1992-02-28

Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1992, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak on the second reading of Bill C-61, the borrowing authority bill. This is the fourth time that I have had the pleasure of introducing the borrowing bill to the House of Commons.
Before speaking directly to the measures in the bill, I want to put this legislation in its proper context. That context is the budget presented earlier this week by the Minister of Finance, a budget that cuts government spending, cuts taxes, and cuts the deficit. It will help bolster economic recovery and strengthen the international competitiveness of our economy.
Any debate on borrowing authority has to address the deficit and public debt burdens carried by the federal government. The lessons governments everywhere have learned from the recent recession is that never again must governments allow themselves to be financially crippled by debt. Governments cannot stimulate economies with money they do not have. To try to do so by borrowing more would only lead to higher deficits, more
debt, higher interest rates, slower growth, and of course increased inflation.
Reducing the deficit was one of the things that Canadians clearly told us that they expected from this budget. As we crossed the country with our pre-budget consultations, meeting people from all walks of life, that was something they told us in no uncertain terms. They also wanted realistic and, I guess more important, lasting solutions to our economic problems. The government has streamlined to meet the realities of the nineties and new opportunities for people to improve their skills and knowledge.
I believe that if people took the time to examine the budget in detail they would realize that the government has responded to these challenges in a budget that takes action to bolster recovery this year and strengthen growth and job creation in the years ahead.
The budget provides help where help is needed, but it pays for that help by reducing expenditures, not by increasing borrowing or taxes. It cuts spending to reduce taxes and bolster economic growth and competitiveness. The budget also ensures significant declines in the deficit for 1992-93 and the following years.
Reducing the deficit is essential for a return to sustained economic growth and new jobs. It is an essential foundation for a return of confidence at home and abroad. It will ensure a strong recovery.
We have made substantial progress since 1984 in cutting the deficit almost in half as a percentage of our economy's annual output of goods and services, from 8.7 per cent to 4.6 per cent. The majority of this progress has been achieved not through higher revenues but by restraining spending. Since 1984 the government has rigorously controlled growth in spending on programs and services, keeping it below the rate of inflation. As a matter of fact the government's own operating costs, the costs to run the government, have been held to an average increase of just 2.2 per cent a year since 1984.

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
The budget implements a wide range of spending cuts amounting to $1 billion this coming fiscal year, 1992-93, and $7 billion over the next five years. It broadens and deepens the expenditure control plan which we first introduced in the budget in February 1990 and extended last year. It does so in a way that does not affect major transfers to provinces.
Defence spending is being cut by $2.2 billion over the next five years. Departmental non-salary operating budgets are being reduced by 3 per cent. This will save $150 million next year and $800 million over the next five years. The government will restructure and streamline the operations of government to improve both efficiency and service to Canadians. Some 46 agencies, boards, commissions and advisory bodies will be eliminated, deferred or merged with other operations or privatized.
Government communications budgets will be reduced by $75 million per year. The number of government publications will be substantially reduced.
Growth in Canada Mortgage and Housing funds for social housing will be limited to an average of 3 per cent per year.
The Prime Minister and all ministers will have their ministerial salaries cut by 5 per cent beginning April 1. This follows the decision taken last year to impose a one-year freeze on ministerial, parliamentary and public service pay.
I listen to the opposition moan when we talk about the 5 per cent cut. I can remember when members of the Progressive Conservative government took a pay cut back in 1986 or 1987 I believe it was. All members on the government side took a pay cut as did ministers and as did the Prime Minister. It was offered to the opposition parties to do the same thing; they did not take it. They did not take the cut at that time. Now, when we take a cut in salary, they are over there moaning and groaning. They have not experienced it so I can understand why they are moaning and groaning over there.
Maybe it is because they cannot travel first class any more, maybe that is why they are moaning over there. First-class travel for MPs, senators and senior public servants already restricted will now be eliminated and international travel will be reduced as well.
I boarded a plane in Toronto to go to Montreal three weeks ago and the only passengers in first class were two NDP members. The Liberal member who was on the plane and yours truly were at the back.


An hon. member:: I was at the back with you.


John Horton McDermid: That is right, exactly, but who was riding up there? The socialists were riding up in first class. They cannot do that any more. None of the members of the House of Commons can do that any more.


Mr. Angus:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As one of those two members who were riding up front, I want to make it very clear that we were upgraded for free by the carrier because we had to fly to Montreal instead of Ottawa, which was our planned destination.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order; that is a point of debate.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, certainly I did not mention any names, but if he wants to admit that he was up in first class I might point out that there was lots of room in business class and in economy on that same plane. Now that was a benefit provided the hon. member by a private company, Air Canada. I wonder if he reported that to the desk up here. Listen, these socialists, I have to tell you; great fun.
Let me get back to my comments if I might. In addition, the government will strengthen the cost recovery and act more aggressively to collect outstanding tax liabilities. We have outstanding tax liabilities of some $8 billion of which $4 billion are uncontested. This is money owing, not to the government but to the taxpayers of this country.
Crown corporations no longer required for public policy objectives will continue to be privatized. We have privatized over 24 corporations so far, returning about
50,000	to 60,000 employees back to the private sector. I think this is very important, and we will dispose of surplus assets as well.
As a result of these and other streamlining actions, the government will reduce overlap and duplication both within the government and within the private sector. A number of measures will also be taken to improve service to the public. The government will continue to make the tough choices necessary to manage our program expenditures within the limits of the proposed spending control act which was announced in last year's budget.
February 28, 1992

Over the next five years total program spending will grow on an average by only 3 per cent a year. These budget measures are being implemented with a responsible and a prudent fiscal plan. It is important to understand that reallocating resources to meet new priorities will not compromise deficit reduction.
The deficit will be substantially reduced. It will be held to $31.4 billion in the 1991-92 fiscal year which ends in another month. It will be reduced by almost $4 billion, to $27.5 billion next year and another $5 billion in 1993-94, to $22.5 billion.
The net public debt will begin to shrink as a proportion of the economy in 1993-94, and that is the first time that has happened since 1973-74, 20 years ago.


Mr. Peterson:: Promises.


John Horton McDermid: Look, I listened to the hon. member for Willowdale whose brother when he was premier increased spending by government at 10 per cent a year over the four years he was in there. If anybody knows about government spending, it is my hon. friend from Willowdale. It probably runs in the family.
Continued spending restraint will help bring about a major reduction in government borrowing.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Get out of the dirt; elevate the level of this discussion.


John Horton McDermid: Listen to him bleat, listen to him.
The government's financial requirements will be reduced to zero in 1995-96. The government will then begin to reduce its outstanding debt in the financial markets for the first time since 1969-70.
Let me now turn to Bill C-61. Like borrowing bills in recent years, this bill contains three basic elements: financing authority to cover the financial requirements for 1992-93, exchange fund account profits, and a contingency reserve.
In total, the government is requesting authority to borrow $24.7 billion for the 1992-93 fiscal year. In addition, there is a provision for an additional borrowing authority of $3.9 billion to provide for the borrowings conducted in this fiscal year under section 47 of the Financial Administration Act.
There are also a number of technical changes to tie the bill more closely to the fiscal year. Let me touch briefly on the main provisions.
Government Orders
First, there is the provision for authority to cover our anticipated requirement for borrowing to meet the net financial requirements set out in the budget.
Second, there is a provision in the bill to cover exchange fund account earnings which gives rise to additional Canadian dollar borrowing requirements. This is because these earnings are retained in the exchange fund account to provide the government with the capacity to intervene in foreign exchange markets.
Third, there is a $3 billion reserve, the same amount requested in borrowing authority bills of the last five years. This reserve provides for unseen contingencies such as foreign exchange transactions, seasonal swings in borrowing requirements, and delays in passing the future year borrowing authority act.
As I indicated, there is an additional provision this year to cover the refunding of bills issued in 1991-92 under section 47 of the Financial Administration Act up to a cap of $3.9 billion. The 1989 act had a similar provision without the cap. Members should note the bill provides that were we to issue less than the $3.9 billion requested the residual would be deducted from the 1992-93 authority.
As reported in the budget, financial requirements for
1991-92 increased by $5.9 billion. With the $3 billion contingency reserve already provided, we are requesting $3.9 billion of additional authority. This includes a $1 billion reserve against uncertainties associated with factors such as foreign exchange transactions. Within this clause, refundings of bills issued under section 47 authority would be charged against regular 1992-93 borrowing authority even though the money was raised in 1991-92.
The bill also contains some minor technical changes that more clearly link fiscal year borrowing authority with the fiscal year borrowing requirements. One provision provides that 1992 borrowing authority may only be used after the 1992-93 fiscal year begins. Another provision stipulates that the borrowing authority cover the full fiscal year beginning April 1, thereby ensuring refunding authority for the securities maturing in the fiscal year 1992-93 but before the bill receives royal assent.

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
This bill has another set of standard provisions. They provide that on March 31, 1993 any unused borrowing authority under this bill over $3 billion will be cancelled. This preserves the government's non-lapsing reserve into the next year in case new borrowing authority is not provided before the start of the next fiscal year.
Of course, it contains the similar $3 billion reserve granted in last year's borrowing authority on either March 31 of this year or the date the bill comes into force, whichever comes later.
As background I would like for a moment to review the government's debt operations in the current fiscal year up to the end of January. At this point, in the domestic debt program, about $26.8 billion in net new market debt has been issued. Of this total, $14 billion was in the form of marketable bonds. Of these, 78 per cent were sold at auction which we have found to be a cost effective method of distributing the bonds. By the end of January, $10.25 billion new funds had been raised by treasury bills.
I would also like to report to the House on last fall's Canada savings bond campaign. That campaign, with bonds bearing interest at 7.5 per cent generated total sales of $9.6 billion, an increase of $2.9 billion from last year. After taking into account Canada savings bonds that matured or were redeemed in the period, the campaign yielded a net amount of about $3.5 billion. Taking into account all redemptions so far in the fiscal year, the stock of Canada savings bonds outstanding has increased by about $2 billion. Canada savings bonds represent about 10 per cent of the federal market debt outstanding.
In closing, I would like to remind the House once again that the government has been operating under section 47 of the Financial Administration Act since January 28 of this year, for about one month now. Various factors contributed to this, particularly the increase in financial requirements, as reported in the budget. It is therefore important that Bill C-61 be considered in a timely manner.
I wish to remind members that until the new borrowing authority is in place, only short-term debt instruments can be sold and the government cannot maintain the desired balance of short and long-term debt in its
debt program. This balance is carefully designed to achieve the objectives of cost minimization and reduced exposure to increases in debt service changes.
The amount of borrowing authority requested in the bill is directly connected to the budget and the financial requirements stated therein. The information required to deal with the financial aspects of the bill is set out in the budget documents.
I therefore urge the House to proceed with this legislation as quickly as possible so that new borrowing authority will be in place at the beginning of the new fiscal year and the government's regular borrowing program can proceed as the fiscal year begins.
The government's record spending restraint and deficit reduction offers sound testimony that the government's finances are being handled prudently and responsibly. I urge all members to support this bill.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the House on the matter of Bill C-61, whereby the government seeks the authority of the House to borrow $24.7 billion to finance the massive deficit proposed again this year by the Conservative government.
Well the government is at it. It is seeking to pick-up an extra $3.9 billion which was the amount that came up short last year so poor was its forecast. This bill can only be considered in light of the 1992 budget presented on Tbesday by the Minister of Finance, the first budget of this new minister.
It seems a shame that this minister who, by all accounts from his colleagues on the government side of the House, confirmed by some who know him on this side, is a much nicer, more empathetic person than his predecessor. It seems a shame that his first budget must be delivered at a time of very weak economic performance, not to mention startling, indeed, wrenching change.
No one could envy the budget-making task that confronted this Minister of Finance in the face of the legacy he inherited from his predecessor. What a legacy it was. The annual deficit has not been reduced since
1986-87. The accumulated debt of the federal government had more than doubled from about $186 billion in

September 1984, when his predecessor took office, to about $400 billion when this minister took charge.
The economy, though technically having come out of the recession in the second quarter of 1991, continues to be very weak as unemployment remains high, bankruptcies are occurring in record numbers, consumer confidence remains low, particularly in the industrial heartland of Ontario where the provincial NDP, trapped by their own discredited socialist dogma, compounds the ineptitude of a federal government with pigheaded stupidities such as soaring deficits and an anti-business legislative program which will clearly drive new investment and existing business out of the province.
So on to this battlefield, littered with the casualties of the Wilsonian era, strides our new minister relying, as he said in his speech: "on the counsel and support of the Prime Minister". This reliance makes it very difficult to share the minister's down to earth optimism, and I quote: "which he urges later in his speech".
As I look at last year's budget speech I was dismayed to be reminded that the former minister took us into this past year of dismal economic performance, plant closings and bankruptcies with these words: "We must not lose sight of the fact that a strong foundation exists for optimism." That the former minister was optimistic cannot be denied. This is what he promised: "We will hold the deficit to $30.5 billion this year and next despite the pressures of the recession. In 1992-93 with recovery and lower interest rates, the deficit will fall below $25 billion for the first time in a decade."
Instead of $30.5 billion this year's deficit is now expected to come in at $31.4 billion. For the coming year, instead of the $24 billion predicted last year the deficit is expected to be $27.5 billion.
What makes the former minister's predictions even more ridiculous is the fact that the government has been assisted in its deficit battle by lower than expected interest rates. Interest payments on the public debt are $1.7 billion lower in 1991 and are expected to be $3.8 billion lower than previously predicted in 1992-93.
Government Orders
In other words, the former Minister of Finance, the wizard of Etobicoke, Bay Street's answer to Jean Dixon, over-estimated his operating balance by $2.6 billion for 1991-92 and $7.25 billion for 1992-93.
I hope that the new minister's down to earth optimism is better founded in reality than that of his predecessor. The record of his government in making such projections is dismal at best. I go back to his predecessor's statements in 1984 when he said that if the current policies, the ones that he inherited from the previous government, continued that the debt by the end of the decade of the 1980s would be approaching $400 billion. In fact, by 1990 he said it could approach $410 billion. Here we are in 1992 and by the end of this current fiscal year, March 31, the debt should be at about $419 billion. Again and again, over the course of his years as Minister of Finance, the previous minister talked about deficit reduction and controlling the debt. He talked about it in his November statement in 1984, just after the first election. He talked about it in the 1985 budget, his first budget presented as Minister of Finance.
At that time, in that budget, he talked about and I quote: "a clear and realistic medium-term plan". In that 1985 budget with its clear and realistic medium-term plan he said that the budgetary deficit which had been anticipated for 1984-85 to be at $36 billion would be reduced by 1990-91 by $20 billion. In other words, he was projecting back then his clear and realistic plan of a budgetary deficit for the year ended last March of about $16 billion. What did he accomplish? He accomplished a deficit in reality of $30.5 billion.
In his 1986 budget the minister had adjusted his projections into the future that he had made previously in his realistic and medium-term plan. By 1986 he thought that by 1990-91 we would have a deficit of $22 billion. Therefore, he was about $6 billion closer as it turned out a year later. And on it goes.
By 1989, after the election, he was no longer offering clear and realistic plans. He was offering, and I quote: "an ambitious five-year fiscal plan". Perhaps, because his projections had been so bad in his realistic plan, he thought by calling it ambitious it would give him a little

