and millions of dollars, whether it is in the deferred taxes for large corporations which reinvest in capital equipment, or the megaprojects or what have you. That is the kind of smarter thinking we need.
I am not going to take credit for this idea. It came to me from one of my constituents who came to one of my working sessions on the economy. It is one of many

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
remarkable ideas offered to me as a means of trying to deal with the economic situation. Let us all go back to our constituencies and ask the ordinary folks for those kinds of ideas and in the meantime, let us scrap this bill so that we can ensure that while we need it, the money is being transferred from the federal taxpayer to the provincial taxpayers in those three provinces, so that we can look after the people in need.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan that I think that was a very good idea he just came up with. There are many parts of his speech that I agree with, especially when he was talking about the thousands of jobs that were being lost in the province of Ontario.
I do have however a little problem with the New Democratic Party. I want to be very specific. One of the largest auto parts organizations in Canada is Magna International. Its co-founder, Mr. Antoine Capka, resigned about three years ago, and went off with a group of other private sector entrepreneurs to develop an idea to build a small town. Eighty per cent of it was to be composed of affordable shelter. What I mean by affordable is ranging anywhere from $120,000 to $140,000.
They hired the former minister of education, Bette Stephenson, to head a group to set up an environmental college. It was kind of a dream situation. They invested $25 million of their own money. They got land that was declared surplus passed by agricultural experts. The conservation authority said that it was not causing any problems in terms of the environment or the ecosystem, et cetera.
This was a project that would have created about
17,000	jobs over a period of four years.
Just this Friday past, the minister of municipal affairs for the province of Ontario wrote a letter to the principals saying they would never approve this project. They literally shut it down. They shut it down without hearing a full proposal. I can tell you from personal experience, I have tried to call the premier. I have faxed the premier. I have written to ministers in the province in a very high-road, constructive way saying this project
is three times the size of de Havilland for four years, not to mention the social benefits of the college, et cetera.
I tried to communicate the importance of this to the premier and his ministers in the province of Ontario and I got nowhere. The member was making remarks earlier about the province of Ontario and their need for jobs. What do I have to do in order to bring a project like this to the province of Ontario so we can put Canadians back to work, get affordable shelter, not to mention the light industry that was planned for the project?
Regretfully, Mr. Capka, who had this dream and was really one of the brains behind Magna, died two weeks ago of a massive heart attack, God rest his soul. I believe one of the reasons he died was because of the pressure and the frustration of dealing with layers and layers of bureaucracy. When you believe you have a vision or a dream, somehow the bureaucratic process can really strangle you.
My question to the member is: How do we communicate good ideas that will create jobs to the NDP leadership in the province of Ontario?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about this specific project, so I am not going to comment either way. Obviously the member has already done part of that marketing by standing up in the House and asking me that question. That is really what you have to do. The reality is that there are a lot of ideas out there and they have to get through to the people who are in charge.
I have found that the current Government of Ontario is much different than the previous Liberal government in that ideas have to be proven. They have to go through a process, as opposed to what I am told happened in the past. Then if you convinced the premier, he would order it done without thinking it through. I know of a couple of incidences of that.
I can tell you though, regardless of the one matter that the hon. member raised, that I have at least two examples of where the government worked hand in hand with business and labour in two plants in the community of Atikokan. There was some inventive financing that did not require large amounts of money from the province or the federal government. In fact, the federal government basically ignored us. Those plants, Proboard and Atikokan Forest Products, are running again, putting a
February 3, 1992

community that had an 80 per cent unemployment rate back in operation.
So there are successes. There are ones that we wonder about.


An hon. member:: How do you get through?


Iain Francis Angus: How do you get through? You keep knocking on the door. You do not give up.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional conference just completed in Montreal came to the conclusion that economic union in Canada could be put in place only with guarantees of social equity among the provinces. Equalization payments were attempts by previous administrations in Canada to establish at least some level of social equity among the provinces.
I wonder if the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan would comment on the effect of this bill on social equity, and on the possibility of economic union in Canada if this bill comes into effect.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.
What the people in that conference were saying is that they wanted mechanisms to protect them and provinces from arbitrary decisions by the federal government to erode the fabric of the programs that we hold dear, whether they are health care, transfers for education or any of the other programs.
They want a social charter as a means of doing that. There may be other solutions but that is the one they focused on and they felt, as I understand the reports, that you cannot have an economic union without a social union; there has to be a balance. Certainly in the European Community a social charter has been a large part of not only its negotiations but of its agreements to protect the people in each of the member states.
That is really all we want in Canada, some kind of protection so that the government of the day, no matter what its stripe, cannot arbitrarily remove or reduce some of their services.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member about Bob Rae's relationship with business in Ontario. It is clear that Bob Rae has totally turned off business. One of the reasons is
Government Orders
that just a few moments ago he said that if a project had to be undertaken in the province of Ontario under the previous Liberal administration, all you had to do was get the premier's okay and consent.
Today if you want to get anything done, you have to get the consent of the union bosses in Ontario.
I would like to ask him whether he agrees with what is happening in the province of Ontario in which labour and Bob Rae have totally turned off business. Would he not agree that type of antagonism toward the business community in Ontario has had the effect of destroying opportunities to create employment in the province of Ontario? It has scared off investors and the people he purports to act for, the average workers in Ontario, are suffering because of that cosy relationship between Bob Rae and the union bosses in Ontario.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is taking the mythology promoted by the major media in Ontario. I have been at meetings with Bob Mackenzie, the minister of labour, as he sat across the table from the Chamber of Commerce folks and other ministers. It is a very frank but not confrontational relationship. People are investing in Ontario. People are staying in Ontario and if you look at the leaked report of the premier's council, you see that we are more than competitive. We are doing very well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before continuing the debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa West-The Royal Canadian Mint; the hon. member for Cardigan-Ferry Service; the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants-The Constitution; the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley-Foreign Trade; and the hon. member for Surrey North-Cigarettes.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take advantage of the opportunity to speak on Bill C-32, the limitation on the Canada Assistance Program being proposed by the national government. I come from a part of Canada that looks at this so-called restraint on the three wealthiest provinces

Government Orders
of Canada, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, with not the slightest degree of understanding or sympathy.
The people of Newfoundland, and I suspect the people who come from the so-called poor parts of this country, now more than ever before want their elected representatives, be they in the national parliament, be they in the legislatures, or at any level, to stand and be heard to oppose this bill which will limit the amount of money that the federal government will contribute under what was heretofore a 50/50 cost-shared program for social service purposes or welfare purposes in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
Who has been singled out for fiscal restraint in those provinces? Whether you are poor in P.E.I. or whether you are poor in Toronto, a poor Canadian, no matter where he or she lives, should expect from their national government exactly the same kind of proposed level of treatment. Somehow this government has got in its head the warped concept that it is better to be poor-or easier to be poor-in some provinces than in some others.
The people in the province where I come from, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, know that is nonsense. Those who come home from Ontario or come home from Alberta, and many have come home because of the downturn in the economy, know it is easier-if you have got to be poor, God forbid-to be poor where you can still plant, in rural communities, a few vegetables; to be poor where you can still go out, hopefully, and share in a few fish, although there are not many left; to be poor, hopefully, where you can still go out and share in the moose that was taken down by a brother or cousin.
This warped concept that it is okay to limit, to pick on poor people in so-called rich provinces, is really the latest manifestation of the, may I suggest with great respect, warped mentality that emanates from those who offer this polity opposite. Who are we picking on if we stand as members and support this bill? I notice that many members choose not to speak, choose not to stand and support this bill. Many of them plan to vote for it. When the time comes to say aye or nay, they will be there to say "Aye, aye, I support the bill". They are Conservative members of Parliament, but they do not dare to stand in their place and speak for this bill, defend
this bill, explain this bill, propose this bill. Why? Because who are we picking on? We are picking on single parent families, mentally and physically challenged people, the aged, children in care or in institutions who are in need of protection because of abuse or neglect, the unemployed, families and individuals who live in crisis and seek crisis assistance, low income workers, battered women.
We are not reducing a payment to provinces. We are not picking on-who is the provincial treasurer in Ontario?


