1993-02-25

["Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 74 petitions.\n[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]"]
Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the pleasure to table, in both official languages, the North American free trade agreement entered into by the Governments of Canada, the United States and the United Mexican States. This includes the implementing legislation as well as the tariff schedules.



[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994 was presented by the Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State for Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in support of the Estimates Part I, the government expenditure plan. In addition, I will table with the Clerk of the House on behalf of my colleagues
Part III of the Estimates consisting of 83 departmental expenditure plans.
These documents will be distributed to members of the standing committees to assist in their consideration of the spending authorities sought in Part II of the estimates.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I seek the guidance of the Chair. Is the Chair going to put the motion to the House as to whether or not the items ought to be referred to the committee? Before we hear the minister, the Official Opposition wishes to divide on this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could defer that decision for just a moment.
The House has heard the suggestion of the minister that the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994, laid upon the table February 25, 1993, be referred to the several standing committees of the House.
The House has heard the suggestion of the minister. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


PAIRED-MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Editor's Note: The above-mentioned list follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1, 5,10,15, L20 and L25
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture
Agriculture, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30
lb the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture
Communications, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, L20, L25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 95, 100 and 105
Secretary of State, Votes 1 and 5
To the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship
Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Votes 1 and 5
lb the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Votes, 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 Finance, Vote 50
February 25, 1993

Governor General, Vote 1
Industry, Science and Technology, Votes 75 and 80 National Health and Welfare, Vote 50 Parliament, Vote 1
Privy Council, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 35 Public Works, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Secretary of State, Vote 10 Supply and Services, Votes 1 and 5 Tfeasury Board, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources Energy, Mines and Resources, Votes 1, 5, 10, L15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on Environment Environment, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Hade
External Affairs, Votes 1, 5,10,15,20,25, L30, L35,40,45 and 50 Supply and Services, Vote 10 To the Standing Committee on Finance Finance, Votes 1, 5, L10, L15, L20, L25, 30, 40 and 45 National Revenue, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 lb the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 1, 5 and 10 Forestry, Votes 1, 5 and 10
To the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons
Justice, Vote 10
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General Justice, Votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40 Privy Council, Vote 40
Solicitor General, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration
Employment and Immigration, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 Labour, Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 To the Standing Committee on House Management Parliament, Votes 5 and 10 Privy Council, Vote 20
"lb the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 Veterans Affairs, Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 To the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women National Health and Welfare, Votes 1, 5,10, 15, 20, 25,40 and 45 Western Economic Diversification, Votes 10 and 15 lb the Standing Committee on Public Accounts Finance, Vote 35
Routine Proceedings
To the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Votes 1, 5 and 10 Communications, Votes 110 and 115
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50
Industry, Science and Ifechnology, Votes 1, 5, L10, L15,20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65 and 70 National Health and Welfare, Votes 30 and 35 Western Economic Diversification, Votes 1 and 5 lb the Standing Committee on Transport Privy Council, Votes 15 and 30
Transport, Votes 1, 5,10,15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40,45, 50, 55 and 60 lb the Standing Committee on Official Languages Privy Council, Vote 25.


TABLING OF ESTIMATES
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table the estimates for the House of Commons for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1994.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 74 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FREE TRADE AGREEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I would now like to follow up the question of privilege raised yesterday in the House by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

Routine Proceedings

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) I wish to table copies, in both official languages, of an order respecting the suspension of privileges granted under the free trade agreement.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are now at Statements by Ministers. The hon. President of the Treasury Board now has the floor.

1993-94 MAIN ESTIMATES



EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF PRESIDENT OF THE TREASURY BOARD

Gilles Loiselle: Madam Speaker, this is the third time that I have had the privilege of tabling the Main Estimates before this House. Those that I am presenting today for the 1993-94 fiscal year detail the government's spending plans arising from the economic and fiscal statement made by the Minister of Finance before this House on December 2, 1992.
That statement announced certain initiatives to stimulate growth and employment, to rebuild the confidence of Canadians and to help them adjust to the new economic realities. At the same time, it sought to contain the deficit and I believe that we are clearly on target on all these points.
In keeping with our past efforts, the measures announced in the statement sought to stimulate economic growth and improve the standard of living of Canadians. They include a sound monetary and fiscal policy, an adaptation to the globalization of markets, a streamlining and renewal of the public sector, building on the strengths of Canadians and stimulating the spirit of enterprise and initiative in the private sector to sustain our economic progress.
In response to the statement, we are introducing a series of initiatives to invest in growth, invest in people, broaden trade opportunities and enhance competitiveness. For instance, we launched a Small Business Employment and Investment Package, we maintained research and development funds at their present level, despite our financial situation and we reallocated resources to focus on strategic investments for such things as highways, bridges and technology infrastructure and, of course, to optimize the results of those investments.
Along with these commitments, severe spending cuts had to be made to contain the deficit.
The major spending reduction program announced on December 2, 1992 will have an impact on the cost of programs delivered directly by the federal government on transfers to individuals and on grants and contributions to organizations and companies.
As everyone knows, the world economy has proven weaker than expected and the projections of growth for most countries have had to be revised downward.
In most OECD countries, governments have responded by implementing strict spending reductions. This was certainly the case in the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy and Sweden.
In the United Kingdom, for example, the recent announcement of a full-scale program review follows on the heels of the pre-Christmas announcement of major cuts in operating expenditures.

In keeping with the economic and fiscal statement of December 2, federal government operating expenditures including defence spending have had to be cut in relation to the February 1992 budget projections by $1 billion in 1993-94 and by $1.7 billion in 1994-95. Since personnel related spending represents two-thirds of the operating costs of the federal government, we have acted to reduce the total payroll.
As we announced, the wage restraint policy introduced in 1991 will be extended for an additional two years for all sectors of the federal government. This applies to the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and members of Parliament among others. We are well aware of the heavy sacrifices that we have asked of our employees by freezing their salaries.
The government has also been forced to reduce other elements of departmental and agency operating budgets. As announced in the economic statement of December 2, these budgets will be reduced a further 3 per cent in 1993-94 in addition to the numerous cuts already imposed since 1984-85.
February 25, 1993

Routine Proceedings

Nevertheless, the reductions in the cost of programs delivered directly by the federal government were not going to be enough. Reductions were also necessary in transfer payments. Among other measures, the December statement announced that grants and contributions to most organizations and special interest groups would be cut by an average of 10 per cent from the levels forecast in the February 1992 budget. I am pleased to say that Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, Spouses' Allowances, programs for people with disabilities, War Veterans' Allowances, Veterans' Disability Pensions and major transfer payments to the provinces will not be affected by this reduction. There will be no reduction in the famine relief that Canada provides around the world.
After taking into account the cost of initiatives to stimulate growth, program spending reductions in 1993-94 will result in net savings of some $2.2 billion. These actions will ensure a significant reduction in the structural component of the deficit and will bring the deficit down to $32.6 billion in 1993-94.

Moreover, the 1993-94 main estimates show clearly that spending will be kept within the limits set in the Spending Control Act. Budgetary expenditures will increase by only 1.5 per cent in 1993-94, one of the lowest rates of growth in three decades. In fact, we have significantly reduced this rate of growth.
In 1984, program expenditure represented some 19.5 per cent of our gross domestic product. In 1993-94 it will fall to about 16.8 per cent.
There are indications that the Canadian economy is recovering and a gradual improvement in economic activity is expected throughout the year. Prime interest rates have fallen significantly in the last three months. Canada's inflation rate in 1992 was the lowest among the G-7 countries. Although too many Canadians are still unemployed, the employment situation has been improving almost continuously since last April. In fact, more than 146,000 new jobs have been created since then.
Retail sales have been rising for almost a year and our volume of exports is increasing. The OECD predicts that Canada will experience the highest rate of growth of the G-7 countries over the next two years.
Since 1984 we have pursued an ambitious strategy of expenditure management to regain control of our national finances. Our strategy is firmly in place and the results have been positive.
Our first step was to get rid of waste and inefficiency. We then moved to eliminate activities and organizations that no longer served a social purpose and we concentrated on improving the management of the federal government.
The Public Service 2000 initiative launched by the Prime Minister in 1989 has changed the Public Service significantly. The Public Service is increasingly results-o-riented and more responsive to the needs of taxpayers.
The budget tabled by the Minister of Finance in February 1992 announced other measures to provide more efficient delivery of services to Canadians.

The introduction of operating budgets in 1993-94 is perhaps the most important example of our new cost-effective way of doing business. Funds for salaries, operations, maintenance and minor capital expenses will be combined into a single operating budget for each federal department or agency. Departments will have greater flexibility in improving their efficiency and adapting their services to the changing needs of their clients.
I will conclude by repeating that our government remains firmly committed to sound management of public finances and to a comprehensive renewal of the federal Public Service. The action plan presented by the Minister of Finance last December supports economic recovery and proposes responsible ways of achieving that goal.

The Main Estimates that I am tabling today provide detailed information on how the government plans to spend $160.7 billion in 1993-94, in keeping with the economic and fiscal statement of December 2, 1992. In tabling the Main Estimates, the government is seeking authority from Parliament to spend $48.9 billion. As we know, the remaining expenditures are covered by legislative authorities previously granted by Parliament.

February 25, 1993
Routine Proceedings
My colleague, the Minister of Finance, intends to table a borrowing authority bill for 1993-94 when the House resumes sitting.
Madam Speaker, I thank you and this House for your attention.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Madam Speaker, Canadians must have been surprised when the President of the Treasury Board made his presentation this morning, without so much as a single reference to the fact that we need to know how the operations of the Government of Canada will be managed on the revenue side. We have not had a budget since February 1992, and we have now been told that it will be the end of April or some time in May before we know exactly how the government intends to budget for its operations during the coming year.

I wonder how Canadians can be reassured, as the minister suggested they should be, by the approach the government is taking.
The government likes to pride itself on being a good manager. It has talked about responsibility and coming clean with the Canadian people. How many chief executive officers of companies could come before their shareholders and say: "We are going to spend $160 billion, but we are not going to tell you how we are going to budget for that. We are going to show you our expenditure plan but we are not going to deal with the revenue side of the equation".
This entire document is based on the economic and fiscal statement that was delivered in the House by the Minister of Finance in December of last year. This is a document that generally speaking was not very favourably received by Canadians faced with a long recession, the longest we have experienced in this country in terms of depth and duration since the 1930s.
It is going to be a tremendous problem for Canadians from all walks of life to try to plan their year's activities. We will now have a situation where Canadians will have to decide whether the economic policy is the economic
policy of the minister of defence, the economic policy of the minister of external trade or the financial policy and the tax policy of the Minister of Communications. As the Titanic seeks a new captain, there is going to be a lot of shuffling of the deck chairs as we go through the next three months as the Conservative Party tries to get a grip on where it is going.
The unusual circumstance we are faced with is a government that is going to ask Canadians to take them on faith as it is going to spend $60 billion. Today, the government is able to come to the House with documents from the minister of external trade. There are 4,300 pages I am told in the documents that the minister tabled dealing with the North American free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
The President of the Treasury Board came before the House with some 90 documents such as this dealing with estimates and yet, with all the apparatus of government available to it, both in finance and in national revenue, this government has not seen fit to bring a budget before the people of Canada in the fifth year of its mandate. As it struggles along toward the end of its constitutional capacity to govern this country, it is not prepared to come to the Canadian people, not with statements, but with a full-fledged budget.
I always like to attempt to give credit where credit is due. Over the years the precedent was set that this government brought in a budget at an appropriate time, usually from mid to the end of February. It brought in estimates subsequent to the presentation of the budget so that Canadians as well as parliamentarians could deal in a substantive way with what the government had planned for at least the coming year.
It may be politically expedient because of the change in the leadership of the government to delay a budget, but it is not very satisfactory for Canadians to have to struggle along based on a budget that was put together at least two years ago, at least the beginnings of it were, a budget that was based on projections, conclusions and assumptions that in many respects now are quite a way off base.
February 25, 1993

Routine Proceedings
I hope that members on both sides of the House will deal with the issues in the estimates as they are referred to committee. Surely the government has a responsibility to review its decision to delay the budget process for another two or three months.
The work that has gone into the preparation of the estimates has certainly put a clear picture before the bureaucrats and the political leaders of what they intend to do with the spending of the Canadian taxpayers' money. What is the purpose of all of this? We understand that in some of the programs, for statutory reasons and others, there is not much flexibility. There have been significant changes made in the moneys allocated to various departments and agencies,, but there is no budget document that provides us with what the government's thinking is with respect to those changes.
We to your left believe that if the government is going to respect its undertaking to be forthright and to deal in a businesslike manner with the finances of this country, we should have a budget, a clear statement as to what the government intends to do because of the uncertainty. Let us call a spade a spade. Over the next three months, as various individuals seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party go before Canadians, I doubt very much that all will be singing from the same hymn book.
Surely there will be a number of people who will want to distance themselves from the former Minister of Finance who I understand might be a candidate. Who would want to deal with the father of the GST without making some comments about where the country has gone as we have accumulated a debt in excess of $400 billion?
As we get these conflicting statements from various leadership hopefuls, it seems to me that it would be responsible for the government to give a clear and coherent statement to the Canadian people as to how it expects to raise the money that is going to be required to fund the expenditures that we have been made privy to today and how it is going to deal with the deficit that it has talked about for eight years and that is still running at $34 billion. It is talk, talk, talk, but no change in what it is costing Canadians in terms of the year to year increase that is the result of this deficit and the cost of financing our accumulated debt.
In closing, I want to reiterate our belief that it is absolutely essential to maintain the integrity of the
system and the credibility of the system vis-a-vis the Canadian taxpayers that the government bring forth a budget telling us how it wants to deal with the problems facing this country. The government must tell us how it wants to raise the money required to cover these expenditures and how it is going to cover the shortfall between what it can raise and what it plans to spend according to these documents.
We look forward to hearing from members on the government side as to whether they share our view that it might be appropriate to bring a budget before the Canadian people as we lurch along in the fifth year of this government's mandate.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, we have in many respects reached a turning point in the life of this government. The Prime Minister has announced his resignation and the government is trying to renew itself. Yet a set of estimates has been presented which in fact demonstrates far too clearly the unfortunate, often I must say, dishonest approach this government has taken toward the public finances of this country.
It is possible however to probe with these estimates below the surface. The government tries to present a surface saying that everything is fine. This morning, people across the country heard the minister say: "We are in fine shape as a country. Everything is starting to move ahead as it should".
Let us look at some of the realities emerging from these estimates. Perhaps the most dramatic are the helicopters which were to cost $4.4 billion according to this government. It turns out in these estimates they will not cost $4.4 billion, but $5.8 billion. That level of extravagance and waste is simply unacceptable in this country.
Moreover, in the fine print of these documents is something which explodes entirely one of the government's major reasons for saying that this helicopter project should go ahead. It suggested that the new EH-101 helicopters would have lower operating costs and this would be a major benefit for Canada. In fact, I quote from part III of the more detailed documents relating to the national defence ministry. It indicates that the annual recurring costs represent "an increment of approximately $33.2 million annually over the combined total of recurring costs of the aircraft fleets which the EH-101 will replace".