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
bit of an escape hatch if he missed on his projections that time around.
What he projected then was a budgetary deficit in 1990-91 of $28.5 billion. He was off by $2 billion as it turned out. He thought by 1993-94 it would be $14 billion and by 1994-95 he thought it would be $10 billion. Well, what happened under the ambitious five-year plan?
In 1988-89 we had a deficit of $28.7 billion. In 1989-90 we had a deficit of $29 billion. In 1990-91 we had a deficit of $30.5 billion. In 1991-92 we are expecting a deficit of $31.4 billion. Under the five-year plan for reducing the deficit, it rose from $28.7 billion to $31.4 billion. I guess that is what that minister might call progress. With that legacy it troubles me when I get out the 1991 budget and this year's budget and see the five-year projections. There is no adjective for the projections, neither clear and realistic nor ambitious.
Here is what they said last year was going to happen and what they are saying this year is going to happen. Last year they said that between 1991-92 and 1992-93 the deficit would drop by $6.5 billion to $24 billion. This year they are saying that it will drop to $27.5 billion. Last year they said it would drop to $16.6 billion in 1993-94, now they are saying it will drop to $22.5 billion in
1993-94. Last year they said it would drop to $10 billion in 1994-95, now they are saying $14.5 billion in 1994-95. Last year they said it would be down to $6.5 billion in 1995-96, now they are saying $8.5 billion. If the former minister had achieved what he set out to achieve in 1984, we would not be looking at these large numbers today.
What is the history behind this? We had in the 1980s a period of exceptional economic growth, continuing and prolonged. I am sure the current minister would agree that the idea is to reduce the deficit in good times so that you have the resources to fight recessions in bad times. What happened in the good times of the 1980s? This government talked about deficit reduction and managing, while increasing taxes many times to increase the deficit virtually every year, year after year. At the same time it managed to reach the targeted debt which the bad old Liberals would have produced if their policies had not been changed in 1984. In other words, the government failed totally in what it claimed to be able to do and what it set out to accomplish.
There are some other fundamental concerns about the economic policies that have been pursued by this government and its ability to achieve economic projections based on what it has done in the past. Let me start by going back again to that 1984 statement by the former minister.
I am sure you have heard, Mr. Speaker, that the government has alleged that when it came into office, the deficit was $38 billion. It has been said many times on the other side of the House that was the deficit at the end of the fiscal year 1984-85. This government was elected half way through that year. When the Minister of Finance came into the House in November, having looked at the books, he proposed a number of serious policy changes. He said that had he not proposed those changes, and I quote: "With no policy changes the deficit for this fiscal year would be $34.5 billion". That was in November 1984.
By the end of March 1985 he had managed to run it up to $38 billion. Then he spent the last seven years going around Canada claiming that the Liberals had left a deficit of $38 billion.
Let us look at what has been happening throughout the mandate of this government. We have experienced a recession over the last year and a half that was clearly induced by the need claimed by this government to pursue a monetary policy that would control inflation. We have to ask ourselves how we got into inflationary times five years into the mandate of this government.
I suggest that the answer lies in the decisions made in
1987-88. It was a very rapidly expanding economy in those years, with growth in 1988 of almost 5 per cent. What policies did the government pursue at that time? It pursued policies of tax cuts with the first phase of tax reform in 1987, coming into effect in 1988.
You will recall that interest rates began to rise sharply at the end of November 1988.1 find it more than a little strange that when the economy was growing that quickly that prudent managers of the economy would bring in both tax cuts and a relaxed monetary policy. Is it mere coincidence that we had a general election on November 21, 1988? I do not think so.
I suggest that more prudent policies pursued in the mid-1980s by the present government might have been less popular at election time but would have preserved
February 28, 1992

the growth in the economy on a more sustained basis throughout 1990 and 1991.
I have gone on at some length about the numbers in past budgets and projections. We can do a number of things with numbers. What I believe these drastic miscalculations demonstrate is the incompetence of this government, not just in predicting-I think that is documented-but also in managing the economy. In fact, it now seems clear that the previous minister, together with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, committed some grave errors in the past year. In last year's budget the Minister of Finance promised that strong economic growth would be secured. He said:
Real output will expand by 3.5 per cent in 1992 and average 4 per cent in the medium term. Real personal disposable income will grow steadily throughout the period. Employment growth will begin in the second half of this year and will strengthen in the years ahead.
We now know that the economy shrank in 1991 and that the government is projecting growth of 2.7 per cent in 1992. Real personal disposable income declined in 1991 and is now projected to grow at a rate of less than 1 per cent in 1992. I believe that the economic difficulties of the past year have been in large measure due to the fiscal and monetary policies pursued recently by this government. Last year's budget has proven to be, as the Toronto-Dominion Bank said at the time: "probably the most inept and destructive budget since the 1930s".
The combined spending cuts and tax increases of the 1991 budget both prolonged the recession and caused the deficit projections to be so far off the mark as to be laughable. In addition, the 1991 budget contained the joint statement of the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada setting inflation targets. At the time, the inflation targets appeared very ambitious, particularly in light of the minister's promise of "a strong rebound in growth in the second half of 1991".
As we now know, the government actually exceeded the inflation targets, causing severe and potentially lasting harm to the economy in the process. The fact that the government overshot its own inflation targets explains a good deal about why the recovery, if you can call it that, has been so pitiful and why the Canadian dollar has remained so high.
Government Orders
The finance committee recently completed the study of the mandate of the Bank of Canada. In the course of that study, we heard a great deal of expert opinion on monetary policy. While our committee recommended against a narrowing of the Bank of Canada's mandate to limit it to the pursuit of price stability, we definitely agreed that inflation should be kept low. To question the monetary policy of the government over the past year is not, I wish to stress, to favour inflation. The issue is how quickly can you reasonably move from high to low inflation.
In January 1991 the year over year consumer price index inflation rate stood at 6.8 per cent. The budget, on the strength of the joint statement of the governor and the minister, foresaw an annual inflation rate of 5.6 per cent in 1991 and 3.2 per cent in 1992. The actual rate for 1991 was 4.1 per cent and for 1992 it is now projected at 2.7 per cent.
The inability of the government to moderate monetary policy soon enough to avoid causing such rapid disinflation, indeed in some sectoral prices deflation, has I believe caused the recession to be worse than what otherwise would have been the case, aggravated the deficit and has cost the jobs of tens of thousands of Canadians.
Our new minister inherited a mess. Last year's budgetary stance proved to be based on wrong assumptions, thus making the recession longer and deeper than it might otherwise have been. Any relaxation of monetary policy was demonstrably too little, too late. That brings us to this year's budget.
Any budget is a chance for a fresh start, but a first budget from a new minister is a chance for a real new beginning. What a disappointment. There is nothing here to suggest that the government has in any way repented of its past and embarked on a new road with renewed vigour. This is the tired budget of a tired government, perplexed by the problems that confront it, though many are of its own making, showing no vision, no imagination, not even comprehension of the difficulties Canada must tackle before the end of a century.
Why should we be surprised? After all, this is the government that hired a Harvard professor at great expense to tell us that Canadian competitiveness is lagging, that has set up an expensive consultative process to ask Canadians what to do about it, headed by the same

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
Bay Street minister who as finance minister contributed so much to making us uncompetitive.
One commentator said about this budget: "Nothing broken, nothing fixed". If this budget is judged a political success by government members it is because no one was left beaten up by yet another tax assault on his or her wallet.
What should worry us all is that this new minister did not reveal any strategy for attacking the big and serious problems confronting the Canadian economy. The essential problem is the failure to create wealth at the same rate as we are consuming it.
Until recently in Canada, standards of living were improving and people were feeling good about the possibility of realizing their expectations for themselves and their families. Recently, however, people became aware that something was going wrong. The evidence of the distemper that arose from this sense of disquiet is easy to find. It can be seen in the revulsion against paying taxes, in anger at politicians, in polls that, for the first time, show that Canadians do not expect their children to be better off than they are.
The combination of our enormous natural resource wealth and the post-war industrial boom contributed to our false sense of assurance that things would just keep on getting better. Standards of living increased rapidly during the decades of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, both in terms of the level of personal consumption and the level of state supplied services. Our ability to produce wealth in North America was such that in the 1950s and 1960s wealth doubled every 22 to 23 years.
By the 1980s the rate of growth had slowed to the extent that it would double in about 90 years. Statistics Canada has told us that in the 1980s real family incomes in Canada remained stagnant. Meanwhile, the government's financial predicament has continued to degenerate to the point that almost 35 cents of every tax dollar paid to the federal government goes to just pay interest on the federal debt. No wonder Canadians feel they are not getting their money's worth for their taxes. The reality is that they are only getting 65 cents worth of services for every dollar they pay.
For Canadians, I believe the issue is very simply whether Canada will be able to martial its human and financial resources, not just its natural resources, over the next decade to ensure that we are capable of providing goods and services that other nations of the world are not only willing to buy from us but for which they will pay us a lot of money? In other words, will Canada be able to compete in those key industries in which technology, skills and innovation are important and well rewarded? Will the jobs created in Canada over the next generation be high wage or low wage jobs?
This has never been a worry for Canadians before so it is truly a new generation of problems in search of new public policy solutions. The rapid intensification of competition for jobs among Canadians stems from trade liberalization and technological change, but also from the fact that a whole new set of players in this competition is emerging, some in the Far East and some in the emerging nations of eastern Europe. The speed with which we are being confronted by change in many ways is more than vaguely disquieting. In politics and in business, change is rapid and consequential.
One does not need to look beyond our own borders to recognize that significant political change is likely to occur and that its consequences for our economy may be quite wrenching. While people may sometimes claim to like change and even to desire change, in reality people tend to resist change.
The modern age is thrusting change upon us. In the last federal election the Prime Minister campaigned on the theme of managing change. He may have even won the election because he was able to identify the fact that Canadians both feared change and recognized its inevitability and so wanted to be reassured that the man in charge would not let change simply sweep away all they considered important and comforting but that he would manage it. That is, he would slow it where possible and mitigate its consequences.
The pillars of Tory economic policy-deficit reduction, a free trade agreement with the United States and the GST-are not methods of managing change. The Tory strategy, as I believe even the government would describe it, has been to try to get the fundamentals right and then stand back and let market forces hold sway.
February 28, 1992

This laissez-faire approach has its advocates, but that is not what was promised. It is not managing change, it is letting change manage us. This idea that you can get the fundamentals right and then go out and win in the open market suggests to me the analogy of a hockey team owner with lots of money who goes out and recruits the best players for his team. On paper it looks great-high scoring forwards, tough defence, and great goal tending-but if he sends his team out on the ice without having the players practice together and without a strategy to defeat the opposition the result will probably be disappointing.
In a sense, that is what is happening to Canada at the present time. Eliminating barriers to trade was one of the fundamentals of the Tory economic strategy. So what did the government do? It made a deal. It signed Wayne Gretzky, or at least it thought it did, by getting a free trade deal with the United States. The government said: "This guy will score goals for us. Just watch".
Gretzky sat around all summer and got fat. He did not bother with the physiotherapy on his back. The coach wanted to pamper him a bit so he let him report late to training camp. Did he score any goals? A good junior A team would have checked him out of the game.
The free trade agreement was signed when the Canadian dollar traded at 76 cents U.S. No one had even thought about what might happen if it reached 88 cents. There was a promise that there would be massive adjustment programs to retrain workers whose jobs were displaced by the FTA, but these were never delivered. Three years after the FTA came into effect we are still arguing about the reduction of trade barriers between Canadian provinces. In other words, we threw ourselves into a highly competitive game without even having played a house league game under the new rules in our own rink.
While the fundamentals are important, there also must be a broad strategy for fitting the fundamentals into the over-all social and economic agenda.
Think about what Canadians were asked to deal with. They had to deal with a U.S. free trade deal without an adjustment strategy, at the same time as other global competition with our manufacturing sector was intensify-
Govemment Orders
ing; high real interest rates in comparison with U.S. rates being maintained in an effort to achieve zero inflation, after years of expecting a certain amount of inflation; and a new visible sales tax at the consumer level while the Canadian dollar was soaring in value relative to the U.S. dollar. Canadians had to deal with all of this in the midst of a recession and a constitutional crisis.
This is not my idea of managing anything, let alone managing change.
We all need to acknowledge that Canada faces some very difficult adjustments if it is going to maintain its standard of living. Of all the powers that governments may have at their disposal one is not the power to turn back the clock. The task of government, as Liberals were told at our Aylmer conference awhile back, is to represent the future to the present. It is not to strive to bring back the past. We must prepare ourselves for the task of moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, I will not bore you with statistics pointing out how precarious our position is becoming as a competitive nation in this global economy. Let us instead remind ourselves that we continue to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, the second best quality of life in the world according to the UN, and one of the highest labour productivity rates in the world.
The fact that other countries are catching up is the inevitable consequence of the globalization of technology. The anxieties I mentioned earlier are in part the consequence of change and in part the result of the failure of Canadians to produce enough wealth to pay for our current consumption.
Although we have the seventh largest economy in the world, Canada is the world's second largest debtor in absolute terms after the United States. Our domestic savings are unable to meet the needs of our economy for new investment, feeding the insatiable appetite of governments at all levels to borrow.
I believe that this collective living beyond our means is at the core of some of our discontent. If we are to avoid continual wrenching adjustments to the standards of living we have all come to expect, beginning with the level of government services, we need to make a number of very fundamental changes to the way we look at things. These changes will require two things that have

Government Orders
been lacking for too long at the federal and provincial levels: moral leadership and a clear sense of direction.
By moral leadership I mean simply that political leaders have to start telling the truth. It is very doubtful that people can be bought with old-style election promises anymore. Politicians are becoming more clever and cynical.
In this pressure filled, complex world we all want to offer hope. However, this often comes in the form of over-simplified solutions to the problems of the day.
It has been said that for every complex problem there is a simple, plausible solution that is wrong. As long as we keep offering up simplistic solutions people will continue to be cynical. Frankly, all political parties engage in this from time to time.
I believe that people want to be treated like adults and told the truth. More important, if we are going to summon the will as a nation to meet the challenges of the coming decades our people must understand the nature of those challenges.
What about a clear sense of direction in the context of looking at things differently? Obviously, if you do not know where you want to go you will never figure out how to get there. Sooner or later in this country we must agree on a vision of our economic future, if we can fit it in while we argue over our conflicting linguistic and cultural visions.
First, we should commit ourselves to striving to be the best, if not the best in the world at least the best in North America. We have had enough of being a bronze medal country.
As a nation, we should adopt qualitative excellence as our standard of performance. The challenge of overcoming mediocrity is a difficult one to meet. The need to do so was never more crucial however. The failure of this government to set its sights on higher objectives, to get beyond the mumbo-jumbo of deficit reduction targets that are never met is the failure to inspire Canadians. This failure has cost us greatly as a nation.
Second, Canada's commitment to education should be unequivocal. This is one of the areas in which we are getting ourselves into trouble. While we seem to spend a great deal on education our product, especially in the areas of math and natural sciences, is showing clear signs of being woefully inadequate. We must train our people in the skills they will need to perform the good jobs of tomorrow. It is not good enough to let them elect their
way into menial jobs because that will make all of us poor.
Further, we must demonstrate that we understand that education does not end at the work place door. Canadian business is simply not spending enough on worker skill upgrading in comparison with the U.S., Germany and Japan.
Third, Canadian governments must invest in infrastructure. Our transportation and communication infrastructure must be continually maintained and upgraded for the sake of our future prosperity.
Fourth, we must be prepared to make the tough decisions to focus our resources strategically. Government spending on infrastructure and research and development should be highly disciplined and as free as possible from the political pork barrel.
We should play to our strengths, not as a matter of picking winners and losers, but let us make sure that our winners keep on winning and let us stop prolonging the death throes of the losers. This will get us nowhere if the people of Canada do not buy into it. For that to happen it is of fundamental importance that this hard-edged economic strategy include within its reach the need to restore the social contract between Canadians and their governments, and at the same time restore the natural environment whose endowments provided our initial base of wealth.
These three elements, the economy, the social contract and the environment, should be understood as one web of material. Progressive social reforms begin with good economic policy. However a strong and competitive economy requires a healthy and well-educated society. It is no less certain that a strong economy tomorrow requires that we respect the environmental imperative of sustainability today.
Sadly I can find nothing in this year's budget to suggest that the government is trying to come to grips with the bigger, longer term problems that are looming. Think back over the economic news of the past year and ask how the budget reveals a strategy for the problems that have been emerging.
These range from the problems in the resource sector, a fishery crisis, problems in the petroleum industry, agriculture, forestry, mining, through to what my colleague from Willowdale has called the deindustrialization of Ontario, as our central Canadian industrial heartland is reeling from shutdown after shutdown of industries, all these shutdowns being of a permanent
February 28, 1992

nature. Finally, we have our retail sector staggering from the GST, cross-border shopping and the fears consumers have about their futures.
This budget offers no strategy for the future with respect to these difficult and major challenges. Instead, it is full of the same tired old rhetoric that rings so hollow.
In essence, it is not the borrowing bill that deserves to be defeated, nor really is it the budget which, standing alone, is a bland and forgettable one, it is, in fact, the government that deserves to be defeated, cast aside on to the scrap heap with much of Canada's economy laid waste by previous budgetary follies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 11 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 35, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, after 20 years on Parliament Hill, Iain Hunter, a veteran reporter who is well-known in this country, leaves his busy life as a journalist on the Hill, apparently without regrets.
Mr. Speaker, the man who struck fear into the hearts of politicians and public servants at all levels and who in his own way shaped Canadian political life during an entire generation, will put down pen and notebook at the close of proceedings today.
As a Canadian reporter, Iain Hunter has an international reputation for his portraits of politicians. I am convinced that if Hitler had had an Iain Hunter in his press gallery, concentration camps would never have existed because he would have condemned them outright in his tireless quest for social justice.
I want to ask members on all sides of the House to join me in paying tribute to a man who is appreciated and respected by all Canadians, and in offering our sincere thanks. We wish him every success in his new job as
assistant editor for national news at the Ottawa Citizen. Congratulations, Mr. Hunter, and good luck!


