1993-02-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 38 petitions.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Group of the Interparliamentary Union where it represented Canada at a Parliamentary Conference on the Environment and Development in Brasilia, Brazil, from November 23 to November 27, 1992.



EXCISE TAX ACT


Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-112, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, the Access to Information Act, the Canadian Pension Plan, the Customs Act, the Federal Court Act, the Income Thx Act, the Tax Court of Canada
Act, the Tax Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and a related act.


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


PETITIONS
Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions, signed by over 1,100 people in my riding of Carleton- Gloucester and surrounding areas.

These petitioners are as outraged as I am that the serial killer board game, with the object of having players kill as many babies as possible, is allowed to be distributed and sold in Canada.
They call for an immediate ban of this board game and any other material which advocate violence.

I have the honour to support them in this. I congratulate all the petitioners who took part and I ask the government to act on this issue as quickly as possible.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of teachers from central British Columbia, adding to what would be many hundreds of petitioners.

Routine Proceedings
They point out that under the Income Tax Act selected professional groups can deduct or write off dues, equipment or services necessary for the operation of their profession.
They indicate that teachers are precluded from receiving such benefits. They ask the Government of Canada to introduce legislation that would provide equal treatment by amendment to the Income Tkx Act so that teachers would be treated in the same way as other professionals.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on another matter the petitioners are by and large from the Kamloops area. They point out their opposition to any possibility of water diversion to the United States.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition from Amos, Saint-Felix-de-Dalquier, Saint-Mathieu, Saint-Dominique-du-Ros-aire and Preissac in Abitibi. The petitioners say that violent movies on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they incite more violence.
They mention that all toys that incite violent games are unacceptable and should not be made. They also state that freedom of the press should be limited in reporting acts of violence.
Therefore the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to legislate on the above-mentioned points in order to eliminate violence in our society, so as to better protect our children and give all our fellow citizens a better quality of life.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise again today to deposit petitions signed by a large number of Canadians in memory of a young girl, namely Rosalynn Dupuis, who died at the hands of a young person.
They ask that the young offenders system be looked at very seriously. Questions concerning the security of people and the way we treat the the accused in serious cases are very much on the minds of Canadians.
It is important that Parliament deal seriously with the matter. We must remember the victims at the end of the process.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions this morning.
The first one deals with the government's Bill C-91. It points out that under Bill C-22 there was an increase in drug prices both to individuals and to provincial pharmacy programs.
They request that the government not proceed with Bill C-91 and repeal Bill C-22.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I have a second petition pointing out that many studies have linked the violence in entertainment with the desensitization of our society.
There is growing concern that because of violent games there is a lack of understanding and respect for the humanity of people, particularly when they become victims.
It calls upon the government to make sure that the serial killer board game be banned from sale in Canada.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning, both dealing with the same matter.
The first is signed by some 200 residents of metropolitan Toronto, mainly from the city of Toronto but many in my own constituency. The second is signed by some 75 residents of metropolitan Toronto, mainly from the city of Etobicoke.
Both draw the attention of the House to the fact that two Canadians, Christine Lamont and David Spencer, are presently serving some 28 years in a Brazilian prison.
They express concern and recognize the fact that the only relief available would be for Canada to request the expulsion of those two Canadians by the Government of Brazil. They call on Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.
February 11, 1993


BILL C-91
Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a petition duly authorized under Standing Order 36.
When this petition was drawn up Bill C-91 had not been passed. It asks that the bill not be proceeded with and that Bill C-22, passed in 1987, be repealed. We now have to ask for the repeal of Bill C-91 as well.
The petitioners, who are mostly from the constituency of Saskatoon-Dundurn around the city of Saskatoon, state that when Bill C-22 was passed in 1987 the promise was that drugs would be cheaper and that the government would keep a tight rein on the increase in the price of drugs.
The petitioners said at that time they had no faith in that occurring. That was not the case. I certainly concur with their request that Bill C-91 be repealed, as well as Bill C-22.


CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I have six petitions that I would like to table today.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to take the action necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seeking the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 433 and 449.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni): With respect to resolution No. 1992-44 adopted by the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights on March 3,1992, concerning
the rights of indigenous peoples, (a) what comments has the
government given to (i) the Working Group of Indigenous Populations
Routine Proceedings
of the Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (ii) the Secretary General concerning the draft universal declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples (b) has the government made a financial contribution to the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples and, if so, in what amount (c) what steps has the government taken or does it intend-to take to ensure the full participation of indigenous organizations within Canada to participate in the activities related to the tasks of the Working Group of Indigenous Populations (d) has the government provided funding to send delegates to the Indigenous Youth Conference to be held in July 1992 in Quebec City?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Working Group of Indigenous Populations (WGIP) has been engaged for the last 10 years in considering standards unique to the rights of indigenous populations. Representatives of indigenous groups have been putting their case to the five experts of the WGIP. These experts, drawing from their legal and human rights background, the experience of indigenous people and the observations of governments, have produced a draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people.
The Government of Canada has played an active and participatory role in the activities of the WGIP. It has the lead in drafting the resolution in the Commission of Human Rights from which the WGIP draws its mandate. The government has also contributed on a regular basis to the indigenous voluntary fund of the human rights centre to enable indigenous representatives from the Third World to attend and participate in the WGIP sessions. These contributions are important for those indigenous groups which do not have the financial means to attend the sessions or those whose attendance is not sanctioned by their governments. Rigoberta Menchu, this year's winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, has benefited from this fund, financed as well by the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand.
The most important contribution of Canada has been the sharing of its experience with the WGIP and other governments attending the sessions. Probably no other country has been as involved in the settling of claims of lands, grievances from the past or in looking to new concepts of governance within the state. Canada is seen by other governments and indeed many indigenous groups as a leader. This is but one of the reasons why Canada has been given the honour and the responsibility of the lead on UN resolutions regarding indigenous people.

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
The Cree youth of James Bay received active support from the government for the holding of their Indigenous Youth Conference. The delegation of Canada at the Human Rights Commission ensured that the 1991 mandate resolution for the WGIP included a reference to the conference to encourage others to attend. The Department of External Affairs used its network to spread news of the conference through our embassies and to facilitate the travel arrangements from countries requiring visas to enter Canada.
The department also encouraged the authorities of the Government of Quebec to support the conference with funds and logistics. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Canadian International Development Agency each contributed $125,000 for the over-all logistics of the conference and to enable indigenous youth from around the world to attend. By all accounts the conference was a success and brought much credit to the aboriginal youth of Canada and the Cree nation in particular.


Mr. Angus: With regard to American railways, did the minister of immigration authorize the company to operate a train through Canada between Buffalo and Detroit, and, if so, (a) under what authority were the American personnel allowed to operate in Canada (b) has the government received any additional request for such trips, and if so, on what route(s)?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, the Minister of Employment and Immigration did not authorize the company to operate a train through Canada between Buffalo and Detroit.


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


Charles A. Langlois: I ask that the remaining questions stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, February 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992, be read the third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Trinity-Conception.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased and somewhat overwhelmed by the support from my colleagues this morning, particularly the House leader and the Whip. I am delighted that I am starting off this very busy day with support from this side of the House, from my two highly esteemed and very important colleagues. I even got a sort of welcome from the other side of the House. I see even the NDP is smiling. I hope they are all smiling and clapping their hands when my presentation is completed.
This borrowing bill is a very important bill. I know the government will try to get this through as quickly as possible. It will try to limit debate on it so that Canadians will not be too aware of how it is running the economy and how the finances of this country have been put together.
In order to put it in perspective I have to go back the four and a half years I have been in this House, but I also want to reflect back to 1984. It is my understanding that the three essential elements of any government are to legislate, to legitimate and to educate.
As far as legislation is concerned, the government has a good record in numbers of bills put through the House, the numbers of projets de loi passed. The quality and the legitimacy of the legislation along with the education process certainly causes me, and a lot of members of this House on both sides perhaps and the Canadian public,
February 11, 1993

difficulty. I believe this confusion of the three principles is one of the root causes of our problems as politicians.
I have only to speak of the unemployment insurance bill, Bill C-21. The goods and services tax bill will go down in history as a bad piece of legislation introduced at the wrong time and in the wrong manner. I include the bill on Canada Post, the bill reducing VIA Rail, the bill reducing transfer payments to the provinces.
The most recent bill we have been discussing which will have difficulty getting through the House-the government is bound to limit debate-is on the drastic and insensitive cuts to unemployment insurance. It is the subject of major discussion in our country.
Countless bills have been the subject of great discussion in this House and regrettably the opposition was not given the time or the volume of effort necessary to oppose the bills and to discuss them to the point consensus could be reached.
I believe I am safe in sayin I am not going to quote statistics, as I have done a dozen times in this House, and as my colleagues have also that the record number of closures and debate limitations that have been placed on the House of Commons by this government is greater than all the other numbers of those combined since Confederation. In other words, debate has been limited more in the last eight and a half years than it has been at any other time up to and including 1984 since Confederation.
The legislation part I have discussed and I will now turn to legitimacy. In a democracy, how really legitimate in a generic sense, not in the legal sense, is a bill or are a number of measures that are passed in Parliament, the highest court in the land, when back in the previous 125 years of Confederation, the limiting of debate, or closure on a debate was almost enough to call a general election.
It has happened so often in this Parliament and in the Parliament before that it is now common procedure and hardly gets a note in the media. I will leave it to hon. members to decide how to combine the legitimacy with the legislative aspect.
As for the education part, I believe Canadians are confused on what it is this government is doing. I can quote countless examples of statements that have been made or election promises that have been declared. The
Government Orders
Prime Minister has said certain matters were sacred trusts, or these are our plans, or this is what we want to do in the election. However, as the legislation unfolds and as the mood of the government becomes apparent, it is obvious to the House, to the media, and indeed to Canadians in a downstream manner that the promises made were not kept and the sacred trusts that were discussed were thrown out the window. It is an indication of what happened in 1984, but more so in 1988, that if it was not diametrically opposed to what in fact happened, it certainly did not follow the course of the promise.
I will use two examples. I will use the example of the sacred trust to which the Prime Minister referred, the unemployment insurance program. In October 1988 during the campaign he said, and it was repeated by the minister responsible for Newfoundland, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that he reiterated and reinforced that unemployment insurance and social programs were sacred trusts.
A sacred trust is a very strong term. The Concise Oxford Dictionary describes sacred as associated with or dedicated to God and trust is defined as a firm belief in the reliability or truth or strength of a person or thing. The words sacred trust convey a commitment. The Prime Minister did not just casually mention to Canadians that he would maintain a social program, or he would do this or he would do that. It was presented to Canadians as a commitment of a higher order and as a pledge that was related to God.
Having pledged that the unemployment insurance program and the social programs were a sacred trust and nothing would happen to them, even as the election was being planned and the campaign unfolded, officials were preparing legislation which eventually became Bill C-21. It totally changed the unemployment insurance system and in fact took the government out of the business. It increased the input from the employers and the employees by over 50 per cent and took away job development programs which in Atlantic Canada have been the mainstay of job creation. Regrettably but pragmatically it was a very important thing.
I recall when this happened in June three years ago. I am still explaining to people why jobs that were planned and why projects that were planned were, at the stroke of a pen, taken away. I had no control over it. The officials in Atlantic Canada had no control over it. The

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
government just wiped its face and got on to the next unpopular legislation.
Another sacred trust, although it was not put forward as a sacred trust, was regional development. On October 3, 1988 in Saint John, New Brunswick, during the election campaign the Prime Minister said-I do not have the exact words here-words to the effect that "I am not going to govern a country where all regions are not treated equally".
That statement was made in October and in the budget that came out in the spring of 1989-1 think it was April 27, one day premature because of some difficulties the government experienced-the Western Diversification Fund for the prairie provinces was reduced by $55 million, and in my case ACOA was reprofiled to lose 25 per cent of the funds and resources that were so important for regional development. There is another promise that not only was changed by some minor significance, it was a total change from what was promised.
There are other areas that I want to examine, and I hope that time will permit. I mentioned unemployment insurance and I talked about regional development and funds committed to regional development. While I am on that subject I want to mention transfer payments.
Transfer payments to the extremities of Canada are very important. Very briefly, in Newfoundland where the budget is between $3 and $3.5 billion it used to be that 49 per cent of that resource input came from the federal government. When 49 to 50 per cent of all the expenditures of one province come from the federal government it is easily understood that if you tampering with that input of $1.5 billion plus in any way is going to cause major perturbation, major upsets in the finances of a government.
In the case of Newfoundland, starting in 1989 with the reduction in the growth of transfer payments, the input to Newfoundland was reduced from 49 per cent to 45 per cent. This represents a total input of $200 million. This has meant downstream that the provincial government-
I would say it has done it quietly and without major complaint-has got on with the job of running the province. It has had to cut back in critical areas, particularly welfare but in the general sense not necessarily on the social programs which have increased because of
this. It has had to cut back on education and health care. Those are critical areas that were directly related to transfer payments.
Newfoundland is not alone. Atlantic Canada is not alone. With the implementation of Bill C-20 which capped the transfer payments by the year 2000 the federal government will be denying Canadians $97.6 billion, almost $100 billion of services and resources, particularly those focused on health care and post-secondary institutions. That is a major blow to Newfoundland. It is a major blow to Atlantic Canada and the rest of Canada.
On the question of transfer payments in health, education and particularly social programs there is a group of parliamentarians on the other side of the House, a group of wealthy business concerns in Canada and a group of people who really have not given this much thought who are beginning, because it is trendy, to say that we can no longer afford the social programs Canadians have become accustomed to.
The deficit we have this year is the deficit we had eight and a half years ago. I am not going to get into that because I have spoken on that twice already in the last 10 days. With the rising cost of social programs and the need to do all the other things this government has been trying to do we can no longer really afford social programs.
A closer examination and a better analysis of that trendy thought does not bear evidence. It does not bear out the facts. The facts are that Canada's social spending as I speak is 21.5 per cent of our gross domestic product. The average for all the other industrialized countries in the OECD is 25.6 per cent. So do not give me false information or try to mislead me with the hogwash information that we cannot afford our social programs.
Many of the European countries that have high standards of living and successful economies spend even a larger percentage of their GDP on social programs: Belgium, 37.6 per cent; Holland, 36.1 per cent; West Germany, one of the best industrialized countries in the world, 31.5 per cent; France, 29 per cent. The only major industrialized countries where social spending is lower than Canada are the United States at 20.8 per cent, and
February 11, 1993

we are trying to emulate them with the free trade agreement and the NAFTA, and Japan at 17.5 per cent.
In my mind, borne out by the facts, clearly the portrait of Canadian social programs is very much in a favourable position with the other industrialized countries of the world that we compare with in the G-7 analysis and that we compete with.
Therefore, I do not want to hear much more of this trendy thought that we cannot afford social programs. Their name of the game is that we have to hit the social business, we have to reduce transfer payments because we cannot find money any other way.
In November I had the opportunity and the privilege to sit in on the closed session with the Auditor General and later the open public session. In the Auditor General's report the charge and observation was made that hundreds of millions of dollars were being lost in tax revenue because of the way we organized our corporate tax and to a certain extent our income tax for offshore capture. Some of my colleagues may recall, I believe it was on November 24 or 25, 1992 during Question Period, that question was put to the Minister of Finance and he denied it.
After meetings with the public accounts committee and other questions that were asked the finance department officials finally admitted that hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate tax revenues were lost to offshore tax schemes as the Auditor General claimed. This did not occur until some time in December, I believe. That was certainly a reversal of the department's initial stand. Not only does it know that it can get taxes and incomes from other revenue sources but it also denies that this possibility is there.
Back to the three principles of government in a democracy of legislating, legitimizing and educating. That is a very poor way to educate those desperate Canadians who are wondering legitimately and with great motivation how we can reduce the national debt and the deficit.
I now want to talk about another area that is of current and topical concern in the House of Commons and in Parliament. This is unemployment insurance.
The present bill before the House is one that will change yet again unemployment insurance principles
Government Orders
which were developed by the Liberal Party in the early 1940s. It will change unemployment insurance to the point where its effectiveness will be reduced another notch.
Unemployment is at a record high and is predicted to be by the Conference Board of Canada the second highest in the G-7 countries at 11.3 per cent for this year. Instead of attacking this difficulty and organizing programs to put Canadians back to work the budget announcement in early December penalized the unemployed to the point of $2.5 billion. They are already paying 50 per cent more in unemployment insurance fees. Now the government wants to reduce the benefit rate on the maximum insurable weekly earnings of $745 from 60 per cent to 57 per cent. It also wants to eliminate benefits to workers who quit without just cause or are fired for misconduct.
I heard this morning that those unfortunate people who through no fault of their own and in a lot of cases through no fault of their companies are being retired and receive severance will be cut off from unemployment insurance.
There are other areas I could mention in wrapping up. Canada Post is an area of major concern with 10,000 jobs being lost. Another area is our social programs.
In conclusion, if the government had put measures in place that would have increased growth and employment it would not have had to borrow as much. People would be paying more taxes, would be showing more confidence in the government and the country. If the government added this to those areas of corporate taxes and offshore taxes it is not capturing worth hundreds of millions of dollars, then we would not be in the predicament we are. I do not see any change between now and the next election. The government will have to answer to the people after this bill is passed.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, I always listen with great care when my hon. friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception speaks. I have two questions I would like to ask.
I must observe first that there is clearly a difference of philosophy on his side of the House compared with those of us over here. Those of us over here think that if revenues are down expenditures should be brought in line rather than just carrying on and ignoring the fact

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
that perhaps there is not the same amount of money to work with.
The government's revenues are down some $8 billion this year. Obviously that means if we are going to spend at the same level, let alone increase expenditures, we are going to lose control of the deficit completely.
I have noticed his leader is proposing to scrap the GST. This is now definitive we are told. He had said earlier he would scrap it, then he said he would keep it, then he said he would modify it and now he is going to scrap it. I am not sure what he is going to replace it with because that has not been made clear. If the $15 billion or $16 billion of revenue that accrues is added to the $8 billion shortfall then $23 billion or $24 billion has to be made up.
What is the hon. member's proposal to replace the GST? Is it going to be the new GST, the Grit sneaky tax as it is being called, which is apparently being proposed? That would be a hidden tax, the business transfer tax, which would be on everything including food, medical services, and so on.
Where does he propose to make up the revenue shortfall in order to provide the programs that certainly we on this side of the House would agree are desirable?
My second question has to do with the EH-101 contract. His leader has said that one of the ways to make up for the deficit shortfall is to cancel the EH-101 contract which will cost $4.4 billion over 20 years. That is not really a big thing on a year-to-year basis in that sense. They sometimes forget it is spread over 20 years.
I know that many of his former colleagues in the navy starting I might say with Admiral John Anderson, the new chief of defence staff and the new deputy chief, also an admiral in the navy, are all very ardently in support of the necessity of the EH-101s, both for search and rescue purposes but also for maintaining the preparedness of our military.
Does he agree with his leader that the EH-101 contract should be scrapped or does he think this government is right to proceed with it? If he believes it should be scrapped, what is his proposed alternative? Does he think we should also scrap the Canadian patrol
frigates which without those helicopters cannot obviously fulfil the purpose for which they were established? I put those questions to my hon. friend and I look forward to his answers.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear from my good friend the hon. member for South Shore. I am very familiar with that part of the country and love it dearly. It is a lovely part of Nova Scotia.
Quite frankly sometimes I am sorry he is in the position of having to argue some of the cases that he does. I know he has difficulties with his constituents in following these policies and that is the unfortunate fallout of politics. It happens to all of us from time to time.
I remind my hon. colleague it is the government that is on the firing line for having introduced the GST, the most unpopular tax in the history of this country, possibly in the history of the world. There was the misinformation that it was going to be revenue neutral at a time when we were heading into one of the worst depressions ever experienced in this country. If he thinks he is going to put the ball in my court when this government is responsible for these three aspects, he is wrong. He asked me what we were going to do about the GST.
The last figure I could get showed that the GST accounts for 12 per cent of the government's total income of $122.2 billion in the last fiscal year. That hits those in the middle class more than anyone else because the middle class and the lower income class spend more of their money on essentials that are taxed with the goods and services tax. While the tax was supposed to be spread across a reasonable distribution it hits middle and low income people harder, irrespective of the credits. Also last week we heard that small businesses are going under at a record high of 77,000. So do not blame me for the GST. He is asking me what we are going to do.
The Auditor General's report says that the goods and services tax accounted for around $29.5 billion and the government says that it accounted for $15 billion-we are not sure whether that was the $1.5 billion it cost to collect. How does anybody on that side of the House have the gall and audacity to ask this side of the House, given that the figure could be $30 billion or $15 billion, how we are going to introduce a tax to replace the revenues collected from the GST?
February 11, 1993

We will not continue with the GST in its present form. We will not continue to tax the kind of people who have been taxed by the GST. We will not continue the onerous burden that small businesses have had to bear to the point where they are going out of business. I know many and I am sure my colleague from South Shore knows many.
He wants to talk about the helicopter and I am quite happy to talk about the helicopter. If he were here in the House when I made a presentation last Thursday, and maybe he has read my presentation, he would know why we have a problem with the EH-101 helicopter. Our position is very clear.


Peter L. McCreath: It is not a problem with that side of the House. It's a problem with the front row.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, my colleague asked a question. If he wants an answer he has to listen for it.


Mr. Charest:: We're not getting an answer.


Fred J. Mifflin: They are getting an answer but the Minister of the Environment says they are not getting an answer. He would hear it if he would listen instead of shouting and screaming and trying to pressure people into doing things they really do not want to do. I would not accuse this side of the House of doing that because they are all very well disciplined. I know that the three gentlemen in front of me are very reasonable and want to listen to what I have to say.
The position of our leader and the position of the Liberal Party on July 24 was no different from what it is now. We believe that something must change with regard to the Sea King helicopter and the search and rescue fleets. They need refurbishing. They need to be re* placed. That is on record.
However at a time when there are 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, when the number of soup kitchens is at a record high, when the unemployment line-ups are great, when the debt is mushrooming, and when small businesses are going broke at a record rate we question the government's priorities in committing $4.5 billion to helicopters.
Subsequent to that position, in July the Auditor General examined the defence management system that handles these megaprojects and said it was ineffective and expensive. He may be wrong, but if he is wrong I want the minister to tell the House. I have given the Minister of National Defence, two different ones, two
Government Orders
opportunities to say that our system is great and explain why it is great. The government will not discuss it in Parliament. It will not discuss it in defence committee. It will not discuss it anywhere. The minister should say whether it is wrong or right. The Canadian people have been told that $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money is being committed to a system that the Auditor General in his report to Canadians says is ineffective and expensive.
In January the Minister of National Defence herself said that she was not convinced that this was the right program. Do not point the finger at my leader, do not point the finger at this side of the House and ask why we are doing it because the minister herself has done it.
When she is not convinced, being privileged to the discussion in cabinet and on the expenditure committee, how in the name of everything holy can she expect us to be totally convinced? How can she expect the opposition to roll over and play dead on $4.5 billion? This is one of the biggest programs in terms of spending in Canadian history. It is one-half of the total cost of the frigate program, which I would remind my hon. friend was a Liberal program. We are totally dedicated to that and we will continue to be dedicated to that. Why we are opposing it is pretty obvious.
If the member for South Shore thinks that I am going to bolt my caucus because he thinks I do not agree with my leader he is wrong because it is only the other side of the House that does that. It has lost more members than I have fingers and toes. It is not going to happen with this party and it is not going to happen on this side of the House because I support my leader and I support his decisions for the reasons I have given.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the time for questions and comments has now expired.


Jean J. Charest: I ask for unanimous consent to ask a short question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for an extra question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments. I want to remind him that there were two members of the Liberal caucus who left close to the very day when their leader was elected. By no means is there any monopoly on members leaving by any side of the

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
House. If I remember correctly the hon. members for Shefford and Hull-Aylmer left their caucus.
I have a much more precise question for the hon. member concerning the GST. I found his refusal to answer the question quite revealing, especially given the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The role of the opposition is not only to question the government, as he seems to do with some enthusiasm and I accept that, but also to offer an alternative. Its role is to tell the Canadian people what it would do if it was the government. That is the fundamental role of the Official Opposition.
On the question of the GST I must admit I do not know whether my hon. friend is satisfied with the answer or whether the minister of sport was satisfied. Frankly, maybe I missed something in the response. Maybe we can phrase the question differently.
What would the hon. member's response be during the next election campaign when a constituent whom he represents in this place and is called upon to defend in this place asks him as a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, given the fact that he has stated that his party would axe the GST, with what would his party propose to replace it?
If his response to us is not clear I would think that he would certainly want to give a very clear response to his constituents.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise in response to the question. I gave unanimous consent to my colleague, the hon. Minister of the Environment, because I have a great deal of respect for him. I would not want to do anything that would upset his chances in the leadership race.
I want to give him as much opportunity as I can for exposure because I have a lot of faith in him in terms of where he is going in that race. It is only fair if one likes somebody to give them an opportunity.
How delighted I am for him to suggest to me that five members of that side of the House are not satisfied with my answer.
I sit in this House practically every day that the House is sitting and have done so since December 13,1988. The number of answers that are given to the questions that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition asks here that I, my leader, my party and the people of Canada are satisfied with-and the reason why they are at 18, 19 and 17 per cent in the polls-represent the major effort put into those questions.
Last year taxes for individuals went up 11.5 per cent and they went down for corporations by 15 per cent. Our alternative to the GST is that we are not going to have one. We are not going to have a tax that bums the individuals and the small businesses, which then go broke because they cannot afford the people and computers to do it.
We will do it in such a way that it will not hurt the working Canadian. That is my answer to him.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I am really quite pleased to follow in the footsteps of my colleague in speaking to this borrowing bill. One of the things that the people of Canada would like to know is when the government is going to call an election.
The government has made such a mess of things and is continuing to make a mess of things.
They really want to know when it is going to call an election. It is really frustrating. I am just wondering when the government can answer that question because everyone in Canada is waiting with baited breath. They think that maybe they will be able to get an alternative that can actually consult people, speak to them, try not to hurt them, and above all not always introduce the wrong thing at the wrong time.
One of the key questions is when there will be a budget. Normally the government presents a budget at the end of February but this time it is saying just think back to the economic statement and do not worry about the budget. The government is going to wait until Bill Clinton presents his budget. Then it will tell us what it is doing.
What kind of an answer is that? Come on. Either give us a budget or call an election and let us get on with governing this country. There are too many problems to be addressed. This is a tired, old, and paralyzed government. The members opposite are all waiting to see whether the Prime Minister will step down. That is really what is on everybody's minds.
February 11, 1993	COMMONS
There are people running all over the place and not really getting anything done. Everyone is waiting. It is especially important that the Prime Minister make up his mind, put the question to rest once and for all and step down and then we can go on with encouraging others in their leadership campaigns. Then we can possibly get to the real business of governing a country and addressing the economy.
We talked about the economy and how this Conservative government had promised that after the referendum in October it would address the economy. I am very disappointed with the way it has addressed the economy.
The government has given us a drug bill that was more like a price hike for the average Canadian. It will cause very serious harm to the medicare system in this country. It has given us a bailout of the airline industry that was a lot more like a crash than anything else. Our airline industry continues to be in desperate shape.
The government has promised us jobs but the only jobs that we have seen are cushy seats for this government's friends. That is not what the people of Canada mean when they talk about jobs. It is now giving us a UI bill that it claims will catch all these bad Canadians who really do not want to work but want to sit at home and collect unemployment insurance.
I remind those members how difficult it is right now to get a job for most Canadians. Furthermore, if they have a job they do not leave it because collecting unemployment insurance is not the panacea that the government seems to think it is. Right now there are very serious penalties for people who leave jobs with no valid reason, as there should be, but they are not in the majority.
The government must address the problems that these people face: the shutdowns and layoffs that cause these people to not have a job in the first place and that causes there to be no other jobs for them to find.
I feel certain that after the next election many members on the other side of the House will face that and realize that it is not easy out there to get a job. There are young people with good educations but there are very few jobs for them. They are working part time as sales clerks and so on even though they may have a Masters degree in business administration or degrees in economics. This is a reality that we all must face. It is a serious

Government Orders
problem. We cannot just sit by and wait for things to happen.
This government speaks of its strategy toward the economy. Its short-term strategy is to do nothing, hope the U.S. does something and ride on its coat-tails.
Its medium term strategy is to pretend it is doing something good because then it will not have to worry about it. Things will get better and the government members can pretend it was because of them.
Then there is the long-term strategy to just keep going because it probably will not be there to bear the consequences. It can pass the problem on to the next group. That is no strategy.
We have to face what we have today. We have to stop being so partisan. I am saying this as I stand here in the opposition and perhaps at times I am as guilty as the others. We have to stop fighting one another. We have to start co-operating. I am not just talking about the federal level, I am talking about all levels of government.
For instance, this year we are going to top the $450 billion mark in the national debt. That is just at the federal level. We are not taking into consideration at this point the debts at the provincial level and the problems that all of these serious constraints cause to the other levels of government such as school boards and municipal systems.
We have to stop shifting the blame, playing little games among ourselves and saying we are going to cut back on transfer payments. Then the provinces will blame the federal government members and we will say: "It is their problem. It is not ours". Then the provinces will cut back on transfers to municipalities and the story goes on.
We all must realize that if a province has a debt it is also a national debt. If the federal government gets out of debt at the expense of an ever increasing debt at the provincial level, we are not going to be any better off. We are going to be worse off. It is long overdue for the federal government to sit down with the provincial governments and decide how they are going to proceed in the future. They must stop fighting one another.
We have an example of that happening now. There has been an announcement of cutbacks in grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities. Municipalities have nowhere to go. They are at the bottom of the line. If there is a

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
cutback in the grants this government gives municipalities in lieu of paying municipal taxes then it is the municipal taxpayer who picks up the burden. The same taxpayer is paying income tax to the federal government and the provinces.
Is there not a better way to distribute the burden more equitably? It will not be easy, but it is absolutely essential. We all know that the debt is a serious concern. The sooner we distribute the burden more equitably the better off we will be as a country.
We have some very good things going for us. If we can build on them we will move ahead far more quickly than in this partisan atmosphere where we always blame somebody else for our misfortunes. We are all Canadians and we are all responsible.
I know we have talked about many things with regard to debt, deficit and the GST. I want to remind the people in this House that according to figures presented to the public accounts committee the GST burdened the Canadian public to the tune of $29.5 billion. That is not the net figure. It is what was actually taken into government coffers before expenses. It means that for every dollar of GST collected it cost 50 cents in 1991-92. That is not a very efficient tax.
There is a lot of confusion in terms of the information given to MPs about the GST in that particular year. I am aware that both the Auditor General and the Comptroller General were asked to clarify the differences between the $29.5 billion and the $15 billion net result of the tax. Neither of them has really been able to answer the questions. We are awaiting responses.
How can we opposition members give the government members all the answers when they cannot answer our questions? What is the real effect of the GST? Who is being hurt? Who is paying? Let us know that. It is absolutely essential that the people of Canada be given the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this tax.
I know for a fact that a tax bill was introduced yesterday by a Ways and Means motion. Now a tax bill of this kind will have a lot of measures and means but it also includes a section that would remove the GST from access to information. Why would they remove the GST from access to information? It is quite normal to want to protect corporations from revealing their sales figures, et cetera, much as you protect people by not giving out information on their private tax returns. I respect that, but I am really worried that it will be a way for this government to restrict information to the opposition and
the people of Canada about what exactly has happened with the GST.
I would like the government to answer that question for me, because so far there has been no answer. This is very serious and we want to know. If we are prevented from accessing the information how can we give realistic answers? Our questions must be answered. We have to stop playing games. We need to know the facts.
The Comptroller General and the Auditor General are having a difficult time answering questions. When there are secrets being kept it does not look good. Where there is smoke there is usually also fire. That is what this looks like to me. I ask the government to be absolutely above reproach in terms of access to information and stop playing games.
When it comes to prospects for this country I know that the majority of Canadians are hard workers and do not want to be on unemployment insurance. There will always be people who are not quite as honest as they should be, but the majority of Canadians are honest, hard-working people. When they do claim unemployment insurance they are very much aware of how serious it is.
I think sometimes the people of Canada are not aware of how serious the penalties are if they make a mistake and how they can be charged $100 or $200. For instance, if they make a mistake reporting income on their UI claim form and worked a few hours in one week, they will not only have to pay back the $100 they forgot to mention, but they might be fined as much as $100 or $200 for that one mistake. There are very strict guidelines, as there should be. But let us not pretend that all people on UI would cheat the system because they would not. I know many people who are very frightened of making a mistake.
I also know people who have not really made a mistake but have been seriously penalized by the UIC. I know of a recent case of a man who was laid off when his company closed down. He is a family man with three young children and a wife at home. He had worked for the same company for 16.5 years and was given a severance package that was the equivalent of approximately six months of wages. In case members do not know, when a person gets a severance package he or she is not allowed to claim UI until he or she has exhausted that severance package. In other words, he would have had to wait six months and if he did not have a job at that time then he could have applied for unemployment

insurance. This is fine because it at least gave him a chance in those six months to find a job.
This man really looked for a job in those six months. He was able to find some part-time, minimum wage occupation for eight weeks of that time but was laid off. He took a short-term job because he is very conscientious, did not want to be a burden on anyone and wanted to support his own family. At the end of his severance package when his money was gone and he still did not have a job, not even a part-time job which he was willing to take if he could find one, he applied for unemployment insurance.
Because he had worked those eight weeks at a minimum wage job the money he will now receive is far lower than what he would have received had he not worked those eight weeks at a minimum wage job. This man has been penalized because his remittances to UI from this minimum wage job were far reduced from what he was making before.
I want the Canadian people to know that the UI system is a very harsh system now. It is not easy to take advantage of. It always surprises me when I hear what people go through.
For instance, two people worked as cooks in a restaurant. They left because they could not take any more abuse from the owner of the restaurant. They both left at the same time, applied for UI and were fined for having quit their jobs. Not only were they fined 10 weeks in the case of one and 9 weeks in the case of the other-and do not ask me why there was a difference because I do not know-but they only received 50 per cent of what they would have received otherwise.
This case has gone before arbitration and has not been settled yet. They may get full benefits at some point and they may have some portion of the penalty reinstated, but it has been at least eight months since they left their abusive employer. They have not received that money yet and they may never get it.
Government Orders
I want the people of Canada to realize that these are the kinds of measures in place today. They should not be side-tracked by this government that insists on bringing in the wrong measures at the wrong time. I ask the government to do the right thing for once. Let us give this country a chance and call an election, please.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I see in the press that the leader of my hon. friend from Sudbury's party has recently appointed a transition team to put together his new government, demonstrating the confidence he seems to have that he will get that opportunity.
I listened to my hon. friend talk about people who do not answer questions. She talked about the partisan atmosphere in the House and various other things. I would like to make a suggestion in asking her a question. The sooner we go to the polls the better. I am ready for an election campaign. I think that she and her colleagues are going to find that the Canadian people are no longer satisfied with empty rhetoric. As well, she will find that the Canadian people want to scrutinize not only the candidates but the leaders.
Liberal Party policy seems to vary from day to day, depending on what the opinion polls have to say. The polls seem to be telling it to keep its leader hidden and it might have a chance of winning because there is a perception that the Prime Minister is unpopular. That may or may not be true. However, as I have heard the Prime Minister say: "Nothing focuses the mind like the issuance of a writ". I can tell the member that we on this side are ready for that writ. When people take a look at our leader and then look at her leader I am not too discouraged about the chances of this government for re-election.
I might also say that when people start asking: "What do you stand for", they know what this government stands for. We have put policies before the people. We have put forward an approach that says we have to live within our means. We have implemented tax reforms that for 40 years were recommended by committees of

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
this place and royal commissions but which they on the other side did not have the courage to face.
I asked the previous speaker from that side the same question and I did not get an answer. If her party is seriously proposing to get rid of the GST, what is it proposing to replace it with? Is she going to get up now and bafflegab like the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception: talk a lot and do everything but answer the question. I ask her in a very specific way because she is one of the finance critics for her department and she has some knowledge of this area. In plain, simple English, what is their proposal to replace the GST with?