Routine Proceedings
In other words, these very helicopters that the government is trying to sell to the Canadian people as being cheaper are going to cost over $33 million more each year. This is the first piece of subterfuge the details of these estimates succeed in exposing.
These estimates also show that we are turning our backs on the poor and the hungry throughout the world. The suggestion was that we might see some cuts in international aid, but I do not think any Canadian realized that the bulk of the cuts that would be established would be in food aid to the poorest people who are starving in this world.
The amounts detailed in these estimates show that food aid directly will be cut by $10.6 million each year and food aid funnelled through other organizations will be cut by $25 million each year. We are talking of a total of over $35 million in cuts to food aid. That food aid would not only help many starving people in this world, but would also help Canadian farmers find outlets for the food they produce. That is what this government is cutting.
There are some other fascinating and sad details in this particular set of estimates. We are looking for national unity in this country. We are looking for economic development and fairness and economic growth across our country. I hate to say that in the details of these estimates there is a serious undercutting and sabotage of the national unity of this country.
In Atlantic Canada grants have been cut for economic development by $19 million. In Ontario, especially northern Ontario these grants have been cut by $1.5 million. In the case of aboriginal economic assistance these grants have been cut by $6 million. In the case of western diversification, development aid for the western provinces, these cuts are $16 million. However, for the province of Quebec there is no cut; there is an increase of $40 million.
We have economic problems throughout this country. For a government to come before this House with a pattern of expenditures that takes away from every part of the country and gives to a single part of the country is not just unfair, it is a devastating attack on our national unity. It is something that should not be permitted. That
is one of the reasons this government must go and go quickly.
As well, there are cuts in this set of detailed expenditure outlines to environmental non-governmental organizations at both the national and international levels. Environmental organizations have been extremely useful and valuable in trying to increase the attention and concern of Canadians with respect to environmental issues.
There are cuts of over $300,000 to environmental organizations here in Canada. There are also cuts to groups such as the Canadian Energy Research Institute which is looking at alternative energy sources. There are cuts to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. There are cuts to the chemicals control program of the OECD. There are cuts to the economic commission for Europe's co-operative program to monitor the long range transport of air pollution. These are short-sighted cuts which do not recognize the long-term impact and dangers associated with penny pinching on our environmental concerns for the future.
The reality is this government is spending $5.8 billion on helicopters as compared to the $4.4 billion it said it was spending. If it was not spending that $5.8 billion, if it was not spending more money each year to keep its fleet of helicopters going as a result of the replacement, it would be able to take a more enlightened approach to see that food aid got to the people who need it across this world.
The government would be able to see to it that we had a fair distribution of economic development support throughout this country. It would be able to see to it that environmental programs were supported.
Finally the government would have been able to bring to this House as part of its estimates, as it should have, a set of commitments to support AIDS research which the government has had to indicate in its news release it is not yet in a position to announce. This is much to the distress of AIDS organizations throughout this country. They desperately need the bridge financing to keep programs going to deal with one of the most serious epidemics this country knows.
February 25, 1993

This is a bad set of estimates. I hope this House in committee will reject it.


Mr. Gauthier:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
We are dealing with a very important subject, the Main Estimates. My point of order is that according to Standing Order 81(4) these estimates being tabled today will be deemed to have been reported to the House by May 31 next. They will be deemed to be reported even though many committees of the House will not have had time to look at the estimates, seriously consider them and possibly pass judgments on the expenditure plan.
The public accounts committee and some members of this House have for many years said that the House should review the presentation of the information given to Parliament that in its present format-there were some 84 volumes tabled this morning-is sometimes indigestible and is not being used by members of Parliament.
If I look at the government's information, it says here: "The estimates document contain a wealth of information regarding the spending plans of the Government of Canada. Though primarily intended for members of Parliament, these documents will prove useful to groups and individuals".
I am not boasting here, but last year for example, the only standing committee that reported in due course was the standing committee that I chair, the public accounts committee. The finance committee, which looks after a lot of very important documents, met once last year to look at estimates. It met once, on April 9, and looked at the estimates for customs and national revenue.
My point is this. Yesterday in this House, I tabled a report dealing with information to Parliament. It was put forth by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I would like to put into the record just one paragraph of that report which says-


An hon. member:: What is your point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: My point of order is that we should look at Standing Order 81(4), an order of the House under which we operate. My point is that we should take note of the voluntary will of the members of Parliament to enhance the information that we have before us to make sure that it is being used, that it has not become a farce.
Routine Proceedings
I have a recommendation for the hon. member, a member of the public accounts committee himself, who actually seconded this report when it was tabled in the House yesterday. He was a member when the report passed unanimously. I pray that he will at least read it and maybe understand it.
. (1135)
The information Parliament gets has to be clearer, has to be more useful and has to be more relevant to what we are getting here.



BILL C-93 TABUNG OF REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Dauphin-Swan River, I have the honour to table today, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-93.



BILL C-95 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-95, an act to continue the Farm Credit Corporation and to repeal certain acts in consequence thereof, with an amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT


Right Hon. Joe Clark (for the Minister for International Trade) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American free trade agreement.

Routine Proceedings


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Clark (Yellowhead) for Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) 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.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-410, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (labelling of cosmetics).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Louise Feltham: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to mandate that every skin care product, sun tan lotion, sun screen, body soap or other cosmetics sold in Canada carry a label setting out its ingredients and the concentration of those ingredients and indicating which of those ingredients, if any, is a preservative.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mrs. Feltham 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.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-411, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sales of cards and games to minors).


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to introduce the bill this morning, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning the sale of cards and games to minors. We know them mainly as killer cards and games that promote killers.
The purpose of this bill is to prohibit the sale or gift of cards and games based on crimes to persons under the age of 18 or their exchange with such persons.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Mrs. Gaffney 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.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) moved: that the 65th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented in the House on Thursday, February 18, 1993, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhame! (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I have only one petition today, but it is extremely important.
[Stage Direction]
I have a petition from 7,000 students from Saskatchewan who deplore government policies in education and related matters.
They point out that the cutting back of transfer payments has been harsh on students, that taxing scholarships is inappropriate, that the 3 per cent tax on needy students who have loans is unacceptable and must be removed, that the six months additional interest on student loans should go, and that the government has an archaic student aid program that must be revised. They deplore as well the goods and services tax on books and reading material.
This particular petition represents not only the sentiment of 7,000 students from Saskatchewan but sentiment across the country.
[Stage Direction]

;

February 25, 1993
[Stage Direction]
Routine Proceedings
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have a petition that reminds us of the unanimous decision taken by this House on November 24, 1989. I repeat:
That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
These petitioners state that poverty and Canadian children will yield ever-increasing costs to the administration of health care, justice and social welfare; that the sound financial management of any country demands the prevention of poverty; and that child poverty is the fundamental reality of family poverty.
The petition ends by humbly praying that Parliament take the actions necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children of Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan of the implementation and that commitment.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a petition from residents of Malartic, Riviere-Heva, La Motte, Val-d'Or, Lac-Marois, Joutel and Matagami, in the riding of Abitibi, who say that films depicting violence on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they act as a stimulus for violent behaviour.
The petition also says that all toys that incite children to play violent games are unacceptable and their manufacture should be banned. It is also pointed out that the repeated broadcasting of news about acts of violence on television, on all channels, and on radio may act as a stimulus for further identical violent behaviour.
Therefore your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass the appropriate legislation in order to eliminate violence in our society and thus protect our children and make our communities a safer place to live.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from my constituents in the towns of Spaniard's Bay and Tilton. It is particularly significant that the number of signatures, roughly 1,200, represents practically 50 per cent of the population.
They are concerned about the reduction of postal services in rural areas. They are concerned that Canada Post intends to systematically close an important number of post offices in small municipalities. They are concerned that the population is firmly opposed to this systematic closure in rural Canada and they cannot seem to do very much about it.
They want to register their concern loudly. I met with them two weeks ago on February 12 and they are asking Parliament through this petition that the rural communities already badly affected by reductions will recover the complete postal services to which they were accustomed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, Question No. 338 will be answered today.
[ Text]


Mr. Murphy: With respect to the legal opinions on the constitutional validity of referendum proposals received by the Department of Justice on May 20 and 21, 1992, (a) how many opinions were received (b) what firms and which lawyers provided these opinions (c) how many pages long was each opinion (d) what was the cost of each opinion?


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question: (a) six.

February 25, 1993
Government Orders
(b) Ian Binnie	McCarthy Tetrault, Toronto
Pierre Blache	Universite de Sherbrooke
Patrice Garant	Universite Laval
John I. Laskin	Davie, Ward & Beck, Totonto
Stanley Martin	Russell & DuMoulin, Vancouver
H. Lome Morphy	Tory Tory DesLauriers & Binnington, Toronto
(c) Binnie	2 pages
Blache	3 pages
Garant	6 pages
Laskin	7 pages
Martin	5 pages
Morphy	2 pages
(d) Ian Binnie	$ 2,722.63
Pierre Blache	$ 3,431.48
Patrice Garant	$ 1,875.00
John I. Laskin	$ 6,997.91
Stanley Mating	$ 7,998.12
H. Lome Morphy	$ 4,062.83
These include travel costs and other expenses. [Translation]


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair is rising on petitions. I am sure the House will agree to revert to petitions.


PETITIONS
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present
petitions which have been properly certified by the clerk bearing the names of some 3,000 students at universities and colleges in Saskatchewan.
They humbly pray and call upon Parliament to eliminate the 3 per cent tax on student loans, to increase the weekly loan limit, to keep the six-month interest subsidy, to respect the current limits for minimum course load and to maintain special forgiveness for students with disabilities on their total borrowing time.
The petitioners ask that the student loans program be amended to guarantee 100 per cent of student loans and to improve accessibility to student loans for part-time students.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[English)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, Februaiy 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-92, an act to amend the Income Tkx Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Income Tkx Conventions Interpretation Act, the Tkx Rebate Discounting Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and certain related acts, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Economics envelope.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing members for debate I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(a), because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes beginning at one o'clock p.m.
When Bill C-92 was last before the House the hon. member for Burin-St. George's had been recognized for debate.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, yesterday with the announced resignation of the Prime Minister that he is stepping down as leader of his party must mean that today is a completely new day, a new beginning. Everything has changed. That is the rhetoric. The unpopular PM has thrown in the towel.


Gilles Loiselle: Be nice, be nice.