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, the concluding phase of the Uruguay round of negotiations at GATT is upon us and the future of 40,000 Canadian family farm businesses is at stake.
Canada's supply management system is the envy of the world, providing producers with a reasonable level of profit. Those producers go on to supply Canadian consumers with a supply of the safest, most nutritious food in the world while carrying on environmentally sound farm management practices for the benefit of all Canadians.
Canadian dairy, egg and poultry farmers are not part of the problem of international surplus, however, many people want to force these people into being part of the solution.
A successful round of GATT for Canada can only be reached if article XI is strengthened and clarified. I remind the government to fulfil its obligations to all Canadians, that is, to obtain a strengthened and clarified article XI.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, over the last few weeks, I have been asking many of my constituents for their guidance and advice.
John Panchyshyn from Burlington writes me: "We need to keep Canada together. I believe in a strong central government but I am willing to bend to keep Quebec in Confederation".
Barry Stewart from Bolton writes, and this is interesting: "Increase the GST. Decrease income tax. Make it a user pay system and you will see a decrease in waste and wasteful citizens."
Peter Egerton from Georgetown writes me: "I would like to see Canada hold together and get out of these ridiculous deficits".

February 28, 1992
James McMullen of Burlington writes: "The servicing of the huge debt of both federal and provincial governments will continue to turn Canada into a banana republic in a fairly short period. You must curtail and reduce the size of government and social programs, and apply the money to debt reduction".
Mabel Richardson of Burlington writes: "Unless Canada pulls together and stops wasting money, I don't see much of a future for my grandchildren. The taxes we pay should be able to reduce the deficit".
James Fisher of Burlington writes: "If you do nothing else before the next election-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Vancouver East.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when the economic policies of this government have resulted in an escalation of racism in Canada, this Conservative government refuses to protect equality rights.
Why has the government withdrawn committed funding for the Race Relations Foundation and the Heritage Language Institute, both of which were passed by legislation of this House?
Why has the government withdrawn funds for the Court Challenges Program, a program that is essential to fund test cases to determine equality rights for women, disabled persons and racial minorities under our charter?
Why has the government disbanded citizen advisory boards, groups and councils that advocate changes? Is this a way to stifle criticism?
Why has the government shown no political will to make changes to protect minority rights in our Constitution when so many groups have demanded tougher protection?
This budget proves that the government has no real commitment to human rights. When times are tough for Tories, human rights are the first to go.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the unemployed workers in southwestern Ontario, the economic engine of Canada, are given no hope whatsoever by the recent budget. Plant closings of Motor Wheel Corporation, National Hardware, Standard Tube and Elan, to name only a few in Kent, have hit hard during the recession.
The budget offers nothing to these permanently laid-off workers and their families. Now the Tories have cut training programs that could have helped in this time of despair. A $100 million cut last year to the Canadian Jobs Strategy and a further $117 million slash to training programs mean more people falling between the cracks. The few programs left are only for those getting unemployment insurance. What about those workers who are off UI, who want to work, who are qualified but cannot apply?
The Tories have forgotten about them. Let us have a government that cares about people.


TAXATION
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks I received a number of letters from my constituents about the Canadian government's family policy. My constituents wrote to stress tax inequities between married couples and common law couples, and their concerns were entirely legitimate.
I would now like to inform the people of Joliette that the federal government has acted in response to their wishes in its latest budget. The federal budget will apply the same tax treatment to married couples and common law couples and will also restructure and improve family benefits by creating a single benefit for children. The new plan will increase child benefits by $400 million annually.
Mr. Speaker, the latest budget clearly shows how sensitive the government is to the needs of Canadian families.
February 28, 1992


REFORM PARTY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the cat is out of the bag. Today The Sun newspaper reports that racist group members have joined the Reform Party. According to their report, two founding members of an extremist racist group, namely the Heritage Front, have joined the Reform Party and at least one of them holds an executive position within that organization. This Reform Party office holder, we are told, hosted an Imperial Dragon Ku Klux Klan officer who visited Toronto last weekend.
Cliff Fryers of the Reform Party said that his party's "bright lights attract a lot of bugs". The Reform Party had better get its giant fly-swatter out this time.
This is Canada and there is no room here for racism and intolerance. A moment ago, I said that the cat is out of the bag. Maybe I should have said the "Klu" is out of the Klan.


PETROLEUM MONITORING AGENCY
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to use this one minute to make a statement to focus on a mistaken policy by the present government. It has decided to terminate the Petroleum Monitoring Agency.
The Petroleum Monitoring Agency has a function of collecting and publishing information on the strategic petroleum industry, reserves, costs of production, rates of return, degree of foreign ownership and investment patterns. Above all issues, the God given resources of this country should be monitored by the government for the people of this country. There is a major concern about the intrusion of the seven sisters in the oil industry becoming majority stakeholders in our oil industry in this country. We need to know what is going on, we need to know who owns what and how much money they are taking out of Canada.
Don't do this. Keep the Petroleum Monitoring Agency as it exists.


CANADIAN PRAYER ALERT
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, this is a crucial period of our nation's history. We face serious challenges, both nationally and internationally. The Canadian Prayer Alert has reminded us that we can find help if we return to the religious roots that sustained and nurtured this country in its formative years.
The Dominion of Canada was founded upon principles that recognized the sovereignty of God and the rule of law. An invitation has been issued to all Canadians through their church leaders to join together this Sunday, March 1 and recognize a national day of prayer.
I endorse this idea and encourage all members of this House and concerned Canadians of all denominations to accept the invitation and join together in prayer on March 1 to pray for the unity of our nation and God's healing upon our land.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, last night in the room right next door to this Chamber, friends and supporters of Peter Zujewski, Marzena Tomala and their Canadian-born daughter Agatha gathered to say farewell to a family who has deeply touched the hearts of the people of our community.
It is tragic that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of phone calls could not reach the hearts of this government and allow this family to stay in Canada. This community will not forget Peter, Marzena and Agatha and we will not forget the inflexible, unjust Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Prime Minister who are responsible for their plight. Even now as they prepare to leave voluntarily, a hearing to forcefully deport them will resume this afternoon.
Friends and supporters have established the Agatha Fund to continue their fight in her name against a system that produces such shameful results.
We want to change a system that is heartless, inhumane and unjust and unequal.

February 28, 1992


ABBY HOFFMAN
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow night in Toronto the Canadian Association for the Advancement of Women in Sport and Physical Activity (CAAWS) will give an historical award for 1992 to Abby Hoffman.
I am sure I speak for all members of the House in joining with CAAWS in acknowledging the tremendous contribution that Abby Hoffman has made to sport in Canada, to sport internationally and to women everywhere. A great athlete in her own right, an Officer of the Order of Canada, Abby served for 10 years as Director-General of Sport Canada.
It was disappointing that the minister of sport removed her from that position. In it she gave outstanding and sensitive leadership, focusing Canadian sport on the value of pursuing excellence, of supporting athletes and coaches, of equity and fair play in sport-the moral value of sport, as Bruce Kidd has called it.
Above all, throughout her life, Abby Hoffman has contributed inspiration and encouragement to countless girls and women. We wish Abby well on this happy occasion and look to her for continued leadership in the future.


EDUCATION
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, as the representative of thousands of students who attend the University of Alberta, I would like to commend the government for increasing the student tax deduction from $60 to $80 per month.
I also want to thank University of Alberta student union president, Marc Dumouchel, and vice-president Randy Boissoneault for their submission to the Edmonton caucus and to the Government of Canada. We listened. We will be eliminating the 3 per cent administration fee on student loans. These measures will help thousands of students across the country. An efficient, accessible and generous student loan program helps students achieve their goals.
A well-educated work force is crucial to the competitiveness of our country and the well-being of its population. I commend the finance minister for these moves.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, in the last few days we in the Niagara peninsula have been saddened by the news that 2,300 jobs will be lost because of the decision of General Motors to close down a plant in the city of St. Catharines.
We have been ravaged by that decision and savaged by the policies of this government. We in the Niagara peninsula hope that the families of the men and women who have been laid off will be getting some kind of assistance, either for retraining or for money to tide them over until they can see their way clear to getting new jobs.
We hope that this government will strongly consider putting those programs it now has in place in operation so that the workers of General Motors in St. Catharines can have a little bit more hope at this time of the year.


CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to abolish the federal co-operative housing program is harsh and unjustifiable for low income families. After a thorough review, this program was deemed to be appropriate and effective in 1991 and the government announced that it would be permanent instead of experimental. Therefore no replacement measure has been planned by the provinces, municipalities and groups concerned, which have mobilized their members to present concrete projects.
In Montreal, families who live in co-operative housing have an average income of $24,000 and half of them pay the going market rate. This collective form of home ownership enables poor families to live in a socially mixed environment, which is highly desirable. The efforts made by these groups further to the government's commitments must not be betrayed. The Minister of
February 28, 1992

Finance must reverse his absurd decision and announce that the program will continue as soon as possible.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, pursuing a little further what our colleague from Ottawa said a little earlier about children and the preoccupation of this government, there could be a deportation order in my case as well. Five children have been accepted; the parents have not.
The minister of immigration has not even seen fit to respond to me. I think this government had better make a decision to get rid of these immigration boards if it cannot do a better job and have more humanitarianism.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance.
Today, Statistics Canada reported that the gross domestic product, a measure of the over-all size of the economy, dropped .4 per cent this past December. This means the economy started shrinking again. How could the Minister of Finance say in his budget speech that there were "good reasons to look forward to an early resumption of solid economic growth"? Do these measures not show that the budget will not do enough to get the economy moving and create jobs and opportunities for Canadians?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must point out to the hon. member that the Minister of Finance in his budget acknowledged the possibility of a decline in output in the fourth quarter. This is consistent with the forecast the minister made.
The budget measures which came out just this week are designed to bolster the economy. We are seeing some very, very positive signs. As a matter of fact, just
Oral Questions
this morning I note that residential construction increased by 96 per cent in January over January 1991. That is a very strong signal that we are on the road to recovery.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, only a Conservative could say that the shrinking of the economy is a positive sign. The government's budget papers also confirm that real interest rates will be much higher than usual through 1997, meaning that full recovery could be as much as five years away.
I ask the Minister of State, do the government's own budget papers not confirm that the government's policies will not do enough to get the economy moving again and will not create enough jobs and economic opportunity for the hundreds of thousands of people who have been the hapless victims of this government's misguided economic policies?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, let us compare this particular recession with the last one when the hon. member was on the treasury benches. The GDP fell by 5.5 per cent over that period of time. In the recession that we have come through, it has fallen 3.1 percent. The hon. member should not be up in the House lecturing the government on financial matters because his record is suspect.
I want to remind the hon. member that during the last recession in 1981-82, we had a one-quarter dip in growth again after recovery had started.
This is not unusual during a recovery period. Now we are into 1992 and we are looking forward, not back, like the hon. member would want to do.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to look back, let him look back in the government's budget papers tabled this week which say that "annual growth this year and next will still remain well below the 4.7 per cent average of growth in the 1983 and 1984 recovery period". Why does he hide that statistic?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister responsible for housing, who said in this House that despite the budget, everything would be done to create social housing and not less. CMHC has said that

February 28, 1992
Oral Questions
10.000	fewer such housing units will be built next year because of this budget.
I ask the minister how he will do more for social housing when the number of units next year will be
10.000	less than this year.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that next year the government will spend over $2 billion for 650,000 federally supported social housing units that will provide homes for 1.5 million people.
Of course, we also announced in the budget a 3 per cent increase in the amount we spent last year to build social housing.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The government presented its budget as the greatest invention of the century for putting our unemployed back to work. The reality is quite different. The estimates show a $100 million cut in labour force training, in addition to the $126 million cut last year.
Why does the government want to take hope from our unemployed by letting other countries get ahead of us?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to remind the hon. member opposite that this government respects its commitments and that the first commitment we made to Canadian workers is to provide training and skills acquisition.
Our program has been increased by $300 million and unemployment insurance is now a positive, active program instead of a negative, passive one. We definitely intend to continue to develop a work plan suitable for all workers seeking employment and to do so in co-operation with business, the private sector and our commission, which is to set national priorities for us.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, we are going through one of the greatest periods of change in the world's trading relationships since the Middle Ages.
Despite this, almost every government responsibility that is forward looking has been cut; the Science Council, the Economic Council, the green plan, $100 million cut from job retraining for those who are not eligible for unemployment insurance.
What is the government saying? That it is giving up. I would ask the minister not to give me a partisan answer, simply tell me how can we build the kind of country that we all want if the government is going to take away the very tools that will enable the country to get there?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, is it necessary to repeat that we must work to deal with the globalization of markets? That is what we are working on in the Department of Employment and Immigration.
It is absolutely impossible to make progress without thinking about this globalization of markets. Recommendations from chambers of commerce and from all the consultants with whom we have worked confirm, as he says very well, the need to be prepared to face the globalization of markets. That is what we are working on through our jobs strategy programs.


JUSTICE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The human rights tribunal has been told that the government will use legislation to nullify decisions on pay equity that it does not agree with. The Law Reform Commission has been quashed just weeks after delivering a report on aboriginal justice that is counter to the view held by the Minister of Justice. Yesterday the government announced that it was killing the Court Challenges Program midway through its contract, a program which gives
February 28, 1992

some tools to disadvantaged people to go to the highest courts of this country.
I want to ask the minister why she is doing this. What is the rationale behind this mean-spirited program? Is it a question of spite, a question of money or is it just simply a paranoid reaction to the Reform Party challenge?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the provisions taken in the budget were designed to try and deal with the very severe fiscal situation that the Government of Canada is in.
One of the axioms one learns in public life is that there is no limit to the amount of good you can do, but there may be a limit to the amount of good you can afford.
I would like to point out in the Court Challenges, for example, that the Government of Canada is the only government in Canada, and it was our government in 1985 that brought forward a program after the initial audit of the charterability of our legislation, to enable Canadians to take those cases to court. No other government in Canada, including governments led by that hon. member's party, have given those kinds of tools to their people to challenge their kind of legislation.
For the past eight years, Canadians have had the opportunity to pursue, beyond what the government's original response was, the charterability of Canadian legislation. I think the provinces should perhaps contribute to that body of jurisprudence by providing support to people within their jurisdiction to challenge their legislation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let us not dump it on the provinces. This is a national matter and we are talking about the charter of rights.
The minister says there is a severe financial situation that the government is in. I have her estimates here. In the estimates she is asking for an increase in money for litigation services for the Department of Justice from $73 million to $89 million. In my experience as a lawyer, I have never seen the Department of Justice ever come in a court and take one case for an aboriginal person or one case for a poor person. It has never done that. This is money for rich lawyers in Vancouver.
Oral Questions
I want to ask the minister, if she has extra millions for these lawyers to litigate, why does she not have a few bucks for the poor and disadvantaged people of this country?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question is unworthy of him.
The litigation expenses of the Department of Justice arise from the fact that Department of Justice lawyers represent the Government of Canada. Many Canadians seek to sue the Government of Canada. There are disagreements that the Government of Canada has with people over a variety of issues and so the workload of the litigation sector of the Department of Justice is not set by the department of the Government of Canada's lawyers.
On key issues relating to matters of principle or the application of the charter, the Government of Canada frequently goes to court. As the Attorney General I go to court not simply to uphold the views of the Government of Canada, but to uphold the prerogatives of Parliament, to resolve certain key issues of fundamental public importance. Those issues must in fact be argued before the courts and the courts will determine what the balance is between them. To suggest that the litigation budget of the Department of Justice is in some way policy driven I think is just ridiculous.