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, the first thing would be to remove the government. Second, give us an answer about what is in that GST package. There is nothing empty about $29.5 billion. I want to be honest and realistic. I have worked as an accountant. I can say that until I personally know what is on the books, it is very difficult for me to say absolutely what should be done or what I would do without knowing what I have before me. In opposition, I am absolutely unable to get answers. So far there have been no answers from the Comptroller General and no answers from the Auditor General. We want the facts. We want to ensure that we are not restricted in access to information on the facts. One thing we on this side of the House want to be is realistic. Why should I make empty promises when I do not know what is in the books?


Mr. Jelinek:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I very seldom rise on a point of order in this House, but when I hear an hon. member opposite inadvertently misstating the facts and putting on the record totally erroneous information it is my duty to stand to correct her. All of the figures and all of the information have been made public in a variety of ways and means, in all parliamentary committees as well as in financial statements and in reports from the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue. In fact next week the public accounts committee will have an opportunity once again to review all the facts relating to the GST.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. minister knows that is not a point of order but a point of debate. I would be delighted to recognize him on debate later today.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, the hon. Minister of National Revenue said it. The information has been provided in a variety of ways, totally mishmashed here and there.
There is a lot of creative accounting going on. It is wonderful. I challenge the minister of revenue to sit down with me and the chairman of the public accounts committee and show us all of these wonderful figures. The chairman has also been asking for these same answers.
It is absolutely essential that we quit these beautiful accounting cosmetics that show the people only what we think they should see. They will not really like what they see.


Otto John Jelinek: What a phoney you are.


Diane Marleau: I am not the minister of revenue. I will have to defer to the minister of revenue. After all, it is his responsibility to give us the answers that we seek. I remind him that he was the one in charge when the GST was brought forward. He is still in charge and therefore has to answer to the people of Canada and MPs in the House of Commons.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the hon. member who is full of gobble-degook obviously has not been following any of the reports that have been made public over the course of the preparation, implementation and follow-up of the tax which replaced the old manufacturers' sales tax.
She has the audacity to stand up in the House and challenge me to sit down with her. I accept that challenge. I would be very happy to invite her for a briefing in the department to show her in detail all the figures pertaining to the preparation, implementation and collection of the GST at any time that she wishes.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, that is wonderful. I will take the minister up on his offer and I will bring along the chairman of the public accounts committee. It is important that I have witnesses at this meeting so we make sure that we do not cany on with the gobblede-gook.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: You had better do it quickly.
February 11, 1993


Diane Marleau: That is right. I am really anxious to get all this information because it will certainly help us in formulating our future policies. It is essential.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, in the kinder, gentler spirit which always dominates the House of Commons in an election year I would like to give the Liberal member for Sudbury an opportunity to answer the question that my colleague across the way asked a few moments ago. With the enthusiasm with which she wound up and attempted to respond I think she forgot what the question was.
My colleague across the way asked her exactly what the Liberal policy was to replace the goods and services tax. Was it the position outlined by her leader, that they would simply take a visible tax and replace it with a hidden tax and thus put a tax on food as well as on everything else?
As she knows my party, the New Democratic Party, outlined some years ago when the GST was coming in exactly what methods we would use. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that we did put forward an alternative. He may not agree with it, but he gives us credit for that. I thank him for that obvious and deserved recognition.
Once again, I would ask the member to cool down a little bit, not to be so overenthusiastic and perhaps pay attention to the question. Maybe she can give us an answer. Where does the Liberal Party stand on replacing the GST? Are the Canadian voters supposed to look at the Liberals like Mowgli looked at Kaa the snake in The Jungle Book as Kaa sang Trust in Me'!


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, that sounded to me like a speech. I am sorry, I did not quite understand.
I want to throw the ball back in the NDP court because obviously we have not heard anything from those members on what they would do regarding the GST. They are not in government. Their party is in government in Ontario and it is not responding there to what is happening.
I am not particularly threatened because we want to be as honest and as realistic as possible.
It is time we stopped trying to mislead the public into believing that everybody has all the answers. We have to all work together. If when we have all the facts we all sit down together I know that we can find an alternative that will satisfy the need for finances for this country as
Government Orders
well as take away the burden that this horrendous tax has placed on Canadians. That is really what it is all about.
I want to personally ensure that we do not hurt Canadians any more than they have already been hurt. I think that is the bottom line to anything that we consider.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, it has certainly been an enlightening debate so far. I am pleased to participate in it.
The bill before us is Bill C-98, the borrowing bill by which the government is trying to get authorization from the House of Commons to borrow another $34.4 billion.
Before I get into my remarks regarding the bill, in case there are any friends and relatives watching us on television today, I would like to explain that while I realize my face has never been my number one asset in politics it is looking a little worse than usual. It is not as a result of political persecution from the other side but because of a close encounter with the ground when I was tobogganing with my son on Sunday. It is my favourite winter sport, never having been a figure skater like my hon. colleague across the way.
That aside, I would like to deal with the challenge that is before us. If we do not like the way the government is spending money, borrowing money and handling the nation's finances, what are the alternatives?
In my remarks I would certainly like to deal with all the national issues that are involved but it is much easier to focus on my own constituency of Prince Albert- Churchill River. It is a very diverse constituency; 46 per cent is the city of Prince Albert, 36 per cent northern and aboriginal population and 22 per cent rural. In many ways it is a microcosm of the country.
The reason I would like to focus on my constituency is because I do not believe we need to be borrowing as much as we are today. I believe there are better ways of spending our money. I would like to demonstrate that by using my constituency as an example.
I was first elected in 1988. When I was running for election the question was already before us: How are you going to pay for the alternatives that you are suggesting? I took up that challenge and did some research. I found that in 1988, four and one-half years ago, the federal government alone was spending $125 million in that constituency on unemployment insurance and welfare.

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
Those high welfare costs are a result of the fact that 25 per cent of that population are treaty Indian people. The welfare costs are paid directly by the government. Unfortunately 80 per cent of that population is unemployed. Also there is the federal government's contribution to cost sharing arrangements with the province.
We started in 1988 with $125 million. I have kept track of that over the years. With this new financial statement going into this new budget year I find the federal government is spending $170 million in my constituency alone on welfare and unemployment insurance.
If there is any waste of money, it is that particular sum of money. Not only is it costing the taxpayers directly in having to shell out that amount of money, but there are also the secondary costs that come with the broken lives that need to be repaired health costs and the cost of imprisonment of people and all costs associated with that level of poverty and with those people in the constituency who are not working.
How does this government propose to tackle this problem of the deficit, in other words, spending more money than we are taking in? The government is planning to cut UI. In a constituency like mine where 80 per cent of the people are unemployed the 3 per cent cut in UI benefits will really be a disaster for people, and not only in economic terms. In a constituency with unemployment that high a person is very vulnerable when trying to find another job. It makes it very easy for employers to take advantage of that situation and subject people to unsafe working conditions and other kinds of working conditions on the job site that they would otherwise never put up with. People are very vulnerable. Yet this government goes after those unemployed people.
What else does the government go after? It goes after the Crow rate, the historic arrangement between the Government of Canada and the farmers of the prairies which transports our grain to an export position and also for domestic use in eastern Canada under guaranteed
regulatory rates. The government has cut that by 10 per cent in this economic statement.
What does that mean in my constituency? It means $1 million to the farmers in my constituency. Now the government is talking about cutting the family benefits plan and other ongoing cuts, and off-loadings on to the provincial government.
I would like to propose an alternative. I would like to propose that we take one-quarter of that $170 million and try to put one-quarter of the unemployed people in my constituency to work. In other words, we are talking about $40 million of that $170 million which the government is now wasting in my constituency.
Where could that money be spent? First, I would like to suggest it should be spent on the Athabasca Road. This House and Canadians were shocked to learn approximately a year ago that in this day and age there is a tuberculosis epidemic in northern Saskatchewan in the Athabasca region, centred in the communities of Fond du Lac, Black Lake and Wollaston Lake.
Emergency measures have been taken to deal with the situation and health care professionals have done the best they can. However, the underlying problems of poverty, poor housing, lack of opportunity and lack of good nutrition remain. Those problems cannot be solved unless we can get a transportation system into the Athabasca region, where 5,000 people live, that will meet their needs. A transportation system will allow us to bring in food more cheaply and will allow us to bring in building materials so that we can build more houses with the limited funds available. We can open up the Athabasca region to commercial opportunities like tourism and fishing in Lake Athabasca, a lake currently hardly ever fished because it costs more to fly the fish out than fishermen get in return. We need that road.
How much is it going to cost? It is going to cost $35 million. The provincial government is currently negotiating with the federal government to get funding for that road. The provincial government is suggesting that the federal government pick up 75 per cent of the cost of that road based on two arguments. It would replace something like a $2 million cost to the federal government of having the Coast Guard dredge the Athabasca
February 11, 1993

River to get barges on to Lake Athabasca to supply those communities. The government would save that $2 million a year. The vast majority, approximately 80 per cent of the people in the region which would be served by that, are treaty Indian people. The economic benefits which would flow from the development would accrue directly to the federal government.
It would mean a cost to the federal government of $27 million over about five years. We would have to spend about $5.5 million a year for the next five years to get that Athabasca road into place. The benefits would be immense and have been well documented.
Second, I would like to mention the whole issue of cleaning up the Gunnar and Laredo mines. I see the Minister of the Environment is diligent today and is at his desk. I was surprised to hear from a reporter yesterday that the Minister of the Environment seems to have dismissed the notion of his department participating in the clean-up of the Gunnar and Laredo mines.
For the benefit of the House and the viewing public I would like to explain that issue a little bit. There has been uranium mining going on in northern Saskatchewan since the late forties and early fifties. In those days the environmental standards that we operated under were much different and much more lax than they are today.
When the Gunnar and Laredo mines were decommissioned in 1964 very little clean-up was done. There were very low standards. It probably is not anybody's fault particularly, but the clean-up was never done. Tailings are getting into the environment through leaching and blowing around in the wind. Some of the old buildings are contaminated. Although the site poses no immediate health hazard it is certainly something we would not tolerate in this day and age.
It has been identified as a major public issue because the premier of Alberta saw fit to make reference to it in some year end remarks and it is now on the public agenda. It is the appropriate time for it to be on the public agenda because while we are discussing this clean-up issue we are also contemplating expansion of the uranium mining industry in my constituency.
Government Orders
Through the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Atomic Energy Control Board, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, which engages in commercial ventures, and many others, the federal government has been very much an advocate of the uranium mining industry and indeed of the nuclear industry as a whole in all kinds of ways, even the former government's old Eldorado Mining which mined in that area.
The federal government has a clear role to play. What would it cost to clean up that site? The Minister of the Environment probably knows this. It would cost about $8 million. If the federal government paid $6 million of that cost, 75 per cent over a period of four years, that would be a cost to the federal government of $1.5 million per year.
There is money. Funds have been established to do this kind of work. There is a national contaminated sites program which provides for the clean-up of orphan sites for which the corporate responsibility can no longer be established. That certainly applies here. There is money in that fund for innovative technology. We intend to use innovative technology, to let nature do its own clean-up to enhance the natural processes that are already going on. It is very innovative technology.
As well, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is already engaged in the clean-up of uranium mining sites in Ontario and the Northwest Territories and could help contribute toward that $1.5 million a year.
I would suggest that the government restore the 10 per cent cut that it made to the Crow rate benefit. That was pointed out at the farm rally in Saskatoon about two weeks ago, where 13,000 people from the farms, the cities and the towns of Saskatchewan met at Saskatchewan Place and outlined their situation. At the rally we were told that this year farm income in Saskatchewan is going to be at its lowest level since the 1930s.
A lot of Canadians know what the 1930s were like through movies, through folklore within families and through books. People know what kind of misery existed in the farm community. We are returning to that level again. It is projected in the next year that the average income of the average farm family is going to be $4,000, which is less than those families would receive if they were receiving welfare.

of volunteer time for a lot of people. In order to be effective they need some basic core funding in order to function and play the proper part they need to play, especially at the organizational stage they are at now.
I would suggest to the government that $2 million out of that $170 million it is blowing could be well spent on these local vehicles for economic development.
I have only a few minutes left. I have outlined $12 million worth of spending that the government could be doing in my constituency out of the $170 million it is blowing now. I suggest it takes one-quarter of that, which is $40 million, and devote it to job creation. I am not talking about new money. I am talking about the money it is spending now.
I have identified $12 million worth of projects. Another $8 million could very easily go to the Indigenous Summer Games which the minister for sports and fitness is very actively looking at. I would encourage him to recognize the need. The government could spend money for the SEED program which is being cut back again, the Summer Student Employment Program, for student loans or for the Brighter Futures Program which is supposed to deal with family problems, child care, family violence, and so on, and is really a smoke and mirrors operation that has no money, no criteria, and is very difficult to access. Some real money in Brighter Futures would help, as well as in child care. I am suggesting out of that $40 million we are diverting from welfare and unemployment insurance let us spend $12 million on projects and $8 million on these projects. That would leave $20 million to help reduce that province's deficit. If it did that in every constituency it would amount to $280 million in Saskatchewan and would cut the Saskatchewan deficit in half. The government would still be money ahead because in that constituency we would still be collecting approximately $20 million more in taxes directly from people working.
The problem with this government is a failure of the political imagination. This government has run out of gas.
Government Orders
I have just run through a scenario in one constituency on how any government could spend its money more wisely to put people to work. I have demonstrated that the taxpayers of Canada would benefit from it. It is time for this government to go. If it cannot do it let somebody else do it. We are ready to do it. We are ready to help other people do it. It is time we got on with it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As we are resuming debate, I would like to advise the House we have now completed the first five hours of debate on this bill. We will now proceed with 10-minute speeches.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, this is indeed an interesting bill to be debating at a time of record unemployment in this country. There is record despair and a record number of bankruptcies in this country. Record numbers of Canadians are unemployed and on welfare. Record numbers of children are living in poverty. A record number of individuals say that the current government in power, if it ever has the gall to go back to the electorate soon, would receive the biggest trouncing of any elected government in the history of this country.
We are here debating the bill for borrowing authority so the government can further its desires for some of the measures it put in the last budget.
It is an interesting time for Canadians. We are sitting here debating a bill that will allow the government to continue economic policies that have been a travesty to the Canadian public.
In order to put this government's economic agenda in perspective we have to understand what it has done over the last eight years. What has it done since it came into power? Way back in 1984 Brian Mulroney was canvassing across the country. He was promising jobs, jobs, jobs and two chickens in every pot. He said Tory times were going to be good times again. He talked about fundamental tax reform. The Conservatives were going to make sure the tax system was fair because under those dirty old Liberals it was not.
What did the Conservatives do? They created jobs, jobs, jobs all right, but unfortunately they were not in Canada. They created jobs, jobs, jobs in places like Buffalo, Detroit, Toledo, Chicago and every border city in the United States because the free trade deal forced

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
many Canadian manufacturers to shut their doors and move to their parent plant operations somewhere in the United States.
The clock is ticking but the Conservatives do not want to go to the electorate because they know what is going to happen to them. The Conservatives will probably try to fool the Canadian public with the NAFTA and promises of jobs, jobs, jobs again. This time the Canadian public will not be fooled.
It is important for us to understand what the Conservatives have done with taxation. Since these people came to power in 1984 with a promise of fundamental restructuring of the Canadian economy they have increased taxes in 40 different areas, excluding the GST, to July of last year. That is real fundamental tax reform. It is called: "Take more from those who have the least amount to give".
Since this government came to power the middle income groups have paid $1,500 more on average per family in constant dollars per year. Even those individuals whose incomes are around $10,000 per year are paying more taxes in 1992 than they would have paid in 1984.
The government said it had to come in with this new tax, the GST, because that old awful federal sales tax was unfair, that it was taking too much money and was making Canadian businesses uncompetitive.
Do you know how many times the government has increased it? Let me see. I have a chart here: October 1984, January 1986, April 1986, July 1985, July 1987, January 1988, June 1989, January 1988, May 1985, February 1986, February 1986, January 1988, April 1989, February 1991. That is the number of times by budgetary measures this bunch opposite raised that dirty, awful, old federal sales tax that it had to replace with that wonderful example of genius called the goods and services tax.
The implication from increases in federal sales tax alone from 1984 to the time that government replaced it with the GST was an extra $9 billion in revenue.
In short what we have is a government that from 1984 to 1992 has set about a legislative regime to introduce more tax increases and increase the federal revenues at a greater rate than at any other time in our recent history.
The government was raking the dough in. It was coming in hand over fist. One would have assumed, since Tories are supposed to be such wonderful economic managers, that the deficit would have been dropping like a stone. Au contraire. It did not happen. At the same time as it was raking in record amounts of revenue this bunch opposite was spending like money was going out of style. They are probably the worst fiscal managers we have seen in this century in this country.
They misspent themselves into a doubling of the federal deficit in eight years. They have doubled the federal deficit at a time of record increases in revenue, record tax increases, and have also made a new record for record deficits.
It took them almost two years to admit that we were in a recession. It took them less than two minutes after Statistics Canada came out with the first positive figures to declare the recession dead.
The current Minister of Finance one year ago came into this House and indicated that all was well, recovery was around the comer, not to worry, there was a light at the end of the tunnel, things were going to be wonderful again, just in time for another federal election.
At that time the Minister of Finance had estimated that the federal debt for this current year was going to be about $27 billion or $28 billion. Now we find out that maybe he was wrong again. Just like his predecessor was wrong each and every time he stood in this Chamber, since I arrived here, and gave an economic projection. He is not wrong by a mere $1 billion or $2 billion, or $3 billion, or $4 billion. He is wrong by between $7 billion and $8.5 billion.
The man cannot add. He certainly cannot read, because every economist in the country has been saying the direction this government's economic policies were taking the country would lead to further despair and disaster.
Twelve months ago the Minister of Finance stood up in response to the second record year of bankruptcies in Canada. He told us not to worry that it was the end of the recession and that it was just a final big blip on the scale before bankruptcies dropped like a stone. But that was not true. He went for the real triple crown and that was the third record year of bankruptcies. Only one week ago, after we were supposed to be out of the recession, after he told us 12 months ago that all was well, we debated and asked questions of this front bench about
February 11, 1993

the reasons that another record was broken because 1992 was another record year for Canadian bankruptcies.
In the province of Nova Scotia we saw a 25 per cent increase over the last record year in the number of business bankruptcies. We saw a slight decrease in the level of personal bankruptcies, but the fact remains that in the province of Nova Scotia last year there was approximately one bankruptcy for every 318 Nova Scotians. That is this government's brand of economic recovery.
What the government did during these record years of revenue and record years of deficit building is something else which will take perhaps a decade to repair. What it did was to destroy the partnership federal governments have always had with their provincial government counterparts.
The federal government has the power of taxation. It has the power, if it has the will, through legislative programs and through constitutional requirements to equalize wealth in this country. But what has it done at a record time of tax increases? While it has been building record deficits it has been transferring the deficit from its mismanagement down to the provinces.
I want to quote this: "As a result of four successive budgets by this government, the May 1985 budget, the April 1989 budget, the February 1990 budget and the February 1991 budget, these budgets had provisions in them for a decreased participation by the federal government in cost-shared programs". We call them EPF, Established Programs Financing. That is for post-secondary education and for medicare. It is supposed to be 50 cents on the dollar. The result of those changes alone would amount to $42 billion less being transferred to the provinces for just those two programs over a 10-year period. In effect, the government has taken its fiscal mismanagement and transferred it down to the provinces right across this country which in turn have had to transfer it down to the municipalities.
This government seeks the authority and the support of this House to do more of the same for Canadians. I think not. The only good thing about this particular bill is that it will be the last time this government has an opportunity to come before this House and seek authority to borrow money. It will be one hell of a long time
Government Orders
after the election before the Canadian public puts its faith and its treasury in the hands of the bunch opposite.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today to speak to third reading of Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992.
I am somewhat disturbed. Although the government certainly has been trying to present a positive picture, the government's incompetence is well-known across this country.
We are in the midst of probably the worst recession since the 1930s. We have 1.5 million Canadians unemployed, 2.3 million on welfare and 3.8 million living below the poverty line, and that includes more than one million children. More than two million people in this country are forced to rely on food banks.
Recently the Minister of Finance had the audacity to appear on a television program and declare that his government had created more jobs than any other G-7 country. What the minister failed to say is that Canada has lost more jobs than any other country and the jobs the government has created are low paying, part-time jobs.
We on this side of the House have steadfastly put forward ideas to stimulate growth through policies that will create jobs and encourage the private sector to expand. Last January, as an example, we proposed a five-point emergency economic plan designed to help create jobs and encourage growth. The proposal's centrepiece was a national shared infrastructure program with equal funding from federal, provincial and municipal governments. These initiatives would have been an investment in people.
I have been campaigning for a significant commitment to municipal infrastructure for years, first as a 10-year municipal councillor, then as a co-chair of the Liberal Party's national task force on municipal infrastructure in 1989 and repeatedly in this House during my four years in office.
In the summer and fall of 1989 my colleague from Ottawa Centre and I travelled to every province and territory in Canada to look into the crisis facing Canada's

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
towns and cities and to increase national awareness about this serious issue.
The task force hearings confirmed my fears about the environmental and economic dangers which are looming as the result of inadequate infrastructure throughout the country. Only 10 per cent of all raw sewage east of Ontario is treated. More than eight million Canadians, or one-third of our population, live in municipalities without sewage treatment.
I heard horror stories about raw sewage floating down ditches, about harbours where boats plough through sewage floating in the water and about public beaches which are closed each time it rains due to polluted storm sewer run-off.
I visited towns without any sewage treatment and towns with aging systems that were never designed to handle the toxic discharges of modern communities. The threats to public safety are many and obvious. The report of the task force proposed a broad range of measures which were applauded by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.
During the weeks leading up to the December mini budget I waited anxiously to hear from the Minister of Finance. Rumours were ripe that his government would finally see the light and make a commitment to Canada's infrastructure. The minister's proposal turned out to be a huge disappointment.
The present Minister of Transportation is a former colleague of mine. He was a director of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. At that time the present Minister of Transportation in this House used to stand up as director of municipalities and say how much the federal government should be participating in this Canada-wide infrastructure program.
The member then became a member of this Parliament and he did an about-face. He is hiding behind the skirts of the Prime Minister and will not take a public stand on this issue. The government announced that it expects to create under 5,000 jobs, half the number to be cut at CN Rail alone.
The $500 million committed by the government to the infrastructure program over five years amounts to only about a fifth of the $2.5 billion taken from the unemployed. None of the spending will be on desperately needed local community projects. In other words, the infrastructure program is inadequate. What else can we expect from a very inadequate government?
The government's announcement also contained a frightening message to employees in Canada, particularly women. As the Liberal critic for human rights and the associate critic for women's issues I am appalled that Canadians who are fired or who quit their jobs will not get any benefits. This leaves people near the bottom of the economic ladder, particularly women, open to abuse.
Up to this point female employees who have been harassed by their employer, supervisor or colleagues have had the option of quitting their jobs and receiving UI benefits to which they have contributed. Once removed from a bad work environment the employee can more easily take formal action against the alleged offender, whether by way of an action for damages or a human rights complaint.
The new provision means a fundamental change in the power relationship between employers and employees. Women will have to put up with harassment from unscrupulous employers or quit and go on welfare. The onus of proving just cause in order to be eligible for UI benefits will fall solely on the employee.
Short of taking legal action how will she prove just cause? What is the level of proof required? Will naming an employer or other employee as a perpetrator of harassment result in an investigation by a government department? Will this increase the risk of a libel suit against the employee who makes a complaint outside the judicial process? Will there be an independent tribunal set up to determine the guilt or innocence of the employer?
Fifty thousand people turned out in Montreal this past weekend to protest against this unfair measure, yet the government's response to these protesters was weak and totally erroneous. It said: "They are all separatists".
The government has also reduced the unemployment insurance benefit rate for new recipients from 60 per cent to 57 per cent. The effect of this reduction will be to freeze the average benefit per recipient. The savings will amount to $550 million in the first year and $1 billion in the second year.
February 11, 1993

Government Orders
This will have serious effects on women, who continue For small business the government is launching what it to earn approximately two-thirds of what men do. The calls a small business employment and investment pack-impact on unemployed female workers of having their age. The package has five components but all but one do benefits reduced from 60 per cent to 57 per cent will little to address the two fundamental problems facing simply ensure that women, many of whom are single small business today, which are the credit crunch and parents, continue to live near or under the poverty line, the lack of equity financing.
This measure continues the treatment that women received from this government in the February 1992 budget. For example, the child benefit has been widely denounced as a totally inadequate anti-poverty measure. The cutbacks to social housing expenditures and the elimination of the co-operative housing program means that single mothers will be denied affordable housing.
Not only has the government done nothing to assist women to get back into the labour force but it is forcing the unemployed, the poorest of whom are women, to shoulder the responsibility for deficit reduction. Also, the government has again hacked at our Public Service by once again freezing the salary of public servants, tens of thousands of whom earn an income below the poverty line. At a time when consumer confidence is so low it is wrong to make public servants bear the brunt of the federal government's fiscal mismanagement.
This Conservative government has underlined its philosophy that collective bargaining does not have a role to play in Canada. This is a total contradiction of this government's own legislation.
I am appalled at the total lack of regard for the Ottawa-Carleton region. It is also obvious that this Conservative government, including the Minister of Supply and Services, has given up on the National Capital Region.
If the government was serious about saving money it would stop spending the millions it spends on partisan polls and Conservative consultants. If the Prime Minister was truly interested in spending restraint he would slash the size of his cabinet.
The Conservative commitment to the environment, its green plan, melts each time the Department of Finance looks at it. Another $172 million has been cut from the much touted green plan. That is the third cut for a total of 10 per cent in cuts since the plan was unveiled two years ago. Further, less than one-third of the money the government promised for the green plan will be spent before the next election.
I welcome the 10 per cent investment tax credit but would have liked to have seen it extended to all small businesses. The small business financing program has been blasted by both the small business and banking communities. Eligibility requirements are simply too restrictive and the program's scope is inadequate. To date only a very small number of businesses have actually been able to take advantage of the program.
I do not oppose raising the ceiling for loans made under the Small Businesses Loans Act as the government has done, but the measure does nothing to address the fact that banks are simply not lending money. In addition, by failing to expand the definition of what constitutes a small business there are still enterprises in new service industries that are ineligible.
Fortunately there are a few proposals put forward by this government with which I agree, though I must admit there are very few. I was pleased to see that the home buyers plan, first proposed by the Liberals last January, has been extended to 1994. The minister also proposed to increase funding under the industrial research assistance program first put forward by my party.


Ron Fisher: Madam Speaker, I must confess that speaking on the borrowing bill of the government this morning is no great pleasure, despite the fact that it is truly a pleasure to be speaking in the House of Commons.
If this government had come close to living up to the promises it made at the time of the last election we would not be standing here talking about having to borrow money to anywhere near the extent that we are. On the other hand, what if we had taken the advice of the minister of fisheries, if we had heeded his words before the last election? In the city of Regina, the capital of the province of Saskatchewan from which I come, he quite blatantly said that if he were to tell the Canadian public what the Conservatives were going to do once they got elected the Canadian public would not vote for them.