Roger Simmons: I am just setting the stage for the benefit of my good friend, the President of the Treasury Board, who has had a rough day so far. I do not want to make it any rougher for him.
I was just about to say that with the decision of a very unpopular PM to step down, we would expect this morning, if we believe the rhetoric, that all had changed. We would believe that all the bills where the rich were being looked after at the expense of the poor, all the bills such as Bill C-113 where the poor were being pummelled to help the rich, were no more because the whole landscape had changed. The rhetoric of yesterday was that all the bad things the public of Canada has come to associate with this regime are no more. It has all been exorcized from the public domain. The arsonist has run out of matches. He is tired of lighting the matches. He is throwing in the towel.
This morning when we stand and sit here and see this bill, what really has changed? We are still debating the legislation, which I suppose had the concurrence of the retiring Prime Minister but certainly had the concurrence of the cabinet.
Let us understand how bills get before this Chamber. They do not come at the whim of one person, be it the Prime Minister or somebody else, they come here because a party, a government caucus, in its wisdom feels this is the kind of legislation it wants to promote.
We are getting that on the record because we are going to see some interesting two-steps over the next few months. The category of speech from my friends such as the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Communications will be: "The devil made me do it. I really did not agree with this GST. If I were there it would have been different". They were there, and when this bill was agreed to they were there.
They agreed to set out and look after some family fortunes in Montreal, Toronto and other places across this country. They were there when Bill C-92 was concocted. The ministers of environment, employment,
Government Orders
international trade, defence, and communications were there.
They were there when Bill C-113 was concocted, when it was decided to label all people who quit employment because of sexual harassment or other forms of harassment. They were there when it was decided to pummel those people. They were there when it was decided in Bill C-92 to look after the Bronfmans in Montreal. I wonder if the Bronfmans will be affected by Bill C-13. If they quit their job without notice will they have to line up to be told they do not qualify? Not likely.
Let us talk about Bill C-92. The Bronfmans of Montreal will rest easier once this amendment gets shoved through the House by the Prime Minister, retiring though he is, and by the ministers of employment, environment, communications and trade.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Why?


Roger Simmons: I hear the voice from Mississauga South. I am not the first Newfoundlander to hear that voice with some apprehension. Others in Newfoundland have heard that voice before. What they cannot do is get their hands on the carcass.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Last summer I was there.


Roger Simmons: The last time he went to Newfoundland he went incognito. My advice to him is to either not go any more or to go incognito a second time. I am not the first Newfoundlander to hear that voice and to hear it apprehensively. He can insult me all he wants. I am paid to take his insults.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Well that is good.


Roger Simmons: He cannot insult the people of Newfoundland, as he did several times, without some retribution. I advise him for the sake of his own carcass not to go there any more or to go there incognito like he did last summer and not tell anybody he is there.
He asked a question and I will give him the answer in a minute. Let me first list off the names. The Bronfmans of Montreal, now there is a poor family who needs the legislative help of this particular Chamber.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How are they affected?


Roger Simmons: How are they affected? They own Seagrams.

February 25, 1993
Government Orders
How about the Steinberg family, the Kofflers who founded Shoppers Drug Mart, or the Billes family who founded Canadian Tire?


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Roger Simmons: They are a tender lot this morning, but I would be tender too 24 hours after seeing my last hope go down the drain. I would be tender too. I would be verbose as well.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You are verbose.


Roger Simmons: I do not think I could be as verbose as the member for Mississauga South, but I would be verbose if I had the legs knocked out from under me yesterday with the resignation of my leader.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How are they affected?


Roger Simmons: The member for Mississauga South asks how. Well, let us have a look at it. I think he knows the answer.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Tell me how the trust works?


Roger Simmons: No, I am not going to take the time to tell the House.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will be delighted to recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South the next time around. I think that a conversation across the aisle is not the way that debates are done in this place.


Roger Simmons: I thank Madam Speaker for her protection. I am a coward.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member really needed it.


Roger Simmons: I am a coward, I am absolutely shaking in my shoes as a result of the thundering verbal attacks from the gentleman from Mississauga South.
No, I do not know nearly as much about those family trusts as he does, so I am going to leave it to him to tell this House why the Steinbergs are out there waiting for this amendment. I am going to leave that to him. That is something he knows a lot more about than I do. I will concede that to him at any moment of the day.
Unlike him I was not sent here to plead the cause of the Steinbergs and the others I have mentioned. I was not sent here to plead their particular cause. They can
look after themselves nicely, thank you. I am here to plead the cause of the people who that member wants to pummel under the other bill they rammed through here yesterday, Bill C-113. They are people who under the changes to unemployment insurance will never get to be a Steinberg because this government, whoever leads it, will keep them under its thumb, aided and abetted by the right wing of the party as epitomized by the gentleman from Mississauga South.
I am not surprised that he yelps, screams and bawls this morning. We are used to that. However, it is useful. It is instructive to ask why he is doing it this morning. Why is he so aroused this morning, as opposed to other mornings? Why is he aroused at all so early in the morning?
What has changed since yesterday, since we heard the resignation of the gentleman's leader. Has the GST suddenly been cancelled? Is that all behind us now? Is that gone? Is that exorcised from the landscape? How about the 325,000 manufacturing jobs we have lost since that man became leader? Have they all been restored? Have we undone all the pain of the 200,000 personal and corporate bankruptcies? That must be a really amusing thing for the member for Mississauga South. There have been 200,000 corporate and personal bankruptcies since 1989. Have we undone all that pain? Is that all water under the bridge now?
No, today is very much as it was yesterday. Today the country is in the grip of a government that foists this kind of legislation on the people of Canada, that says that after 21 years these people need to buy another few years, maybe another 60 or 70 years until all their offspring are deceased. That is why the Bronfmans, the Steinbergs, the Billes, the Kofflers, and the Beaver-brooks are facing some fairly troubling money decisions these days. They will not have many difficult decisions to make if this government rams through the bill.
With the new dawn we are part of now, with the leader about to step down over there, maybe we will have some new twinges of conscience. Maybe there will be some second thoughts on that side of the House about Bill C-92 and Bill C-113. Those are the twin bills that cater to the rich and sock it to the poor. Maybe there will be some changes of heart over there.

There is going to be a bunch over there looking for votes across the country. They are going to need more than the votes of the five rich families I mentioned. They are going to need some of the votes of ordinary people, of people who do not drive around in limousines, of people who have to agonize from season to season whether they are going to get enough money to keep them through the winter through seasonal employment opportunities.
Maybe they are going to need that kind of person to support them in their leadership bids. If they do they better have a look at this kind of legislation because it has helped the rich of Canada shelter billions of dollars in assets in family trusts and postpone paying taxes.
Yes, the original bill in 1972 allowed that to happen for 21 years. They have had 21 years to get their house in order. Do they need another 60, 70, 80 or 90 years?
Let us have a look at what others are saying on this particular bill. Look at what the dean of the University of Victoria Law School is saying on this particular issue. The impression here is somehow that I am the only person who takes this position. Maureen Maloney, dean of the University of Victoria Law School, says: "It is nothing more than an interest free loan from the government to Canada's wealthiest families". It is an interest free loan to whom, to the people on minimum wage, to the 40 per cent of the people working in the service sector whose wages are below the poverty level? For 40 per cent of all the people working in the service sector their wages are below the poverty level.
We know the answer from the member for Don Valley North. She said: "Let's rewrite the rules" if there are too many poor people out there. She said the other day that she can solve that problem: "Let's change the definition". If there are too many poor people under the poverty line then move the line down. That should buy a lot of groceries. How is that for a brilliant Tory solution? By a stroke of the pen let us tell them they are not poor.
The member for Don Valley North has got news for those who live in Calgary; Edmundston, New Brunswick; Mississauga; Welland; or Halifax. She has figured out their problem. If they are poor then she has the solution to their problem. She is going to rewrite the definition.
Government Orders
They can go the grocery store and tell them what the member for Don Valley North said. She says they are not poor at all. They are not poor. The government just wrote the rules the wrong way so it is going to change the rules for them.
What is it going to put in their pockets? We know what the government has put in the pockets of the Bronfmans because I have just been through that in discussing Bill C-92. There is no question about that. Do not take my word. The lady from the University of Victoria Law School says: "This is an interest free loan to Canada's wealthiest families". How many of the not so wealthy families in Canada would like to have an interest-free loan so they could buy some groceries, fix up the house, fix the roof on the house, or pay to send their young fellow or young girl off to college or university?
There are a lot of Canadians out there who would like that kind of leg up from the government. The government is not particularly interested in those people. What does it spend the time of the House doing today? We are discussing a bill to benefit a few people who can afford those family trusts. That is what this is all about today.
I had to get up and debate it and put on the record my party's position, and my own position on behalf of the
85,000	people I represent in Burin-St. George's, but the whole bit of legislation is a pure waste of time.
The explanation that came out is interesting too. One of the people who will probably be running for the leadership actually sponsored this piece of legislation, the former Minister of Finance. It is interesting that the other piece I kept mentioning, I say to my friend from Gander-Grand Falls, Bill C-113, was sponsored by another would-be prime minister of this country, the minister of employment.
I will be interested to watch the news as it unfolds during the next few months to see how these two guys explain that. How do they explain that their names are associated with two bills, one to pamper the rich, this one, and the other to pummel the poor, Bill C-113?
Do they want to be prime minister of this country? We have just been through that kind of prime minister, thank you very much. One is enough for the next hundred years or so.

February 25, 1993
Government Orders
This bill first of all is a waste of the time of this House. There are more important things we could be doing here.
I started to say that when the former Minister of Finance explained the reason for this bill some months ago, he indicated that without it things would be very complicated. Is that not awfully tough? Can you imagine those poor old Bronfmans down there? Can you imagine them having to shell out a few more bucks on another legal bill to straighten out their family trust?
Would you not like to be in the kind of situation where you had a trust that was so rich and so complicated that you had to get a lawyer to straighten it out for you? Is that not a rough tough position to be in? Do not worry.
Your ever-trusting former Minister of Finance is coming to the rescue. If you rich people out there are having trouble with your legal fees, with your complicated family trust, he is coming to the rescue. He who wants to be the prime minister of this country, there he is, aided and abetted by the minister of defence and the minister of employment. There they are ready to see that the Steinbergs of this country do not have undue agonizing over their legal problems. He will straighten it out. Do you have problems? We will pass a new bill for you, folks. There is no problem at all.
If only the ordinary people of this country had the same access to this Chamber, if only the ordinary people could get that kind of action, if only those 325,000 people who have lost their manufacturing jobs over the last nine years since the gentleman from Baie Comeau became Prime Minister had that kind of responsiveness from this House, what a great country it would be. What a great government it would be.
The question is, should we pass this rich man's bill. Should we help the former Minister of Finance in his quest to make things legally simple for the richest in this country? I do not know about the rest of them here, but we in this party are against this bill. We are against Bill C-92. Not only is it a waste of time, but it unfairly gives an advantage to those who need it least.
I am looking forward to hearing from my friend from Mississauga South. He is panting over there. He is all ready to get up. He is going to explain to us the fine points of this bill. Unlike him, I do not have the financial training that he does. I did not come here to represent
that sector of society. I came for a completely different reason altogether.
He too has an opportunity to rise in this place and tell us why it is he is so chafing at the bit to see to it that the Bronfmans and the Steinbergs are properly protected. They should be as long as their protection is no more gilt-edged than the Smiths, the Levines, the Jones, the Leblancs and the others in my riding and across this country.
We do not stand here to oppose the concerns of particular people, but only to ask that those concerns be dealt with in a way that does not trample on other people. That is why during my few minutes, and I realize that my time is up, I talked about the two bills together, Bill C-92, which in my view is a rich man's bill, and Bill C-113 which pummels the poor, the unemployment changes bill.
These two have to be taken together because it puts in stark relief what this government is doing to various groups of people in this country. That I deplore and that is why I am so opposed to this particular bill.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Madam Speaker, yesterday we heard of the departure of the Prime Minister. My leader has described him as brother Daryl and we know that the opposition is led by the other brother Daryl. I am really puzzled by this debate.
We heard the member from the Official Opposition raking the government over Bill C-113 which cuts unemployment benefits from 60 per cent to 50 per cent. This is the same party that cut those benefits from 66 per cent to 60 per cent. Now he rakes them for this tremendous gift to the very rich, the Bronfmans, the Reichmanns and so on.
I ask him who was the first to give those rich people this gift back in 1972? Who provided the shelter for the trusts in 1972? Why, if it was so good then, is my other brother Daryl raking the government for doing the same thing in 1993?
Brother Daryl and this other brother Daryl, as most Canadians know, stand for the same thing. We hear great eloquence condemning what is given to the rich and taken from the poor by the Official Opposition, but they seem to forget that so much was taken back from the poor and given to the rich when they were in power.
February 25, 1993

My question to him is how does what the Conservatives are doing now differ so dramatically from what the Liberals did in 1972 when they created the shelter that is being extended by the Conservatives today?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, today I am wearing my very special suit. It has a pocket in here and a pocket in here. I call it my NDP suit.
You see, if I want to be against Hibernia I put my position in this pocket. If I want to be for Hibernia, I put it in this pocket. That is how they treated Hibernia. That is how they treated most other subjects.
My friend from Windsor-St. Clair, one of the acolytes in the "McLaugh-in" economic choir, that funny money choir you heard singing last week, has the audacity to get up and talk about somebody with two positions on an issue. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You talk about it.
I could take him through a dozen examples in this House where that party has been on both sides of every issue, where everybody in that party should wear a suit like this with at least two pockets.
The member asked a question and he will get the answer to his question. I tell the acolyte in the "McLaugh-in" economic choir that he will get his answer. I gave the answer in my speech. I said yes. In 1972 it is true the government-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Now you have changed your mind.