THE BUDGET
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I prefer that she pay for the Court Challenges Program so that some of the poor people could go.
I want to come back to this matter of severe financial restraints and I will put my final question to the Prime Minister. As has been said in the House this morning, Statistics Canada has reported that the economy shrunk
1.5	per cent last year. That is worse than the budget predictions. The only businesses that did well in the last three months are insurance companies with profits up 23 per cent and banks with profits up a staggering 65 per cent. Yet every other sector is down, contrary to the budget prediction.
My question for the Prime Minister is this: How can he justify economic policies which reward banks and insurance companies when he brings in a budget which refuses to help the economy and does absolutely nothing

February 28, 1992
Oral Questions
for the unemployed and cuts legal and social services for the disadvantaged people of this country?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is somewhat off base in the statistics that he brings forward. I might point out to my hon. friend that every economic group both in Canada and throughout the world which is taking a look at the position that Canada is in today says that this country will have the best recovery of any country in the G-7. We are positioned the best. We will have the best employment growth. We will have the best economic growth in this year and in next year, the lowest inflation and low interest rates. We are in a position to recover. Some of the signs have already started. I just mentioned, for example, the housing statistics.
The hon. member should take that into his understanding as he poses questions like that. He said there was nothing in the budget to create employment. The RRSP for home building, which has been praised widely and which the hon. member's party asked for, was in the budget. That alone is going to create employment.


COURT CHALLENGES PROGRAM
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told us time and time again that he sets a priority on the rights of the individual. He said repeatedly that he believed all Canadians were equal under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If he still believes in these principles, why did he abolish the Court Challenges Program?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that this was a very effective and very beneficial program. For 10 years we have provided very substantial funding to help minority official language groups and groups seeking equality. However, I think we can say that, over the past seven years, we have built up a certain amount of jurisprudence and that this program, which is important to everyone, should now be funded by others, perhaps at
the provincial level, or by non-governmental organizations.


Shirley Maheu: Here we go, passing the ball back to the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, the Court Challenges Program gives people a chance to claim their equality rights under the charter. How will people who really need protection be able to demand their rights when the requisite funding is no longer available?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that this morning I met a number of human rights groups. We discussed this particular issue and other issues as well. I told these groups that it was my duty, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, to ensure that our legislation and policies comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I will continue to keep an eye on-

Perhaps I should speak English; I am getting out of my depth here.
As I indicated to these groups this morning, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada it is my obligation and my duty to ensure that the laws and the policy of the Government of Canada are in conformity with the charter. I will continue to do that.
As my colleague has indicated, we are in fact the only level of government that has been willing to fund these kinds of cases. They have been administered, not by my department but the department of my colleague, the minister of multiculturalism, simply because there would otherwise be a conflict of interest since the Department of Justice defends the Government of Canada and the prerogatives of Parliament.
I will continue to observe this. In discussing this issue with the human rights groups this morning, I was also very interested in their proposal to perhaps create a task force of mutual consultation where we could in a co-operative and collegial way review legislation and look at areas that might be changed.
February 28, 1992

Oral Questions
It is in our interest to resolve those problems. It may be that from time to time it will be appropriate to take the litigation response and at that time we would look at the appropriate nature of funding.
I believe there are other ways of assuring that there is input from people and from groups, that feel politically disadvantaged in expressing their concerns about our laws and policies as they relate to the charter.
I repeat again my concern that the provinces have not participated in this. Their laws and policies are also subject to the charter and there is no jurisprudence that they have supported to help clarify those principles which would be to the benefit of all of us.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, the government is not going to win any prizes for popularity if it keeps arguing its case the way the Minister of Justice is doing now. Federal assistance and the courts are the only recourse we have in Canada to help linguistic minorities defend themselves: Anglophones in Quebec and Francophones outside Quebec. This is the only level of government that has the generosity and the will to support us. So don't tell us you are going to transfer this to the provinces. Why did you take a leaf from Preston Manning's reform program, which aims to abolish bilingualism and multiculturalism? Why did you do that?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member might have wanted to rise in the House to congratulate us on creating the new Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship for the purpose of defending the interests of all Canadians and promoting Canadian citizenship. We have a program that works very effectively for official languages and for all groups across this country. Our colleague, the Secretary of State, administers this program very well. If we continue to work with these groups, we will do everything we can to help those that are in a minority situation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there are still three provinces where it is difficult to obtain a trial in French. There are still six provinces where it is next to impossible to convince the authorities to give the minority groups control of then-schools.
I ask the minister, in all honesty, how can the government in times of crisis in terms of constitutional matters abandon the rights of minorities guaranteed in the Constitution of this country?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, we have never abandoned the rights of the minorities. Our citizenship means equality for all, and I am going to continue to defend vigorously the minority communities from coast to coast as I do all the people in our diversity.
This particular program which was for the preparation and defence of these test cases under the language and equality rights of the charter was intended to provide a solid base of jurisprudence. After hundreds of cases one would imagine that we now have that base of jurisprudence.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of energy and the parliamentary secretary to the minister of energy, I have a question for either the acting minister of energy or, in the alternative, the Minister of State for the Environment.
This coming year another $177 million will be added to the $2 billion in artificial life support that has kept Atomic Energy of Canada Limited wheezing along for the last 10 years.
My question is either to the acting energy minister or the Minister of State for the Environment. Given the fact that AECL has made only one new sale in that entire $2 billion decade, why does this government continue to insist on force-feeding even more taxpayers dollars into this dead horse?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have known from his House

February 28, 1992
Oral Questions
leader about the absence of the minister of energy, because I provide lists of ministers who are not here to each party. He could have chosen another day.
Let me say, in regard to his desire that Atomic Energy of Canada be wound up, perhaps we should discuss that with Ontario Hydro to see how that fits into its plans.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am certain Ontario Hydro and more particularly the Government of Ontario would be delighted to discuss that.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Ross Harvey: The chain has been rattled, Mr. Speaker. Everywhere else on this planet the growth energy industries are solar, wind, biomass and hydrogen, options on which the government intends to spend, in total less than a third of what it intends to spend on the crumbling nuclear option.
Will the President of the Treasury Board take this opportunity to declare that there has been a terrible mistake and a terrible series of typographical errors in the energy department's estimates, that the numbers have been reversed, and that the government will spend $177 million on energy efficiencies and alternatives and only $55 million on nukes?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, not at all. I have full confidence in the magnificent work of my colleague, the minister of energy.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration or his alternate.
The real jobless rate in Newfoundland these days is close to 40 per cent. Indeed it is over 50 per cent in places like the Port au Port peninsula, St. George's area and Bay D'Espoir.
These people have been brought to their knees by the particular policies of this government. For example, the high dollar makes it difficult to sell forest exports, so the loggers are losing their jobs right and left.
I want to ask the minister: Why is the government in effect laughing at the misery of those people by choosing now to cut $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy program?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I repeated earlier how important it was to train our workers, and I also recalled the very substantial amounts we added to the system in order to upgrade skills and training. We are convinced that in the long run, this is the right strategy to ensure that someone who is looking for a job will be able to adjust to new markets and to industry's new needs. That is why we are working very closely with the commission that makes recommendations on priorities to our department. I also come from a region where the unemployment rate is still far too high, to my liking, but I believe we will be able to find the right solutions to our economic and social problems.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, that has to be the nicest, loveliest answer I have had in a long time, but it had veiy little to do with the question.
I have said to the minister, and I will say one more time, that there is a decrease. I ask her to look at the estimates. She is talking increase; I am talking decrease. The estimates clearly say that the program has been cut by $100 million.
How can she stand there with a straight face and say that is an increase? Does she not realize that also last year the same program was cut by $100 million?
When is she going to come to the real world with the rest of us and respond to the question? Why the decrease? Why now? Are you laughing at those people?


Monique Vézina: No,
Mr. Speaker, we are not laughing at workers who are looking for jobs. Yes, we are trying to find the right approaches, as a government, and yes, we did have the courage to act responsibly and make the unemployment insurance system an active system that will at last give workers a chance to acquire the skills they need to be able to cope with this new economic structure. We are putting the appropriate measures in place through the

other departments. Yes, we will succeed, but we must give it everything we've got.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Quebec now has 405,000 unemployed workers, and this does not include those who have stopped looking for employment. We have had more than 23,500 bankruptcies in the province, and there was a net loss of 68,000 jobs in 1991 alone. More than half the unemployed in Quebec are in the Montreal region. Could the Prime Minister perhaps explain to Montreal's jobless why his budget does not provide any opportunities for finding a job? When can the people of Montreal expect to go back to work in this country?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, unless he has become a complete stranger to the Montreal scene, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard must be aware that the government has invested a lot of effort and a substantial number of programs in the Montreal region in order to get workers the jobs that are now becoming available as a result of our investment in advance technology and industries like the pharmaceutical industry, aerospace and so forth, which generate jobs that pay well. Thanks to our training programs, unemployed workers will have a chance to train for these jobs.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister responsible for the Montreal area answered my question. The jobs he assumes were created in the pharmaceutical industry will be lost because of the cuts in social housing and the loss of the co-operative housing program announced in the budget.
When will the minister responsible for the Montreal area stand up to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to protect the interests of Montreal workers?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the many jobs being created at this time in the aerospace and pharmaceutical industries are the jobs of the future, and those are the jobs we are targeting to restore Montreal's economy. Furthermore, we have
Oral Questions
created the right economic climate by reducing interest rates and keeping inflation at a level that is conducive to the kind of new investment that will be beneficial to the Montreal area.


Mr. Ray Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women.
Would she be prepared to meet with the 22 women in Powell River whose jobs have been taken by strike breakers hired by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce?
Specifically, would the minister meet with these 22 women in Powell River with a view to helping them break the deadlock with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce which is bent on breaking their union and throwing them into the street?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I do not plan to be in Powell River in the near future. Quite honestly, I do not think that would be an appropriate kind of meeting for me to undertake.
Obviously there is a labour dispute and the appropriate way of resolving that is between the union and the employer.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the women of Powell River knew that as well as everyone else in the House.
Would she urge the government to conduct a public inquiry into the exploitation of women by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the other chartered banks in Canada?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, in fact quite recently we received reports from the bankers and the Canadian Banking Association which showed some very significant progress is being made in the employment and the promotion of women.

February 28, 1992
Oral Questions
In fact, one of the major banks has now a very increased percentage of women in senior management.
Obviously there is always room for improvement but I have full confidence that there are mechanisms between the banks and the employees and unions to work out these situations.


THE CONSTITUTION
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Recently the Montreal Gazette reported that in a letter to Southam News relaying the government's position, Information Commissioner John Grace said that the government is keeping public opinion polls on the Constitution locked away because of an "extremely volatile public environment".
These polls have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, obviously paid for with public funds. It would only make sense to me that the public should have access to this information.
Will the minister now release these polls to allow Canadians to make up their own minds on the constitutional question? What perhaps would this government have to hide?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the hon. member knows, this is a matter that is still in negotiation between The Ottawa Citizen and the commissioner and she would not want me to interfere with that process.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the government is not used to allowing the public to take part in matters of state. We have seen that all too painfully in the last few hours. I think this time we need to make exceptions.
I ask this minister again: Will he not release the said public opinion polls on the Constitution? If he refuses to do so today, then when can the Canadian people expect to see the results that they have paid for in this and also the constitutional proposals that have been left up to a committee of only 30 people to determine with directives from the PMO?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I answered the first question the first time. With regard to public participation, let me make two points.
One has to do with the practice of some political parties in this country. When there is dissent in their ranks they act immediately to throw out the dissenters. This is despite clear undertakings that were given by her leader when he first became the leader of her party that never would he, as a leader, support the right of a party leader to deny the use of the party label to a candidate who disagreed with the leader. The Reform Party says one thing on the hustings and does another thing in practice.
With regard to the question of public participation, we have just come through a quite extraordinary process of public participation on the Constitution to which representatives of the Reform Party were invited.
I have heard two political parties that whined and complained about that process: one was the Bloc Quebe-cois, the other was the Reform Party of Canada which did not want to hear Canadians who said things that it did not agree with.


TAXATION
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance.
The Reform Party would like to eliminate tax credits and tax deductions which the government uses to achieve desirable social and economic goals. It wants to do this by instituting a regressive flat tax.
Would the minister inform the House how the Reform Party's flat tax would affect families and working people?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the flat tax proposal as I understand it from the Reform Party would allow no deductions at all. Therefore their system would help the upper-middle income and wealthy people of this country and penalize the lower-middle income and the poor working families.
February 28, 1992

It would damage the volunteer sector. I do not think there is any question about that. The charitable donations would be decimated and they have let us know that in no uncertain terms.
In short, the flat tax would penalize those people we are trying to help the most with the budget that was just released on Tuesday.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This budget means very little to a great many Canadians in Toronto, especially the 206,000 unemployed individuals who need immediate jobs to put their families back on track, the 400,000 people on welfare who need immediate hope and 124,000 people who use food banks and want this undignified dependence to come to an end.
Why did the government ignore the plight of these Canadians in its budget by failing to introduce job creation measures that would have addressed the economic malaise confronting these Canadians and metropolitan Toronto?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we learned our lessons from the 1981-82 recession when the government of the day threw money at the problems and it did not solve the problem. It was borrowed money and we are trying to pay back that debt today. We are suffering under that debt load in this country.
The best thing we can do for those people is get the economy going again, to create meaningful, full-time employment, not just make-work projects for a month or two.
The amount of money that was suggested by the Liberal Party would only have provided about 30,000 short-term jobs across the entire country. That is not the way to solve the problem. The way to solve the problem is to get our fundamentals in place and come out of this recovery full speed ahead.
That is exactly what all the think tanks across this country and around the world are saying, that we are in
Oral Questions
the best position of any country in the G-7 for recovery this year.


Sergio Marchi: That response is full of bunk and the minister knows that.
The municipal government of metropolitan Toronto proposed specific joint projects to be shared among the three levels of government that would have provided the very job stimulus that is required by Toronto.
For instance, one initiative was the construction of a new trade centre that would have created 7,000 immediate construction jobs and 3,000 permanent jobs.
Why did the government say no to this and other sensible projects, not make-work projects but sensible projects, that would have put Canadians back to work and would have had some meaning to this government's feeling that the economy is indeed back on track?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, we did not do that because the taxpayers of this country have told us in no uncertain terms not to bring forward make-work projects but get the economy back on track. Once the economy is back working again then some of these projects maybe able to take place.
Right now the taxpayer-there is only one taxpayer- cannot afford to borrow more money. All it will do is force up interest rates. It will increase inflation and we will be back in that same old cycle that the Liberals had us on for years. We are trying to get out of that and we believe the policies that we have are going to work.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
A recent Statistics Canada report reveals that most Canadians who claim unemployment insurance are likely to find themselves out of work repeatedly in the course of their working lives.
The report states that repeat unemployment insurance use is very high. Repeat users represent as many as 80 per cent of all claimants.
I ask the minister, why did the budget not include a national training strategy that would help these people get off the UI treadmill?

February 28, 1992
Oral Questions


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, we already have this strategy in place. Its purpose, as my colleague from finance said so well, is to upgrade our economy and to help workers, through the jobs strategy and the various programs that we offer them, to pursue their training and be competitive in a world of globalized markets.
We did not need to add to this budget because for the past three years we have had an employment strategy that was designed with employers, workers and the private sector and that meets the needs of today and tomorrow very well.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, obviously the strategy this government has implemented is not working because these people still exist.
The Statistics Canada study is supported by the Economic Council's most recent, and last annual report. That report states: "There is a group of people who are caught in regular cycles of unemployment. They may gradually become lengthier and more frequent thus forming a trap from which it is difficult to escape".
Why did this government not address this fundamental problem in the budget? When is it going to abandon its haphazard hit-or-miss approach to job training and throw a lifeline to these individuals who are trapped in the whirlpool of UI dependency?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I remember very well the working sessions we had and the big discussions here in this House when we tried to have Bill C-21 passed unanimously. The main purpose of this bill was to break this vicious circle of unemployment and employment. That is why we implemented this reform. The hon. member will never agree that we are making progress, but we are, little by little.