An hon. member:: Laughren.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Laughren, Floyd Laughren. He has logged an awful lot of additional unemployment lately in Ontario under his stewardship. We are not picking on Floyd with this bill. We are not picking on the treasurer of Alberta or the new minister of finance in the province of British Columbia. This is not a case of a government putting the financial boots to another government or governments.
This is not simply a question of a paper transfer across governmental institutions. These are people of flesh and blood and they are the poorest people in our country. They are the people least able to make their voice heard. They are the people, because a lack of will and resolve on the part of governments and parliamentarians, whose voices in many instances result in the sound of silence. They are among the weakest, politically and economically, in our society and they are the last people we should ask to bear the burden of a recession. They are the first to be affected by a downturn in the economy, the last to recover from a downturn in the economy and they should be the last people we ask to bear the burden of government restraint measures.
What is going on is morally wrong.
This bill, Bill C-32, is morally wrong. I come from Newfoundland and I know that if I stay silent in Newfoundland as these punitive measures are imposed upon the weakest members of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta society, when the axe comes for those who live in Newfoundland there will be nobody left to stand and speak.
February 3, 1992

This is not an ideological issue. It should not be a question of right wing thinking versus left wing thinking. There is no purity here. Nobody has a monopoly on a moral issue. This is really about how Canadians define themselves. This is really about what kind of country Canada is going to be. This government has challenged many of the basic tenets of the social contract that we have negotiated between ourselves over 125 years. It is the contract in which no matter whether you come from Newfoundland, Quebec, British Columbia, Ontario or New Brunswick, there are some things we hold in common.
There are many ways in which we are different across the provinces. We have different languages, different culture backgrounds, different ethnic groups, different economies-some are seasonal, some are manufacturing and some are resource based-different weather, but there are some values that we hold in common. Those values have always been defined by our institutions and by the participation of our national government.
There is only one national government. There are 10 provincial governments and territorial governments, but only one national government capable of giving some national leadership and national programs, capable of providing national standards that Canadians no matter where they live will find in common. When the national government withdraws from those programs, we turn the country into a social and political tower of Babylon in which we hold nothing in common.
Bill C-32 is the latest manifestation of a program of national deinstitutionlization, national destruction, that has been undertaken by this party for the last seven or eight years. Thke any small community in Newfoundland or any small community in any part of this country where once the federal flag, the flag of Canada, flew over a post office, the flag is no more and neither is the post office.
In many parts of this country where once VIA Rail pulled up, stopped and picked up people in rural and isolated communities and allowed them to move around this country, particularly the aged and students, there are no more trains. They are gone. Where once people could look forward to services sometimes in a small hospital or in a medical clinic, because of the medicare program and transfers, because of a different set of cuts-the transfer payments have been cut-and because of the millions that have been cut unilaterally by
Government Orders
this government, many of those medical facilities or institutions are now gone. Urban centres are more crowded than they used to be.
At one time a bright young Canadian, no matter where he or she lived, if they had the brains, the will-power and the get-up-and-go to grab themselves by their bootstraps and to go out and seek their future in this country, they could do that. At one time they could feel that no matter what their circumstance, no matter what their background, no matter what their family income, if they had the get-up-and-go they could find access to good quality education.
Today, the worst position you could be in if you want to succeed from an education point of view is to be a middle-income Canadian. Your parents make too much to allow you to qualify for student assistance and they probably do not make enough to pay your way, so you are shafted. That equality of citizenship is now gone in this country.
Unemployment insurance, tack that under Bill C-21. It is another dismantling of another national social net, a safety valve. Bill C-32 is not an aberration. It is not an accident. This did not happen by accident. This was not a bill put forward that somebody had not thought through and suddenly said: "Oh my goodness, look what we are doing. It was not our intent to dismantle this country, to tear up the contract that has been negotiated across and among citizens and across provinces, to remove, to withdraw the national government from the fabric of our national life, to sever the threads that hold this patch quilt called Canada together". It was not by accident, it was by design. Bill C-32 is the latest example of that mad design.
Frankly I found it quite amusing in recent months to see the national government dedicate so much of its energy to resolving the constitutional crisis, the "unity crisis in this country", spending millions sponsoring conferences, hiring all kinds of commissions and experts, holding public forums, looking for that hard to find solution to our unity crisis.
Has the government not understood that one of the reasons the will to live together, one of the reasons the joy of being Canadian has disappeared from this country is that it has manoeuvred for many Canadians their government, their country, their sense of sharing in a dream, an opportunity as well as difficulty. They have

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
withdrawn that from people's lives and Bill C-32 is the latest example of that.
I began by saying that I come from the province of Newfoundland. I hasten to say that I am first and foremost and always a Canadian. I am proud to be a Canadian. I am proud to share in this nation's prosperity. I am proud to share in its opportunity and I am prepared to carry my share of the burden of its difficulties when difficulty comes.
That is why I cannot accept this concept that somehow it is okay to say to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia that they are "wealthy provinces and we are going to limit the federal government's contribution to social programs, welfare programs to those wealthy provinces. But we are not going to touch you in Newfoundland, so do not worry. It is not your business. It is not your issue. It is not your fight".
I am a Canadian. Newfoundlanders regard themselves in the overwhelming majority, first and foremost, as Canadians. Anything that touches their fellow Canadians, that negatively penalizes their fellow Canadians and in particular those Canadians who are least able to help themselves, affects Newfoundland.
Therefore, I can say with authority, on behalf of the people of my province, that we reject this bill. We challenge members opposite to stand and defend it or to withdraw it.
Nobody knows better than Newfoundlanders this past winter how tough times are in Canada. Nobody knows better than Newfoundlanders this winter that governments are being forced to make hard choices. I have been in communities this winter where the fishery failed this past summer. I went to a meeting at a house and when I went into the house I discovered that the next door neighbours had closed their house down, drained their water lines and moved in to stay with their neighbour because it was cheaper for two families to live in one house than to live in two separate houses. That is the reality of life in some rural Newfoundland communities.
That is the reality in St. Julien's on the great northern peninsula. That was the reality for two families I visited a month ago in the community of Croque. Times are tough, but I did not hear one person say to me that the solution to the problems and the desperation and the human misery and suffering in St. Julien's or in Croque or in St. Anthony or in White Bay or in the Baie Verte Peninsula or in the Bay of Islands, all of them having had
a devastating failure in the fishery, that their solution could be found in visiting additional misery upon the poorest of the poor in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
The issue here is not dollars and cents. The issue here is not the making of budgets or fiscal integrity. The issue here is a moral issue; it has nothing to do with political ideology. This is not another issue for the ideological battleground between right and left; this is a moral issue.
I would call upon my colleagues, particularly those opposite who contemplate supporting this measure, to examine their hearts and souls and their consciences in this great Canadian winter of discontent, to think about some of the people they met during the last six weeks when we all went back to our constituencies. I hope members were out talking to people. It is not pleasant. I have been here 12 years-that is not long compared to some of my colleagues-but this is the most difficult winter I have seen. It has never been tougher. Misery has never been easier to find, never been harder to escape.
I hope that members will examine their conscience, and I know they will, will speak within their caucus and will convince the government in the current circumstances, in the current bitter recession that Canada is experiencing, the current unity crisis that this country is feeling, that this will not bring our country together. This does not represent justice for anybody. This is not a way to resolve our fiscal problems. This is not how we should balance the books, on the backs of those who can least afford it.
I hope members opposite will see this bill withdrawn. If the government insists on proposing it, putting it, I hope they will find the courage to stand and vote against it.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on Bill C-32 at second reading and I was hoping that by this stage the government would have come to its senses. I hope that government members had the opportunity to go around their ridings and contiguous ridings to theirs and speak to the people affected by the legislation about the direction that this government has carried this country over the past years since it was elected in 1984. Perhaps they also spoke to them about the tumble that we have taken since 1988, since the institution of the free trade agreement, the goods and services tax, the clawback, the unemploy-
February 3, 1992