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
He certainly lived up to that promise because during the last election they did not tell the Canadian public in any real terms what they were going to do other than create jobs, introduce the free trade agreement with the United States and create prosperity like this country had never known.
The unfortunate and predictable part of the situation is that they have wrought havoc on this country such as we have not seen since the days of the depression of the thirties. It is not any coincidence that it is the same government and the same political philosophy that led us into the last depression.
The fact of the matter is that we have not seen such a tremendous decrease in production in this country since the 1930s. It certainly speaks ill of this government that we must be here today borrowing excessive amounts of money and paying excessive amounts of interest on money being borrowed to cover up the mistakes it has made and to cover up for promises it made. The Canadian public took for granted it was telling the truth when it made those promises and it has not fulfilled them.
There are any number of areas in which we could examine what this government is doing, whether in monetary or social terms, and find it lacking on almost every count. In fact it is lacking on every count.
I do not know how many budgets we have had since I came to the House of Commons in 1988 but every one of them was presented in the most glowing of terms. The Minister of Finance of the day assured us that the budgets being introduced would get the country back on track, that they would get the deficit and the accumulation of the debt of the nation back on track and then decrease them.
In last spring's budget the government miscalculated by a mere $10 billion, and of course we find ourselves talking about borrowing money as a result. The promises have simply not been there. Some of the solutions the government is coming up with to try to save some money are just beyond imagination. Some of the programs it is coming up with are unimaginable in their severity for a civilized country in 1993, in the latter part of the 20th century.
Canada has been a world leader in many of the social programs which we have instituted. We may not have initiated them first but in a lot of cases we certainly were not very far behind in the implementation of those programs, throughout at least the first world as it is sometimes called. I am referring to social programs such as the unemployment insurance and pension plans we have, and labour legislation to some extent, although that falls far short of the OECD countries particularly.
We find ourselves speaking at the present time as a result of the mini budget, Bill C-98, introduced last December. We find ourselves in a situation, and this is the vicious part, in which those people who for whatever reason find themselves unable to continue in a job and quit now find themselves not only having had their unemployment insurance benefits reduced from 60 per cent to 57 per cent but are now disenfranchised and prevented from being able to collect any unemployment insurance at all. I stress, for any reason whatsoever.
The government is implying that there are hordes and hordes of people out there who quit their jobs for the most frivolous reasons, with the sole purpose of collecting unemployment insurance.
The situation is similar with people who are on welfare. The implication from the other side of the House is that because of some of the Draconian measures it has taken in the past people on welfare are also out to cheat the system. The fact is that living on unemployment insurance or welfare is not exactly easy street. It is simply a vicious move on the government's part to insinuate that so many people are going on unemployment insurance because it is easy street. Unfortunately it is feeding fuel to the fire of the prejudices held by the general public.
I would suggest to anyone in this House and anyone watching the proceedings of the House that if they know of anyone who is supposedly cheating on unemployment insurance they ought to report him or her. No one in this House would ever suggest for a moment that anyone who is cheating on unemployment should not suffer some kind of a penalty.
The supposition is that people are out there looking for work, but in this day and age when work is so difficult to find and millions of people are unemployed, the prospects of finding a job are very slim. Nonetheless, that does not excuse anyone from looking for a job.
February 11, 1993

I am suggesting that there are very few cheaters out there. The government is trying to make a case where none exists. It is out to punish those who discontinue employment for very good reasons. In some very unfair situations people find themselves fired because they cannot contemplate continuing where they are presently working because of the attitude of the employer.
Just within the last day or so the minister has said that if there are valid reasons these people will be able to receive unemployment insurance. There are 40 categories in which they are allowed to exercise their right to quit and still receive unemployment insurance.
In the last couple of days we have seen the case of fishers, which is the terminology today for people who go out to sea to catch the fruits of our oceans. There was the tragic loss of a fishing ship in the Atlantic and now the comrades of the dead fishers, some of whom were out on the rescue mission, are refusing to go to sea. We saw their employer on television saying: "No, no, no, there are hazards in all occupations. Going out to sea and having your ship sink underneath you is just one of the hazards. There really is no reason whatsoever not to go". If the employer says go, you go. That is a good example of the kind of intimidation employers use most frequently to force people to stay in jobs which for the most part are really quite intolerable. In the final analysis, the government's proposed changes are not going to save it a tremendous amount of money anyway.
The cuts of 10 per cent to the Crow benefit are equally as devastating to the agricultural community in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-98. This very small document sets out the very large figure of $8.2 billion that the government is asking for today.
One really has to ask what has been accomplished by this government since 1984. It is difficult to look anywhere in the Canadian economy today and find a bright spot. There are some dim bulbs, especially on the other side of the House, but there is hardly a bright spot in the Canadian economy. I come from northern Ontario so I
Government Orders
have a particular perspective. It is difficult to describe the economic chaos that exists.
It is discouraging that this government was launched into office in 1984 at the time of the longest sustained growth period in our history. The six-year period from 1984 to the spring of 1990 was the longest sustained growth period since World War II. What did the government do? It totally squandered it.
It talked about balancing the books; deficits continued to rise and the Minister of Finance was never right. In spite of that taxes were increased dramatically every year. There were 31 new taxes during that six or seven year period. It is incredible. It was the longest sustained growth period in history. The Tory government increased taxes dramatically and yet the deficit rang in every year at $27 billion, $28 billion and $30 billion. There was an opportunity to reduce the deficits we suffered from the very strong recession we had in 1981-82 but nothing was accomplished. In fact the deficit today is double what it was when this government took office. It was some $176 million then and is now over $450 billion today.
It really is an incredible time and a very discouraging time for Canadians. That is why this government has languished in the public opinion polls between 12 and 18 per cent during the past two or three years.
Besides increasing taxes on businesses and people- and I have not even come to the GST yet-it has really put an incredible tax on the provincial governments. They in turn have pushed that down to municipal governments.
If we look at what was done with the Established Programs Financing Act since 1985, it is incredible that financial institutions, hospitals and medicare systems in our country even continue to function. The provinces have had to compensate for the reductions. The government began reducing assistance in the 1985 budget. The Established Programs Financing arrangements had previously been a 50/50 arrangement. The government gradually moved away from that toward a system where the increase in cost of health care and education programs due to inflation was reduced by 1 per cent, 2 per cent and then 3 per cent. In other words, if inflation was 5 per cent, the provinces picked up all of that amount. In the first year of the Established Programs Financing the reduction in funds for the 1986-1987 fiscal year was $316 million. By 1992-1993, the current fiscal year, the reduction in funds being transferred to the provinces was $5.9

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
billion. Imagine any province, especially the smaller provinces, trying to pick up $5.9 billion. By 1995-1996 the reduction in assistance to provinces for health and education will be $9.3 billion. The total reduction over that 10-year period will be $42 billion.
The government is not only preying on the people and putting the economy into the worst recession in history since 1990 but it is off-loading its financial responsibilities for the key areas of health and education.
It is interesting that everywhere in the competitiveness arrangement the government has set up there is reference to education and training. This is how we are going to be more competitive and take on the markets of the world. What the government has done in post-secondary education during that 10-year period totally flies in the face of its talk about further education and training.
Over the 10-year period for post-secondary education the government has reduced transfers to the provinces. In 1986 they were reduced by $91 million. For 1992-1993 funding for secondary education is being reduced by $1.7 billion. Over the course of the 10-year period the reduction totals $12 billion for post-secondary education.
This government is talking about globalization and international competitiveness. Those two concepts do not even begin to make a believable arrangement.
The bankruptcy statistics for this past year for the three provinces that historically have had major economic growth are really quite frightening. The figures are extremely high even in provinces like Nova Scotia, where in 1992 there were 2,678 bankruptcies.
This did not just happen. It happened because the government brought in a fiscal and monetary policy in 1990 which drove the country into recession. If people think that John Crow does not get his orders from the previous Minister of Finance they only have to watch the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance defend those policies.
In 1988 we signed a free trade deal with the United States. By 1989-1990 there was a disparity in the prime interest rate of at least 5 per cent or 6 per cent. Historically it has always been 1 per cent or 1.5 per cent.
During 1989 and 1990 we drove the economy into a recession and did not let up for even a year or two after that.
The government had the gall to bring in its statement of constitutional reform but the responsibility of the Bank of Canada was to keep inflation at zero. Nobody had ever heard of such a proposal before but this government decided that its policy was to drive down inflation to a level that drove literally thousands of businesses out of business.
This was at a time when we were entering into a free trade deal with the United States, and our producers, exporters, and our forestry and manufacturing sectors were experiencing a total financial blood-bath. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost because of the interest rates, certainly in Ontario and in other provinces as well. Those extremely high interest rates of 14 per cent in the spring of 1990, five or six percentage points above those of the United States, drove the dollar so high that they were simply not able to compete.
We can examine those figures concerning bankruptcies in the province of Ontario. Between 1991 and 1992 there was an increase of 4 per cent, 1,429 more in 1992 than in 1991. That is an increase from 29,989 to 31,418. These businesses were destroyed by the fiscal and monetary policy of this government. It is a tragedy. This bill to give this government another $8 billion of borrowing power should not be approved.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move that the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill C-98, the Borrowing Authority Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment moves that the House continue to sit during lunch hour for the purpose of studying Bill C-98. All those members against this motion will please rise.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:
February 11, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There are not 15 members rising in objection to the motion. According to the provisions of Standing Order 26(1)(6) the motion is deemed to be carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, that was one of the government's most interesting speeches so far. It has suggested extending the debate until Question Period, in other words, until 2 p.m. I have no objection. I have no problem with a debate on government bills.
Bill C-98 proposes to authorize expenditures, by way of loan or by the issue and sale of securities of Canada, in an amount or amounts not exceeding a total of eight billion two hundred million dollars. That is a lot of money. One billion means one thousand million dollars. A very substantial amount of money is involved.
Canadians and members who speak in the House on their behalf have the right to ask the government to account for its administration of public funds. Parliament has the right to expect the government to inform the House of Commons and the general public on its financial administration.
Canadians have every reason to be concerned about the government's ability to manage public moneys as they should be managed. During today's debate, many members raised a number of serious questions, including the unemployment problem. Canada now has 1,600,000 unemployed workers. These are people who are actively looking for work, are able to work and want to work, but cannot find jobs.
In Ottawa-Carleton 700 jobs were lost in January 1993, in one month. According to the experts at Statistics Canada, however, the recession is over.
Tell that to the 1.6 million unemployed workers. Tell that to another million Canadians who are living in difficult circumstances after losing any hope of finding a job that pays and are either on welfare or being supported by their families. Tell them the recession is over, that the government is compassionate and that it has an economic recovery plan. That is not what I hear at my riding office.
Government Orders
It is unfortunate to have to say this, but Canadians have lost confidence in a government that, as we have said repeatedly, has outlived its usefulness. It is time the government was replaced and the people were given a chance to decide. It is time Canadians had their say about managing change to make the economy more dynamic. That is what counts: letting Canadians decide and meeting the challenge of more effective and efficient government.

This morning we heard people talk about the GST and its impact on Canadians. In the past while we have come under attack by the Conservatives and sometimes by the NDP over what we would do to replace-


Mr. Johnson:: Oh, are we going to hear?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sit down and listen. It will only take 10 minutes. I only have 10 minutes. I may tell the member a few things about what Liberals will do-


Mr. Soetens:: Probably nothing.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The member can make that judgement after I am finished speaking.
Let us look at the facts first. The Conservatives have raised taxes or imposed new taxes on individuals 38 times since taking power in 1984. That is a fact. The average Canadian family is paying $1,500 more in taxes than it was in 1984.
The GST, the most hated tax in Canadian history, was imposed on Canadians without proper consultation. It was imposed on small business despite its opposition to this tax. It was imposed on the provinces without consultation and over their objections.
The GST destroyed public confidence in the fairness of the tax system. It has expanded the underground economy, and I do not think anybody would deny that. The underground economy is made up of those who work but do not report their earnings or pay taxes. If all Canadians paid the taxes they were supposed to pay our tax load would be diminished.
It has undermined consumer confidence to the extent that people are now not spending. It slowed down the economy. It lengthened and deepened the recession. It was imposed at the wrong time. It is complex, it is costly and it is unfair. Those are words that we have heard over the last two and a half to three years.

Government Orders
There is an army of bureaucrats administering the GST right now. There are 4,000 to 5,000 public servants who spend their day administering this tax.
We in the opposition have difficulty having any confidence in the information that is made available to us. I defy anybody in this House to examine the public accounts of 1991-92 and honestly tell me that he or she understands the very complicated way in which those figures are presented.
This morning in this House the revenue minister said: "We have presented all the facts in a variety of documents". He sure has. Finance has done that and Revenue Canada has done that to the extent that nobody understands exactly what has happened to the $29.5 billion in gross revenue from the GST and the net result of the $15.1 billion or $15.2 billion that remained at the end.


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member invited me to stay so I could hear some ideas from him and he is spending time on facts. I would like to hear the ideas rather than the history.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to get to that point because that is exactly what I intend to do for the remaining two or three minutes of my speech. We will clean up the mess that was made for Canadians by the Progressive, God forbid, Conservatives. What nonsense: progressive and conservative. How one can be progressive and conservative at the same time is beyond me.
We will not do what the Conservatives did, which is to railroad a tax, the GST, through Parliament with closure and everything else. The Liberals will implement a replacement in full consultation, and I emphasize that, with individual Canadians, the business community and the provinces.
That is the essence of democracy. People must be heard. People must be asked what they think. We Liberals have been trying to do that. We will ask Canadians to help us, through full consultation, to replace this mess of the GST with a tax that is possibly unlike the existing one but will be understood and accepted by Canadians. We are not pretending like the NDP that it comes down with the snow in the middle of November and disappears. The $15 billion that must be replaced will be replaced. That is true. It is income. The
government needs it. Parliament has to authorize it. It has to come from somewhere and it cannot come from Santa Claus.
There will be a public consultation, which is what we need. In the first session of the new Parliament-the hon. member should stick around, maybe he will be there-members will be asked and will be involved. The NDP are always sanctimoniously saying we should not be taxing people or we should not be spending money. In my province of Ontario the NDP is making a mess of the Ontario economy. I regret to say I have no time for these armchair socialists who know everything yet can deliver nothing.
We have been saying for years that the House of Commons and its parliamentary committees should be actively involved in trying to resolve issues in this place. This is a very important issue called taxation, fiscal measures, or the GST. In the next Parliament members of this House should be sitting down with the people of Canada and coming to grips with this issue. They should do so in consultation with Canadians, the business community and the provinces. I am sure that will be done with the assistance of the experts and with the information that will be available to us. When we come into Parliament we will open the books. They will be transparent to Canadians. They will know where they are. They will know where they are going. We will know exactly what to do.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to participate in this debate on Bill C-98, the Borrowing Authority Act, which would allow the Government of Canada to borrow large sums of money.
It is rather ironic that on the veiy day in which this House will give approval to this particular bill information has been made available to the public with regard to the way in which the members opposite have conducted themselves and the finances of this country.
It is interesting to note that in 1984 members opposite campaigned on a theme of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. Shall we say they were to be the new team in Ottawa which was to have a balanced budget? They were the ones who were to take fiscal responsibility, as they said, to the Parliament of Canada.
They also said something else. They also criticized opposition parties and others who had a different approach. They shunted them aside and told Canadians
February 11, 1993

that they and they alone had the capability, the knowledge and the political will to address the national debt.
In 1984 that deficit was in the vicinity of $180 billion to $200 billion, as I am sure hon. members opposite would want to attest. Those great protectors, those individuals opposite in the Progressive Conservative Party, said repeatedly across this country in 1984 that they and they alone had the capability, the political will and the knowledge to have a balanced budget and to reduce the deficit.
Today, on February 11, 1993, we know the success the government opposite has been able to achieve. It has taken a $180 billion to $200 billion deficit and has increased it to $450 billion. What a record, what a record of the administration opposite. It was a sham when it said it in 1984 and it is more demonstrable today. It is an even bigger sham on February 11, 1993.
One thing it said was that it would bring a new sense of taxation fairness to the Canadian people. For eight years the Tory administration has put in place over 40 new taxes, one of which is the GST, a tax brought in at the wrong time. Canadians from coast to coast have told them that. The distinguished, elegant Minister of Labour knows very well that the people he is supposed to represent in this Chamber, his constituents and indeed labour organizations across the country, have told him chapter and verse that 40 new taxes, the GST and a $450 billion deficit is not the way to go.
Surely this minister has a responsibility, if not to the labour organizations he represents then to his conscience. His conscience must be nagging at him each and every day as he walks into this Chamber. He knows there is only one way to clear the air, only one democratic way to put these issues to rest for the next four years, and that is for the hon. Minister of Labour and his colleagues to do the honourable thing: to go to the Governor General to call a general election and give the people of Canada an opportunity.
I have had some deliberations and discussions on other matters with the hon. minister opposite. I want to say for the record that he is a most honourable person, perhaps one of the most honourable opposite. Let the hon. minister be the first to call upon his Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues to do the right and honourable thing and call a general election to allow the people of
Government Orders
Canada either to affirm or disapprove of that administration which has been in office for four years and 75 days.
It was not I as opposition House leader who stood in this place in 1984 and said the following words. I will paraphrase them. The quotations are on the record. They were given time and time again by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard and my colleagues from Edmonton and Hamilton. It was the right hon. Prime Minister who said that after four years the right and honourable thing to do was to go to the people of Canada.
I say to the Minister of Labour and to the right hon. Prime Minister: "If it was good in 1984 it is certainly good in the fifth year of your mandate. Go to the people and allow the people to decide whether or not your administration has been able to live up to what you stated in 1984 and in subsequent years".
The issues of a general election, tax reform, the proliferation of taxes and the GST concern all Canadians, not just those of us who are in opposition. This very day the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada made a statement in Toronto regarding the fiscal policies of that administration and what we would do if we were given the confidence to run a national government.
We believe it important to have economic growth. We do not have economic growth when the Minister of Labour focuses on the unemployed of this country. I remind the Minister of Labour of what the former right hon. Prime Minister, the member for Yellowhead, said in 1978 when we as the administration brought in changes to unemployment insurance. I ask the Chair and members of the House to compare what he said then to what is going on now.
On December 21, 1978 the then Prime Minister said: "This legislation before us is a terrible abuse of the unemployed, a terrible disservice to Canadians out of work". What is more demonstrable, what is more a disservice to Canadian people than what the Minister of Employment and Immigration is doing to the unemployed?
Our party and our leader have called for fiscal policy commitments. We are committed to fiscal responsibility, unwavering discipline, expenditure control, holding off new programs that do not contribute directly to econom-

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
ic growth and job creation, and reducing the deficit, reducing Canada's debt as a percentage of the GDP.
There might be disposition in the House for me to continue my remarks. I am sure hon. members opposite would agree. It is very clear with regard to federal-provincial fiscal co-operation that monetary policy is a necessity in the Canadian context as we understand it today. We have clearly spelled out our trade policy, unlike the New Democratic Party that heels to one side of the issue regardless of who it may affect or hurt and our views on skills training and small and medium size business. Of course hon. members will hear more about these matters in subsequent speeches as well as through media reports covering the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition.
In conclusion, if members opposite were true to their convictions and the convictions of their Prime Minister they would do the honourable thing and seek out the confidence of the Canadian people by going to the Governor General and calling a national general election.


Mr. Kilgour:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since there has been a movement by the government to extend hours I wonder if there might be disposition in the House to have the House leader of our party speak for another few moments.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There is no period for questions and comments after this point. We will resume debate with the hon. member for Surrey North.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the borrowing bill.
As most of the House is aware I come from one of the most dynamic and growing communities in Canada, Surrey North. Since the last federal election 11,000 additional households have been built in Surrey. Right now the new Surrey Centre will become the second town centre on the lower mainland. By the year 2010 Surrey will be bigger than the city of Vancouver.
Part of that development is being done by the Gateway project, a $100 million project involving private developers, union pension plans and a general contractor who works with the unions and private developers to ensure that the jobs are filled by union labour. It is now the biggest integrated development taking place in North America in terms of capital construction involving residential and commercial properties.


An hon. member:: All this good news because of the free trade agreement.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: All this good news because of the vitality of the NDP government and its co-operation with the labour movement in developing jobs in B.C.
It is interesting to see what the federal government is doing in a growing community like this one. Last week we had three examples of that.
First, out of the blue the federal government announced that it would close the immigration office in Surrey, one of the busiest offices on the lower mainland because of our vital ethnic population. Suddenly it decided, in order to prop up the member for Vancouver Centre, to close the Surrey and New Westminster offices and move them to Vancouver, to her riding.
An efficiency study had been done of the offices in Vancouver, Surrey and New Westminster. Lo and behold, Surrey and New Westminster were far more efficient than the Vancouver office. An application could be processed in Surrey in five weeks whereas it took six months to do so in Vancouver. An extension of a visa was done within two days in Surrey and took two weeks in Vancouver. Per man productivity was much higher in those two offices.
It will cost the government $330,000 more for leasehold costs in downtown Vancouver than it is paying in Surrey. The total cost in Surrey and New Westminster was $80,000 so it will cost nearly $250,000 to move those offices downtown to prop up the seat of the Minister of National Defence. The Surrey office is a money-maker. It raised $4 million in application fees last year.
This is one of the things the Tories do in a vitally growing community.
Second, the Tories announced that it would close the main Surrey post office and sorting service, affecting 100 jobs. Lo and behold, they will move them to downtown Vancouver. This is after a year and a half of discussion. The greater Vancouver regional district and the mayor of
February 11, 1993

the city of Vancouver have gone on the official record as being opposed to centralizing jobs in the downtown core. It also goes against the structural engineer's report that says the main post office in Vancouver is unsafe and that there should not be a consolidation.
As a side issue, how did this government which values itself on labour relations inform the employees that their jobs were gone? It sent a letter to my office in Ottawa at seven o'clock in the morning announcing that the Surrey post office was being closed.
At ten o'clock I phoned the local union president to find out what he knew about the details and particularly what would happen to the 100 workers. Were all their jobs going to be transferred downtown? Would there be
a job loss?
What did I find out? The government had not informed the union. It had not informed the employees. How the employees and union found out about this closure was by putting me on the speaker phone. I read the part from the press release that said the government was going to work in co-operation and had been consulting with the union and the employees about this decision.


An hon. member:: Pitiful.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: It was pitiful. Later that morning, of course, I found out from the regional manager that contrary to what the press release said, all the jobs were not being transferred downtown, that there would be a loss of 20 jobs.
We had this vibrant residential community where the GVRD is saying: Keep the jobs in the community where people live. Keep the jobs where the growth is. What do we have? We have this government, for crass political reasons, trying to prop up the seat of the Minister of National Defence against all the advice and recommendations by transferring jobs downtown.
What was the third blow? There was the announcement that the federal government was not going to increase grants in lieu of taxes. It just so happens that Surrey has a number of very large federal facilities. One is the taxation centre which processes taxes for B.C. and most of western Canada. We have all sorts of federal facilities along the border because of customs and excise.
Government Orders
Traditionally we have had, but are in the process of losing, one of the two big mail sorting services. The grants in lieu of taxes for Surrey amount to nearly $1 million. The tax increase in Surrey that would be expected is about 4.5 per cent this year. Therefore around $45,000 will now have to be raised by local taxpayers through cutting school programs, not proceeding with park development that is so necessary, or by raising residential property taxes.


An hon. member:: Off-loading.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: This of course comes on the heels of this government already off-loading a number of things on to the local municipalities, particularly through its withdrawal from the unemployment insurance program and making sure that was being funded by employees and employers.
The cost to the municipality in terms of increases to the school board, the municipality and the hospital is well over $1 million a year. The three largest employers in Surrey are the hospital, the school board and the municipality. They are the ones who have had to pick up the off-loading from the unemployment insurance program.
This is the kind of triple blow this government has laid upon my Surrey, the community that is the growth area. It has absorbed 60 per cent of all residential housing starts in the lower mainland in the last five years. It is being projected as the new centre of the lower mainland. Within 20 years, into the next century, it will be the centre of the lower mainland because of its geographical situation and its population growth.
I want to close with one comment. We have heard a lot from the Liberals about unemployment insurance and they have made some quotes which are quite interesting. When the Tories were criticizing them the Liberals were dropping the unemployment insurance fund by 6 per cent, reducing it from 66 per cent to 60 per cent. Now the Liberals are screaming when the Tories are doing only half of what the Liberals did before. Shame.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to talk at more length because 10 minutes is not very long. Bill C-98 would authorize the government to borrow not exceeding, in the whole, $8.2 billion as may be required for public works and general purposes. A number of points have been made and I would like to reinforce some of them.

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
First, the government has raised taxes or imposed new taxes on individual Canadians 38 times since taking office in 1984. The GST is the most hated tax in Canadian history. As the member said, I think it was certainly the major reason I was expelled from your party, Mr. Speaker. I had received phone calls, visits, petitions and letters from, I believe, 7,500 constituents in opposition to the tax. I think I heard from less than 20 constituents speaking in favour of the tax.
Having worked as a tax lawyer and briefly as an economist I was convinced that it was a bad tax, extremely harmful to the small business community. A man down the street from where I live in Mill Woods tells me that he still spends two hours a day at his convenience store trying to fill out the forms and keep the GST and his credits straight. That tax is an abomination for the small business community which we know has been creating up to 80 per cent of the new jobs and can create many, many more once a new government can turn the economy around.
The GST was imposed on Canadians without proper consultation and very little was said about it during the 1988 election campaign by the then Minister of Finance. It was imposed on small businesses despite their objections and was imposed on the provinces over their objections.
The GST destroyed public confidence in the fairness of our entire tax system. It expanded the underground economy. I am told by a resident of your city, Mr. Speaker, that an increasing number of Calgarians who can afford it and can have their finances adjusted to do it are living through their companies in order to avoid paying the GST. If they buy a car in the name of then-company, because of the credits and so on a number of Calgarians are avoiding the GST.
That is the kind of abuse this kind of a tax creates. It is undermining consumer confidence, lengthening and deepening the most serious recession we have had since the Great Depression of the 1930s. It is complex and costly for small business to administer and it takes an army of about 4,000 who were hired to administer the GST. It has made federal-provincial fiscal relations much more difficult.
If this party on this side of the House is called upon by the Canadian people to form a government we will have to try to clean up this mess. Unlike those opposite who have railroaded the GST through Parliament we intend to implement a replacement in full consultation with Canadians across the country, the business community and the provinces.
Unlike the NDP, which thinks it can cancel the GST and have $15 billion fall from the sky, our party acknowledges that the only responsible course is to replace the revenue brought in by the GST.
In the first session of the new Parliament this party, if called upon to form a government, will mandate the all-party Commons finance committee to consult Canadians and provincial governments on all options to the current GST and to report within 12 months. Our object is clear: to replace the GST in a way that generates equivalent revenues is fairer to consumers, is easier for small business to administer and promotes federal-provincial co-operation.
One example is the state of Washington. It has a sales tax. I am told that if people are subject to that tax, if they are manufacturers or otherwise caught by it, once a year they write a cheque for 1.5 per cent of their gross sales. Because it does not have the credit system and all the administrative headaches, that tax produces virtually as much revenue as our tax does with its credit system.
This brings me to page 2.28 of the Public Accounts of Canada. At the bottom of that page signed by the Auditor General of Canada there is a statement I think Canadians will find of considerable interest. It is called: "The Debt Servicing and Reduction Account, Statement of Transactions for the year ended March 31, 1992, in thousands of dollars". It says: "Goods and services tax gross revenue: $28.76 billion, more or less. Goods and services tax refunds and rebates: $11,329 billion, more or less. Goods and services tax quarterly tax credits: $2.2 billion".
Plainly, the system is not working. I was not at the public accounts committee meeting but I gather that even professionals of the Government of Canada went to great pains trying to explain this particular table I have been referring to.

In the time available let me speak on what we are going to have to do as a new government in trying to make some order out of the finances of the Government of Canada. Before I do so I will quote from one paragraph of a speech given by the Auditor General in Quebec City on January 19, 1993. He said:

You may have read the result of a Gallup poll in the press about two weeks ago. In that survey, Canadians were asked what percentage of their taxes the federal government wasted. I am sorry to tell you that for all of Canada, people believed that 47 cents of every dollar was wasted.

In other words, it would appear that for Canada as a whole half of the money raised by the federal government is perceived to be wasted by the federal government.
I did a poll in my riding, Mr. Speaker, and I suspect it is no different in yours. The question was: "Does the federal government use your money in a responsible way?" Ninety-seven per cent of those who replied, the highest consensus I have ever had on any issue in a questionnaire, thought that the federal government did not use public money in an efficient way.
Very few Canadians have to be told that the most urgent task of any new national government, I hope the Chretien government, is creating and maintaining jobs and training and retraining people of all ages.
Far too many families with jobs today fear that a family member could lose a job. That is why speeding up the delivery of training and retraining programs is a key feature of my party's emergency economic plan.
Key elements in it include our proposal for a federal-provincial shared-cost program on infrastructure, roads and that sort of thing and an increased capital cost allowance for new plants and equipment. These are to come from existing spending allocations within the federal spending total.
On January 27 the leader of this party said that the people will come first to his government. One of his first points was that we must: "raise the level of knowledge and skill of the vast majority of our students so that we can compete effectively in the economy of the future". He reminded listeners that the apprenticeship programs in Germany graduate 600,000 people yearly, whereas Canada as a whole now produces only 24,000 apprentices
Government Orders
yearly. Canada needs 200,000 to do as well as Germany in this area.
The leader of our party also noted that the role of government must change. Times change. He zeroed in on fiscal responsibility and sound economic management. He committed himself to reduce the ongoing yearly deficits both in absolute terms and as a percentage of GDP, partly by fostering economic growth and partly by "unwavering discipline in controlling expenditures". Quite properly, the $4.4 billion the Tories have proposed to buy 50 submarine-chasing helicopters will not survive the election of a Liberal government.
If we spent the same huge amount on education or training, for example, it would create up to 75 times as many jobs. Until the deficit is significantly reduced other new programs, other than those directly related to economic grants and jobs, must be financed from the allocation of existing spending.


Hon. Wiliam Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue on from where my hon. colleague left off. He is quite right when he talks about the need to emphasize education and training. That has been one of the abysmal failures of the present government.
We are talking about an $8 million borrowing bill today in addition to what the government has already spent. The fiscal policy and the monetary policy of this government has helped to create the recession in this country.
What is the effect of the recession that we have just come out of? The effect of the recession is to weaken the economy of central Canada. When the economy of central Canada is weakened there is a multiple effect on the extremities of the country because the transfer payments to Atlantic Canada, for example, rely on spending across the country and on the health of the economy of central Canada.
As a result of the economic collapse or near collapse of central Canada transfer payments to the extremities of this country and to the Atlantic provinces have been reduced.
In addition to the reduction in those transfer payments the government has also reduced or frozen, which is the same thing, Established Programs Financing. In this country Established Programs Financing is what pays for post-secondary education and health. There is less money going to my province in transfer payments as a result of the recession and there is less money from Established Programs Financing, which means that all

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
post-secondary education in my province has less money to work with.
What does that mean? It means that tuition fees have increased. It means that fewer people are able to afford to go to university and post-secondary institutions. It means that the institutions in my province, and I suspect across the country or at least in many parts of the country, are starting to become institutions for the rich, for those people who can afford to go.
In addition to the increased tuition and the lack of accessibility for students across the country let us not forget that those who are affected most at a time such as this are young people in the following categories: Women, who need education the most to gain equality; native people, who need special attention and special help and are doubly affected; and disabled people. All of those categories of people who need extra attention are doubly disadvantaged by the programs and policies of this government which gave rise to the recession.
At the same time as young people have been affected workers have been affected. This government has paid lip service to training. In each of the last two budgets $100 million has been cut from the training programs available from the Department of Employment and Immigration.
The government has said that the unemployment insurance fund is supposed to take up the slack and it made changes to the unemployment insurance fund. However that has not happened. There has been a reduction in the amount of training dollars from the Department of Employment and Immigration but at the same time the slack has not taken been up by the unemployment insurance fund.
Workers in this country have less to work with at a time when they need it most because there is a direct connection between productivity and training. There is a direct connection between being competitive and having an educated work force. This is a knowledge economy. This is a time when one does not gain wealth through simple machinery, the physical work of one's hands and physical labour. One gains wealth today through knowledge. If we are going to be competitive as a country we must have a trained work force. That is essential.
We have heard every responsible leader in the world, from the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the leaders of Japan and Germany, all talk about education being number one.
George Bush wanted to be the education president. Whether or not he was is immaterial. The point is that everybody has recognized that this is paramount. Yet at this time this government has seen fit to cut back on these issues which are of most importance to us.
In this country we have a drop-out rate in secondary school of 30 per cent. There is a 30 per cent drop-out rate across this country. We have an illiteracy rate of something like 25 per cent. In some parts of the country it is more like 40 per cent.
Can we countenance these things at a time when we are in a knowledge economy and we are supposed to have an educated work force? My colleague is quite right in saying that we are asked today to agree to more spending power for a government that has spent wrongly, that has spent money on the wrong things and that has not helped the Canadian people to become competitive.
The second issue I want to talk about is another one to which the government has given lip service. It is infrastructure. Infrastructure must be a public investment. If we are going to be competitive again we must have that infrastructure.
My colleague has talked about the recent speech of my party leader in which he emphasized the importance of training and the importance of infrastructure. We on this side of the House and in this party have a plan to enable that renovation and revitalization of infrastructure across the country.
What is the attitude of the Government of Canada? In the recent budget we heard about a roads program across the country. At first blush it seemed to be a very interesting and very attractive offer. However, the reality is that in my own riding there is a highway that is partly built which would be an excellent investment, the transLabrador highway. It would be equal to the Yukon highway in terms of what that highway has done for the Yukon territory. In Yukon tourism is the number one

industry. It has been able to build its economy, to build that industry in Yukon, but what does it need to do so? It needs infrastructure. What do we need in my area? We need infrastructure.
The Minister of Finance mentioned the trans-Labrador highway and we were all very excited. What happened? What happened was the offer of $10 million over two years. That is not all. That $10 million was to be cost shared by the province in this country which is the least able to pay. The government is asking Newfoundland and Labrador to come up with an equal amount. If that does not happen then the investment does not go ahead.
We are seeing the nickel and diming of infrastructure in this country. We are seeing lip service to an issue which is extremely important to our economy because it is an investment that will pay off. There is a way for the Government of Canada to make use of dollars it already has to build this infrastructure.
We have seen the example in the fixed link to Prince Edward Island. The proposal for the fixed link to Prince Edward Island is that we make creative use of Marine Atlantic subsidies, which are for shipping on the east coast. I am not talking about cutting out Marine Atlantic totally because we will have an ongoing need for certain ferries but we can reduce that increasingly costly service. We should look at that. We should see where else in the Atlantic provinces we can take those subsidies and put them into roads, as is happening with Prince Edward Island.
The theory behind that is that we take increasingly expensive subsidies which we will have to pay over a period of 20 or 30 years and put them into an investment, in this case a surface road link, which makes a great deal more sense and will pay off in the long run. That is the kind of thinking that we need from the government.
What have we seen? We have seen nickel and diming. We have seen $10 million over two years cost shared 50/50 with a province that cannot afford to pay and has been impacted by the recession brought on to a great degree by the timing of the government in introducing the GST and other measures.
If I were to support and ask my own people to support a government that wants to borrow another $8 billion I would be laughed out of town if I were to go back. They would say to me: "What have we seen?"
Government Orders
What have young people in my area seen in the spending policies of this government? What have construction companies seen in the spending policies of this government? What have tourist operators and fish camp operators seen in the spending policies of this government? We have not seen the kind of policy that we need to improve our position.
Nobody in the Atlantic, in spite of the failure of the fishery, wants a handout. There are things that can be done. There are economic possibilities and opportunities. We need a policy that will seize those opportunities and invest the money in the areas from which there can be an economic pay-off. However that is not within the policy of this present government and we on this side of the House will counsel voting against this particular bill.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I want to participate just briefly today because there are some interesting phenomena to observe. It was said in the last little while that the recession is over. Someone here in Ottawa decided that in a technical sense the recessionary period has ended and we are now moving on to something else.
This is all news to where I live. Where I live the recession continues. General Motors of Canada made its first major announcement of a cutback in its work force in the Oshawa plant. Almost 1,500 workers will be dislocated in some way by the end of March. Housing starts, although a growth area, are not still not what most people would like them to be. In the retail sector there is still not that kind of movement. People are still reluctant to spend, even though during the Christmas period there seemed to be some relief. However, in general economic terms the recession is still with us.
What can governments do to participate in speeding up the recovery period? What can they do that will be sensible and sensitive?
I suppose that we all look to the south where there is a new president trying to introduce some new policies. They do not seem to be in place yet. Initially at least they seem to reflect that the ability of our free trade agreement to protect us from conflicts, or at least to resolve conflicts, seems to have misfired somewhat. In major sectors such as steel we are in a punitive stage again, even though this was not supposed to happen and despite the fact that in a technical sense it was dealt with in a different way than in the free trade agreement. In