CANADA POST
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
Every day communities are complaining about the fact that their post offices are being closed and not just post offices in the public sector. Post offices that have been in drugstores for twenty, thirty, forty years are being closed without any proper notice and without consulting the people and the communities affected.
Will the minister instruct Canada Post to set up a real process where the communities and people affected are being listened to and can participate in the decisionmaking process?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in 1981 this House passed an act making Canada Post a Crown corporation. There was unanimity on both sides of the House that it was for the purposes of keeping out political interference so that we would not have these requests that ministers direct the post office to do this and that.
However, the question of the post office being responsive to its customers is an important question. I will communicate the member's concerns to the post office by way of a communication. I suggest that he might do the same thing.
We should let the post office do what we asked it to do unanimously in 1981 and that is to operate at arm's length, free from political interference.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister to get involved in each and every closure.
What I would like the minister to do as a matter of public policy is to ask the post office to set up a mechanism where the public is really involved. I think that is a proper role of government. It is a proper role for the minister responsible for the post office.
I would ask him to make that request, which I am sure is shared by members of all political parties, to make sure there is a proper process for individual and community involvement in the decision-making process.
February 28, 1992


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I understand that such a process does exist. I understand that the post office has on a number of occasions offered to brief members of this House on the process and on all that is involved. I am told that the New Democratic Party has turned down at least one of those briefings.
If in fact the hon. member is not aware of the process, I will ask the post office to invite the hon. member and his colleagues to a briefing, so that they may be acquainted with the processes involved and make any suggestions they have for improvement.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister for trade would agree that the harassment of Honda by the U.S. customs authority threatens future investment in Canada very severely.
Now look at what is happening. The U.S. authorities have said that the Honda Civic has less than 50 per cent North American content. Our authorities say it has 66 per cent North American content. Does not this great disparity indicate to the minister that we have to amend the free trade agreement to have precise content rules?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, let me just correct one point that my hon. friend made.
Revenue Canada has advised Honda that the North American content is greater than 50 per cent. It has not advised Honda of a specific figure such as my hon. friend has mentioned.
I fully agree with the substance of the member's question. It is one of the very clear objectives we have in the NAFTA negotiations, the North American free trade negotiations. If we are not successful in getting a North American free trade agreement, then under the free trade agreement with the United States we need to get clear rules of origin so we do not have this s'me problem repeating itself.
Routine Proceedings


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
If this U.S. custom's decision goes against Honda, which it very well might, Canada's only remedy is under chapter 18 arbitration of the FTA. As the minister knows, one of the big problems with chapter 18 arbitration is that it is not binding unless the U.S. agrees that it will be.
Has the minister asked the U.S. to ensure that an arbitration decision under that provision will be binding and, if so, what was the response of the United States?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have, under the terms of the free trade agreement, initiated two consultations with the United States; one with regard to the Honda decision and the other with regard to the problem that we have with Camry also on rules of origin.
Let us follow through that process. We have presented our case very strongly to the United States government on both of these issues and we will continue to do that, working with both companies involved. The clear objective is to avoid these problems in the future by getting an agreement now or as soon as possible on how rules of origin should be interpreted by both governments.


COMMUNITY WEEKLIES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications and concerns his announcement yesterday about the subsidy for newspapers.
The minister surely knows that Le Journal de Cornwall, Le Soleil de la Colombie and many other weeklies serving Francophone communities outside Quebec are disappearing because of an arbitrary decision by Canada Post which considers these newspapers as weeklies rather than magazines.
I would like to ask the minister whether he is prepared to intercede with his colleague, the minister responsible for Canada Post, who refused to answer letters from the

Routine Proceedings
association of the French language press outside Quebec, so that these newspapers can survive.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Communications is working very closely with the newspaper publishing industry across the country to try to meet their concerns while, at the same time, recognizing the fact that Canada Post does have costs involved in the distribution of newspapers.
The announcement we made yesterday will benefit some 430 community newspapers across Canada. It is something which is very beneficial for community newspapers. It was worked on in conjunction with the Canadian Community Newspaper Association and we will continue to work very closely with them.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were made by the government pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1). These are deemed to be referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.


UNITED NATIONS
Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege today in the House to table, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), three Orders in Council, in both official languages, relating to Canadian participation in United Nations peacekeeping missions. They are PC 1991-2115 for the United Nations
mission for the referendum in western Sahara, PC
1992-354 for the United Nations protection force in Yugoslavia, and PC 1992-355 for the United Nations advanced mission in Cambodia.


NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour, on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, to table in the House the government's response to the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. This is the report that deals with Canada's wartime merchant mariners.


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



STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations and I believe there will be unanimous consent for the following motion. The motion reads:
That as part of its study on aboriginal housing, five members and three staff of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs be authorized to travel to Vancouver to participate in the conference on housing, organized by the Assembly of First Nations from March 8 to March 12, 1992.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
February 28, 1992

Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from several Canadians who, because of the suffering of our refugees, their personal and economic hardships and their undecided futures because of our slow refugee processing, are calling upon Parliament to urge the government to step up action on refugee cases and especially to exercise compassion.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition signed by many residents in the Ottawa region. The petitioners are asking for relief for refugees who are suffering from personal and economic hardship and fear for their future and are calling on the government to exercise compassion.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition which contains over 5,000 names of people from my riding which states:
The undersigned, your petitions, humbly call upon Parliament to
revise the laws of Canada, to replace the Young Offenders Act with
an updated Juvenile Delinquent Act with a lower maximum age of
13.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, scrap the Young Offenders Act.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that is in order according to Standing Order 36.
The petition states that gasoline prices are significantly higher in the Ottawa area than those in southern Ontario and that such a price disparity discriminates against Ottawa area consumers.
The Government of Ontario has eliminated legal licence fees for northern residents to compensate for a similar gas price disparity between southern and northern Ontario. Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to correct this injustice to Ottawa area motorists.
Routine Proceedings


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions to the House. The first deals with the issue of the absence of criminal injuries compensation protection at the federal level and particularly for Canadians who are travelling and working abroad and supports Bill C-310, which is a private members' bill I have introduced in this House and which will be debated on March 9.
This petition is signed by hundreds of people from the Victoria area, including from my own constituency and I have the honour to present it to the House.


John F. Brewin: The second petition is also signed by people from my area and calls on the government to exempt from the goods and services tax women's sanitary products.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a number of petitions signed by over 500 Canadians from my riding who are concerned that the drug trade in Toronto is getting out of hand.
Essentially they are asking this government that when there are proceeds from drug busts in metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere, rather than having all these revenues flow into the general accounts of the federal government, that those moneys be shared with the police authorities in Toronto and other local organizations who are on the leading front of trying to combat and overcome the illicit drug trade problem that is causing havoc among families and our youth.
I hope the government listens to this appeal.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, questions No. 4, 176 and 277 will be answered today.

February 28, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Mrs. Maheu: Does the government intend to table the report of the Race Relations Thsk Force, headed by Mr. Linton Garner?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: There is no intent to table.


Mr. Young (Acadie-Bathurst): With respect to the Public Service, as of March 31 of (a) 1985 (b) 1990 (c) 1991, what was the number of (i) senior management (SM) (ii) executive (EX) (iii) deputy ministers (DM) (or equivalent)?


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: I am informed by the Privy Council Office and the Treasury Board of Canada as follows:
As of March 31 of each year:
YEAR	SM	EX	DM/EQUIVALENT(a)	1985	2,096	2,198	115(b)	1990	1,984	2,624	129(c)	1991'	2,041	2,715	136
Following the February 26, 1991 budget, the number of public service senior managers as of January 31, 1991, is being reduced by 10 per cent (from 4750 to 4275), with the bulk of the reduction to be achieved within one year and the remainder by March 31,1993. In the period January 31 to November 30,1991, the management category population decreased by 231, or 48 per cent of the reduction target of 475.


Mr. Milliken: What is the anticipated cost of the National Transportation Act review panel appointed by the Minister of Transport to review federal transportation economic regulatory legislation?


Mr. Leonard Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Members of the National Transportation Act review panel, who were appointed by the Governor in Council on January 31, 1992, will develop a proposed budget once they have had an opportunity to determine a plan for carrying out their mandate. The proposed budget will then be submitted to Treasury Board in accordance with the established budget approval process.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 113 and 152 could be made orders for returns those return would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions mentioned by the hon. parliamentary secretary be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Boudria: Since 1984, how many grants have been given by the government and its agencies to privately owned golf clubs and in each instance what is (a) the amount (6) the purpose of the grant?
Return tabled.

Question No. 152-Mrs. Stewart:
For each fiscal year since 1989 to date, have any departments rented facilities other than those of the government for staff training, and, if so, (a) what were the costs for renting the facilities (b) for what reasons were these facilities used?
Return tabled.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We will revert back to petitions because one of our members was on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
February 28, 1992


PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition today signed by numerous residents of the Ottawa area.
The petitioners are concerned about the excessively high gas prices that are prevalent in this area, higher than other parts of southern Ontario. They call on Parliament to urge the government to correct this injustice to Ottawa area motorists, and I may say that many Kingston area motorists share their concern.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, when you asked for consent for the questions to be allowed to stand, I had risen on a point of order on that issue, hoping that the government, perhaps through the chief Whip, would respond.
I have four questions on the Order Paper. Three have been there for periods much longer than 45 days, some of them up to about five months. We are not entitled to have more than four questions on the Order Paper. I cannot get any answers any more because I cannot put new questions on the Order Paper. So I am effectively paralyzed in my ability to do my work in terms of asking written questions.
I want to ask the government when it intends to follow the Standing Orders of the House and provide answers to those questions. I recognize that the Whip probably cannot give a full answer right now. I would be satisfied with a commitment on his part that he will do his best to ensure that the Standing Orders are followed by those responsible.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, we take a lot of credit for changing the Standing Orders so this particular submission could be made. I would like to point out to the House that our record in answering questions is infinitely better than any system which existed prior to the present one.
He is correct that I am not familiar with his particular four questions. I do know from the time I was parliamentary secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister that frequently there is difficulty because questions are so complex. They involve more than one department and a very heavy expenditure of money to procure the kind of answers that members are after, and it is simply not possible if too many departments are involved to answer in 45 days.
Government Orders
I have suggested to members that if they would cut down on the size of their questions it would be very helpful in getting speedy answers. I do not know if that is the situation in this case, but I will undertake to ask the parliamentary secretary to look into the matter and to report back to the House at the earliest opportunity.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
February 28, 1992
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Peter de C. Cory, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 28th day of February, 1992, at 1 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque,
Secretary to the Governor General.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1992, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will, of course, be addressed to the matter before us, that is the budget brought in by the present government for the next fiscal year.
The first thing I would like to do is deal with some anomalies in the budget, perhaps unintentioned by the government, but nonetheless I think we should pay attention to them.
For some time now, the leader of my party has been calling for a review of the loopholes for business expenses such as lunches and other allegedly important business dealings that have still not been sealed in the

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
current budget that is before us. Did you know that it is still possible for businessmen to write off the services of escorts going to lunch?


An hon. member:: No.


David Barrett: My dear friend says "no" and shakes his head. The department's response to this is to say that it has no way of monitoring this. The fact is that some of those escort services are out and out hooker shops and this government is permitting people to clearly deduct the services of hookers as a business expense.


John Horton McDermid: That's not true and you know it.


David Barrett: My dear friend may interfere all he wants across the floor, but the reality is that the department itself admits publicly that it has no way of monitoring this.


Douglas Fee: Why don't you listen to what the minister says?


David Barrett: All right my dear friends, you are very quick at heckling but very slow on actually taking some action.
I want to tell you that as it stands today, and I know it clearly, the fact is that hookers can still be deducted as a business expense. That is hardly appropriate in this day and age and hardly appropriate at a time when this country is involved in attempting to cut back services right across the line. When it comes to certain services, they overlook it.


John Horton McDermid: Did you do it?


David Barrett: My dear friend, did I?


John Horton McDermid: Flow do you know?


David Barrett: I do not have business deductions.


An hon. member:: Neither do they.


David Barrett: Look, if you want to interrupt just stand up on a point of order and I will rule on it.


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order.


David Barrett: I ruled you out of order.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Minister of National Revenue yesterday made it very clear that that was not a fact.


David Barrett: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I cannot hear the point of order. How can I rule on it?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the hon. member is standing here and giving out information that is not true. In fact, the Minister of Finance yesterday-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, thank you for keeping the House in order and pointing out the member who is suggesting a member is not telling the truth is himself out of order.
Having said that, the reality is as I have said it.
To go on to other areas of cutbacks, I want to go from a particular to a universal. The fact is that this government has deliberately moved off of any responsibility right across this country of assisting provinces in their budgeting for the economic devastation that has been caused by this government.
We have 1.5 million unemployed people in this country, many of whose only source of income is unemployment insurance. When they run out of unemployment insurance eligibility, although the government is increasing their share toward unemployment insurance payments, they run out of unemployment insurance. Then they are on welfare and that is where this government walks away, particularly in three provinces, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, because of the capping.
What it is doing-I know the Chair has no part of this-is saying: "If you are suffering out there, you are the victims of economic restructuring". It is saying: "If you are suffering out there, you are the victims of an economic restructuring". It is an economic restructuring that somebody has to sacrifice themselves for and it might as well be the poor, the unemployed and the unemployables.
This government in this budget has not made one single gesture of understanding what peril it has put this nation in, in terms of the huge costs to provinces of welfare. This government has created more welfare problems in its eight years in power than we have seen in a generation before. Its response to dealing with this is to blame the Liberals. Lord knows, they need the blame. But we find the two old line parties trading off whose recession was worse. Is that the way to deal with a country? We are not here to talk about whose recession is the worst. Both of them caused the recession. We are
February 28, 1992

here to talk about solutions and this government has come up with absolutely nothing.
The same old Tories were around in the last depression when we heard that famous expression by their American counterpart, the then President of the United States, Hoover, who said: "Root hog or die-Root hog or die". Free enterprise for the poor. Free enterprise for the middle class, but socialism for the rich.
Let us take a look at the banks in this country. The banks are protected by a form of marketing board, the very thing they want to destroy for the farmers. The Bank of Canada, in effect, is a form of marketing board; money supply, money control for the five private major banks in this country, a public instrument to protect those private banks that are now making higher profits than any other corporate sector in this country and being protected by this government; $4 billion last year of profits made by the banks-$4 billion that the super rich in this country are guaranteed protection on, yet the poor, the unemployed have no succour from this government.


An hon. member:: They are paying taxes.


David Barrett: Oh, they are paying tax. Let us hear it for the crying. If the banks paid taxes at the same rate that a bank clerk pays, we would all be a heck of a lot better off. Bank clerks pay more percentage than the bank itself does. Do not give me the stuff that banks are paying their fair share of taxes. The banks are protected by this government and a socialist instrument known as the Bank of Canada.
The insurance companies in this country are fat, loaded and doing well. To extend it further, we see that even a separate bank is going to be favoured by the North American free trade agreement with Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I refer you to a report, not in Canada but in the United States. In Canada, unlike Mexico, unlike the United States, the parliamentarians of this country have yet to have a briefing on the draft bracketed agreement on the Canada-U.S.-Mexico deal. The Mexican senators have had a briefing, the U.S. Congress people have had a briefing, but nothing here in Canada. Keep us in the dark no matter what you are planning to sign.
Government Orders
I quote from The Financial Post of just this morning. The Financial Post is not a supporter of the New Democratic Party. If it were, I would not buy it. This is what The Financial Post stated this morning, and I quote: "Washington-Canada will be the only nation to suffer under a North American free trade agreement according to a bleak study released yesterday".


An hon. member:: By who?