Roger Simmons: Now he says I have changed my mind. Does he not know that yelling by itself does not mean much unless you are saying something. Does he not know that?
I said in my speech about 15 minutes ago and made reference to the fact that this was brought in in 1972. There are two things. One, I said I thought 21 years was enough to allow these people, the Bronfmans, and the rest, to get their house in order. Two, I say to him that neither I nor he were here in 1972. Do I take responsibility for everything that happened decades ago? No.
I will tell him this and he had better be governed by the same principle. While I am here in 1993, if I see something that is wrong, I will get up and say so, whether or not somebody in my party did it or somebody in somebody else's party did it.
Government Orders
This whole idea of my party, right or wrong, is an NDP idea. It is not a Liberal idea. It is an NDP thing. He should not get trapped into it because if he does, he is going to have to be in Newfoundland telling the people that he is for Hibernia, but when he goes to Toronto he is going to have to tell the people that he is against Hibernia like his leader has done on several occasions.
He should make up his mind whether he is going to preserve the credibility that he is known for or whether he is going to say my party right or wrong. If he does the latter, he is on a very sticky wicket.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Madam Speaker, I have a question and a short comment.
Since 1972 and even prior, the political party that voted against the great budgets of Allan MacEachen which closed every loophole and even more, the great budgets that were presented by Liberal administrations and the great tax changes that cannot be denied by anybody because it is a part of our history, were opposed by the NDP and the Tories.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


George Baker: It was the Liberal government that brought in the closures of the loopholes that they now so vehemently brag about.
Let me ask a question of my-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Just a moment. My ears have been asking my head, where are we? Are we in a school yard or in the House of Commons? The hon. member will put his question.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, exactly. The NDP member from Windsor who spoke should stick around because I am going to tell him the historical facts on tax changes in about 45 minutes. I have now decided to have a few words to say in this debate because of what he just said concerning the NDP and the Liberals.
I want to ask the hon. member for Burin-St. George's if he has any opinion at this moment in time regarding the fact that the number of people making over $200,000 a year, as reported on their income tax returns, and who pay zero income tax in this country has doubled? According to the latest figures from Statistics Canada, the numbers have doubled on their reported gross earnings on their income tax returns year over year from 1988, 1989 and 1990.

February 25, 1993
Government Orders


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Gander-Grand Falls. He is perfectly right. The numbers have doubled. He is not surprised and I am not surprised. I am not surprised because that has been one of the objectives of this administration, to see to it that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The statistic that I keep quoting is this. Since 1984, if you earn $100,000 or more, your total federal taxes have gone down by $1,200. If you earn $20,000 or less, your total federal taxes that you pay have gone up by $1,600 a year.
As I said with the two bills, they are pummelling the poor and pampering the rich.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Madam Speaker, I have been listening with great interest to the exchange between the hon. member for Burin-St. George's and the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair.
I am still not quite clear what the intellectual process has been that the member for Burin-St. George's has gone through in arguing that in 1972 it was totally acceptable and in fact necessary for a government that was starting to pile up deficits at that point to preclude any payment by the wealthy families of this country to the public revenues of this country through this family trust. Why was that such a good idea and such a necessary measure in 1972, and is now so abhorrent in 1993?


Roger Simmons: It will not be difficult to answer that particular question. First of all, I said I was not here in 1972 and I have no idea what the rationale for it was. I also said that if it needed any time at all, 21 years was surely enough.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I am not going to deal with the entire bill here. The bill is a rather extensive annual bill dealing with income tax amendments that have been found necessary as a result of the activities of the department of revenue. There are necessary changes that have to be made from time to time to clean up problems in the act. One of the problems we have in the Income Tax Act is the question of the capital gains to be realized on trusts as a result of an amendment, change or provision actually made in 1971 when we created capital gains in the Income Tax Act.
To refresh everyone's memories, as of January 1, 1972 we brought capital gains in to Canada. Today when a
person dies his entire assets are subject to capital gains tax as if he had sold the assets on the public market at the date of his death, the instant before he died. So today when a person dies, one takes the value of his assets from the valuation date of January 1, 1972 and determines what gain has been made on those assets to the date of death and tax is paid at that time on those assets.
The whole problem of trust is a situation that is often misrepresented. Trusts are very, very necessary. As a lawyer in a small town I invariably put a trust provision in most of the wills I drew for families. The reason was very simple. The assets in a family would go from the mother to the father and if both were dead, then the children would have to be looked after. People usually wanted to look after the children equally, but some children would be under 21 or under a certain age and they wanted them to have the assets. A trusteeship would be set up in that case to look after the assets for the children until it became an appropriate time to divide the assets. We almost invariably drew trust wills to make sure families looked after their children.
The objective of this particular series of amendments is to tie down and straighten up, codify and clean up some of the problems that result from the original provisions of the Income Tax Act dealing with trusts.
One of the problems we have right now is that while a trust has to realize its capital gains after 21 years in existence, there is nothing to prevent the roll over of the trust. So you can now roll over a trust to the next situation and then go for another 21 years. Under the current provisions of the statute trusts can be rolled over and rolled over. The consequence of this amendment is to make sure a trust can no longer be rolled over.
The other amendment is to make sure that when the first beneficiary of the trust in the next relationship to the settlor, testator or whoever set up the trust dies, the trust has to be wound up for the purpose of capital gains tax and capital gains tax must be paid. Even though the trust itself might carry on beyond that point, the trust would have to pay all its capital gains at the time on the death of the last person in the first generation. We are trying to clean up what is currently a bit of a mess in the Income Tax Act. The previous speaker mentioned various very wealthy families and how they were going to benefit, but at no point did he specify how they would benefit. He just listed a bunch of names of a lot of people who presumably have wealth. I do not know if they have wealth or not, but I do know what the situation is with many of my own constituents.
February 25, 1993

Often family members will come to a lawyer because they believe a member of their family is a spend-thrift, incompetent or incapable. They want to set up some asset for the benefit of that person for the length of his or her life. That is very frequently the situation. The problem is that under the current statute the trust either has to be rolled over or terminated in 21 years. Frequently that creates a real problem because it causes the forced sale of an asset in order to get the money to pay the capital gain, if any. If it cannot be rolled over it is a real problem. If it can be rolled over then there is still a great legal problem. Therefore we have said the trust can be carried on until the particular beneficiary of the trust passes away. Then it has to be wound up as far as the capital gains tax is concerned.
Now remember, we are only talking about the capital gains tax and the gain made on the asset. Capital gains tax is paid on all the assets of the settlor that go into a trust, whether it is an estate or an inter vivos trust.
Suppose there was no trust. Suppose that instead of putting the assets for a crippled daughter, for example, in trust she was just given title to the assets. She would receive title and the capital gain would have been paid by the estate. She would not have to pay capital gains tax on that asset again until she either sold the asset or died and there was deemed realization.
Why should the matter be any different with the imposition of a trust? There is really no difference at all. We make a grant to a trust the same as a grant to an individual. In the case of an individual, the capital gains on the second sale, if there is a further gain, is paid either when the asset is sold or when there is a death and that creates what is called a deemed disposition. We say the same thing ought to apply on the trust. When the asset is sold by the trust or the beneficiary of the asset dies, the capital gain must be paid. We are trying to make the matter equal for everyone. There is no attempt to create any massive tax shelter for the rich, the poor or anybody else. We are trying to clean up the question of the deemed realization of capital gains in a trust.
Government Orders
I would like to say that trusts are very common. They are not deemed and dreamed up to bury money for tax purposes. This government, through a whole series of loophole-closing devices has stopped virtually every conceivable use of trusts or powers of attorney or splitting of assets or cheap loans and deductions and so on with one change in the Income Tkx Act after another. There is no use in a trust to save tax. When assets earn a profit in a trust they pay income tax exactly the same way an individual pays income tax on the profits every year those assets earn income. A trust pays income tax and files personal income tax returns the same as an individual files personal income tax returns.
If money is paid out of a trust then the beneficiary of the trust has to pay the income tax. The trust can deduct the money it pays out and the beneficiary pays the tax. If the money stays in the trust then the trust pays the tax. On cumulative trusts that is exactly what happens. The trust pays the tax on the income from the asset and the cumulative income from cumulated savings the same as you do. There is no magic in these systems.
Trusts are set up to control the ownership of assets to prevent them from being disposed improperly, to prevent the beneficiaries from having the control of the asset and to make sure the beneficiaries have the income from the asset. They are set up as control mechanisms in estate planning by people who want to transfer assets to people and retain the control of those assets. They are not designed for any other purpose.
There is no rationale to say they are somehow tax saving schemes. They are not tax saving schemes. They are planning schemes. They are designed for families who have people within the family who the testator or the settlor believes cannot handle his or her own affairs. It is in the best interest of the family that the asset we are talking about be held in trust. When it is held in trust it is protected in trust so the beneficiary cannot dispose of it, sell it, mortgage it or do a lot of other things beneficiaries might want to do, particularly beneficiaries who have great capacity to spend money but not earn or save it.

Government Orders
This whole concept is to put a trust law in place vis-a-vis capital gains that is identical to the trust law or the law in place with respect to capital gains made by ordinary individuals.
It has been said that there are a lot of trusts outstanding that have been outstanding since prior to 1971. Well most of those have been wound up but there are some still outstanding. The statute will prevent any roll overs of those trusts and make sure that on the first generation removed from the settlor or testator, those trusts pay capital gains tax and for that purpose they have an extension. The capital gains tax they will pay will be the same capital gains tax you and I would pay if we had something we had given to us or inherited or bought prior to January 1, 1972. We would pay the gain from January 1, 1972 to the date of our sale or our death.
There is no tax sheltering or hiding here. There is no loophole here. We are cleaning up a very difficult situation for people who are planning the affairs of their families and trying to look after their children by giving them assets they cannot sell or dispose of during their lives. When those children die then the trust will be wound up or forced to pay the capital gains tax on any gain. This, I repeat, is not a scheme to try to defraud the revenue or cheat on revenue or save or eliminate tax. This is strictly a statute provision designed to clean up what is a legal nightmare for a great number of people right now.
It is to clean up the problems so that those in future who create these trusts will know the rules and we will impose these rules on existing trusts. There is nothing to be gained here by getting nasty about it. We are going to have witnesses and hold hearings on the matter.
I have been asked to make a motion before I sit down. Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to refer Bill C-92 to the Standing Committee on Finance instead of to a legislative committee.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the motion as presented by the hon. member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: So ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would tell us how many trusts are involved, what the size of these trusts is and what is the exposure of the treasury if this bill is passed.
As the member from Newfoundland indicated earlier it is not people who worry about the end of the month who are interested in this bill. It is people who, and perhaps the member can give us some facts and figures to show otherwise, have large amounts of money which they want to pass on to their children who are interested in this bill.
I wonder if he could tell us something about the nature of the people or the assets of the people who are asking for this bill to be passed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the detail of what is anticipated to be affected by this bill will be set forth fully in committee. We certainly will have witnesses on that.
In my experience as a practising lawyer I can say that generally the people we are talking about are not necessarily wealthy. They are often people who have a member of the family who is not competent to handle their affairs. They want that member of their family and their kids to have a house.
They buy a house and put the house in trust with a provision to make sure there is money to keep the taxes up so that family member will have that house for his or her lifetime. The family member cannot mortgage it and cannot sell it. He or she cannot do a damn thing except live in it, and usually on certain terms and conditions of maintenance. That is the kind of thing that happens.
We have here a provision concerning the capital gain that would be then payable on that house, because it would be a trust house and would not be a private dwelling house owned by a homeowner. It would be owned by the trust. The capital gain on that house would have to be paid when the death of the family member for whom the trust was set up occurred.

That is the provision of this act. The trust cannot be rolled over or anything like that for another period. It has to be collected at that one point. I drew two or three of those types of situations in my law practice before I came to this place. There are a lot of these types of situations.
Another situation that often occurs is when there is a family business and it is felt that in the interests of the family that the shares of the business stay in one block. The consequence is that the shares are held by a trustee in a block for all the family members. Under the provisions of this statute the trust would have to be wound up and the capital gains on the assets in the trust would have to be paid on the death of the last family member.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that there is such a thing as an anti-avoidance rule. The hon. member knows that if people are trying to get around the 21-year rule they have to go before a judge and prove that they are not just tiying to avoid paying taxes.
I want to ask the hon. member this question since we gave unanimous consent for this bill to go to his committee. I want to ask him this question. There are going to be witnesses. The associate dean of Osgoode Law School said that in his opinion the number of trusts involved represent not only most of Canada's billionaire families, but multi-millionaires, your basic millionaires and those who certainly earn more than your average household income. They can afford to pay those taxes now and the country certainly needs them. By letting the trusts off the hook the government is allowing a substantial amount of tax revenue to be deferred just when it needs it most.
The dean of the University of Victoria Law School in British Columbia, Maureen Maloney-the hon. member wants to talk about lawyers-says that it is nothing more than an interest free loan from the government to Canada's wealthiest families.
A tax expert is quoted today in the paper. The paper says: "Toronto tax lawyer Kathryn Bush has reviewed the legislation in draft form for her clients and said yesterday
Government Orders
the government's replacement for the 21-year rule may be more generous than intended. It is entirely wide open. It could have been less generous".
Is the hon. member prepared to call these witnesses, these experts who certainly know more about trusts than a great many members in this Chamber, who have expressed their opinions and have talked about Canada's billionaires benefiting? Will the hon. member give a commitment that he will call them as witnesses before the committee?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I would think that it would be absolutely imperative that we have the benefit of Professor Neil Brooks. He has made all sorts of allegations that this particular provision is a tax avoidance scheme. It is imperative that the members of the committee hear from Professor Brooks. I did not know there was another dean in Victoria but we could call her too. I think it is imperative that we have Professor Brooks before us.
I want to assure my friend that if Professor Brooks is right we will have to make sure that the statute does not go beyond the committee. However, I suspect that we are going to find that Professor Brooks is so full of New Democratic Party logic that his testimony will be of that nature.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made a somewhat disparaging remark about the associate dean of Osgoode Law School. I also mentioned the dean of the University of Victoria Law School in British Columbia, Maureen Maloney, who is recognized as being an expert on tax law in this country. The other lady I mentioned is a recognized tax lawyer in Toronto, Kathryn Bush.
Is the hon. member saying that these experts, the dean of the Victoria Law School and the tax expert that I just mentioned, are associated with a political party in this Chamber? Is that what the hon. member is saying?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I do not have any knowledge concerning the lady from Victoria or the lady who writes in the newspaper, though I usually find newspapers not all that accurate in this country. I think that even the hon. member will agree that the day they get it right will be a frosty Friday.