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
my part of the country, in southern Ontario, we are still feeling some very negative effects from that recessionary period, from that entry into a free trade agreement with the United States, and from the uncertainty of what a North American free trade agreement will bring.
For us in southern Ontario times are still pretty tough. It is difficult to convince our shopkeepers that the recession is over. It is certainly very difficult to talk to auto workers. Among those who are taking the layoff now are young men and women who have assumed mortgages, have assumed responsibility for educating children, are trying to maintain a family, and thought they had a relatively secure lifestyle but now find that it is all dislocated again.
There is still reasoned apprehension, not doom and gloom. People are worried about their own economic future.
On the good side there seems to be a bit of a resurgence from the private sector and local government. People are saying that they should not look for big handouts from somewhere else but should try to determine what would be a sensible thing to do. Members have talked a little bit about some of them so far today.
In my area there is an airport that needs a little bit of work done. The local municipal government was examining that and trying to decide if there was some assistance available to expedite that process. It was also looking at our harbour. These are our transportation modes. Now is a rational time to try to do something about that. It is important to note that.
Around Ontario one of the things that has impressed me in the last little while is that the Government of Ontario, although it is hard to tell this by reading the Toronto papers, has decided that there are some government initiatives that must be undertaken. Even though in a traditional sense the Government of Ontario, like every other provincial government across Canada, is strapped for cash it is now beginning to proceed with those announcements and is looking at some non-traditional ways to finance them. For example, it is looking to the private sector to participate in the funding of public highways because it is the private sector that, with everyone else, uses them to make a profit. It is looking at
experimenting with the idea of a toll system for highways which we have not used in Ontario for quite some time.
What it comes down to is: If one is faced with the decision of making a major transportation announcement and there is a shortfall of cash is it not a better course of action to try to find a non-traditional way to finance that and to proceed with the actual construction?
I think it is, because we need the transportation links. Sometimes they are subway systems in places like metropolitan Toronto. In some places they are new highways, such as highway 407 running through much of eastern Ontario. Sometimes it is a connecting link like highway 416 from Ottawa to highway 401.
All of these are difficult to do in the traditional way because the government in Ontario lacks the sources of revenue. Like every other government it is in hard times. It should get this kind of accommodation. It has not given up on the task. It has attempted to find different ways of doing this. Maybe it is not the traditional way but it has two little hallmarks that are worth noting.
One is identifying this as a good thing to do. It is not just having our own staff saying that is what ought to be done but listening to the needs of the general public, of the private sector and of local government to try to establish what kinds of expenditures are necessary. What would be the spin-off effects of that? What kind of jobs would be created? What other problems would be resolved, in come cases environmental problems?
Perhaps what I ask governments to do these days is a very unusual thing, but they should start the process of trying to assist in an economic recovery by listening. Listen to those around us who are in a position to identify for us what would be a sensible expenditure of public funds at this time and entertain some non-traditional ways of doing that.
I see this government cutting back in very traditional conservative terms by being punitive to people. It is cutting people off benefits for this, that and the other thing. I wish I could believe this would solve all of Canada's economic problems but I do not believe it will. I do not think the kind of punitive action such as it is promoting under the changes to the unemployment insurance system serves a positive function in our society. I suppose a hot line could be set up to have everybody turn in their neighbours. A few bucks will be
February 11, 1993

saved here and there, but I bet the operation of the hot line will probably take away any cash benefits received.
I would like to see this government and governments across Canada take a more positive stance. I know that education is a long-standing problem in many parts of the country and our educational systems are big institutions. I am happy to see that in many locations around Ontario we are beginning for the first time to understand that these systems cannot operate in splendid isolation. They have to work together. There has to be a sense of co-operation and a sense of need from the community up to determine how the system is run and what those young men and women do after they have gone through a period of learning new skills. If there is no job at the end of that it becomes a rather hollow exercise.
There are some good signs ahead for us but it would be folly to insist that because some bureaucrat in Ottawa has decided that the recessionary period has ended that it actually has. It has not as yet. There will be a need for governments to continue to do things but to do sensible things and to do them with some sensitivity.
One of the greatest follies politics brings about is that some political party thinks it is so bright, so smart that it is the only one in the world that has the right idea about what to do. I do not think any person in our society believes that anymore. They should not because it is simply not true.
The political process as I understand it works well when a great many people are involved in the day-to-day decision-making process. When it decides that it does not have a comer on the market of intelligence and that it can reach out to the rest of our society, listen to what its needs are, listen to what its ideas are and break from traditional ways of doing things then that would be a unique thing for governments across Canada to do.
I am happy to say I see some signs of it occurring in provinces like my own. I encourage it to happen in other provinces across Canada. Most of all, I encourage this government to change its ways. Simply stop and think and listen to the rest of Canada and see what it can do of a positive nature to help the men and women across
Government Orders
Canada who are still feeling the effects of this recessionary period.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the parliamentary secretary has come into the Elouse. It is nice to have one member on the Conservative side to listen to the debate. I have always taken the view, even when I was a student of Parliament, that ministers of the Crown ought to be here during a debate on a government bill. I have raised that point frequently in the House, but I am searching in vain to find one.
The fact is that this is an important measure. The government is asking for authority from this House to borrow an additional $8 billion that frankly this House should be very reluctant to allow the government to borrow. It has borrowed far too much at the cost of Canadians already in the eight and a half years it has been in office.
It is time for a change. Canadians want a change and they want a chance to express that change in an election. The government persists in coming to this House with legislation instead of going to the people and allowing them to express their views on the government's maladministration, its destruction of the Government of Canada for the last nine years. It has done a great deal of damage to our government systems, as everyone well knows.
I want to turn and look at the record of fiscal mismanagement that this government is engaged in and of which this bill is the product. I neglected to say that this is the second borrowing bill in this financial year that the government has brought before this House. Normally, just so people listening to this understand, the government comes once a year with a budget and asks for borrowing authority in an amount sufficient to enable it to borrow whatever money it needs to get a balanced budget in the course of the year.
This year, because it was so wrong in its projections in the first budget it has had to come back with a second borrowing bill and ask for an additional $8 billion. That is really quite unsatisfactory. It shows a complete lack of competence on the part of the government, the Minister of Finance and his advisers in the cabinet, particularly his

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
cabinet colleagues, in their organization of the business of both this House and the Government of Canada.
Recently the government issued, as I think it does monthly, The Fiscal Monitor. It revealed some very interesting statistics. Normally when statistics are damaging to the government it presents them in a different way so it does not look so bad. This government is notorious for doing that.
It will normally show, for example, a graph on the deficit. It starts it in 1984 and runs it to 1992 or 1993 as it would be now. It tries to show that really over the years it has been in office things have improved, or it will go back to some earlier date when things were particularly bad in its view and then show the decline since.
The government always picks on a year like 1983, 1984 or 1980. It goes to the previous recession and then shows how much better things are today, or something like that. That is always the aim in the graphs it chooses. It has the option of choosing any date it wants, so it picks up one of these early dates and in effect fudges the graph. Then Canadians think things are better when in fact they are worse.
In this particular issue of The Fiscal Monitor, something slipped through the net because there are a few facts in it that are important and are not really explained to Canadians in any of the government statements. I suspect that somebody is going to get fired for having put this in The Fiscal Monitor after I use it in my speech. I am sony about that, but it is a public document and I think it is worth drawing attention to this. I am sure that the Minister of Finance is going to come down on this group of people like a ton of lead bricks.
The Fiscal Monitor points out that personal income tax revenue from this year over last year for the same period has declined by 3.5 per cent. Given the large number of unemployed people, that is hardly surprising. People are not earning so much so tax revenues are down.
Corporate tax revenues have plunged 16 per cent. Again given the lack of profits because of the Tory-induced recession we are enduring in this country, that is not surprising either. Corporate profits are at some of the lowest levels on record.
Also, we have unemployment insurance contributions. What do you think happened to unemployment insurance contributions? Do you have any idea? They went up. There are fewer people employed generally than there were before. There is a lot of unemployment in Canada.
It will be found in the employment statistics that the numbers are down over the period. In spite of that there is a 16 per cent increase in unemployment insurance payments, that is receipts, income from unemployment insurance premiums. Why is that? It is because of the increases in the rates. This government has jacked up the rates two or three times. They are very significant increases. Now it is proposing to change it so that people who have paid all this money into the unemployment insurance scheme will not be able to collect when they lose their job.
That is what the government is doing. It is in effect hiking the rates. It has an additional 16 per cent year over year increase at the very time when it is proposing to reduce the benefits that will be paid out of this scheme to people who have lost their jobs. Talk about hardhearted. Talk about the wrong time to do it. It could not be worse. Yet the government comes to this House and says it wants more borrowing authority.
Let us look at some of the other figures. The goods and services tax, the tax that was supposed to save us from everything, was well concealed during the election campaign in 1988 and then brought forward with fanfare as the great thing. Of course the government brought it in at the worst possible time. Almost every economist in the country denounced the government for its timing on the thing. It has brought in less money in 1992-93 so far than it did in 1991-92, 4 per cent less. It is not a big difference, but Canadians are not spending. Everybody knows that. Many of them have lost their jobs and so they are not spending money.
Sales and excise taxes and duties have gone up 24.5 per cent. Do you think it might have anything to do with cross-border shopping? Do you think it might have to do with the collection duties at the border as people come back from their shopping trips abroad? One suspects so. There is a 24 per cent increase in sales and excise taxes and duties.
February 11, 1993

Those are rough figures that were contained in the most recent The Fiscal Monitor. Those figures are important for Canadians because they show the way the government approaches people in this country. It has in effect suffered a reduction in corporate taxation and it certainly has not had any significant increase in corporate taxation for many years.
However, it has significantly increased the very regressive and very expensive unemployment insurance premiums. It has brought about a substantial increase in those so that revenues from that source are up very significantly, and at the same time it is proposing to reduce the benefits that are payable presumably so it can earn some kind of profit on the unemployment insurance fund.
This is an unsatisfactory way for the government to operate. We have said so before. Opposition members, as I said the other day in the debate on this bill, are getting tired of having to say it over and over again. The sooner we have an election the sooner we will be able to stop saying it because we will get rid of this group opposite who are doing so much damage to Canadians and to the economy.
I want to turn to the criticism that members opposite have made of our party. They claim with the goods and services tax alternatives we have bandied about that we have not put any firm proposal before Canadians and will not. They say that is unfair and wrong.
Of course, the proposal on the GST that the government discussed during the 1988 election was vague too. It was supposed to be a tax on everything. When Canadians realized there was going to be a tax on food and we criticized and pointed this out to Canadians, the government changed that so that there would be no tax on food.
When it brought the tax in it was not just food that was to be not taxed. It took the GST off basic groceries. Canadians all around this country know that food is taxed. If we go to a restaurant we pay GST on our bill. Every Canadian knows that. A restaurateur certainly knows it because it drives up the cost of the food in the restaurant significantly in relation to the cost of buying the food elsewhere.
The Canadian restaurant industry knows a lot about the GST. Of course restaurateurs face the difficulties of collection. It is collection of the GST that represents one
Government Orders
of the most significant costs to Canadians and to the Canadian economy. It is one of the most inefficient taxes because it does not dovetail with the other sales taxes levied in this country by the provincial governments.
We have the spectacle in Ontario of small businesses having to maintain three sets of books: one for items that are subject to only the GST, one for items that are subject only to provincial sales tax, and one for items that are subject to both taxes. It is inefficient. It is wickedly expensive. Many small businesses have been forced to hire an accountant or some person to keep books for them only because the GST was brought in.
It was the wrong tax at the wrong time and it is still the wrong tax. I am very pleased to say that our party will look at alternatives and will consult with people on alternatives.
I see the hon. parliamentary secretary, the only Conservative in the House, has perked up his ears and is paying attention to this. I invite him to pay very close attention because this is quite important. I want the hon. member to relax because he will enjoy this solution. It will be very good for him. If he manages to get reelected in the coming onslaught then he will be here and perhaps he will get on the proposed committee.
In a new parliament our proposal would be to mandate an all-party House of Commons finance committee to consult Canadians and provincial governments on all options to replace the GST and report within 12 months. Our plan would be to get a new tax that generates equivalent revenues, that is fair to consumers, that is easier to administer for small business, and that promotes federal-provincial co-operation.
Those are the objectives of our tax policy. That is what we will be looking for after the next election.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, my point of order concerns what the member for Kingston and the Islands said at the beginning of his speech, when he mentioned that I was the only government member present on this side of the House.
I would remind him that when he began his speech he was also the only member of his party present on his side of the House. Given the experience that the member for Kingston and the Islands has, he must know that the

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
custom of this House is not to refer to the absence or presence of members.
Furthermore, I would remind him that the government agreed to extend the debate between one and two o'clock, which is normally the hour when members have lunch or go about other business that they have scheduled. So I think it is normal that if the House is sitting at that time members are going about other business that they have already scheduled, especially if the extended hours for debate were not planned.
The purpose of this extra hour of debate is to give opposition members and others a chance to speak and the member for Kingston and the Islands took advantage of this extension. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out to you that his remarks were out of place, to say the least.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would appreciate it very much if the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would be so kind as to drop this point of order. He has twice mentioned the absence of some members in this House. I did not see fit to interrupt him at that time, so that we could have as much time as possible to debate the important bill before us. The hon. parliamentary secretary made some remarks. If the hon. member still wants to speak I will of course recognize him, but I would not want this exchange to degenerate into a debate on something other than the bill now under consideration.
The hon. member has the floor.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary said that I had erred in my remarks because I said that only one member of his party was present. I certainly did not say that all the others were away. I only pointed out that he was here and that is why you did not interrupt me.
The other thing he said is that the government agreed to extend the debate over lunch hour and that is not correct. The government forced this House to continue sitting because there were not enough members here to prevent the government from continuing its deliberations over lunch hour. That is why-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: To prevent this from really becoming a debate perhaps the members would agree to call this exchange a tie. Anyway, I think that we are already in overtime.


Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, it is rather sorrowful we have to continue debate on Bill C-98 respecting the borrowing authority of this government, because we have lost so many debates on this side of the House against the government. Everybody in the country knows we have a government that is incompetent and unable to govern with policies that benefit the people and do so in a fiscally responsible manner.
When we look back at the economic statement or the mini budget presented in December we see that the government is not only fiscally irresponsible but is bankrupt of ideas on how to help turn around that situation. In the last years of governing the government has more than doubled the national debt. The government said in February 1992 that the deficit was going to be in the order of $25 billion this year and in fact it ended up by announcing that it would be $7 billion more than that.
If we as individual Canadians were not able to budget better than that all of us without exception would be bankrupt. This government has constantly put its emphasis on the cutting of programs in order to deal with the debt and deficit. Cutting the legs out from beneath the people of this country is not going to help to reduce the deficit and the debt of this country; what we need to do is create wealth.
This government in its statement in December, instead of trying to find new ways to generate growth and create wealth by lending some support to municipal infrastructure programs, took the dreadful measure of making further cuts to the unemployment insurance program, thereby making the poorest people pay for the ineptness of this government. Those people who are least able to pay are being asked to pay the burden of this government's wrong-headed policies and ideas.
February 11, 1993

We have had a lot of debate in recent days about the unemployment insurance changes. The economic statement stated that people who quit their jobs without just cause will not be able to receive UI benefits and that these changes to the unemployment insurance program are going to save the government $2.4 billion. Besides being a morally bankrupt policy it is also wrong-headed. There are other ways for the government to save some money. It could have made some changes to unemployment insurance to look after the problems which the Prime Minister raised yesterday concerning people who do take advantage of the system. The bulk of people who are going to be negatively affected by these unemployment insurance changes grieve what the government is about to do. It makes our situation in this country worse.
I have heard from many constituents in my riding of Northumberland who have spoken about this. I have spoken to people who work on commission, people who sell life insurance policies. Many of these people in recent times have found themselves newly employed by insurance companies selling insurance policies and they are paid a commission based on their sales. The companies set specific targets for them. Many of these people were recently unemployed and this is a new form of employment for them. They are learning the ropes. If their companies find that they cannot reach the target, which is very difficult to achieve in recessionary times, then they lose their jobs. These people would not be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. People who have never before in their whole lives had to take advantage of unemployment insurance benefits find themselves ineligible.
As I said, there are things that the government could be doing in the area of unemployment insurance to improve the situation in this country. However the government will not do them and many people have lost confidence in this government. They are convinced that the government is wasteful. I want to quote from a letter from one of my constituents which I received recently. It points out the source of this lack of confidence in the government and the policies it takes. This constituent has recently become unemployed and states that she was taking university courses part time to upgrade her education so that she could get a better job and would no longer be required to ask for unemployment insurance.
Government Orders
She told the unemployment insurance person who was looking after her that she was taking courses on a part time basis, and that to make up for the part-time courses she was taking she was willing to work in the evenings and on weekends. Because her courses cut into her daytime work it was not allowed. Therefore, she was cut off unemployment insurance. She was penalized for being honest with these people.
She says: "First of all, honesty does not pay and second, UIC discriminates against those they will not assist". Then she goes on to talk about her husband who was laid off from his job but was offered employment in northwestern Ontario. He went to the employment office to see if it could provide funds to assist him to get to his job.
He was told that normally there would be assistance but the fund was empty and he would not get anything. If he had gone on UIC benefits for five or six months there were funds for that but no funds to help him travel to a job in northwestern Ontario. However, he was able to borrow funds to travel to this job and work, even though it meant splitting up the family for months at a time. For the Canadian government it means there is one less person collecting UIC benefits. She went on to ask: "Does the system help those who are really willing to work? It appears not". That is just one example.
I get many letters from constituents who have good ideas about how systems can be more helpful, how the government can reduce waste. I believe, as my colleague said in relation to the GST, that this government must do a lot more consulting before it slashes and cuts any more.
I have a lot of concerns about the fact that this government does not do the proactive things to help increase wealth in this country. We have not seen the promised adjustment programs we require. There is some training but each time the government announces training the money is coming out of unemployment insurance funds. After the government's unemployment insurance bill of a few years ago it no longer contributes to the fund. It takes training funds out of the funds that are contributed only by employers and employees.
We need more training. We need more research and development. We need more assistance to adjust in this country. We need to have this government working together with provincial and municipal levels of govern-

ment, with management and labour, to find new solutions and new wealth creation opportunities.
I cannot close my comments on this bill today without mentioning the unconscionable cut to international development assistance. This government has cut over $4 billion in international development assistance since 1988. Our Prime Minister went to Rio, spoke there of how important it is that the north help the south, how important it is for their well-being. He also acknowledges that it has a lot to do with our well-being. Yet he consistently and repeatedly cuts our government's support to underdeveloped and Third World nations. We cannot for the health of our planet continue with these constant cuts.
There are many people in this country who are suffering today from the cuts of this government. We urge the government to reconsider its position, to be more proactive and to come to this House with proposals. Consultation has already taken place and we really do not need more on many issues. We have done a lot. The government has the information it requires. We have made many suggestions and put forward ideas in the House in debate for years now. We urge the government to act on some of those recommendations and bring about programs that will produce wealth in this country, help improve the economy and get people back to work. We cannot urge the government strongly enough to change its approach in governing this country.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to statements by members.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. 0.31
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, last week I called on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to give a clear and unequivocal commitment regarding the future of her department and its employees, as well as veterans who are served by this department'.
At that time and again today in Charlottetown the minister made a statement assuring the employees and the veterans there would be no program cuts and there would be no staff cuts to the department. I believe this is
encouraging news for Charlottetown, for Hillsborough, for Prince Edward Island and for Canada.
With that in mind I have to ask the minister to do one more thing. In light of the fact that a directive from a Privy Council official indicated a further cut of 10 per cent could be expected in all departments, the government House leader, upon being confronted with this, would not deny that there would be cuts to programs and staff.
Therefore I ask the minister if she will come into the House and make a clear and unequivocal statement in support of Canada's veterans and the employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs who serve them so well.


NATIONAL BURNS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to urge all members of the House and indeed all Canadians to recognize and lend their support to National Bums Awareness Week from February 7 to 13, 1993.
Bum injuries are a leading cause of accidental death in Canada with children, the elderly and disabled Canadians being at the highest risk. Most bum injuries and deaths can be prevented by increased public awareness and education. Bum prevention through education means greater use of smoke detectors, increased home escape planning, teaching children not to try to hide from fire, and training and techniques such as stop, drop and roll'.
Prevention through education will result in many lives being saved and great reductions in suffering.
Finally, I wish to thank the members of the Shrine of North America, including the Canadian chairman, Mr. Don Bumard of Sarnia, Ontario, as well as all fire-fighters across Canada, for their hard work and dedication and for supporting and promoting National Bums Awareness Week.


NATIONAIR
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, in this House on February 3 the Prime Minister in response to questions with regard to a plant in Atlantic Canada locking its doors and moving out in the middle of the night made some disparaging comments about that
February 11, 1993

company and the kind of corporate mentality that existed there.
I want to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister another company in Canada that deserves the same kind of commentary from the Prime Minister. I am speaking of Nationair.
Nationair locked out its workers in November 1991 and has refused during that whole period to bargain fairly and faithfully with the workers. It has gone so far as to reject the mediator's recommendations time and time again even though the workers at Nationair are getting less than one-half of what their colleagues at Air Canada or Canadian are getting. At the same time Nationair thumbed its nose at the Minister of Transport who requested the aviation industry in this country to reduce its capacity. Nationair responded by cutting into the already in jeopardy bottom line of Air Canada and Canadian. Six hundred passengers a day were siphoned off Air Canada alone.
On the other hand the government by itself is involved because it has an ongoing contract with Nationair to transport military personnel from Canada to overseas. It has just entered into a contract to supply hangar services to a Nationair subsidiary. Finally, it has seconded a person from Transport Canada to work for the company.
I think it is time the Prime Minister took charge of this file and did something about Nationair.


MEMBER FOR SKEENA
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, in a recent letter to his constituents, or rather in his householder paid for with taxpayers' money, the NDP member for Skeena said: "The bad news is that the choice will be between the Liberals led by a Quebec leader and the Conservatives also led by a Quebec leader".
How can the New Democratic Party endorse such remarks and how can the member for Chambly remain silent in the face of these remarks by his colleague from Skeena?
The member for Skeena has made clearly unacceptable remarks. Quebec is one of the cultural and social treasures of this country, but the New Democratic Party does not seem to recognize that fact.
We do have a Prime Minister who hails from Quebec-and we are proud of that-and is working hard for the well-being of all Canadians.
The hon. member for Skeena should make a public retraction.
* *


BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, as North America celebrates Black History Month this February it is a special time not just for the black community but for all North Americans.
As a Montrealer I am proud that the celebrations started here, highlighting the black community's notable contributions to Montreal life and to the wonderful tapestry of Canada's diversity.
Who among us would not benefit from understanding the role of black Canadians in every facet of Canadian life in science, music, dance, business, labour and athletics through events such as seminars on Olivier Lejeune, a Metis interpreter and the first known black to have been brought to New France in 1628.
It is important too that children are being involved through writing contests for this special month to help everyone understand the multicultural nature of Canada.
Given the strife and racial conflict today, we hope Black History Month fosters through knowledge mutual respect regardless of race, religion, gender or language.
What better foundations are there than awareness and understanding to build the sturdy bridges that will bond the diversity within our society and help eradicate systemic discrimination for a tomorrow of fairness and equality for all.
I ask for unanimous consent of the House to table the Op-Ed page of today's Citizen which highlights "Some facts about black history in Canada" and that this text be

February 11, 1993
appended to today's Hansard as a wonderful learning tool for everyone.


DRUG STRATEGY
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, over the past two decades education has played a crucial role in reducing tobacco use and impaired driving.
Much of the success was due to concerted efforts by government, the media, police forces and our schools. Today, in order to combat the serious harm of drug use and trafficking such as death by overdose or even murder, violence, lawlessness like break and enter and prostitution and the economic costs for society, a similar thrust has been initiated through Canada's drug strategy.
Canada's drug strategy works in part with law enforcement and the courts to battle the drug trade. It is through education that demand for drugs will be reduced. With no demand dealers will go broke.
Canada's drug strategy is everyone's concern and everyone's business. All Canadians from parents and teachers to community workers and police working together are needed to make this strategy work.
I urge the government to increase its efforts and heighten Canada's awareness to eliminate the scourge of drugs.


THE ECONOMY
Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, today our Liberal leader has outlined the Liberal Party's approach to economic growth in the 1990s. Here are some of the highlights.
A Liberal government will shift the focus from a shrinking economy to a growing economy. This means jobs with a future and industries with a future. A Liberal government will focus on fiscal responsibility and call for unwavering discipline in expenditure control.
A Liberal government will take a balanced approach to inflation and growth. A Liberal government will promote federal-provincial fiscal co-operation. The Toiy or Conservative practice of off-loading the federal debt to the
provinces can no longer continue. Debt is debt to all Canadians.
A Liberal government will focus on making Canada's work force second to none. A Liberal government will challenge Canada's major banks to give small business a break. We will develop concrete measures to facilitate the growth of our economy.
We congratulate our leader on a program which will put Canadians first.


GREAT WHALE RIVER PROJECT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely surprised and profoundly disappointed by the remarks the NDP member for Skeena made in a video shown to the energy and environment committee of the New Hampshire Senate. In this video the NDP member urged Americans not to buy electricity produced in Quebec, electricity coming from James Bay Phase II installations because:

"There is blood on that electricity".

Not only does the NDP member for Skeena make assumptions about the outcome of the ongoing environmental assessment of the Great Whale River project but he is joining in the chorus of people who are systematically defaming the evaluation process used in Canada and in Quebec, while everyone agrees that the guidelines applied by the commission on the Great Whale River project are the most thorough and rigorous ever seen not only in Quebec but in the United States as well. Even the International Water Tribunal has recognized the value and reliability of the evaluation process used for the Great Whale River project.
I formally request that the NDP member for Skeena withdraw his remarks on the Quebec workers involved in the Great Whale River project and that steps be taken to ensure that the video in question not be shown again in the United States, or elsewhere for that matter.
February 11, 1993


FREE TRADE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, Conservative members attending the NAFTA committee hearings were outraged that Bob White dared bring to committee 20 unemployed Canadians representing the evidence of Tory economic policies, including the free trade agreement.
Extra security was mobilized to control the threat. One Tory insisted on knowing who paid their way and then tried to recruit them to the new neighbourhood snitch program of the new PC KGB to capture UI cheaters.
Not a single Tory asked Lorraine Wilkinson of Windsor how after 24 years at Champion Sparkplug it felt to see her job and her husband's job at Kelsey-Hayes move to the United States. Not one Tory considered that any of the concerns of the 20 unemployed or the thousands represented by the CLC were worth even slowing down the corporate agenda for gaining cheap labour in Mexico through the NAFTA at the expense of workers in Canada.
The workers were unanimous: NAFTA has to go. The FTA has to go. And the Tories will go.


CANADA POST
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud Canada Post for its announcement on Monday of a new customer service call centre to be established in Fredericton to consolidate its telephone inquiry operations for eastern Canada as a means of improving and expanding postal services to customers.
This will be one of three locations serving all of Canada in these respects and will open in the spring of 1993.
This will be a new state of the art telecommunications centre and is expected to employ over 100 people once all phases are in operation.
This development is an example of the way in which federal privatization policies are working to enhance public services on a competitive cost basis. It is an
investment decision which demonstrates great confidence in New Brunswick and particularly in the people of the Fredericton-York-Sunbury community, and one which I hope that other major telemarketing companies will be emulating in coming months.


REFUGEES
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have shown that they are not interested in listening to those who argue that Canada must change its refugee policy.
Perhaps ministers will listen to their former colleague, Miss Flora MacDonald, my predecessor as member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands. Noting that the government spends about $300 million processing the
50,000	refugees who come here each year while donating only $20 million a year to help those trapped in refugee camps world-wide Miss MacDonald said in a recent interview that she is "appalled by this allocation of resources".
Canadians are also appalled by the government's apparent inability to help those in dire need. While we must assist those refugees who make it to our shores, often jumping the line, we ignore the millions more who are trapped in poverty and famine.
I urge the Minister of Finance to listen to the views expressed by his former cabinet colleague and provide adequate funding to those agencies who help refugees around the globe. We need more bang for the buck in our efforts to assist refugees.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians again have been misled and manipulated by the CBC with its blatantly biased accounting of the activities surrounding the wolf hunt in the Yukon.
Anyone knowing the facts of the wolf and wildlife population in Yukon will agree with the decision made and the actions about to be taken by the Yukon government. Leader John Os-Ta-Shek is correct when he describes the planned wolf cull as responsible wildlife management.

February 11, 1993
Oral Questions
Let us not allow green activists or pink CBC journalists to confuse the issue. If a cull of 150 wolves is not undertaken an entire region will be depopulated of caribou, moose, elk and sheep and that is a fact.
The CBC should be fostering understanding of this issue and educating those environmentalists who know little of the wilderness of Yukon.
With its coverage this week I do not know why it chose to highlight the activities of the American greens in Alaska and the potential for confrontation.
Cheap journalism that smacks of irresponsibility provides for no understanding of the natural habitat of this region.
Canadians deserve better of the CBC, better information for the viewership and better coverage for Yukoners who are attempting to deal with a very difficult problem.


JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the most recent judicial appointment in Manitoba is causing great concern to Manitobans. It has sent off to the Court of Queen's Bench a prominent Conservative, a friend of the Prime Minister, a man out of legal harness for 15 years.
An appointment of this kind does nothing for the good name of the judicial selection committee in Manitoba.
Was the committee given its marching orders? We may never know.
This appointment sends a disturbing signal to the dozens of qualified men and women who are prepared to serve on the bench. Hard work and first-rate qualifications mean nothing if the powers that be play politics.
At last count only three of the 25 positions on the Court of Queen's Bench in Manitoba were filled by women. I am told that 14 women lawyers have applied for judicial positions. It is likely that all have been approved by the selection committee. However, they were ignored in favour of a pal of the Prime Minister, a man who apparently sees the bench as his penultimate resting place and was quoted as saying: "I am a tired kind of guy".
Manitoba deserves better.