ment insurance bills. The attack on ordinary Canadians goes on and on and on.
I was hoping that members opposite would have realized the folly of pursuing the course that they have plotted, the course that is shown so clearly as set out in Bill C-32 and the bill prior to that, Bill C-69. Bill C-69 was the coupling, the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan to the 5 per cent level and the cutbacks in the Established Programs Financing to post-secondary education and health care. These went hand in hand. Now they have been separated and Bill C-32 is the continuation of the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan for a further two years.
It has been properly pointed out by the last speaker from Newfoundland that while it supposedly hits the so-called rich provinces of Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, the point here is not whether it is a have or have-not province, it is the stark fact that what they are doing is once again hitting out at the poor, those who have been impoverished over a period of time, many of them over the last little while. When I talk about the free trade agreement and some of the legislation, there appears to be a constant eroding of our social programs, a constant eroding of the direction that this country has taken over the 125 years since the BNA Act was signed in 1987. I would suggest it is a direction that we in Canada have taken for granted, that we have been proud of as a country. We look at our neighbours to the south and say: "We have come a different direction. We are a different people. We have things within our country, legislation that very clearly makes us stand out, programs that you people look forward perhaps one day in being lucky enough to have".
I have watched rather disheartened by the erosion of all of what I have seen happening over the last while. Bill C-32 is not necessarily an attack on the wealthier provinces, or those provinces that pay more in equalization payments, it is an attack on the people within those provinces.
The fact that they have larger populations, that they have better incomes, does not take away from the fact that they are provinces to which people migrate from other provinces. If we look at the migration between provinces, we see that some of the poorer provinces, in spite of the people not wanting to leave, they are forced to leave. Where do they go? They go to the provinces where they might have the opportunity of finding jobs.
Government Orders
This summer I picked up a person hitchhiking along the road from Newfoundland. He was working in my constituency as a fruit picker. His message was clear: "I'm a Newfoundlander. I love my province but this federal government hasn't done anything to help me get a job and ensure that I can live in my home province, the province that I love. I have to leave the province and look for work. The only work that I can find at this time to keep any food on the table is to pick fruit", an occupation totally foreign to a person coming from Newfoundland. He liked it in British Columbia but he wanted to be home. He wanted to be near his family. He wanted to be in the province where he was brought up. Because of the policies of this government, he had to move from the east coast to the west coast and take a job that was at best seasonal.
Because of the new regulations set out in the Unemployment Insurance Act he would have to work a greater number of weeks for a smaller amount of benefit. He was not sure that he would be able to get an adequate amount of time in fruit picking and other odd jobs throughout the Okanagan to get unemployment insurance.
Where does he turn if he cannot get unemployment insurance or if his unemployment insurance runs out, which it is assured to do before he is able to get another job? He turns in our province of British Columbia to the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. He certainly was a man of some pride and did not like to have what he called a handout. He was used to making it on his own. Yet, this government has forced him to go hat in hand to the government and admit that he cannot make it on his own. It is not a nice prospect for anybody.
What is happening through Bill C-32? I have talked about the migration from other provinces and certainly to the province of British Columbia where the weather is known to be good. In the summertime we have fruitpicking jobs, transient jobs that one can pick up. It encourages those from other provinces who cannot get work to move into provinces where perhaps the winters are a little less severe than in some other areas, where they have the opportunity of picking up jobs and getting a little bit more money for themselves.

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
However, when they ultimately have to turn to the welfare rolls it substantially adds to the cost and the problems of the provincial governments. They have the choice of adding to the pot and thereby increasing their deficits. We are seeing that happen in many provinces as the welfare rolls go up because of the inability of people either to get unemployment insurance or stay on unemployment insurance for the longer period of time that is required between having a seasonal job or cutting back the benefits. It is not a nice position to be in.
I suggest that what the government is doing, through its policies under Bill C-32, is attacking the very fibre that we have come to know and love in Canada.
I wonder, if I go back to the start of the free trade agreement, how this ties in. I look with some scepticism when the government says: "We are streamlining. We have to cut back". I look at what happened during the election in 1988. At that stage, the government essentially turned its back on the fact that it was running deficits each year. It turned its back on the fact that it had a major national debt to deal with and said: "Our problem is that we have to be competitive on the open market, and the free trade agreement will open up these broad horizons and these markets".
After that the government brought in the legislation in conformity, I would suggest, with some of the things set out in the free trade agreement. It predicted, in some of the arguments made, the cutbacks in unemployment insurance, the lengthening of the time it took to qualify, and the shortening of the period of time it took to get unemployment insurance. Although it promised more money for training because of the jobs that it agreed would be lost as a result of this agreement, that money was never forthcoming. In spite of the promises it made as it made the changes, it turned its back on the retraining of some of the very people it is now affecting by Bill C-32.
The clawback on Old Age Security and Canada pension was an attack on universality. It was the first step in the erosion of these programs, the deindexation of these pensions, the requirement of those above a certain level to pay back what has been paid out to them under the guise that "no, we are not attacking universality. These programs are still universal. Everybody gets them, but we are going to take that money back at the end of the period of time. It is different. It is like a tax". Nonsense. It was the first step in the total erosion of Old Age
Security. It was the first step in cutting out family allowances to all people, not just those who were better off. That will be accomplished by the deindexation of those particular programs.
When we looked at the goods and services tax, the arguments made were endless. Some 85 per cent of the people in the country were against the goods and services tax. Yet, would this government listen? No. Once again it turned its back on the people. It closed its ears to what the people were saying and said: "We know what is best for the people of this country. Regardless of what they want, we are going to institute this tax because it will make us more competitive".
Tell one million impoverished children that the goods and services tax and the policies of this government have helped them. Tell those millions of people on the unemployment rolls that the policies of this government have helped them. Tell those millions of people on social assistance that the policies of this government have helped them. Tell them that the free trade agreement has given them those manufacturing jobs they used to have. Tell them that those jobs which are fleeing south are going to come back when we get out of this recession which I suggest is much deeper than this government has or will admit.
The government was told, prior to the institution of the goods and services tax, that a major downturn in the economy was coming and would hit in the fall of 1990 and early 1991. It was not until well into 1991 that the minister finally admitted that we were in recessionary times. The Conference Board of Canada and the treasurer of the Alberta government warned the government that the ramifications of the goods and services tax would be far-reaching and the implications massive for the people of this country.
Unfortunately those words are ringing true now. We have and are in a major recession. We have millions of people out of work. In my area in the Okanagan alone we have never been below the 10 per cent mark. We are always well above the national average on unemployment.
My riding which lies on the border with the United States is affected in a major way, and particularly since the advent of the goods and services tax, with cross-border shopping. People have been chased out of their own country to look where they feel they can get goods and services more cheaply. And the exodus is massive.
February 3, 1992