Government Orders
I certainly do know of the professor at Osgoode Hall about whom he speaks, from the law school at York University. I do know of his credentials with a certain political party. I want to tell the member that while the other people may not belong to that party, certainly the one I mentioned does.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow in this line of questioning, having Maureen Maloney, the dean of the University of Victoria Law School, as a personal friend of mine. Her political affiliation is not relevant in determining whether she would be a good witness before the finance committee on this very important issue.
The same also goes for the dean of the law school at Osgoode Hall, which is a very prestigious law school.
Both Dr. Neil Brooks and Dr. Maureen Maloney may elevate the debate in the finance committee on this important issue. I ask the member whether he wishes to call them as witnesses before the committee.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I think they would both be excellent witnesses. I indicated to my friend from Gander-Grand Falls that we would certainly call Neil Brooks. He is close at hand. If Dr. Maloney would also like to come we could certainly call her.
I want to say very clearly to this House that there is no intention on the part of the government to in any way do anything more than to correct this current situation that was created in 1971 so that we treat trusts in the same fashion as we would treat transfers to individuals in an absolute form. There is no attempt to try to give an advantage to any one group of people.
I know what has been said and it has surprised me. I certainly will want them to be able to present evidence that there is some kind of huge advantage being given to anyone because in my view and in the view of the government there is not. I give her the undertaking that if they can show that some huge, advantageous loophole is being given then we will not be able to pass the statute the way it is written.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words about this
legislation given the responses of the government, of the chairman of the committee, of the minister in introducing it and of some members in this Chamber.
This is tax time in Canada. Many Canadians are preparing to fill out their income tax returns. Of those people who have gone to what are called discounters, companies like H & R Block and several others who advertise, to get an advance on what Revenue Canada owes back to them a great many of them right now have discovered that there is an attachment on their returns.
These are ordinary Canadians. There are 14.6 million Canadians who fill out income tax returns. The vast majority of them are what we would call ordinary Canadians and a great many of them look forward to getting a rebate or refund on their income tax return.
The government claims that times have been so bad in Canada that it has had to go back over its books and try to find out which taxpayers in Canada probably owe it money. There are tens of thousands of people finding out today that they somehow owe money to the federal government for student loans in the 1960s.
Further tens of thousands of people will discover when they fill out their income tax returns this year that they will not be getting any rebate because the government says they owe for student loans back in the 1960s.
What has happened is this, and it is not only student loans. The government has approved a measure so that if people are listed by any government department as possibly owing money from years and years ago it can then just be sent to the income tax department and it will put an attachment on their refund. That is what is happening in Canada. These are tough times. We have to address the deficit. Ordinary Canadians are trying to struggle with that and they say: "We are in a bad financial bind in Canada. We do have to pay more taxes. Perhaps the government is right to try to collect money that is owed". In a great many cases with regard to student loans it finds that these people do not owe a penny in student loans from the 1960s. Their names are showing up on the computers at H & R Block and every tax discounter in Canada with orders to call the regional taxation office. That office will then tell them to phone the Department of Secretary of State to find out about student loan money they owe.
February 25, 1993

That is reality in Canada today. We have a new income tax return in Canada today. Ordinary Canadians will no longer get the T1 General. Do you realize that, Madam Speaker? That is a massive change.
How does the government decide that 13 million of the 14.6 million taxpayers should only get this little tiny guide, the little tiny T1 Special? It looks back over its records to see if they have been involved in things that are more complicated than a simple T1 Special return. It does not want to waste money sending out the T1 General form.
The government announced today that the province of Newfoundland now owes it more money in equalization. In fact six provincial governments owe it $600 million that now has to be paid back because the government says they were overpaid. These are hard times. Historically Tory times are hard times and Canadians are realizing that.
What are we doing in this Chamber today? We are passing new laws on income tax. What is the subject under discussion here today in this Chamber? It is about an aspect of this particular bill that involves a change that will mean people will not have to pay taxes to the federal government that are due this year. That is what this bill is all about.
To put it in context, in 1971 Canada had what was called an inheritance tax, commonly referred to as an estate tax. That tax was levied prior to 1971. It was done away with in 1971 by the Government of Canada under Pierre Elliott Trudeau who was the Prime Minister and sitting to his right was the present Leader of the Opposition.
They sat there when that law was changed. The inheritance tax was done away with and replaced by the capital gains tax. I think that is generally accepted by everybody. The capital gains in a way replaced the inheritance tax because upon death, as the hon. member just noted, the property is deemed to have been sold for purposes of capital gains. Of course capital gains are at only half the normal rate of taxation.
When the government said it was going to do away with the inheritance tax and bring in the capital gains tax
Government Orders
in 1971, there were an estimated 10 billionaires in Canada. In fact most writers claim we have more billionaires per capita of any industrialized country in the world. That has been repeated and repeated. The government knew that the most wealthy people in Canada would probably find a way to avoid paying it. I am not talking about a loophole. The word loophole has been used loosely in this Chamber by the Tories and the NDP. A loophole is an unintentional error in the design of the tax law. We are not talking about unintentional errors here. These are intentional errors; so-called incentives built into the Income Tkx Act. The government sat down and it decided: "All right now, ordinary Canadians are going to have to pay capital gains, but perhaps some of the wealthiest people in Canada will try to get around paying the tax bill that was normally referred to as the inheritance tax, the estate tax because they will probably put it into a trust which does not die". You can die but your trust does not die.
The government passed what is now called the 21-year rule which said all taxes that would have normally become due to the Government of Canada by the replacement of the inheritance tax with this capital gains tax upon death would become due in 21 years. That started in 1972 and in the intermediary period of 1971 and 1972 most people analyzed it and said in that one year, by giving a tax break there, it is worth $66 billion. Now what does 21 years from 1972 add up to 1972 plus 21 years? Seventy-two plus 21. What year is that? Is that a year we have tough times in Canada? Is that a year when we have the GST? Is that a year when we have people filing income tax returns in my riding of Gander-Grand Falls and all around and learning they are having their income tax attached. Is that the same year? That is this year because 1972 plus 21 is 1993. It is this year that all of this money would have come due.
That is why the dean of the law school in Victoria is saying that billions of dollars are involved. The government's answer in this bill is: "No, we are going to change the 21-year rule until the youngest member of the family dies". How many years is that? Is it estimated at another 30 years, perhaps? "We are going to defer what the 21-year rule did so it will happen another 30 years down the road".

February 25, 1993
Government Orders
This rule was put in place to make sure the wealthiest people in this country pay the taxes normal Canadians have to pay. The big businessman will pay his capital gains like the little, tiny business man does.
Today in this Chamber we are passing a bill that will no longer have these taxes due, as these experts have claimed. The 21-year rule will no longer be there. It will be extended now. We will try to get our money out of ordinary Canadians. We will stick them with the GST. We will tell them their income tax return has been attached, but we will give a break to the wealthiest of the wealthy in this country.
I do not blame wealthy families. Some members have stood up in this Chamber and blamed the wealthy families. My goodness if the law is there, is it not there to be taken advantage of? Let us not blame people who are wealthy. Let us blame the members of Parliament who passed the laws. These are the people we should be blaming not for loopholes, as the NDP calls them, but for intentional changes to good law that were put into effect by the present Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau in 1972 to close a possible loophole for very wealthy Canadians.
Sometimes I am amazed at what ordinary Canadians will put up with. Do you know that when this government announced this change for the wealthy people of Canada, it changed the law in this Chamber regarding what some people can claim as entertainment on their income tax returns? Do you realize, Madam Speaker, in the midst of the GST clamping down on all ordinary Canadians and demands for repayments from widows and people who cannot afford it who were losing their homes, what the government did in this Chamber? In the last two years it changed the law relating to what can be claimed as entertainment expenses. The CBC discussed it one morning. An expert from Revenue Canada said that now under the recent changes to the act it is perfectly legal for someone to claim the services of an escort service, masseurs and masseuses as long as they have receipts. The taxpayers of Canada-14.6 million Canadians-are paying 80 per cent of the bill under entertainment and meals.
That is the change it made. Prior to this, one accounting firm would say this and this could be claimed while another accounting firm would say no. Some direction was needed. Revenue Canada gave them direction all right through this government. Now anything can be claimed that does not contravene the Criminal Code-if it enhances your business opportunities.
If everything was great and if everybody was getting a tax break in this country some of these measures might be all right, but certainly the claiming of escort services by wealthy taxpayers should never be allowed. That is what the Government of Canada has done.
There are 570 people in this country today making over a quarter of a million dollars a year who filed income tax returns and pay zero income tax. There are 13,000 Canadians today who are getting the GST rebate and make over $150,000 a year. How is this possible? It is possible because of the law and not because of a loophole in the law. It is possible because one may deduct such things as investment in foreign oil and gas developments in Colombia, Vietnam and other countries before arriving at your net income.
It is amazing what ordinary Canadians put up with in Canada when one looks at our Income Ihx Act.
Let me make one further reference that some of the Tories are not going to like but I am going to say it anyway. In the Prime Minister's speech yesterday he repeated one sentence. The sentence he repeated was that the Conservative Party was very wealthy, it had a great war chest and oodles of money. It had loads of money, buckets of money, barrels of money, truckloads of money. At least that was the suggestion that the Prime Minister made yesterday.
The changes we are debating in the House today are going to be put through by the majority government. That does not surprise me at all. It is the very wealthy in our society who will benefit from these changes. It is the very poorest in our society that go to H & R Block today and say: "I want to get a refund on my income tax early and pay you 10 per cent or 15 per cent in the bargain to give me an advance on my income tax". Up on the screen for the first time comes the name of that person and then it says: "Refund attached, call Revenue Canada".
That poor woman turns around and calls Revenue Canada before she calls her member of Parliament. Revenue Canada says: "According to the Department of the Secretary of State in Ottawa you owe them money from 1960". The lady says: "Well I didn't hear anything about that. I didn't receive a letter". They say: "Well, no, that is the law, madam. Once they notify us that you owe them money we have to attach your entire rebate. We cannot do anything with it". The lady says: "Well what am I going to do?" The fellow says: "You can call the Secretary of State Department in Ottawa".
February 25, 1993

Today thousands and thousands of Canadians, many like this widow I am talking about, are calling the Secretary of State Department and getting a busy signal for the past two weeks. That is reality. We sit in this Chamber and debate a bill that is going to put off the payment of taxes by some of the wealthiest people in this country today, some people who do not pay the taxes that normal, ordinary Canadians pay.
I suggest to the Government of Canada that it withdraw this bill, saying it was a mistake. It should try to fix the Income Tax Act so that it is a progressive act and not a regressive act. It should try to defend the position of the people in this country who cannot afford to pay the over-burden of taxes that they have to pay today, so that people will put up with a government that has taken some terrible decisions in the past. This bill should be defeated.


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend earlier made a reference to the history lesson he would include in his speech concerning the MacEachen budget of 1980.
I wonder if the member would be so kind as to give us that lesson because that is really the only reason I hung around. As I recall the 1980 MacEachen budget, before it even left this House in the fall of 1980 it had 18 changes made to it by the government and in the course of the next two or three months several changes were made. They had to withdraw the whole budget.
As I recall, the deficit forecasts were exceeded by 250 per cent. They went from $12 billion to $26 billion in one year; just a small miscalculation.
I was sitting here on pins and needles. If the member wants to take additional time why not include the Lalonde budget as well? The SRTCs-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Scientific research tax credit that he voted for.


Frank Oberle: The scientific research tax credit that he voted for. Finance minister Lalonde was sitting over here and he said: "This will cost $100 million". When I inherited the portfolio, I had to clean up a $2.5 billion mess that they had just shovelled out.
I was travelling around the country visiting some of these people who had taken advantage of this fraud. One
Government Orders
guy said to me: "Look, I want to be reasonable with you. If somebody invites you to the mint to look around and just to visit to see how money is made and while you are there he hands you a big garbage bag and a shovel and says help yourself, what would you do?"
Why do you not give my hon. friend just a minute to give us his version of that particular history lesson.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I presume there is unanimous consent to allow me to do this?


Mr. Siddon:: On the MacEachen budget?