THE LIBERAL PARTY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party has failed miserably in his attempts to come up with an alternative to the GST.
The Liberals got a lot of political mileage by initially opposing the goods and services tax, but the Liberals' alternative to the GST is deceptive, expensive and would hurt those most in need.
As reported in The Ottawa Citizen on February 2, 1993, the Liberal Party is considering a hidden sales tax to replace the highly visible GST. There are a number of problems with this option proposed by the Liberals. The major problem is that basic groceries would be taxed. This would hurt those Canadians most in need.
Also the Grit sneaky tax, or GST, would be hidden. Consumers would not know how much tax they were paying each time they made a purchase, thereby making it easier to raise that tax when required.
They are not going to tell us too much now about the GST, the Grit sneaky tax. They want to get elected first.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
The minister thinks he is the top cop of UIPD. He wants to set up a 1-800 ratfink line for anonymous accusers. The minister must know that the idea of anonymous accusers went out with the disappearance of the KGB.
Why is the government pursuing a deliberate policy of portraying unemployed Canadians as liars and cheats?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, there will be no 1-800 snitch line. The suggestion had been made by members and other people but the government is not of the view that
February 11, 1993

it is necessary to have that kind of operation in this country to enforce the provisions of the act.
Canadians are responsible people. They should be encouraged to individually act responsibly, which the vast majority of them do.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, we are glad the minister reversed yesterday's policy to create a "1-800-rat-fink" line. The fact remains, however, that for the past few months he has been suggesting across Canada that the unemployed are people who cheat the system and do not want to work.
I would like to ask the minister this: What specific policies does he have in mind to help the unemployed, instead of punishing them with his policies on unemployment insurance?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Liberal Party's policy which prefers to remain oblivious to the tax burden on Canadian workers, this government has frozen employer and employee premiums. We have increased funding for worker training to help these people get back into the labour market. I do believe that the unemployed are best served by a government that protects the integrity of this system.
Only a Liberal would argue that today in 1993, with the current high rate of unemployment, a person who leaves his job voluntarily, without provocation, without just cause, without reasonable grounds, is entitled to benefits. They would ask other workers and employers to pay those benefits. That may be the position of the Liberal Party, but it is not the position of Canadians or this government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the minister, who unfortunately is continuing his vicious attack on unemployed Canadians-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is obviously a matter of great concern to the hon. member and members on both sides of the House, but I would ask the hon. member to use appropriate language in putting the question to the minister.
Oral Questions


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister how in the name of all that is decent could he ever consider a policy which would deny unemployment insurance to those thousands of Canadians who, in the case of 3,000 Dofasco workers, have chosen voluntary retirement to save jobs for their fellow workers? How could he ever consider a proposal to deny those workers benefits?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may say whatever she wants but the law will be enforced. The law provides that no person in Canada will be denied unemployment insurance benefits if that person has no reasonable alternative but to quit his or her job and that will not change.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, officials of the minister's department seem to be saying something quite different. In point of fact, with companies that adjust to the market economy, trim their payroll and pay severance to employees it has now been determined by CEIC that these very same employees will be classified as quitters, hence, no unemployment insurance.
Will the minister clarify for the House why this government has chosen to hit these older workers at the very time they are in the greatest need?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is concerned about the truth. He will know, or maybe he does not, that the Federal Court of Canada has already interpreted the provisions of the act. The act is clear. This Parliament has decided that any person in Canada who quits a job because there are no reasonable alternatives to quitting will be entitled to his or her benefits and that will not change.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that is quite a twist on words. The minister knows full well these severances I am referring to are not voluntary severances. Workers take them because they have no other choice. That is the reality in many parts of this country.
Is it fair for these older workers, the steel workers in Hamilton, miners in Nova Scotia, plant workers in British Columbia, textile workers in Quebec, to be denied benefits when their severance is through no fault of their own?

February 11, 1993
Oral Questions


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, again for the benefit of the member and maybe to enlighten him, I quote: "For the purposes of this section, just cause for voluntarily leaving an employment exists where having regard to all the circumstances the claimant had no reasonable alternative to immediately leaving the employment".
In any situation in Canada where a person has no reasonable alternative but to quit his or her job then that person is protected.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.

Every day, hundreds of people lose their jobs across the country. The lucky ones are offered a voluntary loss of employment with severance pay.
The minister just said it was possible for these workers to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
As of April 1 this year the government's proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act would deprive these people of benefits after the severance period. Loss of employment, whether voluntary or not, means just that, and it is hard to take. Why should these people who contributed to the Unemployment Insurance Fund be deprived of what is rightly theirs?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, for the umpteenth time, in Canada a person who leaves his job because he has no reasonable alternative will be protected under the Unemployment Insurance Act, as he is now.
The hon. member rises in the House to claim in front of Canadians that for those who are eligible for unemployment insurance benefits the issue of just cause will be different after April 1, while that is absolutely false. The only difference is that to protect the integrity of the unemployment insurance fund and protect taxpayers across the country the government has decided that anyone who without provocation, without reason, without just cause, leaves a job should not expect other
Canadians to pay his benefits. I think that is a position Canadians support.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to attack the unemployed and to say that those people who have a choice to take early severance or early leave will receive benefits. I suggest to him that he would like to talk to the director of public affairs for employment and immigration who has said the opposite. I will leave that with the minister.
Yesterday the minister said that he was welcoming the idea of a hot line or a snitch line for UI cheaters. Today he says he does not. I guess it shows one day makes a big difference.
I hope the minister comes to my office in Whitehorse and takes the hundreds of calls we get weekly from workers who simply want the benefits due to them. They are not fraudulent. They are not cheaters. They are laid-off miners who are suffering, who cannot get their benefits for eight or 10 weeks. Laid-off miners in Faro and Watson Lake, Yukon are still waiting after eight weeks to get their benefits.
If the minister wants to talk on the phone, this is where he-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put the question.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Will the minister stop attacking the unemployed, start addressing unemployment in this country and make sure that workers get the benefits they are owed?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it may seem politically expedient for the hon. member to twist the fact that yesterday at the suggestion of members and others I said I would consider any suggestion. The difference between her members and mine is that we are making suggestions to improve the situation. I do not think she should have a problem with that.
As for the people in her riding or anywhere in Canada,
I want to assure Canadians that the Unemployment Insurance Act will continue to be implemented fairly. If there are ways we can improve the way the act is
February 11, 1993

administered, the intent is not to deprive good hardworking Canadians of the benefits they are entitled to. It is simply a measure to try to protect the taxpayers, the workers and the employers who pay into this account.
All we are saying is that a person who voluntarily without any reason whatsoever wants to quit his or her job should not ask other Canadians to pay the benefits.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the government has said the UI cuts will save $300 million this year. The Auditor General through the Department of National Revenue has said that the government could save $1.2 billion a year by cutting down on income tax fraud.
As the minister wants suggestions, I will give him some. Kill this UI bill that is simply punishing workers. Instead of giving a club to the little guy, why not give him a carrot? Make sure that the unemployed get the benefits due to them. Cut down on tax fraud. Far more money will be saved for the Canadian taxpayers. They are really who the minister is worried about.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to read the royal commission report from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador on the UI system.
The hon. member would be well advised to take into account the impact of the Unemployment Insurance Act in certain regions of the country and what it does to our people. This is also about trying to foster self-sufficiency among Canadians and avoiding measures that create dependency.
I know the hon. member for political reasons wants everybody to believe they will be deprived of rights, but I can assure Canadians who have no alternative but to quit their jobs that they will be fully protected under the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that between October 1991 and September 1992, 44,539 claims for UI benefits in Quebec were challenged and the claimants were subject to penalties varying from 7 to 12 weeks. If the proposed UI reform had been in effect during that period, these
Oral Questions
44,539 claimants would have had no income in a province where unemployment is about 13 per cent.
Does the minister think that these 44,539 Quebecers are cheaters?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we never, and I never, called someone a cheater for voluntarily quitting a job for no reason, quite the contrary. Far be it from me to call that person a cheater for only taking advantage of the provisions of the act.
Right now there is indeed an incentive in the legislation which encourages people to quit their job for no reason. These people rely on other workers and employers to pay them benefits.
All we are saying is that today, given that we must protect the UI fund and the integrity of the system, we can no longer afford to pay benefits to people who, without provocation or reason, quit their job for no just cause. That is all.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps referring to the notion of just cause.


Mr. Corbeil:: That is reality.


Alfonso Gagliano: The Minister of Transport tells me that is reality. Let me ask a real question. With this bill, given that we have an economy in which the number of jobs is always decreasing, if an employee receives severance pay is that just cause to qualify for UI benefits? In his regulations, the minister says that people must first justify their action, and prove that they have used all available means to find another job.
If a company negotiates with its employees to reduce its work force do those employees qualify? That is reality.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will surely be reassured to know that a claimant is justified in quitting his job voluntarily if, given all the circumstances, the only reasonable option was for him to leave immediately.
This is the test which is used by UI officers as well as by the courts in this country. In the circumstances described by the hon. member, if this was the only reasonable solution for that person then that person would qualify.

February 11, 1993
Oral Questions


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of employment.
I quote in part a statement which the hon. member for Laval-Est is said to have made concerning the unemployed: "I have reported some myself and I am still alive. I am fed up with paying taxes and giving to the poor. I want everybody to be rich because if I am surrounded by poor people, some day they will steal from me or kill me". Does the minister endorse such comments? Why does this government continue to force upon Canadians policies which turn them against one another? I find this situation-


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened with some care to the question and I must say at the moment that I think it is out of order. The hon. member may want to put a question to the minister, but it is not appropriate to ask the minister what he thinks about what somebody else may or may not have said.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my question is very simple. And here is a comment from a parliamentary secretary who says that he supports-


Mr. Speaker:: I have asked the hon. member to rephrase his question and I know that he would want to co-operate.


Ron J. Duhamel: Is that the policy of the minister and his government? Yes or no.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy is to protect the integrity of the unemployment insurance system and to protect Canadian taxpayers by taking action to help our economy recover so that we have much less unemployment. I believe that the economic statement of my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in December was a very big step in that direction.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have another quotation attributed to the same individual with respect to reporting others.


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Members can argue about it later if they wish. At the moment I am not satisfied with the way the question is being put. I am asking the hon. member to put a question directly to the minister and I am not entering into debate as to what somebody said or did not say.


Ron J. Duhamel: My question then is a very simple one. As a result of an article I have read I am asking the minister why he and his government are putting in place police state-type tactics where Canadians are rewarded for snitching on their neighbours or family members.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member wrote his question before the start of Question Period. If he looks at Hansard he will find that I answered that earlier.


Ron J. Duhamel: Reporting others. Don't you know the difference?


Bernard Valcourt: As I indicated earlier, there will be no 1-800 snitch line.


Ron J. Duhamel: No telephone, but will you permit the reporting of others?


An hon. member:: Drop dead.


Ron J. Duhamel: I don't plan on dropping dead.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to remind hon. members that the public of Canada in elections do not send members here to be faint of heart.
On the other hand it is necessary to conduct our affairs with some kind of civility, or else there will be no freedom of speech at all. I am asking hon. members to co-operate in that regard.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Time and time again the minister has referred to 225,000 abusers in the UI system, manufacturing for political gain a perception of huge numbers of abusers. I ask the minister to table statistics.
How many people gave sexual harassment as a reason for quitting their jobs? How many people had to move with a spouse or care for a child? How many people, like the Nova Scotia dragger crews, gave health and safety as a reason? How many had a just cause for quitting that was rejected by the system?

February 11, 1993


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, obviously we do not have the time in Question Period to answer that question.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Thble it.


Bernard Valcourt: The Order Paper is the answer to your question.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened very carefully to the question. The minister was prepared to rise in response. However I have to point out that if one wanted to analyse the question very strictly, it was a question more designed for the Order Paper as it involved a lot of facts and figures. The hon. member knows perfectly well that ordinarily that is a question to be put in another way than as a verbal question in Question Period.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker,
I assure the minister that the question will be forthcoming through the Order Paper.
My supplementary question is for the same minister. How does the minister propose to benefit the economy by restricting the local purchasing power of the unemployed through a reduction from 60 per cent to 57 per cent in benefits, taking away about $200,000 per month in the Timmins area alone?
In addition, how will it benefit taxpayers to have their provincial and municipal governments paying out more money in welfare payments as a result of Bill C-105?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as a result of Bill C-105 and the measures the Minister of Finance announced in December, Canadians will actually have to pay less tax than they would have paid prior to the statement of the Minister of Finance.
The argument of the hon. member that people will be left with less spending money in their pockets does not bear up in light of the reductions the minister announced and confirmed in December.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Oral Questions
This minister has repeatedly insisted that it will not be difficult for victims of sexual harassment to receive UI, but his employees have a document stating that a woman who is sexually harassed cannot quit her job and receive UI until she has demanded a transfer, used her collective agreement, hired a lawyer to make application under provincial and federal law, and tried to prove her case under the charter of rights. Even then it might take up to nine months to receive UI.
Why has the minister continued to tell the House that sexually harassed women would have no problem collecting UI when his departmental policy is so clearly the opposite?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that the document to which the hon. member is referring was not government policy.
This is a draft document that has been circulated at some levels in the department. Instructions and directives will be given to employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration to administer these provisions in a fair way so that women will not be deprived of their rights under the act.
I can assure the member that great care will be devoted to ensuring that on this sensitive issue women are protected.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, we need more than that kind of assurance. The minister knows that current procedures to attempt to prove just cause in sexual harassment or other matters are a sham.
Rather than just ensure, will the minister outline today what new procedures he has put in place to protect such workers?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the government is very sensitive to this issue of sexual harassment. I have met with my colleague, the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. I have also received a lot of assistance from the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration.
We are in a position to assure Canadians that everything will be done to ensure that these women are treated fairly.

Oral Questions


GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since 1949 the federal government has agreed to pay grants in lieu of taxes to Canadian municipalities for municipal services to federal facilities. Now, suddenly and without consultation the government has changed this system. For example, the city of Montreal will lose $10 million this year, $10 million that the people of Montreal need.
I ask the minister to cancel this freeze immediately and to continue his discussions with the cities.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had studied this subject he would know that it has been a very fast rising cost to the federal government. It has more than doubled since 1987 from about $215 million to $438 million. There have been discussions ongoing with the municipalities to try to restructure it to contain that cost.
I am sure the hon. member would be interested in knowing that in the last two years the grants in lieu of taxes have increased by 30 per cent. That is clearly not sustainable when we are trying to contain government expenditures across the board.
We are continuing to work toward the restructuring of this. In the meantime no municipality will receive less than what it was receiving last year.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, maybe there were increases in recent years, but these were in accord with the Municipal Grants Act and were critically needed by the cities. The problem is that the government changed a long-standing system without consultation with the cities and after many cities had already prepared the 1993 budgets. As a result, the city of Montreal is suffering a shortfall during the recession of $10 million.
I ask the minister this: Would he at the very least postpone this freeze for one year while he consults with the cities on a better way to deal with these problems?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we will continue the discussions and the consultations but we clearly have to put a cap on this. As I said, we are freezing the transfers at $424 million.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In today's newspapers we can read that the government added 100 unemployment insurance investigators in 1992 and that it is planning to add 300 more in 1993.
I would like to ask the minister whether he can tell us how much it will cost to hire these additional investigators and if he believes that this money would not be much better spent on improving benefits for the unemployed and the poor.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I do not have on hand information on what it cost to hire investigators last year, but I can tell the hon. member that hiring these investigators saved Canadian workers and employers over $200 million.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, this is an all-out attack on people who are now the victims of this government's economic failure.
I would like to ask the minister if he will not admit today that this government in disarray is taking far-right measures to outflank the Reform Party on the right.


Bernard Valcourt: No, it is just to protect the Canadian taxpayer, something that would be far down on that member's list of priorities.
February 11, 1993

Oral Questions


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Today before the subcommittee looking at NAFTA we had 20 victims of free trade. These people who did not receive the adjustment programs that the Prime Minister promised during the last election told about their cases and the cases of their co-workers.
How does the minister respond to Marian Fraser who was laid off after 16 years, to Lorraine Wilkinson who was laid off after 24 years, to Bev Lafleur who was laid off after 25 years, to Diane Rupert who was laid off after 39 years, and to Frances Walsh who was laid off after 31 years?
How does the minister answer those people and how does he dare go into a new program, a new trade agreement with the U.S. and Mexico when these people are unemployed and when this government has done nothing for them?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in that same presentation Mr. White recognized that there is a recession, that there is some substantial restructuring under way in the economy. He and I and my hon. friend have a great deal of sympathy for those people who have lost their jobs as a result of this.
To simply say that all of this is the result of free trade is simply not right. I ask my hon. friend to consider the situation of Clearly Canadian Beverage. In 1988 it sold
200,000	cases of its sparkling mineral water. It is a Vancouver company and in 1991 sold 10 million cases and 96 per cent of its product is for export, largely to the United States.
In Saskatoon there is a company called Flexi-Coil which develops a lot of its products through its own research facilities; 20 per cent of its business is for export and it cannot keep up with the orders now. New Flyer Industry in Winnipeg, 50-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows there is another way to put that information across.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Without a doubt during the next federal election one of the most important issues facing Canadians will be the North American free trade agreement. The implementation of this agreement will be of crucial importance to the Canadian people.
The New Democratic Party has stated clearly that we will not implement the agreement. The government has stated clearly that it supports implementation. Today the leader of the Liberal Party again reiterated his ambiguous position.
I want to know from the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Canadian people will be given a right to vote on this issue before implementation so every political party says exactly where it stands in front of the Canadian people.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, political parties will be able to vote on this.
We will have the legislation before the House. Then we will see where the Liberal Party stands. There are few things on which my hon. friend and I agree. One of them is precisely what he has just said.
The Liberal Party does not have a position on free trade. There is an old saying: "Vote Liberal and you have a choice, a choice-".


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


NATIONAIR
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A large group of Nationair flight attendants are presently sitting in at the West Block offices of the minister of defence because she refuses to meet with them and explain why her department has contracted over $30 million worth of work with Nationair which has locked out these workers over the past year.

February 11, 1993
Oral Questions
Why does the government of the Deputy Prime Minister, which claims to be neutral in this bitter dispute, continue to expand its business with Nationair, knowing full well that this company is attempting to force poverty level wages on its workers, 80 per cent of whom are women? Is that the commitment to fairness this government holds?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, this dispute is between Nationair and the union representing its employees. The government is not involved in the dispute in any way, shape or form.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the House leader says the government is not in any way involved in the dispute.
Recently, after the dispute started, the government went ahead and signed new agreements to store the CF-18s which had just returned from Europe on Nationair facilities. That is not being neutral.
I want to ask the House leader or the Deputy Prime Minister if they will recognize their responsibility in this matter? Will they at minimum instruct the minister of defence who seems to have other priorities outside this House to come back to Ottawa, meet with the workers and explain why this government is interfering in this conflict?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we could debate whether that is neutral or not. In fact it is wrong.
The hon. member frequently gets his facts wrong. Canadair has the maintenance contracts for the CF-18 and Canadair apparently has leased space from Nationair to store the CF-18s. If he wants to scream and yell, let him phone Canadair.


ADVERTISING CONTRACTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the government House leader.
Over recent days the minister has been saying that there was no political consideration in the awarding of
the $21 million worth of government advertising contracts.
If that is so and if he still insists it is the answer, can the minister explain to Canadians why the ads in question were backed by a chorus singing lyrics commissioned by the Conservative Party? Does that not at least sing off key to most of us?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member got stuck on this issue when that false media report came out saying there was no competition.
The approach used by this government since 1985 was not used by the previous government which appointed its own agencies. It is to have a competition. It is in fact a duplicate of what is done in the private sector.
If a company wants to have an advertising program it brings in the agencies to make a pitch. It is exactly the same policy we have been using. The ad agencies came in and made a pitch to a committee of civil servants and the agencies were selected to carry out the program.
It is as fair a program as exists anywhere, infinitely fairer than what the Liberals did previously. The hon. member should get on to some other muckraking.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I shall let you decide whether that was parliamentary.
I want to ask a supplementary of the minister. This is not private sector money. These are taxpayers' dollars. I want to ask the minister why he is spending $21 million of taxpayers' money through a Tory ad agency to run the Toiy jingle on Canadian television. Is that not wrong?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to think if he stands in his place and screams his falsifications become true.
Indeed, as our attempt, which was agreed to by all the parties in the House and every provincial government, to bring this country together united behind the Charlottetown accord there were advertising programs celebrating Canada 125, celebrating this great nation and all of those things.
The agencies put together ads which I guess in the end we can say were not enough to bring about the result we
February 11, 1993

all wanted, but for the hon. member to suggest this was all done as some sort of illicit pay-off is to wallow in the mud, and I think he should get out of it.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of Indian and northern affairs.
As the minister will recall, last May at a public meeting in Fredericton former Chief Emmanuel Polchies of the Oromocto Indian Band requested support from the department of Indian affairs for a formal inquiry into his earlier conviction for theft from a land claims settlement.
Mr. Polchies indicated that he was not able to pursue his appeal to the Supreme Court for lack of personal funding and was requesting financial support to do so.
I have a question and a quick supplementary. Will the minister recommend this request for an inquiry to ensure that justice is done and perceived to be done?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did receive in the company of the hon. member, a submission from former Chief Polchies. In a letter which I sent to him, I believe on January 4 of this year, I suggested that in the matter of the criminal conviction against him in 1984 that I would ask the Minister of Justice to review the circumstances underlying that conviction and to get back to me with further information.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, will the minister consider helping to fund Mr. Polchies' legal costs in pursuing this matter to a just conclusion?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, my department does provide assistance in certain cases under a program called Test Case Funding. The criteria under which Test Case Funding is awarded involve matters which are of widespread importance to Indian communities and if the particular case meets those criteria we will look at it very carefully.
Oral Questions TELECOMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications and involves the iniquitous 976 use by Bell Canada and other telephone companies as a money-making scheme.
This number is supplied to anybody who wants to make a deal with Bell and anybody who uses the phone number pays a fee on their telephone bill for the use of the line.
You cannot get out of it unless you pay Bell telephone.
I was wondering if the Minister of Communications would step into this mess. Will he ask the CRTC to rule on the 976 number and stop the use and abuse by Bell Canada of 976 and make it possible so that when anybody has 976 they have to sign a contract for 976.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, generally I try to avoid stepping in messes but I would be pleased to accept my friend's invitation.
It is not the fault of Bell Canada that individuals or companies take out 1-976 numbers. Indeed the most recent instance was one where people who had received notices from the provincial attorney general's office in Toronto of having unpaid traffic fines received a notice suggesting they should call a 1-976 number only to discover that upon calling it they got a recorded message and were charged $24 for doing it.
I have brought this to the attention of the CRTC whose responsibility it is to protect consumers from scam artists.
I would invite consumers to contact Bell Canada to ask that any unfair charges be dropped because this is provided for in the Bell tariffs.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is about jobs.

February 11, 1993
Points of Order
Yesterday members of the Canadian Worker Co-operative Federation met with his officials in the Department of Finance as well as other members of all three parties in this House to remind us that one year ago at a federal-provincial conference ministers responsible for co-operatives agreed that worker co-ops should be one of the four priorities in that area.
In view of the fact that the Quebec government has established a venture capital fund and the Ontario government has spent some $1.8 billion out of its job fund to help worker co-operatives, or it will spend that much-


An hon. member:: One million.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: One million I should say. What is the federal government going to do to help worker co-ops in this country? Is it going to establish a venture capital fund to establish worker co-ops? What are its plans and when will the government be announcing them?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. For the last two days we have had a co-operative advisory committee meeting of about one dozen members of co-ops right across the country in Ottawa. I met with them at noon and had a chance to go over their concerns. That will be one of the things we will be looking at.
The hon. member should also be aware that in the last seven or eight years we have held, under the auspices of the federal government and the provincial governments, several federal-provincial co-ops ministers meetings across the country to discuss various aspects affecting co-operatives and how they operate.
One of the papers we looked at was worker co-operatives in addition to child care and other areas. The federal government is working very closely with the co-operative sector to see what can be done to advance its concerns in many areas, not only in worker co-operatives but in other areas as well.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of manpower and immigration. I ask the minister, in view of some of the earlier questions and today's news report, to clarify this question of severance pay and UIC benefits. I will really bring it right down to this House.
Without making a pun of a thing and to explain it to myself and our staffs, as I understand it, if members do not come back after the next election, either by choice or by choice of the electorate, and their staff receive severance pay which they do have to a point, would they then be entitled after that severance pay runs out to receive unemployment insurance benefits?
If not, does the minister think this very fair in view of the fact that those members who do not come back are going to receive an interesting pension.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member is that under the act any person who quits a job because he had no reasonable alternative to immediately leaving the employment is covered.
He can construe that with the situation which he described, in light of the basic legal statement in the act. This is what would be applicable.


BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of the House an incident that happened during statements by members.
The hon. member for Mount Royal, who made a statement as other members were doing, suggested to the House that she be allowed by consent to table a document from which she had quoted.
I am putting it to the House whether there is agreement for that.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: So ordered.


POINTS OF ORDER
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, before I put the business question, may I seek the guidance of the Chair with regard to Question Period.
I presume the Chair was under the impression that some of the comments or remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface were somehow offensive.
February 11, 1993

Yet at the same time the government House leader used words such as falsification and wallowing in the mud which-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. I know that there was some concern about the fact that I interrupted the hon. member for St. Boniface. I indicated that if it was necessary it could be discussed later.
I do not think it is appropriate to turn my ruling into a debate at this time. I will be very pleased to see the hon. House leader, and if it is then necessary to raise it on the floor of the House I of course will invite him to do so.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a new point of order concerning comments of the government House leader during Question Period. He used the word falsification. I am not referring to the other case that Mr. Speaker ruled on earlier, only the exchange between the government House leader and myself when he used the words falsification, wallowing in the mud or whatever. I may have asked the government a question which was direct but I did not use language which was inappropriate. I am sure I would have been reminded of it by the Chair or hon. members across the way.
I asked why the taxpayers of Canada should be paying for an advertisement which basically advertised the musical interlude or a jingle of the Conservative Party. I think it is a legitimate question; it is a fact, it is well-known and it is acknowledged. Surely I had a right to ask that question without receiving those kinds of insults from across the way. That kind of abuse is totally unnecessary.
I seek the guidance of the Chair to see whether at the very least the government House leader could control himself in the future as he has not been able to do so in the past.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to see this carry on. The falsification I was referring to was of course the original newspaper article which the hon. member took as fact. He now knows it was totally false in its representation.
Business of the House
He had been endeavouring to build a case on it when an hon. member opposite screamed out the allegation that the entire advertising program was designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to reward Tories and so on. I consider that wallowing in the mud. If that is unparliamentary I withdraw it and I apologize.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government House leader for his apology to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it should be accepted and we could move on to something else.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, what a day it is. Perhaps the government House leader would indicate to the House what the business will be for the remainder of today, tomorrow and Monday and Thesday of next week.


Harvie Andre: I will be pleased to, Mr. Speaker.
This afternoon we will continue with third reading of Bill C-98, the Borrowing Authority Act. After completion of that we hope to complete second reading of Bill C-93, the government organizations bill, and get to report stage of Bill C-76, the budget implementation bill.
Tomorrow, if necessary, we will continue with Bill C-76 in the morning after which we will deal with BUI C-lll, the Tobacco Restraint Act; BUI C-69, ah and maritime safety; Bill C-79, the Divorce Act; and BUI C-73, the Canada Post Corporation Act. Some of them are relatively non-controversial. I understand there is considerable agreement among the parties that these could be passed.
On Monday and Thesday, if necessary, we hope to complete passage of BUI C-76. If time permits, it is my hope that it can be used to complete any of the previous legislation that I have mentioned which remains outstanding. We will continue discussions with House leaders concerning business for the remainder of next week and on to the week after that.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from remarks made by the hon. member for Abitibi.
In the remarks contained in today's La Presse it states: [Translation]
Guy Saint-Julien, Tory MP for Abitibi, struggled to find words to express his disappointment yesterday upon hearing this kind of statement from a Canadian. "I was surprised and deeply disappointed. This is serious, this is a case of intellectual racism directed against Quebec".

The concern that I have is in the utilization of the words "intellectual racism" in relation to a video which I have never seen and is in the hands of people who I do not know. In fact it is in the United States.
The remarks I made at some point in the past in relation to either James Bay I or James Bay II were certainly true at the time they were made. For the member for Quebec Hydro to be making these kinds of allegations outside and inside the House and using the words intellectual racism is quite improper and contravenes my rights and privileges in a free and democratic society and should be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a short question and then I will listen to the hon. member for Abitibi.
I want to be absolutely sure about this. The statements to which the hon. member referred were made outside this House. Is that correct?


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I am not here to avoid criticism, and I wish to raise a point of order on the same matter.
On February 8, 1993 a video was screened before the New Hampshire Senate Committee on the Environment, in which the NDP member for Skeena was introduced as the MP from the National Democratic Party of Canada. The hon. member said in this video:

"There should not be any question in the mind of any American consumer in buying power from the province of Quebec that comes from the James Bay II project. There is blood on that electricity".

The video was produced by McAusland Film and Video Inc., under No. MA-617-329-7335. In my statement to Lisa Binsse, reporter with La Presse, I said that the hon. member's statement-
Earlier, the NDP member for Skeena said twice that I attacked what he said. I did not attack him as a member from British Columbia. I told the reporter that what the hon. member for Skeena had said was a direct attack against Quebec workers at James Bay and the Government of Canada.
I was once a technical survey worker with Hydro, a job I held from 1965 to 1968. When the NDP member for Skeena says in this video: "There is blood on that electricity", it is a serious matter. It is unfair to the employees of Hydro-Quebec and to the Cree and Inuit of James Bay.
The James Bay Cree and Inuit have always used the courts to defend their rights. There has never been bloodshed. The same applies to Hydro-Quebec workers.
I think it is odd that the hon. member for Skeena should say there is blood on that electricity, in referring to hydro projects in Quebec, while there are hydro dams in British Columbia and the other provinces as well.
It was not my intention to call the hon. member for Skeena a racist. I was mainly concerned about his reference, in a video that was screened for the Americans, to Quebec workers who have been employed by Hydro-Quebec on major dam-building projects for many years and will be in the future as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Abitibi for his comments.

I want to say this to the House. First of all, except under very rare and unusual circumstances I have no authority to rule on statements made outside this House.
February 11, 1993

Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
I think we can all have some sympathy with the concern of the hon. member for Skeena if there was an implication that another hon. member was referring to him or to any other member here as racist. The hon. member for Abitibi has made it very clear that was not the intention, even though the comment was made outside the House.
I do want to say this. I think we are at a stage in the history of our country where we should be very careful in our language and what we say about each other, whether it is in the House or outside the House, with respect to any suggestion that anybody is a racist.
We have gone through a very difficult period of time in this country and some things have been said outside this place and by people right across the country that I hope upon reflection a lot of people regret having said and a lot of other people regret having heard. I think it is very important that we carefully watch how we express ourselves out of respect for each other and this country. Again, I thank the hon. member for Abitibi. Strictly speaking procedurally it was not necessary for him to reply but he has done so generously and I think he has added to the dignity of this House.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the government House leader about the business of the House for the next three days. There was no reference to Bill C-88, which received the approval of members of all parties. I wonder why the bill is being held back and why the government does not table it as soon as possible. All authors and composers in Canada and Quebec are waiting for this bill. Perhaps someone on the other side would like to comment.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, regarding the question put by the hon. member for Richelieu, we intend to debate and dispose of Bill C-88 starting Monday, in other words, early next week.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1992-93 (NO. 2) MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise this afternoon to say a few words on Bill C-98 which seeks authorization from the House of Commons to borrow approximately $8.2 billion for various public works and other purposes by the Government of Canada.
The subject of borrowing additional sums by the government is of great concern to Canadians, particularly considering the awesome debt this government has accumulated in its eight years in power. Last week, according to the debt clock in Vancouver this debt now stands at $450 billion. This is more than double the debt this government inherited less than eight years ago and pledged to control. It is clear that in eight years it has failed miserably to manage the nation's finances and today it is asking for $8.2 billion more of taxpayers' money to add to the awesome debt it has accumulated.
Today in The Globe and Mail a Japanese investment house was quoted as expressing its grave concern about the fiscal capacity of the Canadian economy that this large debt represents. A further indication of the mismanagement of this government is the fact that since it came to power it has increased the proportion of this debt which has to be financed outside Canada, causing upward pressure on our interest rates, downward pressure on our dollar and affecting our economy in many ways. In fact the Japanese own $50 billion of our debt. That is a serious issue. It is not one that was inherited from the Liberal government. It is also a serious problem for the Canadian economy.
In addition this government has achieved this debacle while adding significantly to the debt which it has off-loaded to the provincial governments. They have also seen a tremendous increase in debt, which is also a burden on the Canadian economy. We need to be very concerned as parliamentarians when the government

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
asks for $8.2 billion more of taxpayers' money to finance unspecified services.
I would like to say a few words on this subject as it concerns my constituency of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. I just returned this morning from two days in my riding where I attended public meetings to deal with the growing crisis in the fishery which has encircled the constituency I represent.
Last night I was in Canso. We were dealing with how this community and the surrounding communities were going to cope with the loss in income which the downturn in the fishery represented. The previous evening I was in Arichat where we discussed the same question. All around Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia that is on peoples' minds.
When they think about the government's fiscal dilemmas my constituents wonder why we are continuously and ever more deeply in debt. The deficits this government continuously mounts up year after year have increased rather than decreased despite the fact it has provoked a recession which is now into its third year and shows no sign of abating, certainly not in eastern Nova Scotia. They wonder where all this money is going.
We have been paying the GST now for two years. Apparently this GST collects over $15 billion per year. Despite the massive new intrusion on the pocket-books of Canadians which the GST represents, the government's debt continues to mount. The Minister of Finance has been way off on his deficit projections.
The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso are asking themselves where this money is going. Why does this government feel compelled to continually borrow more and more money and tax us more for projects when we do not see any results? Our economy is still mired in recession. We are still facing an unemployment level which is much too high. While the government is piling debt upon debt it is cutting out the basic lifelines and support services which people in areas of high unemployment need and depend upon to survive.
For example, the fishery is facing a severe downturn in our area. There will be a need for adjustment assistance or some form of plan for compensation to deal with those communities which are going to be left in a severe state as a result of the lack of fish, provoked largely by the mismanagement of the federal government.
The people of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso say they have yet to see a plan announced by the minister of fisheries to deal with this particular problem. They have been told it will come later this year in April, but people are already hurting in eastern Nova Scotia. The people in fishing communities have no unemployment insurance benefits remaining and no jobs. They realize that this year the fishing will be a disaster.
Today during Question Period we talked about the unemployment insurance program and what the Minister of Employment and Immigration is doing by denying unemployment insurance benefits to those who quit their jobs. Our members have tried to dissuade the government from this wrong path. In terms of sexual harassment, people are provoked into leaving their jobs.
It provokes people to leave their work. Now they will be put into more of a trap. The changes that are being contemplated by this government in Bill C-105, the unemployment insurance bill, make no sense from an economic standpoint because they will only decrease the ability of the labour force to adjust smoothly to changes that it has to adjust to in order to get the economy out of the present recession.
Rather than taking these regressive measures the government should be assisting the unemployed to take training programs. It should be using UI and other programs more creatively in order to assist people to get off unemployment and to find full-time work in job opportunities for the future.
In my area one of the problems which is of real concern is in connection with the student loan program. Many young people are being denied the opportunity to take university courses or other courses at trade school and other facilities because there are insufficient moneys available through the student loan program. That is somewhere that this government could help. If it was
February 11, 1993

helping students that way we might not be so concerned about the borrowing demands of this government.
In addition the government is forcing young people in particular, but also those who are on unemployment insurance, to make the choice between staying on unemployment insurance and not taking training or taking some form of training and being denied unemployment insurance because of silly rules that exist in that program. They could easily be removed.
These are the kinds of measures which the government is not taking and which it could be taking to improve the economy, to get us out of this recession that we are in and to prepare Canadians for meaningful jobs in the future.
I just want to mention that in connection with these borrowing demands of the government. The question which is on our minds in Highlands-Canso is where is this money going. A sad situation occurred last week in Port Hawkesbury with the Premium Automotive plant abruptly closing its doors after receiving almost $2 million in government grants, concessions and generous loans. This company callously closed its doors on its workers. It took the occupation of the plant for them to get their severance pay.
Those people are now going to be facing unemployment with no immediate prospects in sight. This happened after the government provided awesome sums to a company that stayed five years and left.
These are the kinds of policies that have to be changed and on which the government has to rearrange its focus. Since it is far too late in its mandate to do so it should go to the people. It should call an election to let a better group of individuals take over and run the government.