I spoke to a young gentleman who had worked some 11 years for a dairy company. He advised me that as a result of people going across the border to purchase their dairy products eight major full-time jobs were being lost and that there were cutbacks of up to 50 people for that dairy across the province of British Columbia.
This cycle has continued. I look at this government's policies with respect to privatization and centralization of services and I wonder what the thinking is. Are we going to close down the rural areas of our country in the guise of competitiveness? In the city of Penticton a number of federal services are affected directly right now because of this government's policies. The Penticton post office, an historic institution, has just been closed down or will be closed down at the end of this week. We cannot get any assurance from Canada Post that the sorting will continue in Penticton and that its historic cancellation stamp will be retained. There are 12 jobs affected by this move, and Canada Post will not give us the assurance that those 12 jobs will not be affected. It will not give us the assurance that we will have a full service facility. In the guise of competitiveness it appears that it is going to take those positions and move them to a nearby city, probably Kelowna or Kamloops.
Those areas are building and building and building. Little areas like Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos, Grand Forks, and Merritt need jobs. We are losing jobs across the border on a daily basis. Certainly now is not the time to institute these policies of centralizing government services, of shutting down services in small communities.
I look at the VTA office in Penticton, an area that covers the southern part of not only my riding but also of Kootenay West-Revelstoke and Kootenay East. Its central area office is located in the same building in which I have my office. It has over 20 employees who do a good job for the people of the area. Yet once again rumours abound: Will this be shifted out, will this be moved? Mr. Speaker, over my dead body. We will not put up with a constant erosion of the jobs that are available in our small communities, particularly now.
This bill, while looked at as a belt-tightening bill, is once again one that hurts the poor and the middle class. It is a bill that hits the one million poor I spoke of.
Mr. Speaker, look at the submissions that were made before the committee that studied this bill. It is veiy
Government Orders
clear that the long-term effects on the poor and the poverty stricken are major. The National Council of Welfare has recently reported that social assistance rates are still far below the poverty line-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please, your time is over. On questions or comments, the hon. member for Surrey North.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague's comments. I know before he was elected as a member of Parliament he was a lawyer and did a lot of work in the courts, and I am sure both in juvenile and family court. He is aware that the loss of revenue from this bill in the province of British Columbia will amount to $1.2 billion over the next five years.
Some of the services it will affect are services for children, protection services aimed at the removal, the prevention, the cause and effect of poverty, child neglect, and dependence on public assistance. This would include services like case work, counselling, adoption, homemakers and community development, all of the things that go to protect children, to assist families in functioning better and to deal with family violence.
From the member's experience as a lawyer and working in court, what does he think the impact on services will be with the withdrawal of $1.2 billion over a five-year period? What impact will it have on children and families, from the hon. member's experience?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I did work in the courts in and around the Okanagan in particular and the boundary country. The areas the member referred to would have touched me directly as I was employed on a contract basis with the province of British Columbia over approximately 11 years. I dealt with protection services, child neglect and family violence on an ongoing basis in the courts. Quite frankly, it frightens me when I think that some of the steps we were slowly getting toward for family protection services, protection of children and battered women, will either stop, slow down or be eroded.
Transfer payments of $1.2 billion over a five-year period of time goes a long way toward assuring the type of protection for many of the families that we saw over the 11 years that I worked with protection services in the province of British Columbia.

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
The poor and those who are less well off than others are the ones who are hurt directly by Bill C-32. My friend has pointed out a number of areas that I did not hit on that will be directly affected by the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan. The argument has been that it is only a 5 per cent cap, but the fact is that there is the migration that I talked about coming in, and the inflationary rate itself eats up almost 5 per cent. Add to it the migration of those coming from other provinces who have to go on social assistance and turn to some of the benefits provided by the protection services that my friend spoke about, and you have a terrible prospect for these people. You must agree that we are going to end up having to give up some of those services that are so desperately needed in these tough times.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Last fall the government announced, with a great deal of ballyhoo, a program aimed at family violence in which it was going to spend $1.37 million over five years. At the same time it has taken $1.2 billion away from British Columbia and something like $5 billion away from Ontario. What is the reaction that you are getting in the community to a government that on the one hand says it is going to extend services to the tune of $1.3 million, but then takes several billion dollars away from that same program. The reaction I got was that it was hypocritical, deceitful and a sham. What was the reaction in your part of British Columbia at this kind of shim-shamming on programs?


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Surrey North has hit on one of the problems that all politicians end up running into because of what this government has been doing over the last little while. On the one hand it says it believes in something and is going to do a set thing, while on the other hand it picks the pockets of the veiy people it said it would help originally. He spoke of hypocrisy. Canada signed the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention itself states that "parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development". At the same time, Canada's social assistance rates are being eroded by Bill C-32. We look at Canada, one of the wealthiest nations in the world, with over one million children living in poverty. We are only second to the United States in the level of child poverty in the industrialized world. It is no wonder people are looking at the government in disbelief.
Where is the reality? What is happening? On the one hand the government picks our pockets, and on the other hand it says it is going to put something back in our pockets. Well if it put anything in, it makes sure there is a hole in that pocket so it dribbles back out again.
People have become very sceptical of what this government has to say. The government members continue to say that as politicians they are trying to do the best thing. It is this government's policies, both monetary and fiscal, that have eroded the respect that politicians have had in the past. It is this government's inability to hear the shouts and the cries of the people of Canada that has eroded the respect that politicians have had in the past. It is this government's total attitude toward the people of Canada that has eroded that respect that politicians have traditionally had in the past.
Frankly, with what I have seen here since 1988,1 have some difficulty respecting the group over there as a whole. Yet I still recognize that individually each and every one of them cares as dearly as I do for their constituents. They get together in this herd mentality and do things that can only hurt the people of Canada. I ask them to reconsider Bill C-32 and stop it now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Resuming debate. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 is quite straightforward. It has only one clause, whose purpose is to amend the Canada Assistance Plan. This bill proposes extending, from two years to five, the 5 per cent cap on increases in transfer payments under the Canada Assistance Plan. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the cap applies only to provinces that do not receive equalization payments, and I am referring to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
This is a very important bill, Mr. Speaker. Since it affects the very source of our social programs, it will raise a great national debate on the whole subject of social charters, social rights and social services. This worries me, Mr. Speaker, because in the past few years, we have seen a great economic debate on government proposals aimed at restoring the objectives of the political right, in other words, at making the economy less subject to government intervention and more dependent on the private sector.
February 3, 1992

I have no objection to a mixed economy, Mr. Speaker, because it is part of our system. We are used to that. However, we have a government obsessed by deregulation, free trade and taxation. Remember, we have had at least 32 tax increases from this government since it came to power in 1984. What I find truly appalling, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that so far in this debate on third reading, only one member rose on behalf of government, a minister who spoke for 17 minutes, and that was it. Not a single government member rose to justify the decision made by their government, their political leaders who today are supported by only 10 to 12 per cent of Canadians. And now, without a national debate, without a parliamentary debate, on third reading the Conservative members will rise and vote, that I am sure, to support the government's proposal. That is the kind of silence I do not understand. It is a shameful silence! I urge Conservative members to rise in the House and say why they support this legislation on third reading.
Mr. Speaker, this worries me because I feel, in fact I know, that after what happened in Montreal on the weekend, the debate on social programs will be led by the experts, and this is the government's first initiative. It will impose on Canadians a decision made by 10 to 12 per cent of the population, a decision that will have a dramatic and even terrifying impact on the quality of life of many Canadians.