George Baker: Let us start first with the scientific research tax credit. For those people who do not understand what the minister is talking about, let me say that it is commonly referred to as the quick flip. The quick flip was brought in in 1984. You will notice the year that I said, 1984.


Thomas Edward Siddon: In the spring of 1984.


George Baker: The hon. member who is now a member of the government sat in his place when the Department of Finance notified the Minister for International Trade, who at that time was the Minister of Finance, that there were problems. The finance department in fact had approved it so that was the way it worked.
For example, there was the idea of building miniature submarines in Mississauga or some place close to there. I think that was one of the ideas put forward. Another one was that you could send a message from Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland without plugging anything in the wall. If you had any kind of an idea, the way it was structured you could go to the tax department and the tax department would judge whether you were to be given a tax credit. Say that it was for $5 million but you had to pay half of it, 50 per cent.
The hon. gentleman asked for unanimous consent which he got for me to do this. You paid half of it. Then you found some other way of getting the other half. The person would go and get a loan. There was a transaction made in a lawyer's office with an accountant, a lawyer and the bank representative. The bank was making its money on the transaction. The lawyer was not making too much. They were not very smart in the beginning because they were only making something like 2 per cent. Then they caught up to the accountants who were claiming 10 per cent and that is the way it went.

Government Orders
A lot of these projects never got under way. For example, the one big project costing $30 million that was approved was to find out why black and white cows were different.


Thomas Edward Siddon: $2.5 billion worth.


George Baker: The hon. member keeps repeating $2.5 billion. Here is the point and the hon. member should listen to this so that he will understand it perfectly. This measure was brought in in 1984 to try to encourage scientific research.


An hon. member:: By the Liberals.


George Baker: The PCs took over in 1984. I thought the election was 1984. Finance told them there was a problem. The Minister of Finance stood up in the Chamber and said: "We have a problem here so we are going to grandfather it. We are not going to end it, we are going to grandfather it". The hon. member knows. He was the minister. That continued until the end of 1985. It was not $2.4 billion as the hon. member said. The most recent estimate is $3.2 billion. I will tell him the $2.6 billion of it was while he was the minister of the very department concerned. They grandfathered it. It was grandfathered for all of 1985 and finally in the month of January 1986 it came to an end.
I hope that answers the question on the scientific research tax credit program. I know it intimately. I was here and I remember it intimately too. I have been looking at the waste of the present government. It was the Tories who allowed $2.6 billion of the $3.2 billion that was lost under the program. They are totally responsible.
Let us get back to Mr. MacEachen's budget. Looking back on it, I think I know what the mistake was. The MacEachen budget looked at the Income Tkx Act and who was not paying their fair share of taxes. It looked at the mechanisms that were used by tax lawyers and accountants. We have them in this Chamber.
Mr. MacEachen brought in a budget that closed all those loopholes. In my language, I suppose you could say that the mesh size of his net was perhaps a little bit too
small. What happened? It was defeated all right. The NDP led the charge. Its members led the charge to the closing of the loopholes that had to do with all of those, I was going to use some tax terms, but nobody would understand them.
Anyway he looked at it and said: "Look, this is what is fair for all Canadians". Then the NDP, and the record shows it, led the charge to give the wealthiest Canadians their tax breaks. That is what was included in that budget supported by the Tories.
Lo and behold, we ended up with a revision of the Income Tkx Act. I can assure the hon. member that as I stand in this Chamber today representing perhaps some of the poorest, not some of the poorest but certainly representing people who have a very low income on the coastline and people in the central part of Newfoundland who are finding it hard to make ends meet.
I can honestly say that I would support every single measure brought in by the MacEachen budget if it were reintroduced in the Chamber today.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, I will be brief.
This certainly has been a breathtaking tour de force in historical revisionism when it comes to tax policy in this country. It should well be compulsory reading for students of that black art.
The member reflected on Liberal tax policy going to 1972 and this particular odious provision which opened the loopholes for the wealthy in contrast to his contention that it closed loopholes, a very interesting contention.
The 1974 Turner budget which I witnessed from the gallery because I was a candidate at that time was a tax measure that opened all kinds of new loopholes. Then there was the attempt by MacEachen to close those and the Liberals chickened out.
I was just wondering, should this country be so unfortunate as to enjoy the tenure of another majority Liberal government, would the current Liberal government continue the same tax policies and philosophy of taxation as previous governments?
February 25, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Can we have a short answer from the hon. member? The time has expired.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that it will be a priority of the new Liberal government to substantially revise tax policy in this country.
It will give adequate notice of any changes and seek the opinion of all groups affected. I would like to point out to the hon. member once again in closing that when his party talks about loopholes, it is not loopholes they are talking about. As I think I have mentioned in the House before, a loophole is defined as an unintentional error in the structure or design of the law. Most of what the NDP talks about is intentional change to the structure and design of the law. It is what the Auditor General should be investigating, that is tax expenditures. That is what the hon. gentleman is referring to.
The Liberal tax policy will be vastly different from the policy today. I can assure the honourable House and Canadian people that the number of people making over $250,000 a year who will be paying no income tax at all in this country is going to go down and not up like it is under this administration.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Would there be unanimous consent of the House to call it 1.30 p.m.?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 1.30 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1.21 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, in light of yesterday's announcement by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, I would like to say a personal thank you to him.
As a new MP from a part of Nova Scotia with lots of challenges, I appreciate that he has always been accessible and approachable. He has always addressed my concerns quickly and effectively. Whether the problem was a factory in trouble or just a request to call my daughter on her birthday because I could not be there, he always responded.
I am proud to be part of his government that made record strides on behalf of women, minorities, natives and the disabled.
I believe that some day he will be credited with anticipating the effects of globalization and for creating a successful strategy to prepare Canada for it.
I would like to say to the people of Cumberland-Colchester that we have been well served by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Personally, I am truly very grateful to him.


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the residents and constituents of Northumberland county wish the Prime Minister and the government had been as attentive to their needs.
Emergency assistance for cash croppers of com and soybeans in my riding of Northumberland need help. Presently federally supported insurance programs have not provided the help needed. However, in today's estimates we see that instead of filling the program gaps we have further cuts to these programs.
In Northumberland county the weather conditions during the summer and fall of 1992 devastated com and soybean crops. Approximately 80 per cent of the grain com and 20 per cent of the soybean crops were not harvested. The direct income lost to county fanners is estimated at $7.8 million with spin-off economic losses of up to $78 million.

February 25, 1993
These fanners in Northumberland need help now. Some 16,000 people in my riding work in the agricultural sector. The government so far has failed not only to recognize the importance of their contribution to the economic health and security of Northumberland but the importance of the Canadian agricultural sector to Canada in general.
Estimates which cut back on agricultural sector funding cannot be supported.


RIGHT HON. PRIME MINISTER
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, yesterday my family and I were very sad to hear our leader's decision, but in politics there are often difficult choices and decisions to make.
Today, speaking on behalf of my constituents and on my own behalf, I wish to thank our Prime Minister for always being there when times were hard for the Abitibi region and for helping me deal with economic and social issues, always in the best interests of the people of our region.
I want to say how grateful I am for the exemplary courage and integrity he has shown since the electoral victory in September 1984.1 want to express my admiration for both him and his family, and finally, I want to say that I appreciate the way he has defended the interests of Quebecers in Ottawa.


INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, last April and last December in this House I called for the establishment of an international criminal court which would initially serve as an ad hoc tribunal to try war crimes in the former Yugoslavia.
Just this week the Security Council of the United Nations decided as follows: "An international tribunal shall be established for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991".
This is a significant step forward for the world. I would like to congratulate the MPs from Parliamentarians for Global Action and MPs from all around the world who lobbied their governments for support. This is a unique effort.
In three weeks from now Simon Fraser University and the University of British Columbia with The International Centre for Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Policy will bring experts together in Vancouver, B.C. to put some meat on the Security Council proposal.
The next step is a permanent international criminal court so that we have in place a body that will help deter future crimes against humanity.
Finally I would like to thank the minister of external affairs and her officials for their support in this matter.


VICTORIA CROSS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I know that you and all members of this House and the many Canadians who supported my private member's bill calling for the restoration of the Victoria Cross will share my pleasure today.
This morning I had the honour to announce on behalf of the Prime Minister that Her Majesty has signed letters patent adding three military medals to the Canadian honours and awards system.
The decorations for which members of the Canadian forces will now be eligible were formally approved by Queen Elizabeth on February 2. They include in ascending order, the medal and star of military valour and the Victoria Cross will be the premier award for military bravery in the Canadian award system.
I appreciate the Prime Minister acknowledging my role by allowing me to make this announcement.
I want to thank members on all sides of this House for their support and their encouragement. It is gratifying as a private member to know that you can have an impact on such a significant decision.
February 25, 1993


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, a recent study shows that almost two thirds of Canadians would start their own businesses if it were possible.
The biggest impediment to becoming self-employed in Canada today is lack of available funds from lending institutions. Additional studies predict that the job opportunities of the future are more likely to be with small companies rather than with megaprojects or the multinationals.
When is the government going to address the problem of lack of working capital for new and small business men and women so that small business entrepreneurs can help in a meaningful way to make taxpayers out of Canada's 1.5 million unemployed?


GALA FOR CHILD POVERTY
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, today's child is tomorrow's hope. We all have a special responsibility to children to ensure that their lives are as full of health, security and opportunity as possible.
As chair of the subcommittee on poverty, I would like to commend the Fund for a New Generation, a group of young leaders from Ottawa's public, private and university sectors who have organized the Gala for Child Poverty to be held on February 27, 1993. You, Mr. Speaker, are honorary co-chair of this event which hopes to raise over $10,000 for programs designed to help disadvantaged children.
The communal meal and early education programs to be assisted can help children to obtain not only good nutrition habits but also can address the social and sensory deprivation frequently experienced by poor children.
If parents are involved and contribute, it helps to achieve the dignity and sense of control important to well-being. Helping children means a better future for us all.



Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 1989 this House unanimously passed a resolution expressing concern for more than one million
Canadian children living in poverty and setting the goal of eliminating child poverty by the year 2000.
How well are we doing here in our nation's capital? Little has changed. In Ottawa-Carleton alone, the Ottawa Food Bank reported that of the 29,000 people it assists each month close to half are children. Shepherds of Good Hope saw on average over 1,000 children a month, an average of 60 per day. Research from the Community Foundation of Ottawa-Carleton shows us that at least 19,000 children are living in poverty in Ottawa-Carleton.
The Fund for a New Generation is a group of young leaders from the public, private and university sectors determined to bring hope to Ottawa's poor children. On Saturday, February 27 it is holding the Gala for Child Poverty to raise money at the World Exchange Plaza for the Ottawa-Carleton child poverty fund. The goal this year is $10,000 for breakfast for children, the Collective Kitchens Program and the Headstart Nurseries Program, all designed to assist disadvantaged children.
I commend these young people for their initiative and hope that it serves as an example of what we can do together to improve our children's future.


EDUCATION
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, Canada needs voluntary national standardized testing in education.
A recent Angus Reid poll found that less than 20 per cent of Canadians believe Canada's education system is doing a good job. The same poll revealed that 76 per cent of Canadians would support standardized testing in our education system.
Canada spends one of the world's highest proportions of GDP on education. The Economic Council of Canada ranked us 11th out of 18 countries in education. In another study, Canada placed third for percentage of GNP spend on education.
However, our students came in only ninth in math and science testing. These results give Canadians reason to worry about the effectiveness of our education system. Standardized testing has been proposed by provincial education ministers but not all of the provinces will carry out the tests.

I call on the federal government to take the lead in this area. Although education is a provincial responsibility, the federal government can help to evaluate the results of our education system nation-wide. With national standards, all concerned can work together to develop an education system which prepares our youth for the challenges of tomorrow.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, for nearly two years residents near Pearson International Airport have hinged their hopes for protection against even more aircraft noise on the report of this government's environmental assessment panel.
This report recommended that residents be compensated for the cost of aircraft noise and that the proposed north-south runway not be built because its meagre benefits would be far outweighed by the social impact on area residents.
The government's new runways will be paved with devalued homes. This report flew right over the head of the Minister of Transport. His government has turned a deaf ear to the noise concerns raised by its own panel and has left residents in the dark about restrictions on the airport's fly-by-night operations.
More aircraft noise will land on area homes but residents have been told to take off.
The Tories should stop wasting taxpayers' money on environmental panels if they are not going to pay any attention to the results.


GASOLINE TAX
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia -Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, last week's announcement by the President of the United States of a proposed BTU tax represents good news for the communities along the Canada-U.S. border. These
communities, like my riding of Sarnia-Lambton, are still feeling the pinch from cross-border purchases of gasoline in particular.
It has been reported that this energy tax could raise the price of U.S. gasoline for Canadian cross-border purchasers by a substantial amount. As such this measure would lower the Canada-U.S. gas price differential and help make it less attractive to cross-border shoppers.
However, I rise today to insist that the governments on this side of the border not move to squelch this positive news. It is not time for the federal government nor the province of Ontario to think that we now have room to increase gasoline taxes.
A proposed increase in U.S. gasoline taxes will help take some of the lustre off the lower American gasoline prices so let us leave it that way.