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


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, you did it again. It is Kootenay West-Revelstoke. There are a lot of similarities between east and west Kootenay but the current member for Kootenay East and I, apart from having shared an equally interrupted record of service in the House, do represent different areas.
In rising to debate the motion of the Minister of Finance for the third reading of Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992, I wish to make a few
Government Orders
comments relating first of all to the government's record when it comes to deficits.
I do not know how many times since 1980, with the previous government from 1980 through 1984 and certainly since being back in this House between 1988 and this year, I have heard continuing statements by ministers of finance and continuing budgets that forecast almost exactly the same projections for deficit reduction year after year after year. It puts me in mind of an old quotation from a poem by Frank R. Scott, entitled W.L.M.K.-William Lyon Mackenzie King-in which he said of W.L.M.K: "Always he led us back to where we were before; do nothing by halves that can be done by quarters". In this case and in the continuing record of the government, it seems to be; "Do nothing by quarters that can be done by halves", at least when it comes to increasing the debt of this country and increasing deficits.
To be more exact, if controlling the deficit is the primary goal of the government then it has done a poor job. The projection for the deficit in February 1992 was $27.5 billion. Now the Minister of Finance says he has reduced the deficit to $34.4 billion. Strange, strange math.
The projected deficit for next year is $32.2 billion. In the 1991 budget this same government estimated a deficit for 1993 of $16 billion, less than half of what it actually will be.
All these cuts, all this hurt for those suffering from the recession, and the government has not been able to deal with the deficit. The best way to reduce the deficit must include stimulating the economy and not the government's failed trickle-down policies.
As my colleague the House leader for the New Democratic Party has said, Canadians are sick and fed up with being trickled on and it is time for a change.
One of the reasons for this increasing deficit is not only the failure of the government to manage its accounts in a better way than it has done but, and I hesitate to use the term drunken sailor, somebody has been imbibing much too much in this drunken sailor kind of spending in a number of categories which do not have the support of the majority of the Canadian people. I refer to what it has spent or is about to spend, according to its own statements: some $4.3 billion on the world's most expensive high-tech helicopters, another $40 mil-

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
lion on studies to purchase these same helicopters, $1 billion on an air defence system to protect troops in Europe against Soviet attacks-What troops, what attacks, What Soviets-and $250 million on anti-tank guns. Great, I am sure the UN will be using a lot of anti-tank guns in Somalia and the other places it is called upon to serve.
This kind of spending just does not make sense in today's world. Eight hundred and twenty million dollars to implement the GST is what it has spent. I just hope that if there is a change of government and the gentleman who is now the Leader of the Opposition, should we have the misfortune, becomes the Prime Minister it will not mean another $820 million to implement a hidden version of the GST. How many times can we get this kind of regurgitation of failures and policy? One billion dollars on an extension of former Prime Minister Trudeau's tax breaks to the super wealthy through family trusts. Those tax breaks were to expire at the beginning of this year, the ones brought in by Mr. Trudeau in I think it was 1973. After 20 years we have decided to extend those tax breaks for the very wealthiest families in this country.
One hundred million dollars in government advertising to advertise free trade, the Tory prosperity initiative, Canada 125, the goods and services tax again, and a lot of "feel good" ads. And another one million dollars on new cars for cabinet and senior bureaucrats.
These are some of the things this government in making its so-called hard choices has determined to be worth while spending Canadian dollars on. It is one of the reasons why its deficits are continually out of control. It ill behoves it to keep preaching to those of us in the opposition-and that includes both the Official Opposition and ourselves-about our alleged failure, according to it, not to come up with suitable alternatives when it is handing money out hand over fist toward goals and projects that do not have support and do not make any sense.
I suggest it start to get its own managerial house in order. One of the other problems is that while this has been going on we have been spending this kind of money on projects that do not make sense. The government meanwhile has cut programs like unemployment insurance, hurting the unemployed; like the Crow rate, hurting farmers; like the family benefit program, hurting single parents and other programs that have hurt those who are hurting most in this recession and it still cannot get the deficit down.
I would like in the few minutes available to me to register some comments from some of my constituents who have either personal or representative knowledge of some of the impacts that these cuts have had on a number of vital programs.
On January 22 Luanne Bush of Castlegar called my constituency office to complain about how the new child tax benefit reform is working against her family. Her husband was disabled in the past few years and so they are on a limited income of $1,100 a month. Naturally they had to sell some property just to get by and that was added to their family income for 1991. They get no child tax benefit for the first six months of 1993. She feels, and I agree, that it is unfair to penalize people on limited incomes who are forced to sell property just to survive compared to ones who sell property just to flip it and make more money.
There is a difference and our system ought to recognize those differences.
Another copy of a letter that was sent by a constituent, Mrs. Val Leslie, formerly of Slocan, now of Castlegar, to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance says: "I hope you will take a look and give serious thought to all the letters you both will be receiving since the budget statement. I suggest: 1. making all businesses pay then-share of taxes, not just some, and the rest get out of paying like some big companies are now. You set the rules that all the working people have to pay. Well, why not eveiybody, including you?"
She goes on: "It was bad enough that you and your government wasted all that money on a useless constitution but it is appalling to see the idea you have now that when a person goes to work and works for years, pays UI to the government, and loses his job or quits you take his money and keep it. That is downright robbery. Part of that money is his on loan to you, to use until he needs it so you have no right to keep it. Therefore I strongly suggest you change the rules you have made before somebody takes you to court for keeping money that is rightfully theirs". She has a bit of a wild hope there.
February 11, 1993

Finally there is a letter from which I will quote briefly from the Employee Resource Centre in Trail, B.C. It represents a lot of people who have been unemployed from the Cominco lead-zinc smelter over the past few years as it has modernized, as all of us have been urging industry to do. This year because of some particular situations in the international market it is having some large scale layoffs affecting thousands of workers in Trail in my riding and in Kimberley in the riding of Kootenay East that are going to have serious effects.
The gentleman who is co-ordinator of the Employee Resource Centre in Trail lists many of the problems including suicides that have taken place in that city because of the inadequacy of the training arrangements that have been made through the unemployment insurance system and many others.
There are many choices this government has to make in order to get the financial management of the country under control and to create jobs for Canadians. NAFTA is not one of the ways to go. The free trade agreement and the consequences of that should have shown that to be the case.
There are many other areas in which this government could move to make things better for Canadians and keep its own financial house in order. I hope it starts listening and acts upon those suggestions.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, since you indicated to me that I should do my very best to be extremely parliamentary I shall, and I shall resist the temptation to talk about the Governments of Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia in so far as their electoral promises and what they have actually done with regard to controlling the deficit, the debt, services to education and health. I am referring to the cutbacks they have actually undertaken.
I should alert my colleagues to the left in true parliamentary fashion that if they persist in being unfair and insensitive to my party that I have already gathered plenty of information for at least a two-hour address on all the sins their respective provincial governments have committed, that is, the discrepancies between what was promised and what they have actually done. They have been warned.
Let us talk about this bill. What are the issues? The borrowing authority comes up on a regular basis, but
Government Orders
there is a deeper issue. Should the government be going forward? Does it have the moral authority to continue to govern, particularly after four years in government, and especially after the Prime Minister himself has said-of course he was not then in government-that after four years it is traditional, it is customary, it is correct to renew the mandate or change the mandate, to give Canadians an opportunity? Does it have the moral authority? It is really quite questionable. I have support there, the Prime Minister's coach, the then Leader of the Opposition.
My colleague made some statements that I find particularly interesting and I shall follow them up. For example, he said: "How confident should we be that what is being sought right now is an accurate figure?" The government has been quite inaccurate in its predictions. For example, it had hoped and predicted that the deficit would be slightly in excess of $27 billion. In fact I think it is correct to say it is in excess of $34 billion, and that is a large discrepancy. That is $7 billion, which is a huge discrepancy.
The government indicated it would be reducing the debt as well. I have mentioned this in the House and I am always delighted to be able to do so. The former Minister of Finance wrote to me in response to a Question on the Order Paper with regard to what the debt was in 1984. It was $167.8 billion. Of course the members of government are anxious to say that it was in excess of $200 billion. What has happened is really the accumulated interest over time. Of course we know that is not correct.
It needs to be said time and time again that this is not the situation. I want you to note as well, Mr. Speaker, as I know you probably have already, that the government debt has now reached in excess of $450 billion.
Let us remember this. It was not quite $170 billion in 1984. Here we are in 1993, less than a decade later, and the deficit has gone from $170 billion to $450 billion. I would be delighted to show-if I could in this House I would-a chart of the interest rates since that time and to show my hon. colleagues as well as the Canadian public exactly what the figures would be if it was accrued interest only. Now that these numbers have been corrected I hope that government members will not brag about their control.

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
By the way, it is also important to say, and I am saying this in the spirit of collegiality, openness and friendliness, that it is inappropriate for the government to pretend it controls its expenditures and brag about it because it has off-loaded them to the provinces so they will have to off-load them to the hospitals, colleges, universities and the municipalities whose own debts have gone up as a result of the off-loading.
It can brag all it wants. It is a little bit like if I were to say to members of my own family: here is my debt; this is what you are going to have to do without. You are going to have to pick up some of mine. Obviously I would be well off. It is the same kind of situation.
It is important for us to ask why we are in this difficult situation. It is true that there have been difficult situations throughout the world. There is no doubt about that. I think most people would acknowledge that. It is also true to say that certain countries have managed much better than we have and it is also true to say that the recessionary policies of this government have led us to a great degree to this particular situation.
It is also accurate to say that when we look at this country of 27 million Canadians with five million people living at the level of poverty or below, more than one-half of whom are women and over a million of whom are young people and children, that these are not appropriate policies. We need to ask ourselves just how much is that costing the Canadian economy in actual dollars and cents and, more important, what is the human cost?
If we look, for example at social assistance, and I am told that this year there will be in excess of 2.3 million Canadians who will be receiving social assistance, what are the costs of that social assistance when those people could be working and contributing to the Canadian economy? They could be feeling better about themselves because they would find some mission in life other than collecting social assistance.
Over two million Canadians will be fed at food banks this year, 40 per cent of whom will be young adults. Some people call them children. It is more appropriate to say adolescents and younger. What is the cost of those food banks? What is the human cost of those people having to
go to those food banks to be nourished adequately? I have not even talked about the 1.6 million and a bit more unemployed. Those are the ones that we know about. How many people have given up?
A recent study showed that every unemployed Canadian costs the Canadian Treasury an average of $15,000 and $7,000 in lost taxes. It is a huge cost.
If my memory is not failing me and I hope that it is not-I am sure that government members would be disappointed if it were-I read somewhere that the UI total bill would be in excess of $20 billion this year. No wonder we have a deficit. No wonder that the deficit adds to the debt, which is in excess of $450 billion now because of those policies.
Today in the House of Commons during Question Period I tried to remind the government as gently as I could that some of the statements being made by members of its party are not conducive to creating a strong, united country where we try to work together, try to build a better nation and reach out and try to help each other. There were some difficulties and not having that statement accepted was disappointing. It was not done with any malice in mind.
It was done to point out that whenever anyone says anything that is hurtful, as was said in those quotations that I would have liked to have entered those comments into the record, it simply pits Canadian against Canadian, region against region, the rich against the poor and does not build unity or community. It simply does not.
Let me complete my remarks by saying without a hint of arrogance, because I do not know what the verdict of Canadians will be, that it is time to call an election. I say this, not because I think it is very likely my party will form the next government but because I believe it is only fair that every four years Canadians should be able to say: Yes, we want these policies to continue or we want a change.

That is what we are talking about when we call for an election. No one is saying this is how Canadians will vote in an election. Canadians are saying: "After eight plus years and after a mandate that has entered its fifth year,
February 11, 1993

it is time for us to go to the polls and determine who it is that we want to govern and with what kinds of policies".
At times I am disappointed. I referred to that briefly when I talked about some hurtful remarks. My leader and the Liberal Party of Canada are going in the direction of trying to create jobs because we feel that people who are working will feel good about themselves and contribute much more than they would otherwise to this country.
I hope that this accentuation of growth in the economy could be applauded by all members from all parties.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-98, which is entitled an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1992.
As one who is interested in words and what they mean I was almost amazed when I saw the wording for this. In thinking that the government would provide additional borrowing authority or that authority would be given to the government to borrow another $8 billion and some more for an overdraft on an account when it thought it would keep its deficit to $27 billion.
Several months through the year the Minister of Finance said: "Oops, I am sorry. We estimated incorrectly and now we are revamping that to $34.4 billion".
If this happened in a private business this simply would not be allowed. When we look at the word "authority", we see that it would be giving power or restoring power upon someone to do that or to have the mandate to do that.
I really believe that thousands of Canadians would agree that the government has lost the authority to govern. It has lost the moral mandate to be in a position to say, trust us, we need several billion dollars more than we thought we needed. I think, Mr. Speaker, you would probably agree with me, being from Alberta, that it is not popular back home.
I do not think it would be any surprise to any members in the Chamber or anybody watching us this afternoon that the overwhelming opinion of Canadians, indeed those in my constituency of Beaver River, would be to tell the government: "We do not want you to borrow
Government Orders
more money until you spend the money that you already receive in a more responsible manner".
I could quote many Canadians who feel this way passionately, perhaps even as passionately as they did in the referendum debate which we all went through last fall. Certainly money was an issue. That came to me several times as I was campaigning on the no side of the campaign. It was so important to be able to say: "Who is financing this thing?"
It was ironic for me, as I was on what in here was the unpopular side of that referendum campaign, the no side, that for every $1 the no side was spending the yes side was spending $300. Many people, rightly or wrongly, saw it all as taxpayers' dollars. Whether they were on the yes or the no side of the campaign they thought they were funding the yes side.
I know it was not all government money that was going to the yes side. Much of it was private money, but everyone in this Chamber knows that unfortunately a lot of public and taxpayers' funds were going to finance that. It left a bad taste in Canadians' mouths.
We need to be really careful we do not go to the Canadian public saying that we need this amount of money. Since 1984 when this government was elected, if we were to look at the budgets in which it was projecting what the annual deficit would be several years down the road, we would see that in the 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 budgets the projected deficit, what this government would be going in the hole or overspending every year, was projected in the 1991 or 1991-92 fiscal year to be just a very few billion dollars. In fact I do not have the figures with me, but I think it was supposed to be just under $10 billion.
We are seeing now that those projections, rightly or wrongly, were completely off target. As economic advisers say, they were off because of very many things that went on around the world. For instance, the U.S. recession, nobody was planning on that. It would be easy to say those factors were not taken into account, which happens in the public sector and in the private sector.
I think it would have been far more responsible for the government to come forward at that time and tell us the projections were off and the predictions were incorrect. It could have told us it was in desperate financial straits rather than telling us it was the best manager of money in this country and was the best political party for getting spending under control.

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
Granted, this government has perhaps spent less per capita or in absolute dollars or in percentages than the government before it. When we are facing such a crippling interest and debt load we need to spend even less than that. We cannot just break even, Mr. Speaker, as you and I both know, because we are paying 35 cents out of every dollar on interest alone.
When we look at the last budget, as I alluded to earlier, the government said it would be going in hock for $27.7 billion and now it has had to revamp that to $34.4 billion.
In the same vein of interest and debt servicing charges, I am in the middle of an interesting book right now. It is called Bankruptcy 1995. It is written by an American businessman named Harry Figgie Jr.
What I am most amazed and I suspect nervous about in that book is that he is using charts and graphs to explain matters. He has no political axe to grind, he is a businessman. I do not think we are unlike this in Canada but it is on a larger scale in the U.S. because it has such an enormous population. The projections that are given in this book are that the U.S. debt servicing cost will be more than the absolute dollars it takes in in taxes by the year 1995. We know that is very close down the road. It will pay out more in interest on the debt than it will accumulate in taxpayers' dollars. That leaves us with a sinkhole and to ask the question: What will ever become of this if we are not even able to pay the interest on the money that we are borrowing?
It would be easy for us to say that is the United States. It has its own problems and we have similarities but that is the way they do things in the U.S. Unfortunately recent figures indicate that per capita the U.S. debt ratio per person is 2.3 per cent while Canada's debt ratio is 4.8 per cent, roughly double.
We in this Chamber find that frightening. I can just imagine how that feels to Canadians out on the street who realize that their pay cheques are actually getting smaller and smaller. They wonder how they are going to pay their mortgages or buy blue jeans and Reeboks for their kids because they do not have the same amount of real dollars to spend as they did not long ago.
When I hear the government saying that it is cutting spending and that things are in much better shape than they were before I would just make mention of one specific instance. This is an example of where the government says it is saving so much money in costing contracts out for realty service for military members. This ERS service is a private company that is a wholesaling realty for military members as they are moving around within the country and even for those who are coming home now from the bases in Europe. This was touted as a program that was going to save taxpayers' dollars.
I have been in contact regularly with people in my constituency, realtors and non-realtors, who are very nervous about this ERS and the 30 per cent cut that would be delivered as a service fee or charge. This is enough to make a person really wonder about these actual programs that are being targeted to save taxpayers' dollars.
I would like the Minister of National Defence to have a look at this ERS and determine whether it really is a good program, whether it is something that is actually saving taxpayers' dollars or is it something that is perhaps working against what we are trying to accomplish here.
I will close my remarks by making an analogy to those of us who live on credit cards. I am sure every member in this House carries some sort of credit card. It is easy and convenient. However, if I say that my Visa bill is getting too high there is only one way for me to address that and that is to pay off my Visa bill without continuing to go around charging at various stores and putting more and more on my Visa bill. It would be easy for me to say that I can keep spending that money on it, but in order to balance that out I need to quit or cut my spending and my charging and at the same time pay off those bills. That is the only way that debt is ever going to go in the right direction.
I would advise the government to put a clamp on its Visa spending, to cut the government spending and continue to pay off this debt that is crippling us all.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak, even if it is only for a
February 11, 1993

few minutes, on behalf of my constituents of Hamilton Mountain on Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1992.
As the House leader for the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, so eloquently stated earlier today, during the last election this Conservative government said: "Vote for us. We can manage the economy". If it was so able to manage the economy why was this Conservative Party about the only group in this country that felt it was a good time three years ago to impose a new tax, the GST? We were already in a recession. Canadians were already suffering. This Conservative government had already raised taxes over 30 times.
If the Conservatives were such good economic managers why did they impose such an unfair and badly timed tax: the GST, a tax that is costing three to four times more to collect than the former manufacturers' sales tax.
The GST is a tax that imposes a great deal of paperwork on businesses. It is a tax that has scared the consumer and slowed down purchasing right across Canada and, therefore, put many small businesses and manufacturers out of business. It is a tax that encouraged millions of Canadians to shop across the U.S.-Canada border affecting businesses in Canada. A loss of Canadian purchases meant a loss of jobs.
Obviously, before imposing the tax this Conservative government, which feels it can manage the economy, had not consulted meaningfully with Canadian taxpayers. It also had not taken enough time before imposing the GST to see if it was possible to administer. Therefore, we have had to put up with many changes, many of which have been made to make it easier for bureaucrats to collect this tax.
One could imagine that if this Conservative government could not recognize how much damage the GST was doing to the Canadian economy by listening to individual Canadians than bankruptcy statistics would have wakened it. This does not seem to have been the case.
Let us look at the bankruptcy statistics. Consumer bankruptcies in 1990, 42,782; 1992, 61,822. That is up 44 per cent in two years. Business bankruptcies in 1990, 11,642; 1991, 13,496; and 1992, 14,317. That is up 22 per
Government Orders
cent in two years. Total bankruptcies in 1982, 41,843; 1990, 55,279; 1991, 75,773; 1992, 76,139. That is up 37 per cent in two years.
My constituents in Hamilton Mountain do not happen to think this government knows how to manage the economy; those who have lost their jobs, those who have lost their businesses, those who cannot afford to go to school, those who have been forced to retire early, those who cannot find jobs and those who need to go to soup kitchens tonight to get their dinner.
If this Conservative government still thinks it can manage the economy it should call an election and ask for once, consult for once, the Canadian people. Ask Canadians if they trust this government to lead them during the next four years.
My constituents do not want to give this government the right to borrow up to $8.2 billion. My constituents in Hamilton Mountain and I would guess that most Canadians want this Conservative government to call an election right now.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, in the moments I have available to me to speak about this request for additional borrowing authority let me say a bit about the deficit and debt situation the government got us into. This is a request to borrow an additional $8.2 billion on behalf of the Government of Canada in addition to the borrowing authority that was granted to the government earlier in this financial year based upon the 1992 budget presented last February 25, almost a year ago now, by the current and then new Minister of Finance.
The fact that it has had to come forward and ask for more money is yet another in a series of failed projections on the part of this government in terms of its ability to forecast its revenues and expenditures for the financial years in advance. I find this chilling because $8 billion is a lot of money. It also comes from a government that from 1984 onward tried to make financial issues, particularly the reduction of the deficit, its credo.
Think back on some of those budgets. Think of May 1985 when the then Minister of Finance and current Minister for International Trade said: "This budget represents a major step toward controlling the growth of the federal debt". That was his first budget.
That in itself was an interesting time. Remember that the election was held in September 1984. In November 1984 the Minister of Finance got up and talked about

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
how the previous government had been spending so badly. In fact he said: "If we do not bring in measures today the deficit by the end of next March will balloon to $34 billion". That is what the minister said in November.
Do you know what? By the end of March he had managed to jack the deficit up to $38 billion. That is $4 billion more than he said it would have been if he had not brought in the restraint measures that he did in November 1984.
What that means is that he spent every nickel, dime and quarter he could find up to the end of the March 31, 1985 fiscal year so that for evermore he could go around saying: "Look at the deficit the Liberals left us". That is completely hypocritical.
In February 1986 he brought in his second budget. What did he say then? "Over the last 18 months, concrete steps have been taken to correct the fiscal imbalance." On it goes to February 1988: "With the fiscal plan presented in this budget, the government sets out a solid five-year fiscal track of significant deficit reduction and debt control". That was before the election. Things got a little soft in election year, people will recall.
In the April 1989 budget, after the election, the Minister of Finance said: "Today we are acting. The government is bringing down a budget that will build for our future and not borrow from it". At that time the net public debt was about $320 billion. Since then, instead of borrowing from our future the minister has borrowed an additional $100 billion, not including the $8 billion he is asking for today.
In February 1990 the former Minister of Finance said: "Within five years the government will begin to buyback its bonds and treasury bills". On February 1991 he said: "We will put government finances firmly on the course to a balanced budget". As I say, last February the minister was still saying things like that. He finds himself today $8 billion short in his requirements for borrowing.
Let me go through some of these numbers because it is very interesting. Take for example the budget deficit for the year that ended in 1992. It came in at $34.6 billion. That was fully $4.1 billion more than had been predicted in the budget. It was just under $8 billion more than had been predicted two years earlier by the Minister of Finance.
Those kinds of projections and predictions have been repeated over and over. In the 1990-91 fiscal year the actual deficit was $30.5 billion. In June 1983, when he wanted to be Prime Minister, do you know what the Prime Minister said it was going to be? He said it would be $3.1 billion. It was only 10 times bigger. I guess maybe that is close enough for Tbry finance.
On it goes. The budget deficit of this year, 1993-94, has had a number of predictions made for it. In April 1989 the government said that the 1994 deficit, the year upcoming, would be $15 billion. In 1990 it said it would be $14 billion. In 1991 it said it would be $16.6 billion. In 1992 it said it would be $22.5 billion. In December in the economic statement, do you know what it said? It said it was going to be $32.6 billion for the current year. They said in December 1992 that the deficit was going to come in at $34.4 billion. What was the budget prediction? It was $27.5 billion.
What did the government say before? In February 1992 it had said that this year's deficit, instead of $34 billion, was going to be $24 billion. What did it say back in the budget of February 1988 for this year? Remember it is coming in at $34.4 billion and the government said it would be $29.5 billion.
What a complete hash of the public finances of Canada has been made by this government. How it can continue to put forward platforms that talk about fiscal restraint, responsibility and meeting its budget targets is beyond me.
Not to say that hypocrisy belongs solely to the governing party. There is a lot of hypocrisy I have heard today in various debates coming from the left as well. When the NDP talks about budget deficits, being from Ontario I can say it knows what it is talking about.
Listen to what the leader of the NDP said on February 8 in Montreal. She was talking about Bill C-91. She said the Liberals in the Senate could have defeated the bill if they wanted to. They could have defeated it "but they chose not to". In fact, listen to these numbers. When the Senate voted on that bill 75 per cent of the Liberal senators were present to vote. When the bill was before the House of Commons-listen to them sing-out of 44 NDP members only 29 bothered to show up and vote. That is exactly what the NDP is all about.
February 11, 1993

I am sorry time has run out because I know my colleagues to the left want to hear more about the NDP record, particularly in Ontario, but we will leave it at that for today.
What is clear is that the problems of the deficit and the debt that are compounding in Canada at the federal level and provincially have to be addressed in a co-operative and clear way before it is too late.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception-Canadian Forces Reserve; the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina-Immigration; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Immigration and Refugee Board; the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James-Grain Industry; the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby-Economic Statement.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, as others have said, it is quite remarkable after this government's record on the economy and the deficit that it would be coming to this House to borrow even more money rather than addressing the concerns of the Canadian economy and addressing the concerns of Canadians to turn this economy around.
Rather than admit errors in the past, admit errors in economic policy, or the lack of economic policy, this government continues on the same track. It is not only satisfied to lose half a million Canadian jobs to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement but is pursuing further free trade agreements with Mexico with the risk of yet further job losses and further businesses going under.
Rather than admit to the errors of the past which have given rise to 1.6 million Canadians on unemployment insurance and over four million Canadians having to rely upon social programs in order to live, this government continues on the same path of increasing the deficit and increasing the debt, rather than bringing Canada's economy into sufficient shape so that we can pay off those debts which were accrued during years of Liberal federal governments and added to by Conservative federal governments.
In contrast, one might look at the Governments of Saskatchewan, 31 years of CCF and NDP governments
Government Orders
with balanced budgets. Not one budget was not balanced in those 31 years of government in Saskatchewan. However, with seven years of Liberal government in the middle with deficits and nine years of Grant Devine's Conservatives with record deficits Saskatchewan was left with the highest per capita debt in the country.
What it proves is that if we have Liberal and Conservative governments we have debts; we have long-term debt and we have deficits. If we have NDP governments faced with a reasonable situation when they start we have the opportunity for balanced budgets.
For the first time in a decade in the province of Saskatchewan the deficit is being brought under control, at great difficulty because of federal off-loading on to the provinces, on which I will comment in a minute.
Of course the problems faced by the government of Premier Rae in Ontario arose initially from the huge debt left by the Liberal government of Premier Peterson. The record is quite clear on that. Any Liberal member who wants to read about it and find out about it can do so.
In Saskatchewan, my province, we are faced with considerable problems arising from the economic policy and the fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government. Times are very tough in the province of Saskatchewan as a result of years of off-loading by the federal government on to the province. The government of Premier Romanow is faced with having to pay off these debts so that we can get the banks and the bonding agencies off our backs and we can take charge of our own province again. Fighting against this Conservative government, fighting against this off-loading, makes this extremely difficult.
We should not forget that the off-loading on to the provinces, the reneging of federal responsibilities toward the provinces, began with the last Liberal government, which in terms of EPF funding made three major cuts to the provinces. Again we see not only Liberal and Conservative governments generating debt and deficit but we also see them at the federal level following the same policy of transferring federal government debt on to the provinces and of reneging on federal responsibilities generally unilaterally, placing a huge burden on the province of Saskatchewan.