Who does the Canada Assistance Plan help provinces provide assistance and services for? The needy, Mr. Speaker. The CAP makes it possible for those in foster homes to survive, for abused children to get some care, understanding and help.
The CAP helps women in my riding with children, in homes that are called shelters for abused women. I have several in my riding. It is not easy. The people in there are having a hard time, but the CAP program is there to assist. It assists those people who need training programs. It provides essential living services for disabled persons.
In other words, CAP, Canada Assistance Plan, helps those in need. It is a safety net of the last resort which aids close to two million low income Canadians, our poorest citizens. We all know we have close to 1,400,000 unemployed Canadians today in Canada. That is a shame, but we also have 2,200,000 Canadians on social assistance and that is a shame for this country.
Government Orders
What do we do because we care? We put together a safety net. The Canada Assistance Plan is part of that safety net. This government, by the decision of a very few, is cutting the required resources which the poor people of Canada need.
People will argue that the rich provinces of Ontario, B.C. and Alberta, where equalization payments are not paid, should not be getting as much.
I will tell you that in my riding, the poor are poor. If we say the poor people in Ontario, B.C. or Alberta are not entitled to our preoccupations in terms of helping them, we are indeed in a sad state. We are indeed, as my friend today said, in a society with a warped approach to obligations.
I represent the riding of Ottawa-Vanier, and for those of you who do not know, it is not the richest. It has the lowest family income in the national capital region, but we are not ashamed of the fact that we work hard.
We do not have the high income groups because we did not have the systems in place years ago. I could give a whole historical background as to why poverty in my riding was systemic, why people would continue to live in sometimes low-income and sometimes poor conditions. I was brought up in that milieu. I got out of it basically because there was an understanding in this country of helping people who wanted to help themselves.
In Ontario this year alone a cap on CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan, will cost us $1 billion. Half of Canada's poorest people live in my province of Ontario, in British Columbia and in Alberta-half of them. In effect through Bill C-32 the Tory government is abdicating its responsibility to provide assistance to the poorest Canadians. It is transferring that responsibility to provinces and municipalities that must struggle to find ways to make up for their budget short-falls without jeopardizing their programs.
They had nothing to do with creating this made-in-Ca-nada recession which was created and planned by this government following the free trade deal it made with the Americans. It was a set pattern put in place by people who knew what they were doing. We started being in a recession way before the Americans and we will probably get out of it way after they do.


February 3, 1992
Government Orders
Some people have said it in the House today: Bill C-32 is a bad bill at a bad time. The evidence of Tory negligence is all around us. I have mentioned the 1.4 million unemployed, I mentioned the 2.2 million on welfare and the more than 1 million children in this country living under the poverty line at this time. We could go on and on bringing forth these very sad situations.
In my view and in the view of my colleagues on this side, the government should let this bill die, acknowledge its disastrous effect and forget about it. We will see. It does not want to debate it. We will see what it will do. Its members do not want to debate it, but maybe they will have the guts to sit down in their places and not vote for it. That will defeat the damn thing.
We recently were given a presentation by the premier of Ontario on TV announcing the terrible news in this province. He said that the recession had cost thousands of Ontarians their jobs, more job losses are likely still to come. This recession brought on and worsened by Tory policies has forced the Ontario government to cut the increase in grants this year to hospitals, municipalities, school boards and universities to 1 per cent. In real terms with inflation factored in, this means job losses and a drop in the quality of service that these institutions offer.
This week the Ottawa region, my region, has had reports of cuts in regional and municipal budgets which would affect programs that help the poorest in our communities. The cut in provincial transfers is estimated to cost Ottawa-Carleton people $50 million to $60 million this year alone just to maintain. It is not to improve, but just to maintain the services.
In September last when I spoke on Bill C-32, the economic situation in this region was terrible. Today, it is even worse. Optimists-there are still a few around- predict an economic turnaround will possibly begin half way through this year. This Tory government blindly pursues this legislation to put a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan at a time when it is forcing more and more Canadians to turn to such assistance.
I will give some stats on that.
One in ten Ontario residents is out of work. The number of long-term unemployed, those who are unemployed for six months, is expected to exceed 121,000, higher than the 1981-82 recession.
The unemployment rate in Ontario now is 9.7 per cent and not expected to drop below 8 per cent until at least the end of 1995, according to the Ontario treasurer. The number of unemployed in Ontario has risen from
331,000	in 1990 to 506,000 in 1991. Ontario has 40 per cent of the 1,100 manufacturing bankruptcies in Canada during the last year. Ontario corporate pre-tax profits are expected to have a decline of almost 30 per cent in 1991 while retail sales are expected to drop by 7 per cent.
The January 1992 issue of the Canadian Economic Observer shows that business bankruptcies in Ontario increased from 181,128 in October to 362,138 in November, the most recent month for which statistics are available.
I could go on and on and show the economic distress we are in. The staggering statistics have been provided.
I want to end my comments because I know my friend from Thunder Bay-Nipigon wants to make some remarks tonight and I want to give him a chance to get on the debate. On this side, we have a lot of members who want to speak. We are going to have to share our time so that we can all get on. I understand our concerns, but I cannot understand or accept that silence over there. The members of that Tory government fail to want to debate this important bill.
Therefore, in closing, may I just say that to place a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan is to jeopardize its effectiveness, its ability to help the poorest Canadians, wherever they live.
As the National Council on Welfare remarked in its report earlier this year, the Ibries are imposing a limit on a program that was designed to be flexible enough to protect those with no other recourse for assistance. The council is also worried that this cap could postpone long overdue reforms to the welfare system to make it work better.
Confidence in this government is low. I can understand that. Everywhere they turn, Canadians witness and experience the painful fallout of Tory government policies.
For this government, the passage of Bill C-32 may be an objective. It may represent another landmark or checkmark for it. For us it is nothing but right wing agenda for the destruction of Canada as we know it. For Canadians, passage of Bill C-32 will be a sad event.
February 3, 1992


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to speak to the House and bring the concerns of the citizens of Thunder Bay-Nipigon with respect to the bill before us, a bill that was called by the minister today a cap on the CAP, the transfer payment to the provinces, that transfer payment being extended to 1995 and into 1996.
As the last speaker of the day, I would like to compliment the debate on this side of the House today and to reflect, not only to the members of this House, since this is our first day back, but to the people of Canada the feelings we are experiencing about the effects this bill will have.
We had speakers from our side from Newfoundland, Broadview-Greenwood, London East, Leeds-Grenville, Parkdale-High Park, Winnipeg North Centre, Edmonton Southeast and just recently the member for Ottawa-Vanier. They truly reflected the condition of the economy of Canada today and the debate also reflects the distress that some people find themselves in because of this capping procedure.
I would also like to comment just for a moment on the speaker who went before me from my sister riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, and not to leave any impression as to what I heard him say about what was happening in the area I come from, Thunder Bay-Nipigon and particularly northwestern Ontario. There is no question that like everyone else in Canada we in northwestern Ontario and Thunder Bay are suffering. Perhaps it is not as much as some of our brothers and sisters in some of the eastern provinces, and perhaps not as greatly as they are in Alberta and British Columbia. In any event, there is no one in Canada today escaping this harsh reality that we find ourselves in because of the economic process.
Let me correct some of the statements that were made in that speech. We do not allow raw sewage to be discharged into Lake Superior. What we do have in Thunder Bay is a primary sewer treatment plant which has been operating for some 20 or 25 years and the necessity is now upon the municipality of Thunder Bay to put in a secondary treatment facility so that the discharge will be free and clear of any effluents whatsoever. That is a $60 million to $70 million cost which will have to be paid for by the municipal taxpayers and hopefully by some co-operation between the provincial government and the federal government.
Government Orders
The infrastructure program that we heard our leader talk about today would go a long way toward helping the community of Thunder Bay and every other community in this country to take care of those vital services that are so sorely needed I am sure in every community in our country.
We do have one paper mill that has shut down. We do have lay-offs in some of the other paper mills. I am satisfied with the paper mills that we do have in Thunder Bay, one of which is the fine paper mill, Great Lakes Forest Products. It has just completed a $50 million expansion and is producing recycled fibre. It is one of the mills in Canada that is state of the art. I am satisfied that in Domtar Nipigon the union and the company are talking about how it can become more competitive so that it can produce paper and its products and its cartons so that it will be more competitive.
I am satisfied also that the mills in Fort Frances and Dryden that produce fine papers and Provincial Paper which produces fine paper and Thunder Bay Mill which produces newsprint are working toward becoming economically a combination between management and unions working together in order to enhance the community.
I am not at all pessimistic about the future of Thunder Bay. I am optimistic that we have this type of co-operation between the parties involved so that we know what the market is out there. I say with the industriousness and the co-operation of all of the people in Thunder Bay that we will be able to meet the challenges ahead of us.
I am glad the Minister of Agriculture is in the House today. I want to compliment him on behalf of the people of Thunder Bay and to congratulate him for just over the weekend completing a transaction with Mr. Yeltsin to supply 25 million tonnes of wheat to the Russian people over the next five years and for granting the $100 million loan that was necessary for the Russian people to buy this grain.
While the minister is still in the House, I want to remind him once more that the traditional ports where the grain is shipped to the Russian market are usually the port of Thunder Bay and the Don River ports. I would hope he would remember that as he completes all of the further transactions that are going to have to be involved with the shipment of that 25 million tonnes of grain through the port of Thunder Bay. I would be available to advise him if he would accept my help.