GRAMMY AWARDS
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, k.d. lang has done it again. Along with Celine Dion, la chanteuse merveilleuse du Quebec, Alberta's queen of country pop has been granted the most prestigious award in western popular music, the American Grammy.
Both lang and Dion richly deserve their respective awards. Lang won best female pop vocalist for her single Constant Craving and best pop performance by a duo was won by Dion for her work on the duet Beauty and the Beast.
These triumphs were further augmented by Grammy awards to other outstanding Canadian artists Rob McConnell, Walter Ostanek and Daniel Lanois. Truly Canadian artists rank with the best in the world.
All Canadians are wonderfully grateful for the enrichment these artists bring to our lives with their work. All Canadians are wonderfully proud of their tremendous accomplishments and international recognition.
Well done, k.d. Bravo, Celine. Congratulations, Rob, Walter and Daniel. You bring joy and honour to Canada.
February 25, 1993


SAINT-HYACINTHE DISTRICT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, February 24, the Chamber of Commerce of Saint-Hyacinthe district celebrated its centenary. Over the years it has become a dynamic, prestigious, and influential organization. It was instrumental in creating the economic and industrial development corporation, the tourism and convention office and the MERCI evenings dedicated to recognizing the business persons of the year.
According to the president of the chamber, lawyer Guy Cordeau, the centenary festivities will pay tribute to those who built the organization and their achievements. The theme-100 years of commitment-conveys the chamber's history but also indicates a new focus on innovation and renewal.
I am proud to be among the 600 active members of our Chamber of Commerce. This year we commemorate our past and we will continue to strive to successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for letting their Deputy Speaker rise in her seat on this historic occasion in the life of the community where she was born and which she represents in this House.


SMALL BUSINESS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Communications admitted yesterday that he and his cabinet colleagues have to get off the backs of small businesses. This is after nine years of Conservative government neglect in this vital sector of the Canadian economy.
Small businesses will have few regrets at the departure of Prime Minister Mulroney. Although the Conservative government does not realize it, most other Canadians understand the importance of small business to our country. It is the backbone of our economy.
These businesses have been badly hurt by this Conservative government. Tens of thousands of small businesses have gone bankrupt or closed in recent years. Free trade, the GST, deregulation, high interest rates, the high dollar and savage restriction by the banking system have all contributed to killing entrepreneurship in Canada. These hard working Canadians need assistance now.
We all know that in order to help small businesses we will have to do more than change the Tory leadership. We will have to change the government.


JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, over the past 90 days I have received petitions and letters from over 6,000 citizens regarding our justice system, particularly the way in which we deal with violent criminals and dangerous sexual offenders.
They wish to see our current laws amended to ensure that such offenders are not released into any community when they may pose a threat. They call upon the government to enact legislation to see that this is accomplished.
I have long been a supporter of stiffer sentences for those who choose to commit crimes. I believe that as parliamentarians we have been given the responsibility to review the negative impact of these offenders on our society and to act accordingly.
To paraphrase my constituents, the time has come for us to protect the rights of victims of violent crime rather than those who commit it.


LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGNS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, at long last the Prime Minister has announced that he is stepping down and the Tories will now hold a leadership convention.
In 1989 the member for Comox-Albemi presented a motion that was debated and passed unanimously in this House. The motion read as follows:

February 25, 1993
Oral Questions
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider establishing spending limits and strict rules of disclosure listing all campaign contributions by source and amount for all Canadian political party leadership races.
I hope the powers that be in the Tory party will remember that in Canada political parties are partly supported by public money through the income tax system. Therefore the Tories are morally obligated to impose spending limits on their leadership candidates.
At our leadership convention the New Democrats voluntarily set candidate spending limits of $150,000. Moreover, we did not issue tax receipts for contributions to the leadership candidates' campaigns. The winner, the hon. member for Yukon, spent $129,000 to become leader of a national party.
By all means the Tories should avoid the hideous example set by the Liberals for their 1990 leadership race where candidates were allowed to spend $1.7 million subsdized by the taxpayer.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
Last July when the EH-101 military helicopter program was announced we were told that the total cost was to be $4.4 billion. Today in the estimates we have learned that the total cost will be $5.8 billion or $1.4 billion more than before.
Why is the government persisting in implementing this impossibly expensive program that is not a priority for Canadians at all?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to know whether in fact $4.5 billion is okay with the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Is he against it completely? Are we talking numbers here or are we talking philosophy?
The hon. Leader of the Opposition will know that in fact the cost of this procurement purchase is $4.5 billion, but it is a program that goes over 13 years. Unfortunately the requirements of public accounting require the Government of Canada, as he knows as a former President of
the Treasury Board, to make a budgetary allowance for possible inflation.
If there is no inflation over the period of the project and if there are no significant shifts in currency fluctuations, in fact the final cost will come in at $4.5 billion. But the accounting requirements of the Government of Canada require us to make allowance for possible inflation so that we do not wind up having overruns in the cost of these projects and get into the kind of fiscal pickle the hon. member and his government got us into without good accounting requirements.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the program was announced last July, this additional cost of $1.4 billion was not mentioned. When the contracts were signed in October, it was not mentioned. Two weeks ago, when Liberal members received a government briefing, it was not mentioned.
Why were Canadians not told the whole truth? Why does the government persist in this absolutely unnecessary spending when there are so many problems in Canada?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is not an unnecessary expense; it is very important for our Canadian forces. The reason we have the estimates is to show Canadians what our projects actually cost.
We have to make allowance for possible fluctuation in interest rates. We cannot predict exactly where interest rates will be in the future, but we must make those allowances to protect Canadians against unforseen expenditures. That is the purpose of this process of tabling the Main Estimates in the House of Commons.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why, when she was Minister of Justice, she opposed the program and today she defends the program.
Canadians do not want this program. The Americans have decided not to go into this expensive system, this Cadillac system we do not need now that the cold war is over. The minister, who I hope would like to have a new approach to politics, should realize that we are not in the cold war any more and we need that money for Canadian problems right away.
February 25, 1993


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is not true that when I was Minister of Justice I opposed this project.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


A. Kim Campbell: I think hon. members have an enormous difficulty with candour in government. As a participant in the process of developing government expenditure restraint guidelines I asked questions about this project. I was extremely satisfied with the justification given for this project, which is why when I became Minister of National Defence I was so comfortable defending the project and so quick to attack that hon. member for criticizing it and committing himself not to spend the money.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of National Defence.
The estimates show that funds for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have been cut. Funds for the Western Diversification Program in the minister's own region have been cut. Funds for health and funds for social housing have been cut, yet there is $5.8 billion for Cadillac helicopters.
I want to ask the minister whether or not she agrees. If she were to take herself and her ambitions seriously and see them soar, perhaps it is time to take herself and these helicopters back down to earth and cancel this extravagant program.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that funds for the Department of National Defence have also been cut in these estimates. All departments have participated.
I would like to make sure that Canada has the capability in the long run-not over five years but over forty years-to patrol the area of that hon. member's constituency, to be able to patrol our fisheries and to be able to guard our coast. These helicopters, far from being Cadillac helicopters, are simply technology of the nineties. Right now, in the words of our own military, we have technology of the fifties built in the sixties.
I think Canadians deserve the technology of the nineties to serve them into the 21st century.
Oral Questions


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the only cuts in the Department of National Defence are the wages of the men and women of that department that have been frozen by this minister.

If the minister is a serious candidate for the leadership of her party, she should start paying attention to the
50,000	people who marched in the streets of Montreal and who know the country has more important priorities than spending $5.8 billion on helicopters.
What are the minister's priorities: outrageously expensive helicopters or Canada's unemployed?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, these helicopter contracts will create 45,000 person-years of work for Canadians, especially in industries that are important for our future and that are on the leading edge in terms of knowledge, technology, computers and so forth.
I feel it is important to support these industries. If we cancel the contracts, it will mean a loss for Canadian industry, not just a loss of search-and-rescue capability.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
According to the government's estimates today it is clear that Canadians who are suffering from unemployment should be going to retraining. According to this government's priorities they should either go for retraining in spy school, judges school, helicopter pilot school or space school, because these are the priorities the government sees and they are the only growth industries that the government sees. For everybody else, it is off to the unemployment line because there is nothing in the estimates to create jobs.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister seriously look at creating jobs in this country, not just jobs for more judges and higher salaries for judges and more spies for Canada but jobs for people throughout this country in every region, and attack unemployment now?

Oral Questions


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, and yes, we are. The economic statement outlined a number of initiatives to enhance the small business sector which has generated 80 per cent of the jobs over the last 10 years in this country.
Investments and further enhancements in research and development, further investments in training and skills upgrading, and investments in infrastructure to improve the competitiveness and the productivity of our country, in addition to the 161,000 jobs created since August of last year, are good indicators of what we see occurring.
All the economic indicators with respect to growth in the GDP, housing starts, retail sales, investments and export sales are leading in the right direction. Those are the indicators that reflect the buoyancy of the economy that is occurring. It is not as robust as we would like, but we are also going through a restructuring and adjustment process which the economic statement tried to deal with in terms of facilitating that adjustment for people and for industry.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. The minister says that we are going in the right direction. The direction for most Canadians is still the unemployment line.
In the estimates the minister says that he is looking at adjustment programs. In fact this government has cut funding for the Program for Older Workers' Adjustment. How is that increasing adjustment for Canadians?
The government in these estimates has cut regional economic development. That is certainly not increasing jobs. The government has cut funding for farmers, for young people, for aboriginal peoples, for aboriginal groups, for older workers and for retirees. All these programs provide not only jobs but an infrastructure in a community to support those volunteers.
Having chosen these priorities and yet spending $5.8 billion on helicopters, will the government stop spending money on attack helicopters and attack unemployment instead? That is where the priority should be.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we do not see how we
can spend $100 billion over five years and reduce the deficit by $8 billion or $10 billion as the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party has suggested. That kind of economic nonsense is laughable.
We are trying to invest in people through enhancements in the training program; $3.8 billion is being spent on training. We are encouraging the private sector to become involved more in training. We are encouraging the small business sector to create new jobs. We have advanced on an infrastructure program that is not the $15 billion or $25 billion program the hon. member has suggested.
I say to the hon. member in all sincerity that the economic program she released last week is laughed at around the world. It does not make economic sense. It certainly does not make fiscal sense.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me that when a political party brings out a job plan that will create jobs in this country and reduce the deficit, this minister feels it is laughable.
This is a government that has discouraged more Canadians in the employment market and discouraged more Canadians in every region of this country who have lost hope than any other government before it. This minister should be ashamed of what he is setting out.

Even worse, although according to the government these helicopters would be less expensive to maintain, they will cost $33 million more annually in operating costs than those we have now. Just imagine what the government could do, all the programs it could finance.
Why does the government not drop this crazy helicopter program?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the recipe that the hon. member outlined in her statement last week would result in a bigger deficit, higher inflation, higher interest rates, less investment and fewer jobs created.
February 25, 1993

Oral Questions


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister who just indicated he is concerned with deficits. The COSICS, now SIGNET, system computer contract, which was originally to cost $111 million for external affairs has now jumped to $208 million. Today in the estimates it is $224 million.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, who just indicated how interested he is in cost reduction, how he can continue to pour money into a scandal plagued scheme that costs $224 million and does not even work? How can he do this?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Supply and Services and as a former Minister of Supply and Services,
I do not for one moment accept the preamble of the hon. member's question.
The facts speak for themselves. Tenders are always very open, very clear cut and allow businesses to compete evenly and fairly. It is my understanding that this contract is being applied according to normal procedures and regulations.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I will let the courts decide on that part of the answer of the minister.

My supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister who said he wanted to cut the fat out of government spending. Today, we have the example of a contract which costs $224 million, and although experts have said the system is already obsolete and does not work, the government continues to spend money on the project.
How can the government, in good conscience, spend and waste taxpayers' money in this way?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I disagree entirely with what the hon. member just said. First of all, the COSICS program is over. We are now in a new communications phase, called SIGNET, and everything is proceeding satisfactorily.


SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Treasury Board.
On several previous occasions I have asked this minister to look into incidents of sexual harassment in the Public Service in Halifax. The minister responded that as an investigation was under way, his hands were tied.
The final report has now been released. Sexual harassment was found and it was also found that management did not correct matters. Why is the minister refusing to take the necessary steps to correct this horrible situation?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that we are indeed looking at that and the Public Service is taking the proper action.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board guidelines state: "Harassment is an offence subject to disciplinary measures up to and including discharge".
Again, the report found the offences, including retaliation. Nothing has been done. A single mother has been thrown out of work and a mother of two small children has been thrown out of work. Nothing has happened to the perpetrators. Why will the minister not move to discipline the offenders?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with the Public Service Commission. As the President of the Treasury Board, I have to deal with this matter with some care because the Public Service Commission, as the hon. member knows, is awaiting the final report of its appeal investigation branch. They are still awaiting it and they will be acting upon that report.


ABORIGINAL ECONOMY
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of Indian affairs. In a letter written before Christmas, the Prime Minister set the goal of doubling aboriginal businesses over the decade from 5,000 to 10,000 businesses.