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
In terms of accumulated cuts in established programs funding by both Liberal and Conservative governments, we see almost $1.2 billion taken away from the moneys which would otherwise have gone to the province of Saskatchewan to provide services to its people. With regard to economic development we see reductions of over $20 million per year from the level of federal government funding.
In terms of agriculture we see off-loading by the federal government on to the province which will require the province to pay an extra $232 million or almost $233 million in 1991-92 and $215 million in 1992-93.
In almost every area of activity which has an impact on the people of Saskatchewan this government and the Liberal government before it transferred enormous burdens totalling billions of dollars. Indeed last year alone the Saskatchewan projected deficit at about $500 million was pretty much equal to the off-loading from the federal government on to the province. But for that off-loading Saskatchewan would have a balanced budget in spite of its huge accumulated debt.
In addition to these very open shifts of responsibility and shifts of burden to the provinces there are others that have added to the burden of the people of Saskatchewan and constituted a reneging of federal government responsibility.
Tbming to the Drug Patent Act which was passed in the Senate recently and to which the former speaker made reference, we note that 38 Conservative members in that other House voted in favour of the drug patent legislation and 31 Liberals voted against it. If all the Liberal senators had been there this bill could have been killed.
The Liberals make a big fuss of fighting the patent drug bill in this House and then when they have the opportunity to defeat it and actually make a decision to benefit Canadians they avoid that responsibility.
The drug patent changes threaten the very existence of the Saskatchewan drug plan, as the finance minister of Saskatchewan has indicated. Again this adds to the burden of the people of Saskatchewan.
Unemployment insurance changes will mean that in
1992-93 an additional $19.4 million will be added to the taxation burdens of Saskatchewan, another loss from the federal government. In terms of law enforcement it is over $1.5 million extra because of changes to RCMP policies. The list goes on and on.
It is remarkable this government would ask to borrow more money when it increased taxes on ordinary Canadians while it provided extra breaks to those who are better off, increased the accumulated debt and cut services. How can the government's financial situation be so bad when taxes have gone up and services have gone down? Yet the debt goes up. How can this be?
In conclusion, the thrust and the impact on Saskatchewan have been disastrous. Clearly the only approach for the government to take is to change its approach to the economy. Instead of being obsessed with inflation, interest rates and so on, it should start thinking about Canadians, those 1.6 million Canadians who do not have jobs, those 1.6 million Canadians who are not able to provide for their families in the way in which anyone would hope to do.
Rather than follow free trade policies which do not work it is time that the government changed and listened to what New Democrat governments and federal New Democrats are talking about, that is to put job creation first to get the economy working.
If we look at the numbers we see that for every unemployed person in Canada the economy suffers to the extent of $55,000. If we put one more person back to work the economy of Canada benefits to that extent. If we put one more person back to work, even in terms of government revenues the government would be $17,500 better off. Yet the concentration has nothing to do with job creation. It is following the big business international corporate agenda of free trade.
It really is time the government put Canadians first, started to create jobs and got this economy moving.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about borrowing an additional $8.2 billion.
February 11, 1993

Canadians were told that the GST revenues were going toward paying off the debt. Some portions of the debt have been paid off. Today we are talking about reborrowing that money, not benefiting from having paid off some our debt.
Canadians are asking some very legitimate questions. How come we are paying 38 new taxes? How come individual working Canadians are paying more than their share of taxes eight years ago? How come we have the GST which is supposed to generate revenues and fix the fiscal situation in this country? How come we are paying more and getting less? Those are questions Canadians are asking themselves. My colleague from Ottawa South has done an excellent job of demonstrating that there is only one answer to that question and the answer is mismanagement by this government.
The member for Ottawa South documented repeated promises in every budget this government has brought forward since 1985: "We are putting in place tough new fiscal policies; we are charging you more and we are giving you less because we have to bring down the debt and we have to bring down the deficit".
The bill before us today does neither of those things. It adds $8.2 billion to the debt and it adds billions more to the deficit.
After eight years of saying this was the way to bring down the debt and the deficit, one would think that maybe the government would get the message that its plan is not working. It did not work in 1985. It did not work in 1986. It has not worked in any year since, and it is not working now.
Perhaps the government would like to tell us why we now do 25 per cent of our borrowing outside this country. Why are its policies shifting $22 billion in interest paid on that debt out of Canada, out of the Canadian economy, out of where it might do some good by creating jobs and creating economic growth for Canadians? Every day $22 billion is going out of the country because of its borrowing policies.
Not only that, but assuming a 50 per cent tax rate that is $11 billion in taxes Canadians are not collecting because foreign lenders do not pay taxes in Canada on the interest we pay them. Because of the foreign borrowing policies of this government $33 billion are lost to the Canadian economy.
Government Orders
We had a statement in December that was a repeat of the same old promises: "We have to toughen up. We have to tighten up. We have to get tougher on Canadians so that we can bring down the debt and the deficit". After hearing that for eight consecutive years Canadians are not believing it any more. Even the Conference Board of Canada is not believing it.
In its recent report the Conference Board of Canada indicated that the government's economic statement is contradictory: While on the one hand it is in a minor way stimulating the economy and predicting 2 per cent growth in the GDP this year, on the other hand it is freezing wages and cutting UI payments. The Conference Board of Canada says the effect of that is to dampen economic growth.
Two measures alone, the changes in UI payment and the freeze on Public Service wages, will cut projected growth this year by 10 per cent. The Conference Board of Canada goes on to issue another warning. The provinces are squeezed by this government for money, by this government which has opted out of its cost sharing agreement with the provinces. If the provinces have to make up the shortfall by also freezing wages, perhaps even to hospitals and municipalities, it will have a further dampening effect on economic growth.
Does it make sense when this country is trying to pull out of a recession, when the government keeps telling Canadians we are pulling out of a recession, to have the government putting in place measures that are going to make it more difficult to pull out of the recession?
I want to shift for a few minutes to the impact on people. I see that impact on people every Friday when I am in my constituency office meeting with constituents. At least half those meetings are dedicated to people who do not have jobs. Highly educated people who have held highly responsible positions are out of work, have used up all their UI entitlements and are now on welfare. They are trying to keep a family together, trying to keep a home together, or trying to keep the kids in university. In some cases they are trying to keep the kids from dropping out of high school to go to work and support the family. They are desperate. There is despair in this country. There is anger because of the policies of this government.

February 11, 1993
Government Orders
I meet with young people fresh out of school. They have done everything we told them to do. They got educated and trained but they cannot find a job. They see themselves with no future. That is what the policies of this government have done.
I talk to people who all their lives, despite a lack of education, have been able to get one job and if they lost it then get another job. They have survived and they have managed very well. Suddenly toward the end of their working lives they are desperate because they do not see that other job coming. They are asking themselves what they have worked so hard for all their lives. They are asking why they have paid taxes to a country that they thought was the best country in the world and then there is no room for them to work.
We cannot overestimate the demoralizing effect this is having, the way in which it is undermining the very fabric of our society. People see their money being stripped from them because they were wise enough to save for their old age and provide for their own retirement. They see no future for their children.
The middle income families in my riding are despairing because they are seeing their property taxes rise as a direct result of the policies of this government. It has said it will not use the unemployment insurance scheme to take care of people who lose their jobs but will expect the municipalities to do that through the welfare system.
Many of these people who see their property taxes increasing to meet an obligation of this government are themselves unemployed. People sense that something has gone terribly wrong with this country. They want back the belief they had in this country, the belief they had in the future. They want back the confidence that we can keep building a good future for our children. That is what this government has robbed them of.
They know they are not even getting the straight goods. This government says on one hand it is collecting $28 billion in GST and on the other hand it is collecting $29 billion. It cannot account for a billion dollars when people are being overtaxed, when there is no money to invest in science and research, and when commitments made to protect the environment are being broken everyday. One way or another we are taking nearly $30 billion out of the economy through the GST, but how much are we actually getting in revenue? We are getting
$15 billion in revenue. Is that a sensible tax when we collect twice as much as we really need? Where is the other $15 billion going?
These are big amounts we are talking about. Canadians want some accountability and responsibility because they know they cannot trust the promises of this government. It has done exactly the opposite of everything it said it would try to do.
We see small businesses going out of business. The main generators of new jobs in this country are going bankrupt at an alarming rate. We are failing in every way to invest in our future. We are failing to invest in our young people. We are failing to invest in knowledge. We are failing to invest in cleaning up our world.
There is despair in the country and it is a result of the false promises and total lack of performance of this government. It is time for a cleansing. It is time for a change. It is time for some honesty and straight talk with Canadians. It is time for a government that wants to fix the problems.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992 and soon to end on March 31, 1993.
For more than eight years I have had the privilege of representing the constituents of the riding of Saint-Leonard in this House. I remember during the election campaign in 1988 when the Conservative Party said clearly that it would put the government's financial house in order, reduce the deficit, reduce the debt and create jobs. All Canadians will remember the slogan: Jobs, jobs, jobs. Today, in the fifth year of this government's second term if we look at what the government has been able to achieve and at our situation as a nation, we see we have more than 1.5 million unemployed, any number of food banks, more than two million people on welfare, and I could go on about the homeless and the rest.
If we look at the Public Accounts, on March 31, 1984 the deficit was around $34 billion. According to the forecasts of the Minister of Finance, not those he gave in the February budget last year but the revised forecasts he gave last fall, on March 31, 1993 we will have a deficit of $34 billion. This comes after an economic recovery, more
February 11, 1993

than 30 tax increases and new taxes and steep fee increases for federal services, including immigration, citizenship and passports. These are all taxes in disguise, and in fact government revenues have increased. Sales of Crown corporations, tax increases and increases in fees for federal services are all increases in revenue.
However, after eight years and some months, we have a deficit that is more or less the same as when they came to power, and we have a debt that has more than doubled. This government has been a complete failure as far as financial administration is concerned. It has also put us in a financial situation that will paralyse us for years to come, because a substantial percentage of our debt is not owed to Canadians but to foreign countries, which will make it very difficult for us to have a Canadian monetary policy.
The hon. member said earlier that it was a matter of people, and I agree that behind the figures I just mentioned are human beings who are affected by the decisions we make here, by everything we do on whatever side of the House we happen to be. In fact, I would like to share my experience of last Sunday. Two government ministers, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Justice, said we were separatists. No one is more of a federalist than the member for Saint-Denis, the member for Westmount, the member for LaSalle-Emard or myself. I do not have to prove that I stand for Canada. I make this aside just to correct some things that were said.
I went there that Sunday because some constituents had asked me to go and I wanted to support them and be there with them, even though the weather was bitter cold. When it is -25C it is quite something to walk from Lafontaine Park to the Guy Favreau Complex at the corner of Jeanne Mance and Rene Levesque Boulevard.
But what did I notice on seeing that crowd? You can challenge the figures but I can tell you that there were a lot of people there. I never saw such a demonstration. We could sense their frustration. It was a cry of alarm because people cannot take it anymore. I am sure that all
Government Orders
members, whether on the government side or in opposition, sense that frustration when we are in our riding offices. We meet people who are on welfare because they have lost their job and no longer qualify for unemployment insurance, so they cannot pay the rent and feed their family and their children. Some people who lose their jobs do not qualify for welfare when their unemployment insurance runs out because they have a small property, like their own house. It is hard when we meet them.
What I noted is that the demonstration was against all this. It was not just against the changes to unemployment insurance. It was against the policies of this government in the past eight years. They have had enough. That was why they were sounding the alarm.
After this demonstration, an editorial writer, Alain Dubuc, well described the feelings behind it. I would like to quote this editorial from La Presse of February 9,1993, entitled "Cry of Anger":
For a long time we had not seen 50,000 people in the streets of Montreal for anything other than a celebration. Those mainly responsible for this feat are not the big labour bodies that organized Sunday's demonstration against Bill C-105 but the Conservative government which handed them this mobilizing issue on a silver platter.
With minor amendments, Brian Mulroney and the minister, Bernard Valcourt, could easily have short-circuited the opposition.
Most Canadians and Quebecers are not opposed to the basic purpose of this law, that the government refuses to pay unemployment benefits to people who choose to quit their job and not to work. The debate is not on that principle, but on the way the bill would be implemented, especially the risk of bureaucratic errors and abuse by employers.
The real mystery is that the federal government did not agree to make these relatively simple changes that would not have affected the underlying logic of the bill. If Mr. Valcourt had been open, he could also have dispelled some fears that are not always founded.
Ottawa's attitude is hard to explain, except that we are already in the period leading up to a federal election. It is quite possible that the Conservatives' intransigence is not a blunder but part of a strategy. Confrontation with the unions and the left that is close to the NDP certainly does not hurt the Conservatives. On the contrary, this polarization helps the Conservatives bring back right-wing voters who had been drawn to the Reform Party.
This would be a sly calculation if the upsurge of anger as seen in Montreal on Sunday concerned only the technicalities of Bill C-105. That is not the case. This indignation is also due to the image of

Government Orders
insensitivity of a government that is zealous in this bill after it made a virtue of not acting to help the unemployed or speed the recovery.
On the contrary, this anger is likely to bring people together, whether they are on the right or on the left, because unemployment and uncertainty affect them regardless of party label.
This editorial reflects pretty well the feelings of those who took part in that demonstration. How many times have we in the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition asked the government to present an infrastructure project? It answers that it cannot act because it lacks the necessary funds. But when it comes to crushing the unemployed we saw the insensitivity of the Minister of Employment and Immigration today. When he was asked how much it cost to hire 100 more investigators in 1992 he replied: "I don't know. It's not important". The important thing for him is that hiring these additional investigators saved the unemployment insurance system $200 million. This $200 million does not have a human face; he did not care about the human side. The government has always neglected to put people first.


Mr. Lyle Dean Mac William (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say in standing to oppose Bill C-98, I am standing to oppose the failure of this administration to deal effectively with the major responsibility that it has and that is to deal responsibly with the tax revenues in this country. This bill is an admission of that failure.
This year's deficit is over $7 billion higher than was projected. Next year the deficit is projected to be about $32.6 billion which is twice the amount that was projected last year. If we look at the interest payments alone over the next couple of years we are looking at over $40 billion in interest payments on the debt alone.
That has to be an admission of failure. The government is broke. It is out of money. It has to come back to the House for approval to borrow more money to continue to do its job and do it inadequately.
We are basically being asked to write a rubber cheque. I think the members on this side of the House find that particularly problematic. The fact that the government has to come to the House and extend its borrowing
authority through this bill is an admission of the failure of the last nine years of its administration.
Actually it goes back even more. Let us not blame it all on this government. When it came into power in 1984 it was already dealing with a deficit that was spiralling out of control because of the fiscal mismanagement of its predecessor which was the Liberal government of that time. It had ballooned the deficit to I believe some $179 billion in 1979-80.
Unfortunately, rather than dealing with the deficit and bringing that deficit down to manageable levels, it has taken that debt and more than doubled it from $179 billion to today where we have an accumulated debt of over $400 billion facing Canadians. It is an admission of failure.
I can recall when the Prime Minister was first elected some nine years ago. In his first speech to the House of Commons he made the comment: "Give us 20 years and you will not recognize this country". We have only had nine years and looking around we already do not recognize the Canada we have today compared to the Canada we had before this government came into power.
It has been nine years of fiscal mismanagement, nine years of misdirected priorities, nine years of economic failure. The Canadian people are tired of the misplaced directions this government has led this nation, all the while touting itself as a responsible financial manager.
This is nothing if not a legacy of failure. It has continued to follow the divine rule of supply side management, the trickle down theory, where if we loosen up the tax policies for those at the top echelons of society, the wealthy individuals, the large corporations, if we loosen up the purse strings and allow them to keep more of their revenue by reducing their tax structure then they will be able to blossom economically and the rest of the country will follow along in suit. That is known as the trickle down theory. It has not worked.
I think I speak on behalf of all Canadians when I say that Canadians have been trickled on enough and are tired of the policies of this administration. They are tired of the Reaganomics this government has practised over the past nine years. Look at our neighbours to the south. We have had a change in the political winds. President Clinton has recognized full well that there needs to be a substantial change in the economic policies and priorities
February 11, 1993

of our neighbours to the south. That is why President Bush was kicked out of office. It was because the Americans were tired of that same kind of economic mismanagement.
This is a doomed policy. This government by following the policy is doomed to relegate itself to the dustbin of history. It is proof that we cannot wring out of the economy an economic recovery by strangling the very social programs which provide the safety net for those people during tough times.
The government has targeted our social programs, unemployment insurance and the income assistance programs as being the culprits for the reason it is having such difficulty balancing the books. I want to say that only 6 per cent of our debt load is actually due to the cost of social programs.
When we break down the debt load of this country and analyse where most of the debt has accumulated from we see that over 40 per cent of that debt has resulted from compounded interest. While this government continued to follow a high interest rate policy it was burdening itself with an increasingly higher debt and it had less and less ability to follow.
The remainder of our debt is simply due to the failure of this government to recover the tax revenues that were due and payable to it by its corporate friends across Canada who stuck billions of dollars away in deferred tax payments, through tax loopholes and other schemes such as the billions of dollars that have been hidden away in family trusts. It does not cancel those. It does not close those loopholes. It does not say to the corporate sector of Canada that it is time to pay its fair share.
What government does is burden the unemployed by bringing in Draconian new measures which are going to decrease the insurance that our unemployed Canadians have had as a kind of safety net to get them through these tough times. They are burdening Canada's weakest element, our unemployed Canadians, those who have been out of work for some time by cutting back on the very programs that provide them some degree of security-
It is proof that this kind of policy direction does not work, has not worked and will not work in the future.
Government Orders
The debt problem has been made a lot worse because of the implementation of the free trade agreement back in 1988-89. When that agreement was brought into force overnight we lost over $2.2 billion in tax revenues that should have come to the Crown but no longer did because of the reduced tariffs. That was immediately. Over the years that have followed we have lost billions and billions of dollars in taxes as a result of the reduced tariff structure. Above and beyond that we have lost over
500,000	jobs which directly or indirectly are attributable to the impact and the implementation of the free trade agreement in Canada.
We have had an economic haemorrhaging of tax revenues and an economic haemorrhaging in terms of job losses in this country, which is scandalous to say the least. As well we have hundreds of businesses moving south. Those jobs will not come back to Canada. They are gone. They are gone for good. We are undergoing an economic revolution in this country in terms of the restructuring that is taking place. The jobs that are leaving are leaving for good. They will not be back and we have to find some way of regenerating some sort of economic growth in light of that reality.
We have permanent restructuring going on in this country and the government talks about the need to become competitive. I do not disagree with that. We do need to become competitive. But the policies this administration is trying to implement in order to develop competitiveness in this country are in the wrong direction.
The tools for competitiveness in a knowledge based, information based economy are the tools that are put into the hands of people to generate the skills, and the training, the knowledge, the research and development that is necessary to develop the kind of knowledge-based, information-based infrastructure society needs today to compete with those highly developed communities throughout the Pacific rim and the other countries we are competing with on a global basis.
This government has not recognized that. Instead it continues to cut funding to our provinces, to cut the cost shared programs. It is strangling the economy rather than finding ways of investing in our economy to put people back to work and create the long-lasting knowledge-based jobs that are required if this country is ever

Government Orders
going to be front and centre with a competitive and vibrant structure in our global economy.
This is the wrong direction the government is taking. It is going to suffer when it comes to an election because the people of Canada are no longer willing to put up with the mistaken policies and the mistaken economic direction this government has followed.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use the few minutes that are left to address the questions raised by this bill to extend the borrowing authority of the government and to provide for some $8 billion. As many speakers have indicated, that reflects an increase in the actual deficit for this fiscal year from the $27.5 billion originally estimated to the present estimate of $34.4 billion.
It is interesting to note what is the chief source of this increase in the estimated deficit. It is attributable to an $8 billion decrease in revenue. To what is that attributable? Fundamentally, it is attributable to the fact that we now have 1.5 million people unemployed. It is attributable to the fact that we had 76,000 bankruptcies last year. In my own home town of Windsor, where the unemployment rate is 14 per cent, there is an indication of the damage this government has done to the economy which is ultimately that to which the problem must be attributed.
I want to put emphasis on the fact that in Windsor the unemployment rate among youth is 25 per cent.


An hon. member:: Shameful.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is 25 per cent. We know that we have been overwhelmed with all kinds of means to save money, mostly consisting of a tax on the unemployed. I just want to take this opportunity to suggest to the government it did not need to attack the unemployed. I say that because of the savings which have been generated in the financial statement, most of which come from changes in UI: $500 million from a decrease in the percentage of wages that will be paid through UI and another $300 million by virtue of the Draconian attack that expresses itself in attempts, for example, to mount the PC KGB.
What the government might have done, just to give a few examples, is to take a look at the meals and entertainment expense deduction, which is worth about
$1 billion. Actually, I think it would be very useful to have spies to count the escorts that are being paid for by our taxpayers through those deductions.
Perhaps it should look at the private family trust tax break which was generated not by the Tories but by the Liberals. By the way, that tax break was among a bunch of tax breaks generated in the 1970s by the previous government to help the rich and help the corporations that are cutting back on those things we need now which contributes to the problems we have. Take a look at that.
How about the tax cheaters? How about the fraudulent taxes? How about the shell game that goes on among multinationals to cheat Canadians out of taxes?
Yes, there is an alternative. The real alternative is the New Democrats and their leader.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed 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):: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The government Whip has advised me that the vote will be deferred until Monday at six o'clock p.m.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 36, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
February 11, 1993



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Fred J. Mifflin: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial jurisdiction for northern cod over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Ele said: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion that has been in the making for a long time. I want to read the motion again. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial jurisdiction for northern cod over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
This is a private members' motion that I put forward. It is not the first time this subject has been discussed in the House. There have been emergency debates on it. There have been opposition days and in the last four and a quarter years-I did a quick tally before I came to the House today-the subject has come up very close to 50 times one way or another.
This will be a votable motion so I would enjoin my colleagues from all sides of the House to pay attention to what we are discussing here because they are going to have to vote yea or nay on this subject.
Anybody watching this debate right now may say: "Well, why is this subject coming up at this particular point in time?" I will explain why it is coming up at this particular point in time. I came to this House 50 months ago and made a speech in which I talked the about necessity for Canada to take control of its fishing area. I talked particularly about taking control over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks which traditionally for 500 years have been part of the Newfoundland fishery and the Canadian fishery.
I have used almost every occasion in this House when the subject of fisheries has come up to encourage the House and Parliament to approve the motion so that Canada could control its straddling stocks of groundfish, particularly northern cod.
It has been a fixation with many that this be done. I am not saying that this is my only mission here but when I campaigned to come to this House of Commons, I had two concerns. I stated them and they are on the record.
Private Members' Business
One was my opposition not to free trade but to the free trade agreement as it was negotiated. The second one was my concern that we should as soon as possible establish Canadian jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
I have given many speeches and my colleague behind me has given many speeches, as I said earlier. We have attacked it from the chronology of why we want it. We went through the chronology of the fact that Canada is in a unique position because it has a unique and large gradual continental shelf that goes out to 200 miles. In certain cases, it goes beyond. That is what makes this case unique.
We have argued that in an international court of law. International marine law is conducted differently from civil law and we have made the case, I am confident, that this motion is doable. We can go before the Court of International Justice and Marine Law and plead our case. We could have done so years ago. If we could have done it then we at least could do it now.
In an effort to perhaps try a different approach to convince my colleague and this House to take this action and to vote positively on this, let me work it backward. Let me explain where we are now, why we are where we are now and what this motion will do to perhaps alleviate the situation.
On July 2, 1992 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a two-year moratorium on northern cod. This is a migratory straddling stock off the coast of Newfoundland in NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, area 2J-3KL. The 3KL area is adjacent to my riding and to the northeast coast of Newfoundland.
The government established this moratorium in the belief that a complete closure now offered the only chance for the spawning biomass of the northern cod stock to recover quickly to long-term average levels.
The estimate was that 9,000 fishermen and 10,000 plant workers and trawlermen would be thrown out of work as a result of this moratorium. The Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce believes that the moratorium will affect 80,000 people in the Atlantic region, including 60,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have to add sadly that in a part of the country where a steady job is a status symbol this is atrocious. It is sad.

February 11, 1993
Private Members' Business
This is an unprecedented step. It will go down in history as an unprecedented move by any government. History will record why it was necessary. Let me explain why it was necessary. We have as a result of this action Canadian trawlers that are secured to the dock and processing plants that are closed. Foreign fleets can still fish with impunity outside the 200-mile zone.
The concern is that the European Community countries have more than overstepped their mark. They have more than caught their quotas and have more than ignored the warnings, the admonitions and yes, the diplomatic efforts of this government to cease and desist.
For the record, I want to give you some indication of how badly these transgressions have been. Since 1986 the European Community has consistently exceeded its quotas allocated by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. I will use the abbreviation NAFO. It has no less than plundered the cod stock. NAFO, I should explain, is responsible for managing 10 fish stocks, groundfish, off the northeast coast of Newfoundland.
In 1986 Spain and Portugal in particular, which were new members, began setting their own quotas of the NAFO-managed stock and on northern cod, which is recognized as a Canadian stock.
Here are some examples: In 1986 the European Community's NAFO quota for all groundfish species- and I will round the figures off-was 26,000 tonnes. What was the catch? One hundred and eleven thousand tonnes. Between 1987 and 1991 the quotas totalled
90.000	tonnes but they reported catches of 270,000 tonnes.
In 1990 the European Community fleet scooped up
98.000	tonnes of groundfish worth more than $100 million. This amount was 82,000 tonnes in excess of the NAFO allocation. Non-NAFO fleets took an additional
40,000.	The impact of this overfishing has been devastating.
The scope of this piracy was even greater when their catches of northern cod are singled out. It had a northern cod quota of 9,500 tonnes in both years of 1986 and 1987 and was not allocated any quotas beyond; 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. Yet, during this six-year period the European Community harvested more than 220,000
tonnes. I have to say now that a thousand tonnes of cod relates purely to about 30 to 40 jobs. If we look at the seasonal nature of the industry it works out to about 100 full-time jobs. So a thousand tonnes is 100 jobs. I just talked about plundering 220,000 tonnes.
During this six-year period the Canadian total allowable catch for northern cod fell by 28 per cent, from
266,000	tonnes to 199,000 tonnes. The European Community increased its effort by 30 per cent and our total allowable catch was reduced by 30 per cent, to speak in rough figures.
As deplorable as this is, what was the government in power doing at the time? A good question. Let me describe what it has done.
In response to this blatant overfishing the European Community had been denied allocations of non-surplus stocks in Canadian waters. Then we had the constant travel across the Atlantic by the external affairs minister and the minister of fisheries. We had members of the diplomatic corps and civil servants from the Department of External Affairs, and indeed politicians, going across in the last four years to try to get the message across to the European Community countries that we will not be able to withstand this, it must stop overfishing. It is like telling a child that he or she cannot do something, and yet not resorting to any form of carrot and stick philosophy.
The Conservative government continued to place its faith in NAFO, oblivious to the fact that this has been shown to be a feeble organization with absolutely no powers of enforcement.
NAFO instituted a hail system in which the fishing vessels were required to report when they entered or left NAFO zones. The system was intended to make it more difficult to misrepresent or under-report catches. Violators would be answerable only to the authorities in their native countries. If you transgress against Canada go back to Spain or Portugal and see what your government wants to do about it.
Here is another example of the stick and carrot method and how effective this was: The European Community was assigned a patrol vessel to the northwest Atlantic for seven months in 1991. The idea of the vessel was to complement Canada's aerial surveillance outside the 200-mile zone, specifically in the nose and tail of the banks.
February 11, 1993

However, in this seven-month period there were no reports of any arrests by this patrol vessel during its tour of duty.
After countless efforts by the government, countless speeches and countless efforts by this side of the House to enforce Canadian jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the banks, that little portion outside the 200-mile zone that we have not been able to control, on December 21, 1992, when everybody was away starting their Christmas holidays on the Monday of Christmas week, the government came out with a press release. It said: "Finally an agreement has been reached to end serious and longstanding fishing problems with the European Community".
What did all this mean? It meant that the European Community one more time said it was not going to transgress against NAFO allocations and was not going to catch any fish. Why was it not going to catch any fish? There is no fish there to catch. It is a perfectly logical thing for the European Community to do. When all our fish have disappeared the trawlers are tied up and Newfoundland and Atlantic Canadian fishermen cannot go fishing any more. Is it any wonder that the European Community agree with our government who says: "If you promise not to fish, we will do a whole bunch of things for you".
One of the things we did was to open up our ports to these communities because they are not going to fish anymore. I wonder if they went out to fish off the Grand Banks what they would catch. The House of Commons is not the place to say what I hope they would catch.
As I understand this agreement, the Europeans have agreed to Canadian observers but only on 10 per cent of their boats. This means that when they decide to fish, when the fish stocks come back, and perhaps even before our trawlermen get out to fish, on 90 per cent of their ships, fishing boats and vessels they will fish unobserved.
The minister of fisheries is quoted as saying in the local newspaper in St. John's, Newfoundland: "We have every protection in this agreement". Closer to the truth
Private Members' Business
is that this enthusiastic attempt to convince Canadians is not very convincing in my mind.
How can we pretend to get very much that is reasonable out of those who have always been so blatantly unreasonable and, as the restrictions on the observers suggest, will continue to be so. The best thing about this deal announced on Christmas week is that it can be cancelled with 60 days notice.
An identical motion to this was put forward by the opposition on March 12 and unfortunately it was defeated by the government. I would have to say in the presence of my colleagues that the Liberal caucus has consistently called upon the government to implement NAFO's powers of enforcement. Otherwise the relevance of the organization must be questioned, and that is exactly what I am doing today. I am questioning that relevance.
The Liberal Party has stated that in the event these initiatives fail Canada must move to attain functional fisheries jurisdiction over the entire continental shelf, which would include the nose and tail of the banks. That is what my motion reflects.
Roughly one year ago at a policy convention a resolution was passed with the stick-handling of many of us on this side of the House. The entire convention agreed with the resolution that the Government of Canada should move toward international negotiations, and failing that unilaterally declare that the nose and tail of the Grand Banks falls within Canada's economic zone.
I have spent a lot of time and effort with international lawyers asking them if this is possible. I admit there is not total agreement. This is a judgment thing. Which side your judgment comes down on I suppose might rest on which side of the House you sit. I hope not because it is my belief that when you go forward to the International Marine Court of Justice and argue your case the precedent allows you to argue on the future of a country's economy and the future of the people who are affected by that economy.
If it had been decided when I first did my research on this five years ago that it was worth a try, and Canada may well be successful at a time when our northern cod stocks were declining, I would have to conclude that at a

Private Members' Business
point in time when Canadian fishermen must remain, alongside and plants had to be closed because foreign overfishing among other things has been a major factor in causing this moratorium. Were an international court of justice-as I understand it is to consider it and follow the four precedents that pertain in this case, it is my belief we could win our case.
There is no question it would take a lot of time. It would take a lot of talent. It would take a lot of negotiation but the name of the game is to try to say that we are going to do it. Put your back behind the wheel and put your case forward because I can assure you one thing, it is like buying a lotto ticket. If you do not buy a ticket you cannot win. If we do not put our case forward we will never know whether we will be able to control our own fisheries, in this case specifically the nose and tail of the banks.
As I draw to a close my address on this motion, I believe it is one of the motions put forward in this House which if voted affirmatively could have the most positive action on Atlantic Canada in restoring our fishery and restoring our custodial management of those stocks and those resources that affect, in the words of the Chamber of Commerce, 80,000 Canadians. I urge our members and our colleagues to join me and vote when the time comes in support of this important and key motion.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in response to the speech of the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. I know he speaks passionately about this subject. He also speaks about a subject of which he has had a lot of firsthand experience from people in his own constituency, and I am sure he has sailed on the Grand Banks as well.
I have not, but I have been out on the Pacific. I have been where the salmon on the west coast traverse and on the rivers they go up to spawn as well. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has risen in this House on more than one occasion to describe what would happen if Canada unilaterally extended the custodial jurisdiction for cod or any species beyond the 200-mile limit.
Such gunboat diplomacy would be in violation of international agreements. The hon. member opposite is thinking in terms of gunboat diplomacy because he comes from that milieu, from a long history of being in the navy and they understand that kind of diplomacy.
I feel it would invite retaliatory action and would threaten the co-operation we are succeeding in obtaining from many states in efforts to promote sustainable development of fisheries resources on the high seas.
I would like to outline for hon. members opposite and for all members in this House two of our most recent achievements toward that goal. The first, and the member opposite has alluded to it, is the agreement we have reached with the European Community. The second is the positive outlook for sustainable development in high seas fisheries demonstrated by representatives of 48 like-minded states at a meeting which our government hosted in St. John's in preparation for the United Nations Conference on High Seas Fisheries which will begin in New York City this coming April. The comprehensive agreement with the European Community which was reached in December 1992 has the potential to go a long way toward ending the calamity of overfishing outside the 200-mile limit.
Hon. members are well aware that foreign overfishing has taken a heavy toll on stocks of cod, flounder and redfish that straddle the 200-mile limit and that the principal source of this problem has been fleets from the European Community. Now our agreement with the European Community has the potential to make the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization once more as it was in the years following the extension of jurisdiction in 1977, an effective means to conserve and manage fisheries for straddling stocks in international waters.
Central to this is that the EC will now, as it did until 1986, accept and abide by NAFO quotas and other conservation and management decisions. In 1989 the Government of Canada launched diplomatic, legal and public information initiatives against foreign overfishing. Tragically since 1989 the state of straddling stocks has gone from bad to worse.
For example, the total allowable catch for the Grand Banks flounder stock, American plaice, has been cut by more than 75 per cent. However, over the last four years there have been a number of positive steps which indicate that there will be an improvement in the resource in the near future.
February 11, 1993