David Barrett: Wait, I am coming to that. Do not get nervous. I know his anxiety level is rising. I know the tension is overwhelming him, but I tell him, do not get nervous. I am in order.
"While Mexico gains 600,000 jobs, the U.S. gains
130,000	jobs, Canada stands to lose 5,000 jobs" says the Institute for International Economics, as it produced the gloomiest predictions for Canada of any serious scrutiny done of the contentious free trade debate. I emphasize any serious scrutiny because this government has produced absolutely no documents on its position in the negotiating of that agreement to this House. It was Southam News which, through the Freedom of information act, got access to the documents it had prepared for its own side of briefings for the Canadian position. The documents released under the information act, forced by Southam News, indicated the very same thing, that this government was going into a mine field on the Mexican negotiations. Let us understand very, very openly and obviously that this government is on a course of another sell-out just as the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has been.
I do not intend to be negative for my full 20 minutes. I have some positive alternatives to help this government out of its mess. It is necessary to understand how stupid, how foolish and how closeted this government has been in the dealings on the North American free trade agreement with Mexico. Here is an American study by a reputable organization that has shown clearly exactly what the government's own private briefings had.
Do not run out, Mr. Member, I am not through yet. Furthermore, this study goes on to show in stark contrast the U.S. $2 billion trade deficit it had with Mexico in 1990 would undergo a positive swing of $9 billion by 1995. Another slap against Canada will be rediversion of U.S. imports from Canadian sources to Mexican sources. Why not? If under the free trade agreement with Canada and the United States the United States is forced to buy a Canadian product because of that agreement and we then go in with Mexico, it will obviously buy a similar Mexican product. Why would it not? Any dumb-bell can

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
figure that out. Canadian wages are higher than Mexico. On average, secondary and tertiary manufacturing jobs require about $12 to $14 an hour here in Canada. The same job in Mexico pays 80 cents an hour. Where do you think people are going to buy? They are going to buy from Mexico. What does this study do? It says exactly that. Any dumb-bell can figure that out.
I do not know, the government is full of any kind of things, but any dumb-bell can figure that out. But it is still going to have to sign this deal. We are going to lose on secondary and tertiary manufacturing thousands of jobs because of the Maquiladora program in Mexico and because the Mexicans are paid 80 cents an hour in many instances in the Maquiladora. Talk about human rights, talk about health and safety standards, the committee of this House has not even visited the Maquiladora, has not even gone to Mexico to see what kind of competition we will be faced with and has not even questioned the violation of human rights against men and women in Mexico who the government, through its Prime Minister, says is a paramount interest, human rights all over the world except when it comes obviously to trading partners such as Mexico.
The most exploited group of the workers in Mexico are women between the ages 18 and 30. They have been removed essentially from the rural communities in Mexico, moved into the Maquiladora zone and are at mercy in the prey of unscrupulous employers documented through human rights violations and such organizations as Amnesty International and other religious community groups. What has this government done? Thumb its nose at it, make sanctimonious speeches about "Oh, we want to tie aid into human rights". What a pile of-well I will not say the word BS. I was thinking of saying BS but I will not say it.
There you go, Mr. Speaker, it is hypocrisy. I was thinking of that word but I know that is unparliamentary too. So there you go, a government that really does not give a fig about Canadian working people, and does not care about the Mexicans at the other end. The exploitation is there and even in the face of this evidence is still going ahead to sign that deal. Why?
I have come to a conclusion and I want to make an accusation. I think this government is tied into a U.S. corporate agenda and it is more interested in that corporate agenda for those international corporations than it is for the Canadian people, Canadian workers, men and women right across this country. I hate to be right on this one but I am right.


An hon. member:: That will be a first.


David Barrett: Well, if it is a first, it is a horrible example to start with. It is a hell of a mess and I cannot say that either, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. member:: Well, don't say it.


David Barrett: I will not say it.
This government has completely sold out in terms of any commitment to ordinary Canadians, to small business in this country, to working men and working women and sits there smugly saying: "We are not going to do anything to get us out of this mess because we did everything we could to get us into it".
That is its philosophy. Every single one of its policies brought us to this situation. The goods and services tax was part of it. The North American free trade negotiations with Mexico are stalling corporate investments, both internally and externally, in this country. How are we going to recruit foreign capital when we have to say that our wage structure is higher here but we are willing to join to have access to our market with a low wage partner in Mexico?
Do you think a German, Japanese or any international entrepreneur will invest in Canada when we are prepared to give away our markets to both Mexico and the United States? They are not stupid. However, this government, along with the GST, along with inadequate protection of our own Canadian markets, our own manufacturing base, entered into those two trade deals.
Now the government bleats about the debt. I have heard the government cry about the debt. I see the Liberals and the Tories complain to each other about who increased the debt most first. What an absurd argument. Who increased the debt most first? They are both lousy managers. They have both squandered away
February 28, 1992

the resources of this country. They have both abandoned a sense of incorporating the wealth of this nation into some kind of sense.


An hon. member:: Truth at last.


David Barrett: There is a god-given cornucopia of natural resources in this country: the oil industry, the gas industry, lumber, fisheries. All of those god-given natural resources are available to the 27 million of us. This government squandered that cornucopia and arrived at a situation in which there are 1.5 million unemployed and a massive public debt and then it says to the very people who's money it took out of their pockets in the first place: "You have to dig deeper to pay up for the mess we have created".


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


David Barrett: Lewis Carroll, if he were alive today, would be embarrassed. Alice in Wonderland becomes a reality and these guys become the biggest fairy tale of all. Who is the walrus over there? Who is the Mad Hatter? It changes hats with the Minister of Finance. Whoever the Minister of Finance is under the Tory government is the Mad Hatter and gets the hat.
What a bunch of wrecking crews. What a bunch of incompetents. How could they take a major economy that is a principal actor in the world, in the G-7, and turn it upside down into a disaster? Only the Liberals and Tories could figure out how to do it.


Mr. Lewis:: What about B.C.?


David Barrett: I left surpluses in B.C., balanced budgets plus $600 million worth of assets. I will put my seat up against anybody who says otherwise.
Having said that, I am just a socialist. I just made money. It was against the law for socialists to make money on behalf of the public. We did it anyway. We set up our own Crown corporation known as the British Columbia Insurance Corporation. Has one right winger who has been elected since in that province got rid of it? Come on, stand up. They have not because it makes money.
One thing that should attract the heart and soul of every Tory is a corporation that makes money. We can talk about resources. We can talk about a sense of commitment. We can talk about sensitivity to people but
Government Orders
that will not get their attention. However, if we tell them how to make money, ding the bell goes on. Actually, the light goes on and the bell rings. Even the light going on and the bell ringing does not mean that they learn anything.
I want to use my last few minutes to give a primary economic lesson. The debt owed by this country requires 32 cents of every single dollar taken in to just pay the interest. Do we agree with that? Yes, we agree with that.
As an aside, these birds moan, squeal and cry about the Ontario government increasing its deficit. Ontario pays 7 cents on every dollar for debt servicing, and let us say it goes to 9 cents. This government would love to have that debt leverage ratio. It is 32 cents under the Tories and 7 cents under the NDP, who inherited a mess from the Liberals which I will not talk about. Seventy per cent of the debt owed by this country is internally financed. We are in hock for 70 per cent of the money we owe internally into this country.
One of the resources we have in this country is our own indigenous capital. We should not be afraid of it. This government has finally discovered a bit under the program of using RRSPs for down payments on homes. I do not think that is the best way of using that money, but at least the Tories have got it through their heads.
Do they understand what a bond is? I think so. They sell Canada savings bonds to raise revenue internally to meet both operating costs and debt payments. This government is not against Canada savings bonds. The Liberals are not against Canada savings bonds. Neither is the New Democratic Party.
What I have offered is another type of bond to attract savings in this country so that we can have a massive opening of expenditure in public works that would employ tens of thousands of people in this country. It would not cause the Government of Canada to go into further debt but would allow some imagination in deferring taxation on RRSPs.
It was The Globe and Mail of Canada, not an NDP newspaper, that took the trouble on February 10 to print this brilliant article explaining how one could use a municipal bond out of an RRSP in financing massive restructuring at the municipal town or city level right across this country. This brilliant article was written by

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
one David Barrett, the former premier of British Columbia, and printed in The Globe and Mail.


An hon. member:: It only lasted three years.


David Barrett: Sure, it only lasted three years. Do you know why? It was because the Liberals got into bed with the Socreds. The Tories got into bed with the Socreds. They all represent the same interests. Once they were in the political bed we do not know who was doing what to whom, but we know who felt the effects. It was a political menage a trois, and that is the limit of my French.
In any event, here is an opportunity based on the American experience from the 1930s to fund municipal bonds to provide for a basic restructuring of every single city, town and village in this country. It is very simple. It is so simple the Tories are baffled by it. It will not cost them five cents. It does not cater to the middle class as a tax exemption. It does not give speculative benefits to house buyers in the long run. It is simply an option to provide a low cost bond out of the RRSP and into a municipal bond that pays 4.5 per cent and allows the owners of the bonds, if they keep the capital in the RRSP, to accumulate the interest and at the end of a 10-year period take the money out tax-free and spend it on their kids or spend it on themselves. At the same time we have had 10 years' use of a massive amount of capital.
How much money am I talking about? By the government's own statistics there is now $103 billion in RRSPs. The next question is: "Where do you think that money has gone?" We are going to deal with that. Do not get impatient, I will take the House through it step by step. Half of the $103 billion is self-directed.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. Perhaps some merciful colleague will ask me a question so that I can complete this.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on February 26, 1992, at page 7617 of Hansard, the New Democratic Party policy on capital cost allowance was definitely enunciated in the House by the member for Essex-Windsor of the New Democratic Party. He referred to capital cost allowances as "yet another new tax loophole to the manufacturing sector in this country, an increase in the capital cost allowance, which nobody has ever indicated increases investment any place in the world".
We were all astounded by this announcement of New Democratic Party policy that capital cost allowances were a tax loophole. I want to know just how far New Democrats will carry this new policy. Would they suggest the elimination altogether of capital cost allowance? What other wrinkles do they have in the policy they very clearly suggested which will devastate the manufacturing industry of Essex West and the Windsor area? I just wondered if my hon. friend could elaborate on why they are eliminating capital cost allowance from the tax system in Canada.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, a capital cost allowance under the program that I am outlining would save the taxpayers of this country hundreds of millions of dollars and at the same time have a protected benefit for that investor.
Here is what I am saying. If you have $50,000 in your RRSP and you lend it to the municipalities through a federal government agency at 4.5 per cent, in a 10-year period you will accumulate approximately $25,000 of interest inside your RRSP.


John Horton McDermid: Tax free.


David Barrett: Tax free, absolutely. At the end of the 10 years I suggest-


John Horton McDermid: It sounds like a loophole.


David Barrett: Oh, it is not a loophole. Wait until I tell the minister how much money we make on it. I suggest at the end of the 10 years you be allowed to take out the amount of money that you made in interest from your RRSP as a lump sum tax free.


John Horton McDermid: And it doesn't cost the taxpayer anything?


David Barrett: Oh, wait a minute.


John Horton McDermid: We want the exact period that it is tax free.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, it is painful to take these people through a new idea step by step. We had to do it in socialized medicine. We had to do it on hospital insurance. We had to do it on all kinds of programs, but I will take them through it painfully. Perhaps if they would listen they could steal this idea. I would be the last to say
February 28, 1992

I authored it. I would be silent and say: "Lord, bless the Tories for providing jobs for the Canadian people".
Can we see it now? If they want that to happen they will just listen quietly. Allow half of the money available in the RRSPs, over $50 billion that is not self-directed, to have access to a municipal bond at the choice of the purchaser; no government order, no government structure.


John Horton McDermid: Where do you think the money is now?


David Barrett: Where do I think the money is? Part of the money is going to Mexico. This study confirms that the Royal Bank of Canada will be expanding its infrastructure in Mexico using Canadian funds. I am saying: what the heck, if it is good enough for disposable or reinvestment funds to go to Mexico, sure as goodness' sake they should stay right here in Canada, and I am giving that option.


John Horton McDermid: What silliness.


David Barrett: Oh, Mr. Speaker, there is no use trying to convert. There is none as deaf as those who do not want to hear.
This bond program was initiated by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the United States of America in the middle of the 1930s when disposable income and/or massive savings were not as available as they are under the RRSPs. It was part of a boot-strap operation of revitalizing the American economy. It was one of many public instruments used by the Roosevelt administration to get the United States out of the depression it was in. This is a modified form of the United States Ginnie Maes, municipal bonds, as they are known in the United States. This would allow the municipalities right across this country to implement a study that was completed in 1985 which pointed out in detail what kind of infrastructure renewal was necessary in this country from coast to coast to coast. The study is there. The study is there on the RRSPs.
It is simply a matter of government will to understand that if we are going to get out of this recession we have to get out by our own bootstraps, using our own means and our own leadership.
Government Orders
We cannot ciy wolf around the world. We cannot hide and say that things will get better, we hope. But we can use positive public instruments to get us out of this mess and put people to work.
Every single person who goes to work-and this is news to the government-pays income tax. Guess who gets the income tax? The government. Every single person who has a wage also pays GST. Guess who gets the money? The government.
Unemployed people do not pay a good rate of income tax. Unemployed people are not able to purchase and therefore pay the GST. If we put people to work using indigenous capital that needs to be mobilized in this country, the government will make money.
It will not pay it out in welfare, not pay it out in unemployment insurance, not continue a class division of Canadian citizens, but it will give Canadians something to look forward to.
For most people, all they want is a pay cheque. They do not care whether the cheque is in French or in English; they simply want a pay cheque so that they can maintain some dignity, some self-respect about their life in this country and achieving their own goals. Wisdom is what is lacking. Wisdom and political will.
In conclusion, I know this has been an edification for members of this House. This is not a political instrument. This is common sense used by the Americans. If we cannot use common sense, what hope is left for this government?


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and participate in the debate on Bill C-61. There are a number of things I would like to say with respect to the budget.
There is a great temptation when one speaks after the hon. member from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca not to make one's own speech but to respond to his. However, his was so full of fiction I am not sure that there is really any point in doing that. I would rather talk about what this budget is, rather than what it is not.
The actual debate before us is Bill C-61, the Borrowing Authority Act. I think it is important to comment on that because it is an important element of the budget but

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
it is also an important part of the democratic process of government.
It is a bill that gives authority to the government to borrow money to operate with. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that there should be no taxation without representation. That is what the borrowing authority bill is all about. It is legislation such as this that gives the government the authority to carry out the mandate it has been given by the people.
I want also to observe that significant progress is demonstrated and reflected in this bill. Last year the government's borrowing requirements were of the order of $30 billion.
I am very pleased to note that it has been reduced down to $24.7 billion this year, and look forward to further progress until over the next four or five years we will actually reach the point where the government will not have a borrowing cash requirement. That, indeed, is a sign of the tremendous progress that has been made by this government.
The budget that was brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance three days ago is beginning to show that Canadians are going to reap the benefits of the tough budgets that were brought in by the previous minister over the previous seven years.
The budget was not always brought in and received with overwhelming enthusiasm, I might say, by my hon. friends on the other side, not to mention with enthusiasm by everybody from coast to coast in Canada.
However, people like governments to govern in the interests of the nation; not simply to spend the taxpayers' money, giving the taxpayer little goodies that will make it popular and then get re-elected as a result of that. No.
What the people expect of government is responsibility. They expect government to do what needs to be done. Unfortunately, as has been alluded to by other speakers in this debate, when this government came into office it not only inherited a $200 billion debt which was accruing interest every year, but also it inherited a $16 billion operating deficit.
It is extremely commendable that during seven years of tough measures that have included not only reduction to the expenditures, but also have involved the introduction of taxes, which nobody likes to see happen, the result is we are now in a position where the government is operating on a $12 billion surplus, a $28 billion turn around.
My goodness, this country would be in a fantastic position today if we did not have the legacy of the previous government. That is the $200 billion debt, the interest on which has compounded to the point that that debt now exceeds $400 billion and would be more if it were not for the fact that this government is operating in the black and therefore is paying down a certain amount of that debt.
We have been through a recession and it has been tough. It has been tough on people from one end of this country to the other. We are also going through extraordinary economic changes throughout the world. We have to be cognizant of the fact that the recession is there and it has had an impact.
In fairness, we also have to recognize that Canadians and the Canadian economy have come through this recession in much better shape than virtually all of the other industrialized countries. This is because of the responsible measures that have been taken by this government over the years it has been in office.
It is thanks to the budgets of the former minister and the government's trade policy, much maligned by my hon. friends opposite, that Canada is so well-postured to take advantage of the global economy of the 21st century.
That is not to understate the problems that are faced by Canadians today and the difficult times that Canadians have faced in the past. When recessions occur, bankruptcies occur; people lose their jobs. When a job is lost, or a business goes under, it is a calamity and it is a personal tragedy. That should not be underswom by anybody in this House.
In our region of Atlantic Canada, we have had a compounding effect because we have had a problem in the Atlantic fishery and people are particularly aware of the recent cutbacks that have been forced in the northern cod stock, the 2J-3K-L stock, that is going to have a profound impact on 2,500 to 3,000 people and their employment prospects over the next few months.
February 28, 1992