February 3, 1992
Government Orders
We find ourselves in an unfortunate dilemma with this legislation here in Ontario. Twelve months ago the Government of Ontario decided that the best fiscal policy was to buy itself out of the recession. As a result, it originally forecast almost a $10 billion deficit which has now been increased, as I understand it, to about $13 billion or $14 billion. It has changed course and just recently decided that it cannot buy itself out of this recession, so it has come to the federal government to ask for mammoth amounts of money in order to relieve the unemployment situation.
What we find ourselves in, particularly in the province of Ontario, is this unholy alliance between the NDP in Ontario and the Conservative Party, which is trying to put a cap on spending. It truly spells disaster not only for the economy of Ontario but for the country as a whole.
This bill is so contentious, it is so harmful, it is so hurtful, it is so odious that the province of British Columbia, in conjunction with Ontario and Alberta, brought this bill, to cap the allowances that they were allowed, to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. They received a favourable ruling. Eventually this bill went to the Supreme Court of Canada and it said that the decision made in British Columbia was non-operable and the decision was reversed.
Although there was some discussion about that-I am glad the Solicitor General is in the House today-if you read that decision, you will find that what the Supreme Court of Canada was saying to us was that it was not going to interfere in the legislative process of this country. The court listened to the argument but I think the obiter of the case, the reading, the tone of that decision was that legislation is the mandate of this House. If you want to have any spending or any other fiscal responsibility with respect to how that money is spent, it does not come under the guidance of the courts. The courts are there to interpret what is said and this House passes the legislation. I
I am very glad that in reading that particular decision that a division between the interpretation of the legislation and the legislation itself that was passed is the proper course that we all must follow.
Through no fault of their own, all too many Canadians have been caught in the grip of a very serious recession. I am often prompted by what we have been hearing on television, recession to all of us who have jobs, but a depression to so many in Canada today who have no jobs. This legislation will, in effect, limit the Canada Assistance Plan and will hurt most of the people in Canada who need it.
Payments to the so-called have provinces will be subject to a ceiling not of two years but, as I said, of five years. This is completely unacceptable.
Canada used to be known as a caring society but no one can help noticing the slide toward a society that imposes an even greater burden on the disadvantaged who are among us.
The focus of the bill under discussion has three targets: the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. These provinces have historically been viewed as the have provinces. I was impressed by the comments of our friend from Newfoundland who said that we can no longer look at the provinces in isolation one to the other. We talk about Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario as the have provinces but we will never be a united country unless we look at all of the provinces, realize the needs of each and every one of them individually and pass legislation in this House that is equal and compatible to all. If anyone is hurting in British Columbia, we should have the same care and compassion for that person, that Canadian, as the person who may be hurting in Newfoundland.
I am satisfied with that kind of a philosophy. With the economic union of Canada we can help all Canadians. We should not be looking at provinces as have provinces and have not provinces.
Close to 50 per cent of Canada's poorest families and 54 per cent of all welfare recipients under the Canada Assistance Plan today live in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. The government has decided to cap the Canada Assistance Plan right through to the end of 1995 and assumes that payments will grow in proportion to the increase of the Gross National Product.
We all know, Mr. Speaker, from everything that we have heard in this House today that there is not going to be an increase in the Gross National Product in Canada in 1992, so that cap is not a fictitious cap, it is a real cap, and those figures are set. We on this side of the House
February 3, 1992

will never support legislation that tries to fight the deficit by cutting not only the flesh off the bone but goes to the marrow of the bone itself. It affects every person in need in this country. It affects the essential services for the destitute and those who are truly in distress within our country.
This bill is simply a way for the government to cut a few comers, to shave off a few more dollars. It is unacceptable to the Liberals. Look at who would be affected by the cuts in this act. The list is extensive. First off, in every province, the homes for the aged, the annual contribution made not by the federal government but by the federal government to the province and the province, eventually, down to the municipality.
As we all know, we have a great habit in this country, both provincially and federally, of passing legislation that puts the onus of responsibility for paying for that legislation on to the municipalities, to the real property owners. I do not think there is a municipality around anywhere in this country that can afford any more of those obligations which higher levels of government are forcing them to pay for those services.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my time has run out. The House is to adjourn. I understand I will get some time tomorrow morning.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the strike at the Royal Canadian Mint in Ottawa and Winnipeg has gone on for far too long. The Minister of Labour took far too long to get involved and to carry out his obligations to support good labour relations in this country.
Employees were on strike over Christmas in some of the worst freezing weather that this city has seen in many years. It was even worse in Winnipeg. They are still on strike today. The demands of the workers are not unreasonable, they are simply asking for the same treatment that their managers at the Mint have already received.
Adjournment Debate
The 1990 profits at the Mint were $10.4 million. That money helped reduce the deficit and produced revenues that benefited taxpayers. These revenues are in jeopardy because of the strike that has been going on for over four months in Winnipeg and two months in Ottawa. The Mint's every day treatment of its managers is costing taxpayers money, paying for free lunches, free parking and free vans to transport them into their place of work. It is costing money by paying for the storage of gold outside of Mint property. It is flying Ottawa managers to Winnipeg and back on a regular basis. This is costing taxpayers money because all of this comes off the profits of the Mint, which reduced borrowing requirements for the Government of Canada last year to the tune of over $10 million.
Every day the Mint strike continues is costing us money, jeopardizing foreign contracts and the quality of products for which Canadians have become known. It is unconscionable that those who are responsible for this situation have given themselves increases of up to 8.5 per cent but refuse more than a 3 per cent increase for the people who produce those revenues for the people of Canada. It is unconscionable that a government that approves full cost of living increases for judges making eight times as much as many of these Mint workers directs the Mint's management to get tough with employees.
Nobody can understand why people earning higher salaries, the managers in this case, can give themselves double increases over what they are prepared to give their employees, especially when the cost goes directly to the taxpayers. These employees are not a drain on the public purse. They are making money for Canada that helps reduce the tax burden and cuts the need for government borrowing, again by over $10 million a year.
All they are asking for is fair treatment. We hope that the strike will be over as of tonight. We plead with the government to please intervene and make sure the quality of production at the Mint is maintained and that people are back to work with a fair salary and fair treatment after the strike is over.