Let me illustrate this. In 1989 the EC set unilateral quotas totalling just over 132,000 tonnes, about 20 times its NAFO quotas. Under the agreement reached in December the EC has accepted all of NAFO's quotas for 1993. In 1989 the EC refused to accept NAFO quotas and the moratorium on northern cod catches outside 200 miles, insisting that its unilateral quotas were based on scientific advice. In 1992 the EC was guided by scientific advice to accept all of NAFO's decisions for 1993 including the moratorium on northern cod.
In 1989 EC catches exceeded not only the NAFO quotas but also the higher unilateral quotas the EC set for itself. In 1992 the EC closely monitored its fleets and closed fisheries for cod, flounder and redfish when quotas were caught.
In 1989 there was little or no international recognition of the overfishing problem. As a result of Canadian efforts the ecological consequences of overfishing outside 200 miles is a high profile international issue. For example, at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development, the earth summit, in Rio de Janeiro it said the 1989 agreement had not been reached on developing the Law of the Sea toward ending high seas overfishing; but late in 1992 the United Nations General Assembly approved a resolution calling for a high seas fisheries conference, and as I mentioned earlier there is good reason to be optimistic about the outcome of this conference.
Throughout the period since 1989 a tremendous effort has been made by Canada to have the principle of sustainable development given effect in high seas fisheries in the northwest Atlantic.
The Prime Minister has played a key role, raising the issue repeatedly at the highest international levels. The minister of Indian affairs and the minister of employment, when they were ministers of fisheries and oceans, had laboured hard on this issue. So have the present and former Secretary of State for External Affairs and our environment minister.
The Canadian fishing industry, unions and provincial governments have done so as well, advising every step of the way as to how the federal government should proceed and participating in Canada's efforts. All of these efforts were co-ordinated first by Alan Beesley
Private Members' Business
and upon his retirement by Randolph Gherson, the current ambassador for fisheries conservation.
As our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has observed, we should also recognize that there is a profound change in the outlook of the European Community. Critical to this was the personal commitment to sustainable development of Manuel Marin, the EC vice-president for fisheries during the period. He deserves considerable credit for his determination to resolve these problems and for the important steps leading up to the agreement.
Let me review briefly the elements of the agreement. The EC and Canada agreed to comply with all of NAFO's conservation and management decisions, including quotas, and the EC will ensure that catches by its fleets do not exceed NAFO quotas. By way of comparison, from 1986 to 1992 the EC set for itself unilateral quotas higher than those set for it by NAFO. EC catches exceeded most NAFO quotas and in some cases the EC's higher unilateral quotas.
Canada and the EC will work together to end fishing by non-NAFO fleets. These fleets, largely comprising Korean and reflagged EC vessels, have become an increasingly serious threat to resources outside 200 miles.
Canada and the EC will work together to revitalize NAFO through joint proposals to add a dispute settlement mechanism to avoid abuse of the objection procedure.
Canada will set a total allowable catch, TAC for northern 2J-3KL cod once the present moratorium ends, based on advice from Canadian and international scientists. Scientific advice indicates that on average 5 per cent of the biomass is outside 200 miles. Canada and the EC will propose that NAFO make allocations of 2J-3KL cod equal to 5 per cent of the total allowable catch. Canada will retain 95 per cent of the TAC.
As the EC will now be co-operating with Canada in conservation of fisheries resources outside 200 miles, as soon as both parties have given formal approval Canada

February 11, 1993
Private Members' Business
will provide access to ports and any surplus allocations and permit commercial arrangements.
If problems arise from the agreement there will be consultations to seek to resolve them. Either Canada or the EC can terminate the agreement on 60 days notice.
Now we have a forum. In June 1992 the UN Conference on Environment and Development called for a high seas fisheries conference. In late 1992 the UN General Assembly created the conference. Canada is no longer alone. We have more than 50 states with us to deliver a powerful ecological message against high seas overfishing.
It has been a long and bitter road in our struggle against foreign overfishing. We have travelled a considerable distance toward our goal. While that goal still seems far off we are on the right road and we are in good company. The meeting of like-minded states in St. John's brought us another step closer to what we must achieve, which is sustainable development in high seas fisheries. I look for the day when we will lift that moratorium so that people on the east coast, particularly in Newfoundland, can go back to the sea and fish for that northern cod.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member for Fraser Valley East was reading the same motion as I am. I do not see that the motion calls for unilateral action on the part of Canada.
I did not have an opportunity to discuss this with the mover of the motion, the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, but the motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take
immediate action to extend custodial jurisdiction for northern cod
over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
The action may or may not include actually moving in there and doing it. I am not clear in my own mind and I wish I had thought to ask ahead of time.
In any case it is great to get the reassurances. This is not a new problem. It has existed for a decade and a half at least. We have had Liberal governments and we have had Conservative governments and both have given assurances that the problem is being worked on and that progress is being made.
While progress is being made, as the mover of the motion said it is fairly easy to get people to refrain from
fishing when there are no fish there. We are perilously close to that situation even off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
For the last four years I have been here each year has brought us closer to the point we are now at with respect to the north Atlantic cod. We now have a moratorium on fishing limits, a two-year holiday. We are giving the cod a holiday for two years. It takes cod six years to mature and breed, so what is two years going to do?
I have no confidence that the cod stocks are going to miraculously reappear in two years time. I wish that could be the case. We all wish it. However it is wishing and not doing anything concrete that has us in the difficulty we are in right now.
I can recall when the current minister of fisheries, at that time the minister of trade, said that he would not allow the cod quota to be reduced to 190,000 tonnes because it would be tough on Newfoundlanders and would create unemployment. The experts were saying it should be 190,000 tonnes or perhaps even less than that but the current minister of fisheries insisted that the quota stay at 260,000 tonnes.
That was the beginning of the trouble. I said at the time that it was short-term gain for long-term pain. I was much more prophetic than I realized at the time.
The member for Fraser Valley East spoke about the great progress that is being made and about the co-operation of the European Community. I can recall travelling to Europe with members of the committee in 1989 when representatives of the European Community told us that as long as we were harvesting the stocks the way we were and as long as we were not obeying the recommendations of our experts to cut the quotas seriously they were not going to pay any attention to the quotas either.
Now we are certainly paying attention. We have stopped fishing and that should have been done earlier than it was. We have demonstrated that we are prepared to take this measure in Canada when it is shown that there is no other alternative. We are doing it. We are proving to the world that we are doing it.
NAFO is agreeing. It has always gone along with us. It is the European Community that has not. One member of NAFO, the European Community, has not paid any attention to all the quotas that have been set. It has exceeded them regularly.
February 11, 1993

There are others however. South Korea is not a member of the European Community or NAFO. Neither is the United States. There are vessels registered under Panamanian registry or registered in other countries that are not bound by any of the agreements of which the member for Fraser Valley East spoke.
Unless we are prepared to really do something about this situation the problem will not be solved. I suggest that the thing to do is to set a time and say that by a certain date, and it cannot be too far off, in the very near future in the interest of preserving the little that is left of the north Atlantic cod Canada will unilaterally insist on taking over the management of the cod stocks off the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We must make it very clear. Give the world some time to react to that.
Let us talk and reach an agreement as to how long this will take, what will happen afterwards if it works and how we can work together in measuring the situation and seeing what we can learn about it. Is it the environment? Is it the seals? Is it overfishing? Is it a lack of food? Is it everything? We do not know. Let us get the world to co-operate with us but at the same time say that come June 1993, or 1994, Canada will take over management of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks area and make sure that we do preserve what is left of the cod stock.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception for having the foresight to present this private member's motion before the House in order that we can discuss it at greater length.
I, my colleague and others in this House are fully aware of the importance of this situation but I do not think there are many members in this House who appreciate the severity of what the fishing industry is going through as much as the hon. member. He knows about this situation only too well from his own personal experience and his involvement on the seas, particularly the Grand Banks.
This is not subject matter that has just come to the attention of the House. In fact on March 12, 1992 my colleague from Burin-St. George's put forward a motion that reads as follows:
Private Members' Business
That, in the opinion of this House, in order to prevent further ecological disaster through the pillage of transboundary fish stocks off Canada's east coast, and in order to save an essential national industry and valued way of life for many rural citizens, Canada should take immediate steps to extend its functional jurisdiction to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
The government of the day voted against that motion. The minister responsible for fisheries said, and I quote from page 8085 of Hansard:
The government and I will be asking my colleagues to vote against it because it is premature and it is certainly inexplicit as to what Canada has been asked to do.
That is what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said.
I found that to be rather alarming in view of the fact that the motion was presented by our party to solicit the support to begin the process. No member on this side has said or intimated that the extension of this jurisdiction would somehow be the panacea for all the ills that the fishing industry faces at the present time. We are not that naive. The people we represent are not so naive as to think it will be the panacea. However, why does the government of the day refuse to begin that process?
I can only suggest to this House and to the members who have been in it here for quite some time that although it may be a priority for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-and I underline the word may and I do so with great respect-I know it is not a priority of the government opposite.
In what jurisdiction, in what parliamentary democracy would we see such avoidance of the issue as demonstrated time and time again by the Secretary of State for External Affairs? The present Secretary of State for External Affairs is following the track record of her predecessor, the right hon. member for Yellowhead. They have not dealt with this issue as a government issue, as a national issue of great importance. They have fluffed it off. It is a fisheries thing. We will give it to Crosbie the old windbag. He will do his thing. He will get up and tell a few jokes. He will tell everybody: "Ah we cannot do this. It is not going to be this and it is not going to be that".
The credence and the significance of the forethought of my colleague is that he has presented the motion not to defeat the government but to solicit its support. Members of the New Democratic Party would love to criticize those of us in the Official Opposition and have done so repeatedly, not very wisely I might add, but in

February 11, 1993
Private Members' Business
this particular instance they see the merit of beginning the process. Yet the remarks from the government, from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans were an unmitigated disaster.
I hope we will have an opportunity to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the minister of federal-provincial relations later on in the debate about how they believe it is such a great priority.
I am disappointed in the response of the government. I want it to be clearly on the record that we as a national party, and we stated it in a national party resolution, support the extension of the jurisdiction beyond the tail and nose of the Grand Banks. We made the motion knowing full well that it would not just be by the stroke of the pen, that it would be a timely process and there would be time for the Government of Canada to move in that direction.
What have we heard? A road block, excuse, a road block, excuse, a road block, excuse. Before the hon. members stand in their places and condemn us I want them to know that we do not believe that by extending this jurisdiction the fisheries will change over night. For God's sake, as a national priority come to the aid of people who fish off the Grand Banks and off the east coast, whether in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I. or Newfoundland. Come to their aid and come to their cause. It transcends partisan differences. It ought to transcend different ideologies, whatever they may be. But there is this foot dragging and this excuse that we have to talk to this certain country. We cannot do this with that country and this country over here has this bilateral agreement. We are all part of this international organization and therefore they may not accept or agree. But if you do not begin the process the objective will never be achieved.
We have heard the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans say in debate on the floor of this House, as I believe my colleague made reference to, that the extension of the jurisdiction would be a laudable goal and objective. But no one in the department or within the Government of Canada has acted. I do not blame so much the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans; I blame the minister of external affairs who has shown wanton disrespect and neglect of the fishermen of this country, particularly on the east
coast. I do not know how any member of that party opposite, particularly from Atlantic Canada, could support that minister or her candidacy for higher office.
I want to put it on the record that we will raise this issue again and again. We hope over a period of time members opposite will realize the importance of the goal we are trying to achieve.
I will conclude my remarks this evening by once again thanking my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception, for having the foresight to put this motion before the House and for having this debate on an important fundamental aspect of Canadian life; of Canadian fisheries policies. It is fundamental to Canada's place in the world as it interfaces with other countries throughout the world. I thank and congratulate my colleague for having that foresight.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, this evening we are discussing the advisability of extending the Canadian 200-mile limit. Extension of custodial jurisdiction would amount to unilateral extension of jurisdiction outside 200 miles. Since there is no provision for such action under international law, such action by Canada would be opposed by the international community. It would be unenforceable. It would invite confrontation, potential violence and threat to life at sea.
What this government is doing, instead, is working co-operatively at the bilateral, regional and multilateral level to give full effect to the provisions of the law of the sea convention regarding conservation and management of high seas fisheries.
Significant progress has been made, and I would like to review for hon. members some of the effective steps this government has been taking and will be taking through what we call our legal initiative in seeking international action to stop the overfishing on the high seas before valuable resources are further depleted and the coastal communities that depend on them for their existence are devastated.
First, however, I would like to review the nature of the problem. It is only through understanding the problem that has developed in high seas fisheries that the elements of an effective solution can be worked out in full.
February 11, 1993

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or to use its acronym, UNCLOS, contains a framework for co-operation on management and conservation for the high seas beyond the limits on national jurisdiction. Unfortunately, it leaves legal rights and obligations applicable to straddling stocks-and other stocks not under the exclusive management of coastal states such as highly migratory species-in an ambiguous state. The specific rights of coastal states and the concomitant obligations of the high-seas fishing states are only vaguely sketched out in the Law of the Sea Treaty. The resulting legal uncertainty leaves these stocks vulnerable to overfishing on the high seas by fleets from distant fishing countries.
Under UNCLOS the basis for regulating fisheries within 200 miles is clear. The task coastal states face there is to put in place measures needed to conduct the fishery on a sustainable basis. The responsibilities are very clearly established, even if there may at times be deficiencies or errors in the exercise of that authority. Those coastal states fortunate enough to possess resources have assumed this responsibility and have developed effective management regimes at considerable cost to themselves.
But how is that obligation to be given practical effect? This is not a theoretical question but a practical problem that if not addressed effectively, on an urgent basis, will continue to give rise to ecological disasters wherever straddling stocks are found.
This serious gap in the international legal framework affects conservation of important fish stocks in a number of areas of the world: hake and squid in the southwest Atlantic on Argentina's Patagonian Shelf; orange roughy on the Challenger Plateau off New Zealand; tuna in the south Pacific; and blue whiting and jack mackerel in the east central and southeast Pacific. There is also northern cod off Newfoundland's northeast coast which is managed by Canada, but which can be fished, to a limited extent, outside 200 miles.
It is worth noting that there are overfishing problems in most of these areas, whether or not a regional fisheries organization has been established. Destructive overfishing takes place unless there is agreement on
Private Members' Business
effective management among all participants in the fishery.
Let us briefly review what this serious gap in the legal framework has meant to Canada's Atlantic fisheries and the fishermen, plant workers and communities that depend on them.
In 1977, Canada extended its fishing jurisdiction to 200 nautical miles, the maximum permitted under the law of the sea. However, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland extend beyond 200 miles in two important fishing areas known as the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. Cod, flounder and redfish migrate back and forth across the 200-mile limit in those areas.
Conservation requires regulation of fisheries outside 200 miles in international waters, as well as inside 200 miles. Canada and other countries that fish in this area formed the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, or to use its acronym, NAFO, in 1979. Until 1985, NAFO worked reasonably well. Catches were limited to levels recommended by scientists, and fisheries resources that had been depleted by overfishing before 1977 began to rebuild.
In 1986 Spain and Portugal joined the European Community, and the EC began to opt out of NAFO conservation decisions and set far higher quotas for its fleet. Since then, heavy fishing by EC fleets has been a major cause of decline in cod and flounder stocks on which Canadian fishermen and plant workers rely. From 1986 to 1990 EC fleets alone reported catches of cod, flounder and redfish totalling more than 530,000 tonnes, more than five times the quotas assigned to the EC by NAFO.
The question is how to give practical effect to the obligations of distant fishing states to co-operate with each other and the appropriate coastal states in the conservation of fish stocks on the high seas.
Canada has been seeking a global solution, an effective, enforceable framework for conservation and management of resources beyond the 200-mile limit.
The attainment of such rules is the purpose behind what has been called Canada's legal initiative. These rules would clarify and lend substance to the vague provisions in UNCLOS.

Private Members' Business
Canada took the lead in pursuing this goal by convening an international conference of Law of the Sea experts in St. John's in September 1990. The experts agreed on certain fundamental principles, including that: members of the international community whose nationals fish in areas of the high seas must co-operate with each other and the adjacent coastal states on conservation including enforcement and dispute settlement; members of regional fisheries organizations have a duty to ensure that their nationals comply with all conservation measures, and that they do not resort to techniques such as reflagging of vessels to escape controls; distant fishing nations must ensure that fishing by their nationals on the high seas does not have an adverse effect on the living resources under the jurisdiction of coastal states; the management regime applied to the high-seas portion of stocks should be consistent with the management regime of the coastal states applicable in its exclusive economic zone.
I can assure the members of this House that this government will continue to work toward that objective through its legal initiative and other initiatives for global co-operation, to the benefit of Canadians and and of all people who depend upon the oceans' resources, in this generation and in future generations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The designated hour will end at 6.02 p.m. Therefore I recognize the hon. member for Davenport.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time available I would like to make a couple of points on this very interesting saga of the northern cod which also has some very dramatic social and economic implications.
First let me draw the attention of the House to the report entitled Independent Review of the State of the Northern Cod Stock that was produced in February 1990. It was signed by prominent Canadians knowledgeable in the field of northern cod. The panel consisted of Dr. Harris of Memorial University, D. L. Alverson, John Pope, Maxfield Short, Frank Smith, Mary Lou Peters and Robert Fournier.
What was their first recommendation? It read in respect of the northern cod stocks that as a matter of urgency there should be an immediate reduction of fishing mortality to the level of .3 and at the earliest
possible date to the level of .2. This was in February 1990.
It took the government two years to act on that recommendation. It was in February 1992 when finally that recommendation was partially acted upon. Why it would take that long is beyond me to understand. When I hear the member for Fraser Valley East speak about government efforts at promoting sustainable development I really wonder what he is talking about.
Second, an interesting aspect of government policy on this matter that may prove the point made by my colleagues from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception and Cape Breton-East Richmond is that the minister of fisheries seems to be operating in some kind of isolation and impotence. In his news release of January 10, 1992 the minister said:
Canada is calling for international support for principles and
measures within the framework of the Law of the Sea convention
toward ending overfishing of straddling stocks outside 200 miles.
I applaud him. That statement is highly desirable because article 63 of the Law of the Sea convention exhorts the coastal states and fishing states to seek to agree on conservation measures for straddling stocks.
The question is: Why is Canada not ratifying the Law of the Sea? How come the minister is left to invoke the Law of the Sea in the name of his mandate while the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not acting upon the ratification of the Law of the Sea? Canada was among the first nations to sign it but as you know, Mr. Speaker, there are two steps: the signature and then the ratification.
The Law of the Sea cannot come into effect and cannot become operative unless 60 nations ratify it. At this stage some 53 or 54 nations have ratified that convention. It is a very important one. According to article 63 it would permit the initiation of a number of conservation initiatives among states.
Why is Canada not ratifying the Law of the Sea? It is very relevant to the fine initiative taken today by my colleague from Bonavista-Tfinity-Conception. His initiative is one of breaking an impasse, of moving in a certain direction searching for an answer. It may be the one proposed by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. It may be a modification of it. We do not know exactly where we will ultimately end. Certainly
February 11, 1993

this movement would be facilitated if Canada were to ratify the Law of the Sea.
It leaves the minister of fisheries alone to invoke the Law of the Sea while at the same time the Government of Canada to which the minister belongs is not ratifying it. Does it make sense?
I will make my third point very briefly. The Government of Canada went to the Rio conference after successive preparatory meetings in the two years preceding it with the intention of resolving the question of fisheries. All it managed to do at the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development was to agree to hold another conference.
I see you rising, Mr. Speaker. We will leave it at that until the next time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I did not see the
clock so that the hon. member would have at least five minutes. He will have five minutes next time the motion is before us in the order of precedence.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business is now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I just finished speaking on a motion of national importance and I rise to speak on another subject, an entirely different subject but in my mind another subject of considerable national importance. This is a subject of the Canadian Forces, national defence and specifically the Canadian Forces Reserves.
I am rising on a follow-up to a question I asked the Minister of National Defence on November 30, 1992, a few days after the Auditor General's report came out. In trying to be as non-partisan as possible about this matter, and I am very serious, I had major concerns about the
Adjournment Debate
observations that the Auditor General made in his report released on November 24 regarding the Canadian Forces Reserves.
I had concerns because of the debt and of the seriousness of the concerns, some of which may have agreement and some which I think we need to have a very close look at. I am concerned about the growing importance of the reserve force in Canada as part of the total force concept.
Since 1987 the reserves in Canada, including the militia, the naval reserves, the communications command reserve and the air reserve have been a total part of Canada's defence effort and part of our manning. The total force concept seriously came into effect in 1987 and we started with roughly 30,000 reserves.
Right now-and I am going to concentrate on peacekeeping-the militia makes up 60 per cent of the army. In the last couple of months the media has focused on peacekeeping and the necessity for Canada to have a very close look at its peacekeeping forces.
The charge was made by the Auditor General that the reserves have a problem with accountability. They are not equipped properly. But the most serious charge made was that the reserves would not be ready.
I think the minister has to respond to that, because I find it inconsistent that the reserves now in peacekeeping make up 12.5 per cent of the force. Right now, 300 Newfoundlanders are going to Winnipeg to be trained to participate in peacekeeping. That is not a bad readiness factor.
Because of the importance of the total force concept and reserves on which we spent $750 million last year, I simply want the Minister of National Defence to address this issue and inform the Canadian public how serious these charges are and what she intends to do about them.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to outline the defence policy statement of April, 1992 to my colleague. It makes it quite clear that a highly motivated, well trained, properly equipped reserve force, capable of assuming a greater role in the defence of Canada is integral to the success of the forces' operation and activities, both at home and abroad.

February 11, 1993
Adjournment Debate
I know that from his past expertise, the hon. member is aware that the reserves have always been an integral part of the Canadian Forces.
I agree with you that the Auditor General's remarks were very timely last fall and DND does concur with a number of the suggestions he made. Reservists have been and will continue to be integrated into the Canadian Forces operations. They augmented our regular force during the Oka crisis and during the past year they have been on our missions in Bosnia, Croatia, Cyprus and Somalia.
A major effort is now being directed toward reviewing the equipment, recruitment and training in the Canadian Forces.
With regard to legislation which you raised in the House that day, we do not see any need at this time for legislation that would force employers to grant leaves of absence to members in the reserve. I am very pleased you raised this today and DND does agree with a lot of the issues the Auditor General brought forward.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (THnity- Spadina):: On September 15 I raised, with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the need to allow Dularie Boodlal to stay in Canada rather than force her to return to Trinidad where, after years of many violent acts in Trinidad and Canada, her husband had threatened to kill her.
The minister's reply was: "If the hon. member knows of facts that ought to be brought to my attention in this specific case, I urge him to do it".
I thanked the minister for his proposal and pointed out that my information was copied from the Legal Aid Service of Parkdale brief which they had already sent to him. In fact, a couple of days later the minister decided to let Mrs. Boodlal stay. I am very grateful for that, partly for its own sake and partly because it constitutes another very valuable precedent in an important emerging matter of law in Canada, that is to say recognition that women sometimes have special causes to be recognized as refugees because they are women.
I want to quote from the speech given yesterday to the Ottawa Womens' Canadian Club by Nuijehan Mawani, the new chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board, who has taken this matter up in a very strong and constructive way.
She points out that in such cases most people would consider that this person is a refugee because she is fleeing for her life. She says: "Can it be fitted into the form of the law that the person belongs to a group that is persecuted?" She also says that in a recent trial division decision in the Federal Court of Canada the court stated: "Trinidadian women subject to wife abuse" could constitute a particular social group within the meaning of the refugee definition. I welcome that statement by the chair of the board.
I note she has gone much further than that. She is setting out guidelines in the board which in the near future will be available to all board members to give a standard or uniform basis for interpreting such decisions and, much beyond that, she says that women refugee claimants who are often understandably reluctant to talk about what happened, especially when they come from certain cultures, will be put more at ease by having if possible women on the board hearing their cases, women refugee hearing officers, and women interpreters. She is moving in this way to make it as practical as possible for a woman to state her case as a women when she believes that she has been persecuted as a women.
She further says: "We have also established working groups of women refugee claimants across Canada to help train and sensitize members and staff alike to the unique problems faced by refugee women".
I think this is a very strong advance in the law of our country and I thank the chair of the board and the minister for it.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the minister has determined that Mrs. Boodlal and her two children will be allowed to remain in Canada while the processing of their application for permanent residence takes place. They will be required to meet the statutory requirements relating to health and back-
February 11, 1993

ground checks. Their deportation order must be effected prior to the issuance of immigrant visas.
I am glad the hon. member brought this matter to the attention of the minister. Indeed he is quite right that there are certain areas with regard to refugee status that are changing.


IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on February 4,1 asked the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration to initiate an independent inquiry into the serious allegations that the members of the Immigration and Refugee Board were subject to political influence in making their decisions, often contrary to the evidence that was put before them in the hearings.
These allegations were made by certain former members of the board in stories which were published in the Le Devoir in Montreal last week and were made more extensively near the end of last year by Dr. Sam Ifejika who resigned from the board in protest but issued a 24-page document in which he set out various cases in which he himself had been subject to influence and pressure by senior officials with the department.
This is supposed to be an independent quasi-judicial body. The members of the board are to listen to the evidence and make their decisions based on the evidence. We must remember that in these cases lives are at risk. People have fled from countries where their lives have been threatened, where they have been put in prison. For them it is a life and death issue.
What answer did I get from the minister? First of all she asked me-and perhaps it is because she is new in her position and she has not been properly briefed-to provide her with details. All the details were provided in the brief which has been tabled with the department and the minister of immigration, the 24-page brief by Dr. Ifejika. There are further allegations available in the articles which have been published in Le Devoir. Regarding my comments with respect to appointments to the board, she tells me that the committee has the right to review appointments to the board.
Everybody knows that even though we review those appointments in committee we can do nothing about it.
Adjournment Debate
This is not like the American system where the committees of Congress can turn down appointments. All we can do is review them. If we find they are bad, there is not much we can say. We can make a recommendation but that does not go very far.
I want to see a full independent investigation into these serious allegations. If the government has nothing to hide, it should agree to such an investigation.
I hope today that the parliamentary secretary will take seriously not simply my remarks but the allegations that have been made outside this House by others and not simply read to us some statement prepared by officials in the department.
That kind of response to the questions we raise in the adjournment debate makes a farce of this whole procedure and a farce of parliamentary reform. Unless the parliamentary secretary can get up and give me an honest response to the questions I have asked and to the allegations I have made, I would prefer that he or she sit in their seat and not say anything at all.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member because I know he has a great deal of interest in the board and is responding to some of the information that has been put forward by others.
The allegations of interference with the independence of the members in the minds of the minister and those in the department is unfounded. The IRB members are independent decision makers. Their responsibility is to determine each refugee claim based upon its merit. The board has a responsibility to see that the decisions are fair and just to the claimants and consistent in that similar sets of facts produce similar decisions.
I think if the hon. member would look at a lot of those decisions or hear them, he would probably see that.
In this respect Bill C-86, as he would probably know, will provide the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board with greater control over the quality of the decision making. In case of the incapacity or incompetence or misconduct of any member, the chairman may recommend to the Minister of Justice that an inquiry be held to consider if the member should be suspended without pay or removed from office.

Adjournment Debate
A judge would be appointed to hold the inquiry and make a recommendation to the Minister of Justice who would forward the report to the Governor in Council for appropriate action.
If the chairman's conduct is in question, the minister may initiate the proceedings that I just noted above. The chairman may also, after consultation with other members, issue non-binding guidelines to assist members in reaching the decisions.
Hopefully that will be helpful to the member. Hopefully it is information that he feels is the proper way to handle an independent board.


GRAIN INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg

St. James): Mr. Speaker, on June 18 last I raised the critical issue of wheat shipments to Russia. At that time wheat was moving at half capacity only. The problem was Russia's inability to pay for the grain. Since that time there have been several developments.
Shortly after my June statement, Russia made a partial payment and the flow of wheat to Russia picked up.
There was another suspension of shipments in early September and apparently there has been precious little action since then except for one small payment made by Russia and one small shipment through the port of Churchill, Manitoba.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs paid a recent visit to Moscow and apparently left without resolving the grain issue between Canada and Russia. We are told Russia owes this country about $80 million and Canada will not ship any more grain to Russia until some new credit arrangement is worked out.
This is a serious situation. It is alarming. Canadian grain farmers face a bleak year. Net farm income is forecast to drop nearly a billion dollars in 1993. They need every market. They need every dollar of sale.
In the spring of 1992 the Canadian Wheat Board expected to ship 10 million to 11 million tonnes of grain through the St. Lawrence seaway. By year end the number stood at 5.2 million tonnes. A big part of the problem was the Russian situation. This year's tonnage between April and July is expected to be down to 1.5 million tonnes. Again the culprit is the Russian situation.
Because of last fall's lousy wet harvest weather, there is a plethora of feed wheat about. I am told that the republic of Georgia made an offer to purchase 1.5 million tonnes of it but Treasury Board nixed the deal. Again the problem is financial.
Farmers are sitting on this wheat and they cannot sell it. It is very frustrating. I deem it timely to raise this issue of wheat shipments to Russia not only because of reasons already cited but because credit, especially Russian credit is expected to have a major impact on grain prices.
At least that was the view taken by experts at a recent Outlook conference in my home city of Winnipeg. Daniel Amstutz told the conference: "Credit will be a more important determinator of competition than price by the year 2000". The executive director of the International Wheat Council added: "Currently over 50 per cent of trade is under some sort of government-provided credit. This percentage is bound to rise in the coming years".
Russia and other former republics of the Soviet Union are the big worry. Traditionally they account for 15 per cent to 20 per cent of grain exports. They are one of Canada's biggest customers. Before the current financial crisis, they paid cold hard cash. Now they rely on credit but there has been a failure to meet terms of credit.
I believe the government should be telling this House what it is doing about the existing grain problems between Canada and Russia. Farmers want to know. All Canadians want to know. Agriculture is important to the prairies and to the nation.
I look forward to hearing what the government has to say about this.
Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's interest in this area, Canada's credit support to Russia as he may or may not know is second only to Germany on a per capita basis.
Canada and Russia, U.S.S.R. have had a good trading relationship for many years. Russia, U.S.S.R. has been one of our biggest grain customers and we intend to do what we can to make possible a continuation of that good trading relationship.
Unfortunately shipments of grain to Russia had to be suspended in the fall of 1992 because of Russia's arrears and its inability to meet its own arrears repayment schedule. Some of the credit for grain sales to Russia
February 11, 1993

before shipments were suspended did cover ocean freight costs.
We understand the difficulties this situation is causing as noted by the hon. member who just spoke. The government is doing all it can to remedy this situation. It is expected that we will be treated equitably as Russia repays its debts to Canada and other countries so that this great trading relationship and the acceptance of our wheat and so on to them can be continued.
It is ongoing and we thank the member for being concerned and bringing it to the attention of the House.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I was very dissatisfied with the response I received from the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the impact his unemployment insurance cuts would have on women who are being sexually harassed in the work place.
He said that the woman should quit her job, expose the harasser and that she would be protected. I have an example of a young woman who did just that and is now in tears embroiled in a legal battle because she did exactly what she was supposed to do according to the minister.
Her employer subjected her to comments about her appearance every day. He would say things such as: "Today you look like a seven" and the next day: "Today you made it to an eight". He made other comments about her which she found to be very uncomfortable and unprofessional. She quit her job and she cited sexual harassment. In her case she won at the Board of Referees. Now the employer is contesting that. He admits to the comments but he says it was all a joke. He has found other employees who will back him up, employees who may themselves fear losing their jobs. He does not want his reputation to be tarnished so he is contesting the UI ruling. She is in tears and must find a lawyer.
The nightmare did not end when she left her job. She does not know whether he will succeed in having her UI ruling overturned and whether she will have to pay back the UI as well as pay the substantial expense of a lawyer's fee.
Adjournment Debate
The new UI policy is putting sexually harassed women through even more pain. It will revictimize these women by government action.
The Quebec Association of Women who work with their husbands in business is very concerned about the new UI rules. When a woman who works for or with her husband leaves the marriage she often also leaves her job and her livelihood. These 500,000 Canadian women who work with their husbands fought long and hard for the right to UI like any other worker and now this right is de facto taken away because marriage breakdown is not considered by this government as a good reason to leave your job. These women will be left without a marriage and without an income. Some may be forced to stay in a terrible situation because of threat of poverty.
The government is promoting UI cuts as a savings for Canadian taxpayers, but what nonsense. UI is an insurance program mainly paid for by the workers themselves and the employers. Cutting people off UI means they are forced to go on welfare which is funded entirely by the Canadian taxpayer. Taxpayers lose when people are cut off UI.
Last year 28,927 UI appeals were heard by referee boards. About 73 per cent of referee board members are men. Most appeals take between one and three months and some are referred to Federal Court. The appellant must fund and pay for a lawyer. The most abused people in the work force may not have the skills or the knowledge to appeal at all.
Women will suffer disproportionately from this new policy. Women make up 53 per cent of the so-called voluntary quits even though they are only 37 per cent of all UI claimants. Forty-three per cent of so-called voluntary quits are in low income occupations compared with 28 per cent of all UI claimants in these occupations.
UI stats show that most voluntary quits do not just work long enough to qualify for UI, then quit. The drop in UI benefits from 60 per cent to 57 per cent disproportionately hurts low income people, most of whom are women.
I said in my question to the minister that he does not understand the realities of the work place for women and visible minorities who are subject to abuse. I stand by that statement. These proposed cuts make a presumption of guilt and force workers to prove their innocence. That is absurd. The evidence is clear. The government must pull back from these regressive cuts to our unemployment insurance program.

February 11, 1993
Adjournment Debate


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has been in the House the last few days but I want to emphasize again that there are numerous legitimate reasons for quitting a job and racial discrimination and sexual harassment are considered legitimate reasons. These people will be protected under the act.
The unemployment insurance program is there to help people through the transition period of when they have lost their job and until they can find a new one. It is not a guaranteed income. If that is a totally new issue, then maybe the member would like to discuss that another day.
However, I want to assure my colleague that the changes to the UI bill that is coming in as C-105 are going to be administered fairly. They will ensure that those who lose their job through no fault of their own will continue to have access to the income support training and job development that is provided by this government through the unemployment fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.
Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 12,1993