I expect this government will respond. It is hard to find money these days, but this government responded to the previous crisis with the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Package, with the Catch Failure Program and with other programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy that will help people in communities to get by these difficulties.
Similarly, we have been negatively impacted by the over-capacity in the pulp and paper market. That is seen, for example, in Liverpool, Nova Scotia. It has seen cutbacks at the Bowater Mersey Paper Company. It has meant that people have been laid off. Fortunately, the signs are improving and there are some additional hours of work going in there. It has certainly impacted on the people that have wood lots who do not have the opportunity to sell as much as they would like of the wood that they cut.
Finally, of course, we face the challenge in our agriculture. I want to say that the whole issue which is before the public has been with those of us who have an interest in agriculture for some months. The concern over the supply management system and the preservation of food security in Canada is critically important to my province of Nova Scotia, as it is from coast to coast.
I encourage all members of this House to wholeheartedly support the vigorous efforts under the leadership of our Prime Minister. We must see that we get the outcome in the GATT negotiations that will preserve the very important food security, will preserve the culture of the family farm in Canada and will ensure that Canadian consumers can always get fresh milk and eggs and chicken and turkey and so on at the store.
We have to recognize that we do have tough challenges, but we will continue to meet those challenges. This budget signals a turn around for Canada. It clearly signals that economic recovery and sustained growth are beginning to occur and are well under way. The budget contains action to further stimulate that recovery.
There was a lot of speculation as to what was going to happen in terms of taxes. Nobody likes taxes. I think the Minister of Finance has hit a home run the first time out when he comes in with a budget in which there are
Government Orders
absolutely no new taxes and indeed, there is a modest reduction in personal income taxes.
Now, my hon. friends opposite, of course, have decried that reduction as being inconsequential. I do not think it is going to be inconsequential to the taxpayers who find that they are getting a few dollars back in their income tax returns for this year and, indeed, for future years.
Similarly, the home buyers plan is going to be of tremendous benefit to many, many Canadians where individuals can withdraw up to $20,000 from their RRSP tax free to buy or build a home and repay it over 15 years.
I have already had phone calls from a number of people in my constituency and other parts of the country who were really delighted to see the government accept the recommendation that had come from the Canadian Real Estate Association and various other bodies, including my hon. friends opposite, because it will be tremendously beneficial and have a stimulative effect on our economy.
At the same time, I have heard a lot of-I was going to say yapping but that perhaps is not polite and parliamentary-noise from the other side of this House suggesting that nothing has been done in this budget to assist people currently unemployed in Canada.
There are two philosophies about where jobs come from. The philosophy that seems to prevail on the other side of this House is that the only way to get people employed is for the government to employ them, whether in make-work schemes, the expansion of the Public Service, the creation of new Crown corporations or the creation of advisory boards, agencies and so on.
We had that kind of government for many years in this country and we saw the legacy of debt, the millstone of debt, that it left around the necks of the Canadian people.
I do not think that is the way to create jobs. The proper way to create jobs is for the government to recognize that it is private industry that employs people, that it is up to business, flourishing business, to provide employment opportunities as well as opportunities for people to make money.

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
It is business that creates jobs. The processing and manufacturing sectors not only have tremendous potential for creating jobs but allow us to build and enjoy the benefits of the resources this country is so blessed with.
Exports create jobs. This budget and this government's policies are built around the principle that it is the private sector that creates employment opportunities, that creates wealth for the country and not expenditures by government.
Two much maligned policies of this government in the past, the GST and the free trade agreement, are major cogs in preparing Canada to take advantage of that.
My hon. friends opposite like to decry these things. Quite frankly, they have been very successful in convincing many members of the public that these things have had a negative effect when in fact the negative impacts which have caused us so much difficulty in the last year or so are really the results of the recession more than anything else.
The GST and the FTA have provided a sound basis for the development of our economy and for the increasing competitiveness of Canadian manufacturers. Mr. Speaker, you do not have to take it from me, you can take it from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association or the Canadian Exporters' Association.
I would like to read a letter that the Prime Minister received recently from Mr. Vim Kokar of the Early Canadian Furniture Shops. He writes to the Prime Minister: "Dear Prime Minister: These have been veiy difficult times for many Canadians. Some of your endeavours have been very unpopular and I feel it has been very courageous on your part to introduce initiatives like free trade and the GST to enable us to compete in the international markets".
He continues: "The furniture business has been hard hit in Canada. It took a while to adjust to the new realities of the marketplace, but I am pleased to report that free trade has brought us new opportunities. This year our sales have doubled and we can clearly see a prosperous future ahead".
The results of the free trade agreement and the GST are an increase in Canadian competitiveness and an increase in market opportunities abroad for Canadians. We are going to see more letters like this as these policies continue to come into effect.
We listen to the people who are actually running the businesses. They are the people who are actually creating the jobs, not the labour unions. Labour unions do not create jobs. I would not, but some people would suggest that the role of a labour union is to feather-bed jobs. I think that is pretty harsh.
Where are labour unions coming from? They are supposed to protect the jobs of the individuals who are members of the union and get the best benefits. That is their job. That is why their members pay union dues. They are supposed to do that. However, let us not view them as objective critics of a trade policy that might mean adjustment in employment, both coming in and going out, both ways.
We ought not be misled by people who have a vested interest in seeing Canada in terms of the old fortress mentality with high walls around it so that we do not have to face realities, such as competitiveness, which are there whether we like them or not, whether this government is in power or some other government is in power. Those things are not going to change.
The budgets of this government over the last few years have had an extraordinarily positive effect in terms of creating the kind of climate that has led the members of the G-7 and the OECD to say that Canada has the best prospects for growth of any country in the G-7. They have contained inflation. They have established price stability. They have led to low interest rates, down seven points in the last 18 months. The dollar has levelled off at a rate that enables Canadian companies to be reasonably competitive. They have the deficit under control. These are the results of the sound fiscal management of this government.
The budget that was brought down the other day clearly shows that we are beginning to reap the dividends that have been the result of those tough budgets of earlier years that were so decried by hon. friends opposite. Cuts in spending by this government have now led to cuts in taxes. Cuts in spending by this government have now led to a $4 billion reduction in the deficit this year, and we can look forward to further reductions in years ahead.
The budget reflects what Canadians said. This Minister of Finance, probably more extensively than any Minister of Finance before him, went coast to coast in
February 28, 1992

this country listening to what Canadians said to him so that his budget would reflect what Canadians wanted.
That is one of the reasons this budget has been so well received from coast to coast. Canadians said they wanted realistic lasting solutions, not quick fixes. They said they wanted reductions in deficits. They said they wanted streamlining of government. They said they wanted social programs that are targeted at people who really need them.
We have heard a lot of gnashing of teeth in this House about universality. I happen to believe that most of the people who I represent in this place think that things like family allowance should not be paid to rich people, that such resources as we can allocate for family allowance should be targeted at the people who need them most.
Consequently, we have the white paper on the new child tax benefit which streamlines the system, provides a more responsible system and is better targeted to see that the dollars available are used for the benefit of the people who need help the most.
I am pleased to see that the new benefit will be paid on a monthly basis as opposed to what we have now which is a small monthly payment and a big lump sum at the end of the income tax time. By paying it out on a monthly basis it seems to me that not only can families make better ongoing use of that money but the money is more likely to stay in the community.
A pharmacist from Lockeport called me the other day and said he was particularly pleased with that aspect because with a big lump sum people are more inclined to go off to the city or somewhere and go on a spending spree. But if it comes on a monthly basis they will spend it in their own communities and there will be a local benefit. He is absolutely correct.
Canadians said they did not want any new taxes and they did not get them. Indeed, they got a modest reduction-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hon. member will have three minutes remaining when we return.
Government Orders


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect; and Bill C-57, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
["The vote will be deferred until Monday, March 9 at six o'clock p.m.\nIt being three o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order made Thursday, February 27, 1992, this House stands adjourned until Monday, March 9, 1992, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1)."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-35, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of non-controversial and uncomplicated nature therein and to repeal certain provisions thereof that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect-Chapter No. 1.
Bill C-57, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan-Chapter No. 2.
Bill S-2, an act to implement conventions between Canada and Finland, Canada and the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic and Canada and the United Mexican States for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax and the prevention of fiscal evasion and a convention between Canada and the United Mexican States for the exchange of information with respect to taxes- Chapter No. 3.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing April
[Stage Direction]
February 28, 1992
Government Orders
1, 1992, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for South Shore has three minutes remaining.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a bit of time to complete my remarks.
I was commenting on the many measures in the budget government has provided that are going to create the kind of climate for a business to flourish that results in job creation. I know that is a subject of concern to all members of this House.
The reduction in the manufacturing and processing tax is one example. Another example is the increase in the capital cost allowance, critically important to business, though I noticed my friends in the New Democratic Party consider it a loophole, which is rather bizarre. The reduction in the reciprocal withholding tax, increased incentives for R and D, and changes in capital gains exemption that will encourage investment in manufacturing are other examples. It is important to note, with respect to people who have properties now they were thinking of selling, that comes into effect on the date of the budget and not before. Further examples are enhanced support for small business and encouragement for the growth adventure capital funds.
All these are examples of items in the budget that are going to result not only in the flourishing of business but in the increasing of jobs. I believe the minister anticipates an impact of 500,000 jobs.
This is the kind of performance that the minister has delivered. He showed that he listened to Canadians. He has further listened to them by reducing wastage in government and unnecessary spending, the rationalization of some 46 agencies or indeed the abolition of those that are no longer required. We hear gnashing of teeth because a particular agency is going to be dissolved, but perhaps when that agency was established there were not all the private sector agencies performing the same functions. Why unnecessarily spend the taxpayer's money?
There are some significant, symbolic changes that will save a few dollars but, more important, will send a message to the people of Canada such as getting rid of first class air travel. I do not know why we ever had first class air travel at the expense of the taxpayer. The
ministers themselves have bitten the bullet and taken a reduction in their own incomes, and I commend them for doing that.
I am delighted to see the continued improvement in benefits for disabled Canadians. It must be a goal of all members of this House, I am sure, to see measures brought in that are going to encourage the economic integration of these people into Canadian society and to ensure that each has the right to earn a living, to live with dignity and to make their contribution to Canadian life.
It all adds up to a good future for this country. I am sure all members of this House will want to join with me in commending the Minister of Finance for the outstanding job he has done in bringing forth this budget.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the previous speaker and I have two questions. If it is such a good idea and such an enormously successful budget, why are they at 11 per cent?
The second question I am sure I will be asking him next week is why they are at 6 per cent.


An hon. member:: We do not want to peak too soon.


Raymond John Skelly: He does not want to peak too soon. I knew there was a good reason.
I wanted to ask the member about something more important. It involves the cutbacks in the budget to legal defence funds and advocacy agencies. In the community of Powell River there are 22 women who have been driven out of their jobs by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It has refused to bargain with them in good faith and they are now out of their jobs, over Christmas and continuing on, and strike-breakers have been hired by the bank to go in and replace these unionized workers.
Today we asked the Minister responsible for the Status of Women if she would meet with these women to discuss the kinds of problems they have. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and the other chartered banks in Canada have a disastrous record with labour relations and the exploitation of women. The federal government has to get onboard. There has to be activity within the Department of Labour to inquire into the kinds of activities that are going on there. The Minister responsible for the Status of Women made an absolutely obscene comment today, that she does not think it is her role to get involved. In virtually every single case it is
February 28, 1992

women who wind up in this situation. It is strictly union busting.
Thousands of people in the community of Powell River signed a petition to attempt to get this government to act because they recognize the absolute injustice. This is not a question of the fairness of the bargaining process. This is an absolute distortion of any sense of justice there. These women need the help of this government. They need advocacy services from the Department of Labour. They need advocacy services from the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. All women trapped in this vicious circle of union busting and discrimination and exploitation in the chartered banks of Canada need some protection. It can only come through a public inquiry into this activity. It is 22 women here today, it is 22 more women in another community. They partition them off, branch by branch, bust the union and get rid of the women who they no longer want in there because of the union organizing or even a hint of it.
If the chartered banks were playing fair with their workers and with the women in many cases who work in those banks, there would be the right to bargain collectively with their employer, but they have effectively destroyed it. This budget goes a distance in helping to even erode their position further with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women refusing to meet with them, refusing to countenance in any way a public inquiry into the exploitation in those chartered banks, particularly the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
In Powell River the citizens of that community are shifting to unionize financial institutions, saying at least in the credit union there is enormous growth going on and very positive activity because of this harshness.
The second thing is there is a movement in that community and other areas to transfer RRSPs out, to resist any purchase of RRSPs from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Finally, before the member answers the comment, there are the kinds of promotions that have been going on. Citizens should get behind cancelling these activities, no more RRSPs with the CIBC while their labour
Government Orders
practices are so nefarious, no more purchase or acquisition of arrow gold Visas put on by Air Canada and the CIBC. There must be some action on the part of this government to help citizens who are attempting to help these women and to assist the women themselves against this exploitation.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much of my 10 minutes is left. I am not sure if my hon. friend was asking questions or giving his own speech, but I listened with great care nevertheless and I will certainly take advantage of what time remains.
He raised a number of issues and questions, and I will try to respond to all of them, though I think perhaps the issues on the status of women are kind of outside the realm of a budget debate.
He talked about polls and I would remind him, there is but one poll that counts and that is the one on the election day. I would remind him that in the last two general elections this party has done extremely well in those polls.


Raymond John Skelly: On a point of order. I know my hon. colleague erred when he said the matters affecting the status of women were outside the scope of the Conservative budget. I know that he wants to immediately correct that statement. He does not want that to appear in the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Thorkelson):: That is not a point of order. That is furthering the debate.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, what I said was this was a debate on the budget, not on the status of women. That is what I said.
My hon. friend concerns himself with the funding of advocacy groups and organizations. One of the things that it seems to me that has gone on in this country is that anybody who wants funding from the government gets it. I wonder at what point there is an appropriate role for the citizens of Canada, people who have a strong interest in whatever that particular advocacy group is about, instead of having their money impounded in taxation and handed out to advocacy groups, should fund their own advocacy groups.

February 28, 1992
Government Orders
The Court Challenges Program is a different circumstance. I appreciate my hon. friend raising that. When the charter came in, we did not know what the legal implications of it were. I think it was most appropriate that the government set aside funds to assist Canadians who may have legitimate issues or challenges against the charter or indeed against the government to determine exactly what the extent of their rights were under the charter. I think it was appropriate that that fund existed for many years. Indeed, as a result of that fund we have a legacy of many court cases that have gone a long way toward clarifying the implications of the charter. There comes a time where the purpose for which the fund was established has been achieved. Therefore, as with other government programs, they should not be funded ad nauseam. They are established in response to a need and when that need has been attended to, that is the point at which the fund should cease to come out of the pocket of the taxpayer.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the bill wherein the government is asking this House for permission to borrow money. How much money do the Tories want? I guess that is the first thing we should decide. They want $24,700,000,000. That is just so that Canadians know what it is we are discussing today.
We are discussing whether or not we should give those Tories $24,700,000,000. There is no need to spend 20 minutes debating that question. The answer is no. No. This government does not have the confidence of this House to run the affairs of the nation nor, of course, should this government be encouraged to go on any further. This government should step aside and let someone else take over.
This government recently tabled its budget. In that budget it announced very little.

There is, for instance, a provision for using registered retirement savings plans to buy a principal residence. I am pleased that, at least in this respect, the government listened to the Liberal leader and member for Beausejour who made just such a suggestion. That is something good. The Conservatives understand a few things.
A few days earlier, the government opposite also decided to reduce the amount of the down payment on a new house. Again, this is great. The government listened to the suggestions made by the Liberal Party. I must also point out that the government agreed to cut $75 million spent on advertising and opinion surveys-maybe I should use the word propaganda-but anyway, I say again, that's great. It is a very good initiative. We must also remember that last year, with the government's prosperity program or prosperity agenda-I think that's what it's called-expenses had already increased by some $25 million. Therefore, Canadians should not think that the government has rediscovered virtue. It is not quite that. The government simply reduced the excesses that were already in the budget.
Moreover, I am pleased to see that they have finally understood the importance of stimulating the production of ethanol in this country. I must congratulate the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, who has been urging the government to provide such incentives for a long time. Enough praise, Mr. Speaker, because the rest is not quite as rosy.
Several members asked for the creation of an economic recovery program. The member opposite who spoke a few moments ago told us that we were coming out of the recession and that things would improve. I hope so. However, I have in front of me an article by Eric Beauchesne, a journalist with Southam News, that gives us some facts.