Mr. Ken James (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member for Ottawa West to know there have been several developments in this labour dispute since her December 9, 1991 intervention.
The hon. member will be aware that a mediator was appointed to assist the parties on December 13, 1991, following a formal request for mediation assistance from the employer, as the minister mentioned he would do.

Adjournment Debate
The mediator met with the parties December 16 and 17 but there was no agreement forthcoming.
Mediation meetings resumed on January 16, 1991, this time at the request of the union. As the minister mentioned, the representative parties should ask for the mediator to intervene. After three days of intensive negotiations the Mint made an offer which the union agreed to put to a vote of the union membership on January 20. The offer was rejected by the union membership and the work stoppage is continuing.
The parties subsequently met directly on January 24 and 25 but unfortunately their discussions did not lead to an agreement.
As a result of further discussions the union membership is to vote this evening on a further management proposal. We understand the union bargaining committee will recommend acceptance of the proposal to the union membership and if ratified all bargaining unit members in Winnipeg and Ottawa would be recalled to return; in Winnipeg, within 48 hours and in Ottawa within the next two or three days.
We want to thank the member for her interest. Certainly we are interested in seeing an end to this work stoppage in the very near future.


FERRY SERVICE
Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to bring up the concerns of my constituents before the House. The issue today arose from a question I asked the Minister of State for Transport last October concerning the Wood Islands ferry service in my riding. This is a very important link to the mainland and I would like to give the House a little more information on the issue.
In May 1988 the then Minister of Transport flew to Prince Edward Island to announce that a new ferry would be built for the Wood Islands-Caribou crossing, and that the ferry would be in place for 1990. However, it seems that as soon as P.E.I. sent four Liberal MPs to Ottawa the government started dragging its feet.
After I sent numerous letters to three Ministers of Transport, the government finally awarded a contract for a new ferry to be delivered only three years behind schedule. In late September the Minister of Transport responded to a letter I wrote raising certain questions about the impact the fixed link would have on the Wood Islands ferry service. Specifically I asked that there be no reduction in the operating subsidy for the service and
that the government give a permanent commitment for the continuation of the ferry service.
In his letter the minister said, and I quote: "I am unable to make a permanent commitment for the continuation of the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service". He went on to say that no hasty decisions would be made. In that context I asked the Minister of State for Transport for an assurance for a permanent ferry service from Wood Islands, P.E.I. In her answer the minister said: "I would not make a permanent promise of this. I promise to look into it".
Simply put, promises to look into it are not good enough. The government should not be looking into it at all. The government should come clean and give the people of Prince Edward Island and the people of Cardigan the guarantees they need in order to plan the financial future for eastern Prince Edward Island. How can people plan businesses that require transportation services when the government will not say if the service will be there in 10 years' time?
We are at a crossroads in P.E.I. right now. The government has accepted three proposals for the construction of the fixed link. After Public Works does a cost analysis and accepts a bidder, construction on the fixed link will begin. The Government of P.E.I. has stated clearly that it has 10 conditions that must be met before the final approval of this project is given.
Before the federal government awards a contract I think there are at least three requirements that must be met. The Wood Islands-Caribou ferry services must be maintained and updated, which means there will be no decrease in the operating subsidy.
Fishermen must be duly compensated for any loss caused by the construction and the operation of the fixed link. The federal government must ensure that the over-all environmental impact will be kept to a minimum.
These are my concerns as the member of Parliament for Cardigan. When the minister answered my question in October the response was unsatisfactory. I hope the response from the government this time will go further to ease the concerns of my constituents and give us some assurance that we will have a connection with the mainland.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the ferry service between Wood Islands, P.E.I. and Caribou, Nova Scotia has been operated by Northumberland Ferries Limited
February 3, 1992

during the ice-free season between May and December for about 50 years now.
The operation of the feriy service is subsidized by the federal government because it recognizes that the service is an important alternative to the service required under the Constitution that is operated by Marine Atlantic Inc. between Borden, Prince Edward Island and Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick. The Government of Canada clearly recognizes the importance of the Wood Islands-Caribou ferry service to the economy of the eastern part of the Island.
The federal subsidy for 1991-1992 will be in the range of $7.5 million. In addition, as the member has just noted, the federal government has awarded a contract valued at close to $43 million to Pictou Industries Ltd. to construct a new 200-car ferry for the service.
Funding has also been provided and work has begun on the redevelopment and modification of the related terminal facilities. The need for this investment was justified on the basis of traffic congestion during the peak summer period and the age of the existing ships.
The level of service offered is a reflection of the demand. Northumberland Ferries Ltd. provides over
7,000	single crossings per year, 2,000 more each year than there were 10 years ago. A service in the future will continue to be reviewed and adjusted based on the traffic needs.
The federal government is not presently considering any modification to the Wood Islands-Caribou service because of a fixed link. It would not, however, be appropriate for a fiscally responsible government to make any unconditional government commitment to subsidize the service in perpetuity before the actual impact of a fixed link on the ferry's traffic can be seen.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, on December 3, 1991, last year, I asked the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs about the apparent flip-flop of the government on the question of a national referendum on the Constitution. The minister replied at that time and suggested that regardless of all the conversation and conflict in the newspa-
Adjournment Debate
pers about where the government stood on the national referendum, in time the government would be prepared to have a mechanism of consultation with Canadians.
That was in December. We have had the Christmas recess and there has not been a member home listening to constituents and taking the pulse of his people who has not come back to this House knowing that while the Constitution is very fundamental, the question of any constitution at the moment is sort of in a state of paralysis. The public at large is stunned with the smorgasbord of constitutional committees, constitutional consultations, constitutional reports, constitutional conferences, studies, et cetera. The public at large is more preoccupied with the economy and really is not all that happy about anything regarding the Constitution.
We as parliamentarians have to address that because there are certain constitutional clocks ticking. It is only because of this parliamentary procedure that we have where you get an answer to a question and then the member who asked the question has four minutes to elaborate, and then there is supposedly a two-minute response, that you can even have this procedure. In the six minutes allowed, you obviously cannot get into the debate on the detail of all the rights and wrongs of constitutions, let alone the problems with a referendum.
Even though this is the cosy winter of Canada coast to coast, and certainly where I come from we are still dug into a large snowdrift, the people have time to watch TV, and are very much aware that 1992 is the year that is a sort of "high noon" for constitutional decisions. This government is going to have to give effective national leadership-not leadership in regions, but national leadership-on all constitutional questions, including the question of the referendum.
Old Shakespeare said somewhere in one of his plays that the question was "to be or not to be". The time for Canadians to wonder what this government stands for on the fundamental question of a referendum is over, and it is "to be" or at least the mechanism. It has to be either a referendum or, I would suggest, even an election. I know there are a good many sincere people, many good colleagues of ours, who are studying this in a more exhaustive way before the parliamentary committee now. They will be coming in with their report toward the

February 3, 1992
Adjournment Debate
latter part of February, and that is really when "high noon" is going to start to take a focus.
In the few seconds left to me, I would suggest to the government that it get its act in order. It must give some attention and priority to the economy so that Canadians from coast to coast appreciate, as we have up until now, our social programs, especially the medicare program, which as a benefit is part of our heritage. I am not going to get into that because I do not have the time for social charters, and I have some real questions as a lawyer about constitutionalizing social charters. But certainly in a pragmatic way we can accentuate the positive in this country from coast to coast. One of the positives has been our social net and our social programs for Canadians who cannot help themselves, and even for all Canadians to have the benefit of a medicare program which came in while I was a member. There were even members in the House then who thought there should not be a medical program. The then premier of Ontario, Premier Robarts, said they would never go ahead with it, and they did because members decided medicare was something for Canada.
I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that in coming to the finality of a constitution-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Your time is over.