This story is entitled: "Full recovery five years away".
Let me read what the story says: "The economy will not fully recover from the recession for another five years". That is what the finance department concedes in a sobering admission buried in the budget papers. "As bleak as the outlook is, the budget papers also warn that there is a risk that it could be worse". That is five years if things go right to get us out of the recession.
This is not according to the member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell. It is not according to an independent, objective person like Mr. Speaker either. No, no. That is not the way. That is according to the finance department of the minister across the way. Apparently it is going to
February 28, 1992

take five years to get us out of this recession if things go right. It could be worse if they do not.
What I am saying is that we need concrete measures to get us out of the recession. I know the members across the way say: "Oh, well, a government should do nothing. Things will resolve themselves". Perhaps they will, but why should we take that chance? Are we not elected to govern? Or are we elected not to govern?
I suspect that we are elected to do something. I do not want to pretend here that we need to dig holes and bury them again to find things to do. That is not what I am advocating at all and that is not what the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggested either. He suggested that we invest in capital works, real works, real jobs.
I will give an example. The Perley Bridge in my riding between Hawkesbury, Ontario and Grenville, Quebec was built in 1931. I know, Mr. Speaker, you were wondering how long it would take before I got around to talking about my riding. It was built in 1931.
That particular bridge in 1975 was declared to be virtually finished, done. It needed to be replaced. As a matter of fact, I have correspondence from the Ontario Minister of Transportation at the time when he, the Conservative Minister of Transport, was refusing to get involved in the construction of a new bridge. This was at the request of the federal government.
We are in 1992. The bridge has been repaired a countless number of times. It needs to be replaced. Government has said that it wanted to replace it in 1995, but so far it has not even obtained an agreement with the two provinces in order to proceed with, not the construction of the bridge, but with the environmental assessment necessary prior to the drawing of the plans which are a prerequisite for the tendering which will be followed by the construction of the bridge.
Do you think the bridge will be finished by 1995? Surely not. I wrote a letter to the Minister of Public Works about two weeks ago and challenged him. He said: "The Ontario NDP premier", the guy who is busy closing hospital beds, Bob Rae, "has said that if the federal government wants to participate in a capital works project, it would match it dollar for dollar".
Government Orders
"There it is," I said, "surely, we will have a new Perley Bridge now if the federal government can get the province to match. We will have a new bridge." It did not happen. There was nothing in the federal budget.

What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is the number of closures and lay-offs in the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Allow me to give you a few examples just for the Hawkesbury region and Prescott county. I could also go on all day about closures in Glengarry county. You will remember the closure last summer of Glengarry Transport, GTL, in Alexandria, which meant the loss of 1,804 jobs. However, in the next few minutes I will tell you about some closures in the Prescott county area. Listen to this.
The Firogan plant closed on November 29, 1991: 20 people were laid off; the Fashion Town plant closed on December 28, 1991: 28 people were laid off; on October 31, 1991, Hawkesbury Paving went bankrupt: 8 people were laid off; in Saint-Isidore de Prescott the candling operation belonging to Maurice Lamoureux closed down following a sale: 35 people were laid off.
In December, Canadian Plastics laid off 16 employees; Bertrand et Freres laid off 40; Noreast laid off 100 for two weeks; the Fib-Pak plant in Hawkesbury laid off 18 in November because of a drop in the market; Amoco Fabrics laid off 16 because it said it was restructuring. Le Droit reported that Dominion Textiles laid off 86 employees on January 17, 1992.
I have a paper here which says that in December, the unemployment rate in Prescott county was 15 per cent.

Here is a story from the Standard Freeholder in Cornwall entitled: "Claims for UI come close to setting record." That was on December 28, 1991.
Here is another story. This is for the government across the way which thinks things are getting so much better. I really wish they were, but that is not the case right now, at least not in my riding. "All-party committee told eastern Ontario needs job help". That was August 28, 1991. Imagine if we needed job help then how much we need it now.

Government Orders
"Canadian Pacific Forest Products, Hawkesbury, to close doors after 88 years in the community". The closing of that factory caused the permanent lay-off of 51 employees, 35 of them were lab technicians, scientists and the like. That is a research lab that closed down in my constituency.
We all know how many jobs Canada has been losing since the free trade deal, since the government allowed the dollar to increase so much by propping up our interest rates.
In eastern Ontario, the area I represent, we have also had a loss of federal government programs that would encourage industry to establish in this area of traditionally high unemployment.
Let me describe some of the programs that previously existed. At one point we had a program called the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board, CIRB. There was another program known as the Industrial Regional Development Program, IRDP, as well as the Eastern Ontario Subsidiary Agreement, EOSA. All three of those programs were designed in some way to attract industry to our area so that eastern Ontario could get out of the economic situation that it was in.
All of those programs expired, were cancelled, or were just allowed to disappear. Nothing was reinstituted by the government across the way since 1984 so that we could attract'jobs to eastern Ontario, the part of the country that I have the honour and privilege to represent in the House of Commons.
Now the government says: "Oh, well, we have adopted"-well, they don't quite put it that way, but the government in the budget says-"we have instituted the Registered Retirement Savings Plan initiative". You know, the one the Liberals asked them to do, the one I talked about a while ago.
That is fine. But what it did not brag about is the fact that it cancelled at the same time the Co-operative Housing Program. Yesterday, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation brought out some numbers which showed quite clearly that the new housing that will be created by the RRSP program is less than the housing that will be lost with the cancellation of the co-op program. In other words, Canadians are net losers as a result of both initiatives being announced at the same time, one good, one bad. That is the situation we are in. People all over this country really thought that the co-op program was here to stay.
Particularly in Quebec, for example, we know that the Co-operative Housing Program was very successful. Canadians living in Quebec used this program to build low cost housing that was very useful for many people.
So, Mr. Speaker, as you see, things are not funny. Besides tabling its budget this week, the government gave us its spending plans, or Main Estimates, if you want the technical term.

Here is what was announced in the budgetary estimates. In 1986 the Prime Minister, in Vancouver, after hearing Nancy Reagan make a speech-you know Nancy Reagan, the boss of Ronald Reagan- said: "Canada is suffering from a drug epidemic.". Some people scratched their heads and said that perhaps it was an epidemic. I see the Solicitor General is paying close attention to these remarks.
"There is a national drug epidemic," said the Prime Minister. Canadians said that if we have an epidemic and the Prime Minister said so, it must be true. After all, the Prime Minister is notorious for always telling the truth, of course. So we believed him when he said there was a national drug epidemic.
The Prime Minister then develops his national drug strategy. Yesterday when the estimates were tabled, do you know what happened? The national drug strategy was cancelled, which led me to ask a question yesterday in the House of Commons. I asked the Prime Minister, given he had said there was an epidemic in 1986, I wanted to know from him exactly when the epidemic was cured and by whom.
The Prime Minister, of course, did not answer the question. The minister of health stood up and he probably discovered at the same time as I did the program had been cancelled and was kind of stuck without an answer.
Little did I know then, but also another program that was cancelled was the Driving While Impaired Program or the program to stop driving while impaired. Again, a very useful program. It was cancelled in yesterday's budgetary estimates. That leads me to ask the question again: when was this particular epidemic cured and by whom? I invite the Solicitor General to answer that question as well as the others. Perhaps he has an answer and I am sure he will jump up in his seat immediately and answer this very important question.
February 28, 1992

I want to say in the few moments I have left that this budget will not do much to create jobs in my constituency and elsewhere in Canada. True, there is the registered retirement savings plan initiative, but as I said a moment ago, the cancellation in regard to co-op housing makes it such that there is a net loss in the forecast of home construction this year as a result of that particular announcement.
We were all elected to this place to do something. It is the role of government to be pro-active, not to just say that things will take care of themselves because that is not so although we could wish that they would. Frankly, given that the government has done so little in the budget, I still wish that things correct themselves, too. Why do we want to continue to make 1.49 million Canadians suffer in the meantime? Today 1.49 million Canadians are out of a job. How many Canadians are unofficially out of a job? How many Canadians are not even part of the statistics because they are working part-time. You probably are familiar with the work share program. Many people are only working two or three days a week right now. They are not even included in the jobless statistic we talk about of 1.49 million people.

As far as I am concerned, this budget is unsatisfactory.
I am sure that all Canadians will ask the government in the coming days to make major corrections to the budget presented this week, in order to create employment so that the 1.5 million or so Canadians who are unemployed today can again earn their living in some way. For all my constituents, Mr. Speaker, that is what I want. I say to the government members opposite: It's time to act. They are now at 11 per cent in the public opinion polls. Canadians no longer have confidence in them, but they were still elected to make decisions, I admit. So, in spite of their unpopularity, they have a duty to act and to act immediately.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise with the hon. member the dilemma of the cuts to advocacy services and support for advocacy operations within the offices of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women and the Minister of Labour.
Government Orders
In Powell River, British Columbia, the Canadian Bank of Commerce has driven 22 of its employees into the street, all 22 women, some of whom are single parents trying to raise families. It is determined not to bargain in good faith. It did, with undignified haste, drive those women out of their jobs before Christmas in order to make them and their families suffer through Christmas in the hope that they would come back, give up their union and take the conditions imposed by the bank.
It appears that another very crafty stunt has been put in place by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. It is spreading a rumour that it will close the branch and that when it removes itself from the community of Powell River and the particular mall an arrangement has been made with another non-unionized chartered bank branch to come in and replace it, leaving the 22 women totally devastated and completely without any hope of returning and bargaining. Actions like this on the part of the chartered banks are not uncommon, particularly the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
A plan of action set forward by these women and thousands of the citizens of Powell River by way of petition basically says that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women should use her offices to meet with these women and assist them to get back to the bargaining table and get their employer bargaining in good faith.
The Minister of Labour for Canada should be involved in attempting to bring these parties together, to meet with these women, to meet with the bank, to get them back to the table and to discuss with the bank what constitutes fair labour practices.
There should be, on the part of the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, the member for Capilano- Howe Sound, an initiative to create a widespread public inquiry into the practices of the CIBC and other chartered banks in the exploitation of women employees and the union busting activities that have been going on.
The final step in this is that all citizens who work in an organized labour operation, who support trade unions, should be transferring their savings out of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, transferring their RRSPs away from that institution, failing to take up any of the offers by advertisement or other inducements, and making it clear to the bank that they are doing so

Government Orders
because of retrogressive and unconscionable labour practices.
Finally, if the Minister responsible for the Status of Women is not prepared to meet with these women to take up the cause of exploited women in the community of Powell River, there should be pickets in front of her office in West Vancouver as soon as possible to get the point through to her exactly what her responsibility is to women in Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As he knows I will be visiting his constituency tomorrow, not speaking to a gathering of his opponents. It is a totally different situation where both he and I will be together visiting a capital works project to be installed later right here on Parliament Hill. I want to answer his question directly. First of all, I thought the answer from the member for South Shore a few moments ago was totally inadequate. He said that this budget is not about the status of women, or something to that effect. I am paraphrasing here. I think that is wrong. This budget is about improving the livelihood of all Canadians, particularly those who need it the most. Of course, if you look at the hard reality, many women, particularly women with children and sole support women, are in serious financial difficulty in Canada. It is absolutely terrible and it is our job through budgetary measures to try and make their lives better. Therefore, I disagree with the statement that was made in that regard.
In terms of the actual bank in question, I do not know much about that bank. There are not too many branches of it in my riding. Generally, the banks in my own riding have a good record of employment of women. Perhaps it is the opposite of what it is elsewhere. There are a large number of bank managers in my riding who are women. Probably half of them are. If you include bank managers and assistant managers, there are a good number of them, perhaps close to half all together. Anyway, it is a significant number compared to other businesses. Therefore, it is not quite that bad in the constituency I represent.
I do agree with the member though that if a bank has been engaged in such practices as preventing people from having their legal rights recognized, it is absolutely awful to say the least. If other financial institutions in that area are going to pick up the slack when such an institution behaves that way toward some of its own customers, and after all many of those employees are customers and their families are also customers, it is to their own peril.
However, in the case of the employees it is not that easy. They certainly have my total and full moral support. I only wish that the Minister responsible for the Status of Women, who is a member from that part of the country, so near, could at least invite those people to come to her constituency office, some 50, 60 or 70 miles away. I am sure those people could get in their cars, drive to Vancouver and meet the minister if she would make time available. That, as far as I am concerned, is the veiy least the minister could do. Meet with them and listen to them. Obviously, she should go beyond that and help them as well.
[Translation\
I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about this whole issue of court challenges. Government must continue to provide funds, not only to deal with the kind of matters just mentioned, but also to deal with official languages. As a member representing a francophone community outside Quebec, I view most unfavourably the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program.
The Secretary of State told us today that we could seek the help of the provinces. I will ask members opposite if they are prepared to entrust Don Getty with the job of defending the rights of Franco-Albertans for instance? It is that dramatic. That is what the Secretary of State told us to do in his speech today, or rather in response to a question from the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
This is also true elsewhere in the country, where several provinces do not allow francophones to manage their own schools. I suggest to my hon. colleagues opposite-I can see the hon. member for Beauhamois- Salaberry and others-and I urge them to look into this matter and to help us, francophones outside Quebec, restore funding for this program because we do need it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now expired.
February 28, 1992


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to express my support for Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for 1992-93.
Every year, after the federal budget is brought down, Parliament is asked to consider legislation that gives the government the financing authority to carry out public works and to finance other activities of a general nature.
The government is requesting authority to borrow $24.7 billion for the 1992-93 fiscal year.
Like borrowing bills in recent years, this bill contains three basic elements: financing authority to cover the financial requirements for 1992-93, exchange fund account profits and a contingency reserve. Details of financial requirements are contained in the budget papers.
There is a provision in the bill to cover exchange fund account earnings which gives rise to additional Canadian dollar borrowing requirements. This is because these earnings are retained in the exchange fund account to provide the government with the capacity to intervene in foreign exchange markets. The total amount requested in the bill must therefore include an amount equal to those earnings.
There is a $3 billion reserve, the same amount requested in borrowing authority bills over the past years. This reserve provides for unforeseen contingencies such as foreign exchange transactions, seasonal swings in borrowing requirements and delays in passing future year borrowing authority acts.
The bill also contains some minor technical changes that more clearly link fiscal year borrowing authority with fiscal year borrowing requirements.
The $3.9 billion required to cover the refunding of bills issued in 1991-92 under section 47 of the Financial Administration Act guarantees that these borrowing requirements for 1991-92 are not charged against regular 1992-93 borrowing authority. As was said repeatedly in the course of this debate, were we to issue less than the $3.9 billion requested, the residual would be deducted from the 1992-93 authority. The 1989 legislation had a similar provision, without the cap.
Another new provision provides for linking borrowing authority with borrowing requirements for 1992-93, even
Government Orders
if the legislation receives royal assent before the beginning of the new fiscal year.
Finally, under another provision, the borrowing authority becomes effective on April 1, 1992, for the purposes of determining costs related to borrowing under the provisions of this legislation. In the course of this debate, we have also been advised of the report on the government's debt operations. Each year's program is carefully designed to minimize debt costs and reduce exposure to increases in debt service charges.
Hon. members are of course aware that the government cannot implement its new borrowing program for
1992-93 before this legislation is adopted. I would therefore urge all members of this House to adopt this bill as soon as possible, so that the government can maintain the most cost effective approach to its borrowing requirements.
I will stop here, Mr. Speaker, because I see many more members are anxious to speak. Thank you for having given me this opportunity to do so.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The vote will be deferred until Monday, March 9 at six o'clock p.m.
It being three o'clock p.m., pursuant to Order made Thursday, February 27, 1992, this House stands adjourned until Monday, March 9, 1992, at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 1.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 9,1992