The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs has two minutes.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, I realize that my colleague has many questions. I probably cannot answer all his questions, but I know his concern about the referendum.
Mr. Speaker, it is here in this House of Commons that we will have to work to find a solution. The minister is certainly not ruling out any consultation procedure, as was stated in the Speech from the Throne. We promised to ensure that Canadians could take a more active part in constitutional development. The minister answered at the time that one of the ways that the government was still considering to fulfil its commitment made in the
Speech from the Throne was to hold a referendum, but the decision is far from being made.
My colleague mentioned the social charter and so on-the public consultations now going on open new horizons for us and suggest new approaches. A consultation was held in Montreal on the weekend as part of the five major constitutional conferences; another one will be held in Toronto next weekend and finally one in Vancouver. This was preceded by the Spicer commission which-everyone has heard about. We did not hear only negative things during that commission-on the contrary. There was the Beaudoin-Edwards committee; now there is the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee. Mr. Speaker, all this will lead us to make a decision; it will not be decided in a referendum but here in the House of Commons.
Some Canadians have put us on notice. Bill Davis, Allan Blakeney and Maurice Sauve have warned us against deciding on the method of consultation too quickly. I repeat what Maurice Sauve said:

"Everywhere in this country people expect Parliament to come up with a solution. They want members of Parliament to assume their responsibility. It is yours. You are representing all of Canada, all of it. Nobody can replace you. You can have constituent assemblies. You can have all sorts of other forums. It is you who has the responsibility. Because of this you must come up with a package supported by everyone".

We must take action that will unify Canada and lead to reconciliation.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight to follow up on a question I put to the Deputy Prime Minister back on October 3 on a very important issue, the softwood lumber tariff issue that has an impact on virtually all of Canada and the many communities throughout the country dependent on the forest industry. This question relates to the ongoing trade dispute with the United States over our softwood lumber exports to the U.S. and the American allegation that we unfairly subsidize our
February 3, 1992

lumber exports and that it is causing injury to the American lumber export market in the United States.
My question was really twofold back in October. The first question was: Given that the government, albeit late and at the cost of thousands of jobs, was slow to respond in getting Canada out of the softwood lumber tariff, we have done that and we are now in a long process of hearing back from the Americans on just what their decision is going to be on this issue.
We already had one ruling in December that was against Canada. The second ruling which has been delayed now until February 25 will be important as well. This process will go on until May.
The first part of my question is related to assurances from this government that it will be aggressive in protecting Canada's sovereignty in our forests.
The second part of the question is related to legislation that was actually brought in by this government to implement this tariff. It was a question about the Softwood Lumber Products Act and what the intention of the government was on this legislation, if it was needed and if it was going to be continued. I think the point is that Canadians, particularly those who live in communities and work in the forest industry, need to see a definitive and aggressive response from this government to protect our interests and to ensure that the Americans do not walk all over us.
We do not want a situation again like the one that happened in 1986 when this government and its friends in British Columbia, the then Social Credit government, basically sold out our forests. I hope to hear from the government tonight that it will be aggressive in defending our forests and to have some indication from the government as to what it intends to do with the Softwood Lumber Products Act.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade noted in the House on December 3, 1991, the government's priority has been and will continue to be to develop in close co-operation with the provinces and the industry the best possible defence against the U.S. subsidy allegations.
Adjournment Debate
There is no subsidy for Canadian softwood lumber. A GATT panel has been established to confirm our view that stumpage does not constitute a countervailable subsidy to Canadian lumber producers. The panel has also been asked to confirm that the United States did not live up to its international obligations when it self-initiated the investigation and imposed a bonding requirement on Canadian lumber exports.
Finally, we have asked the panel to determine that log exports controls do not confer a countervailable benefit under international trade rules.
With respect to the repeal of the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act, the government intends to repeal the legislation as soon as possible. All provinces are being zero-rated retroactively to October 4, 1991. We expect that the act will be repealed in its entirety within weeks.
With respect to questions posed by the United States, a number of questions were raised in the course of consultations which took place following our decision to terminate the softwood lumber memorandum of understanding. Much of the information contained in the response to those questions was provided by various provincial governments. We would have to seek the permission of those provinces to release this information.
I conclude by restating the government's commitment to fighting and winning this case and to reiterate our confidence that Canada-U.S. lumber trade will be put back on a normal basis. We will continue to work closely with the provinces, including the province of British Columbia, and the industry toward winning this case.
I would also remind the members of the House that the results of this action will be subject to binding binational panel review under the free trade agreement. This option was not available to Canada in the 1986 countervailing duty investigation before the free trade agreement.


CIGARETTES
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I wish to follow up on a question I asked at the end of November concerning the export of Canadian cigarettes and the smuggling back of those cigarettes into Canada.
The RCMP has estimated that it is now a $500 million business. In the first nine months of last year the export of Canadian cigarettes has doubled. Most of these are being smuggled back into Canada, partially by organized crime.



Adjournment Debate
The export price on cigarettes is about $14. The retail price in Canada for the same carton of cigarettes is in excess of $40.
Canada has been one of the most successful countries in the world at reducing tobacco consumption. This made tremendous savings to our health care system and saved the lives of a countless number of Canadians. In spite of that, every year 38,000 Canadians die of tobacco related diseases. There is a loophole and that is the low price of cigarettes being exported out of the country and then smuggled back in. The impact is a loss of $350 million in revenue to the government and our health promotion program of reducing tobacco consumption is being undermined.
Myself and other people and organizations including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, and the Canadian Medical Association are calling for an export tax of $10 a carton on tobacco products. This would mean that it would be uneconomical to smuggle those back into Canada to circumvent our health promotion programs and our taxation.
We cannot understand why the government did not plug this loophole immediately. We can only speculate it is because of the influence of its friends in the tobacco industry, including Bill Neville. They are putting tremendous pressure on this government to erode its anti-tobacco campaign. We are anxious that this government not capitulate to the multinational tobacco corporations by not putting on an export tax. I trust the hon. parliamentary secretary will get up and inform the House that there will be an export tax and there will be no reduction of taxes on Canadian cigarettes.
In addition to the export tax, we are asking that labelling be strictly enforced so that it is very obvious when exported cigarettes are brought back into Canada.
It is important for the health of Canadians, for the reduction of government expenditures on health care, that this loophole in its good anti-tobacco campaign be immediately plugged.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The government is of course aware of representations by certain groups that an export tax be imposed on cigarettes as a means of discouraging smuggling of these products.
This is one of a range of possible approaches to address this problem. The government is addressing this issue through several mechanisms. For example, in 1989, it introduced a number of measures designed to deter the smuggling of tobacco products. These measures included improving the legislative provisions relating to the marking of tobacco packages to identify more clearly tobacco products for the domestic market which are subject to duty and tax and those for export which are not subject to duty and tax.
Mr. Speaker, the penalties imposed under the Excise Act for selling tobacco products on which excise duty and tax have not been paid were also increased substantially at that time. More recently, the Minister of National Revenue has been working with the police authorities concerned in an effort to develop better strategies to counter the problem of cigarette smuggling.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the government has initiated a review of the legislation which imposes excise duties and I taxes on tobacco products. One of the key aspects of this review will be to examine whether further steps should be taken to reduce cigarette smuggling. The hon. member may be assured that his representations for imposition of an export tax on cigarettes will be considered in the course of this review.
adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion to

Tuesday, February 4,1992