Oral Questions
How can the government keep that promise when the minister has slashed his department's economic development programs by almost $21 million in the current estimates and an additional $6 million from the aboriginal economic strategy in ISTC? Does the minister not understand the connection between cutting economic development programs that encourage employment and self-sufficiency and the $52 million increase in his department's projected welfare budget which will increase dependency?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, this year the Government of Canada will provide through the three departments almost $350 million of assistance to economic development on behalf of aboriginal people. As well, the over-all budget of my department has grown more rapidly than that of any other department in the last eight years. This year it will increase by $350 million, if we include the northern program.
This year we will be spending over $1 billion on education for the first time in the history of this country, all of which indicates that in terms of the health and social well-being of aboriginal peoples, this government has been more forthcoming and more beneficial in assistance to aboriginal peoples than any government in the history of Canada.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the economic recession has hit all parts of Canada very hard, so we are pleased to see regional development help for Quebec increase by some $40 million in these estimates.
My question for the government is this: Why has this government at the same time cut regional funds by $36 million for Atlantic Canada, northern Ontario and the west? Does the government not realize that increases for Quebec and cuts for every other part of the country harms national unity very badly?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, it would if it were true. I would like to tell the hon. member that we are comparing names on mains. Last year when the number was established a series of agreements with
Quebec had not come to fruition so they could not be put in the Main Estimates. Therefore, when he compares the numbers he is not comparing the right numbers at all. I could list the agreements: Montreal Development Fund was not ready for the last Main Estimates so they were not included, nor was the Canada-Quebec Industrial IRDA, so all regional development funds including Quebec were cut by the same amount.


PEACEKEEPING
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence why our peacekeeping operations have doubled, yet our financial resources allocated to it in the last year have increased by only 30 per cent?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, we are paying our peacekeeping bills. I am sorry if the hon. member is disappointed that we are not over-paying them. However, the amount of money in the budget is the amount of money it costs us and that is what we are spending.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, that is not an answer.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs in her testimony last week said that peacekeeping had overloaded our personnel resources. The estimates show that our financial resources to the rest of the Canadian forces in operations and maintenance have had to be cut severely in order to cope with the peacekeeping operations.
The point is and the question I would like to ask the minister is whether the government is going to continue to commit our forces to every peace operation, no matter what the size, no matter what the scope, no matter what the risk, no matter what the cost, without prior consultation in Parliament or is it going to show some balanced perspective in how we commit our young men and women abroad?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, no, the Government of Canada will not continue to commit our forces, our resources, to peacekeeping without careful consultation on what our resources are and what we can afford to do in the context of our other defence priorities and what we can afford fiscally.
February 25, 1993

Peacekeeping cost $171 million in 1992-93 and $226 million was budgeted in the 1993-94 incremental costs. In addition, the Department of External Affairs is paying an additional $7 million this year as part of our assessed cost of peacekeeping operations. We pay that whether we participate or not.
The hon. member knows that costing peacekeeping is much more complex than he is suggesting. Many of the costs are ones we incurred already in terms of having people on salary and some costs are incremental.
As I have said, we continue to pay our bills and we continue to evaluate our peacekeeping resources in terms of the size of our Armed Forces, the equipment we have and the ability to sustain those incremental costs.


MAIN ESTIMATES
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the government is ready to spend billions of dollars to buy military helicopters for a countiy with no known enemies, as far as I know, and in its budget estimates, this same government is cutting the budget of the Department of the Secretary of State by some 13.7 per cent for promotion of official languages and by 11.3 per cent for education in the official languages in our schools.
My question is for the Secretary of State. How does the minister intend to respect her obligations to the provinces, individuals, families and official language minority groups with reduced budgets? Do our children not come before weapons?


Hon. Monique Landry (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I know how interested my hon. colleague is in promoting official languages and of course the support we give our official language minorities in education or in the community. Since it took power, this government has done much in recognizing and supporting official language communities. My colleague surely knows that we passed the Official Languages Act and since then
Oral Questions
other measures have been put in place to support school management in French-speaking communities, for example. I think there is a way within the budget restrictions to continue to support the communities and provinces so that we can help the communities really develop a complete learning program in their minority language.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the former minister, the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm, promised official language minority groups the funds to manage their own schools and to have their own post-secondary institutions.
When will the minister follow up on this promise? When will the government put its money where its mouth is?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has just given me an opportunity to mention what has already been done in the area of school management. I recognize the importance of supporting the communities so they can develop an appropriate education by managing their own schools. An example I would like to give the hon. member, who is from Ontario, is that in 1990, we signed an agreement with the Government of Ontario to support the development of community colleges with $50 million. I think we have already given tangible evidence of our commitment and I am sure that we can follow up with other important projects in the near future.


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The government assured this House last week that it intended to begin negotiations with Mexico and the United States to set environmental and wage standards for the North American free trade agreement.

February 25, 1993
Oral Questions
With such low salaries, one ninth of ours, the Mexicans can threaten jobs in Canada, as the minister knows better than anyone.
I therefore ask the government to tell us what guarantees Canada will demand in this area and how the government will try to put them in the parallel accords?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that salaries have been lower in Mexico for many years and I do not see Canada invaded by Mexican products. The products on our markets come from high-wage countries like those of the European Community, especially Germany, and the United States. The problem he raises is not a real one in that an economy with such low wages is weak. Through trade, we must help them develop their economy. They are building an infrastructure of roads, hospitals and communications facilities and that is what we can sell them. The free trade agreement will give us access to that market.


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we see clearly once again that the government is trying to use empty rhetoric to hide the reality that is hitting us. The reality is that Canadian and foreign investors will be attracted to invest and manufacture in Mexico where salaries are one ninth of ours. I think that this government owes it to Canadians and Quebecers to tell us what it will do to protect these jobs. I ask the minister to tell us why he is not making the commitment to submit his objectives in negotiating these parallel accords to public consultation with the provincial governments.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, we should listen to what some Europeans are saying about this particular arrangement. The NAFTA agreement, according to recent European studies, should open new markets in Mexico for Canadian-based companies, but also new markets in Canada for Mexican-based companies.
They point out, and I quote from The Financial Post, February 17: "Productivity in Mexico is one-tenth lower
than it is in Canada in most industries. It can take up to 200 workers to produce what 20 in Canada can do. Mexico's labour turnover was much higher, education levels lower, the work ethic poor. It isn't easy to produce there efficiently". This is a European speaking.
It is probably not fair to say that is true with all Mexican labour, but our productivity is higher. This is why they are looking at Canada.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Canadians resent being taken advantage of by those few visitors, refugees or landed immigrants who come to Canada and then commit serious crimes here.
Can the minister tell the House and all Canadians that criminals convicted of a serious offence, such as drug trafficking, upon serving their sentence will immediately, in fact on the same day, be deported to their country of origin regardless of the possible consequences in that country?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have introduced and passed in this House and it has now become law, amendments to the Immigration Act. Those measures were intended to protect Canadian citizens against individuals whose admission would be contrary to the best interest of this country.
The amendments relating for example to criminality and security allow us to effectively turn back or deport rapidly individuals who clearly pose a threat to our communities, but who have no record of criminal conviction. We now have a law that expands the inadmissibility provisions in the area of criminality and threats to national security.
I think that when these are implemented they will greatly improve the security of Canadians.


TELESAT
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications.
February 25, 1993

Last year the government sold Telesat, Canada's space based telecommunications carrier, to a consortium of telecoms. At the time the minister proudly boasted, and I will quote from committee records: "The sale was completely in the interests of the public and certainly meets the test of my own department's telecommunications policy".
I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that Telesat's new owners are now poised to gut the company's marketing arm, to take it out of the picture as a competitor and throw up to 400 Telesat employees out on the street?
Does the minister support feeding Telesat to the lions as government policy and does he suggest that the loss of up to 400 Canadian jobs is in the public's interest?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the NDP still clings to the outdated notion that the best way to provide services in telecommunications is for the government to own them.
I have just come back from Vancouver at Intercomm 93. I can tell the hon. member that throughout the world, governments are turning to the private sector to provide these services because the private sector can provide them more efficiently, more effectively and at a lower cost to consumers.
Only the NDP would continue to drive into the future with their eyes focused firmly on the rearview mirror.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for the Minister of National Revenue.
Telesat was sold to its new owners for $154.8 million. At the time of the sale Telesat held approximately $350 million in tax credits, known in the industry as tax loss carry forward.
Will the minister confirm that part of Telesat's restructuring plan involves an application to his ministry to allow $350 million in tax credits to be transferred to the new owners and applied to their profits? Does he recognize that if he allows it to proceed, the government will allow Canada's major telecoms to recover the full cost of their purchase, to throw 400 Canadian workers out of work and to pocket no less than a cool $200 million of taxpayers' money as a thanks for their efforts?
Oral Questions
Will the minister do something to stop this unprecedented sell-out of the Canadian taxpayer?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the New Democrats have nothing better to ask so they are fishing. However, they are fishing in the wrong pond.
The question that the hon. member asks is totally hypothetical. Under the provisions of the Income Thx Act, it would be inappropriate for me to give out specific information.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: I can confirm-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Otto John Jelinek: Do you want to hear the answer, or do you want to just keep on yapping?
I can confirm that Telesat has come to Revenue Canada to ask for an advanced ruling. This advanced ruling is being looked at under the provisions of the Income Thx Act, under the normal, regular, fair provisions of the Income Tax Act. Once a decision is made, it will be made public.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the person answering for the Minister of Transport.
I was wondering if the government could advise the House why it went ahead with a very expensive environmental review process at Pearson International Airport when it knew that if the environmental process was against the government, it would go ahead regardless of the cost of the environmental review process.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly did not ignore the advice of the panel.
It provided the government with useful input into our decision-making process. It is, however, the responsibility of the government ultimately to make the final decision.

February 25, 1993
Oral Questions
We have incorporated many of the concerns of the panel, on the environmental aspects and impact. I would like to quote from the report: "The impact of the proposal on the natural environment would be at most marginal and mainly temporary". The longer term effect in fact proved to be less harmful than the present situation.
We had to reject the recommendations of the north-south runway for safety reasons and will not be proceeding with the east-west parallel runways until capacity requires it.


NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade said yesterday that the three accords proposed by the United States "will not change the substance of the North American free trade agreement in any way".
President Clinton has refused to introduce NAFTA legislation until the accords have been negotiated. Clearly the accords which the Canadian government regards as unimportant are being treated as very important by the United States. They are being treated as so important in fact that the United States will not implement NAFTA until it has its three accords.
Could the minister explain why the government is rushing ahead today with an agreement whose operation will be profoundly affected by the demands of the new U.S. administration for parallel accords?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, when we talk about rushing, in fact what is happening is that President Clinton and the U.S. administration is catching up to Canada.
We proposed changes to the environmental framework and the labour framework over a year ago. The United States is just catching up to requests that we have made.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister answers in that fashion today whereas yesterday the minister of trade said: "I do not know what the Americans have in mind by their proposals". Which
is it?
Does the minister know what the Americans are proposing? Did the minister for trade yesterday have a
different impression and now does not know what the Americans are proposing? If the government does not know what the Americans are proposing, as the minister said yesterday, can this minister at least tell Canadians what this government wants?
I want to know from the minister, is the government simply prepared to accept whatever the United States puts forward in the parallel accords or will it now tell Canadians what its own objectives are in the parallel accords?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the government is not going to just accept what the Americans want to do in a parallel accord. That is for further discussion.
I am glad that we have finally got them to talk about things such as environmental protection, where we have taken the lead. I am glad that we finally got them to talk about certain labour standards, where we took the lead over a year ago.
The hon. member wants to know our objectives in NAFTA. Our objectives in NAFTA are as follows: We want to increase our access to the Mexican market; to improve still further our access to the U.S. market; and we want to make sure that the provisions of the FTA which have been so effective for Canada are extended to all of North America.


FRANCOPHONE COLLEGES
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane -Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Last June, the Ontario Minister of Colleges and Universities confirmed that his government would pay part of the cost of establishing a francophone college in northern Ontario. Nearly three years ago, the federal government made a similar commitment, but francophones are still waiting.
Could the minister explain the reasons for this delay, which by now has become unacceptable, and tell people in northern Ontario what the government's intentions are in this respect?
February 25, 1993


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, and I am aware of his interest in a matter that is so important to the minority communities in his region.
Of course, as I said earlier to his colleague, this government recognizes the importance of education for minority communities. We have already done a great deal in this respect, and I am thinking of one example where we financed an initial envelope with the Government of Ontario, which made it possible to proceed with the Cite collegiale here in the Ottawa area. I can assure him that this particular issue is one of my priorities.


Réginald Bélair: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State referred to Ottawa's Cite collegiale. There are rumours that funds earmarked for a francophone college in Northern Ontario were diverted to the Cite collegiale in Ottawa, which is crowded with students from northern Ontario.
Could the minister deny this rumour and confirm to the House and to francophones in northern Ontario that a decision will be made about our college before dealing with the problems of the Ottawa Cite collegiale!


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must realize that establishing colleges is in provincial jurisdiction. In fact, Ontario now has a new Minister of Education who I hope to meet very shortly, so that we can decide what to do about Ontario's colleges. I am confident that with the investments made so far, we can proceed to meet our commitments in this respect, but with the Government of Ontario. I would urge the hon. member to put some pressure on his colleagues at Queen's Park as well.

[English |


PRIME MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, recently there has been a surge in patronage appointments and a lot more are coming. There are 28 judges, 11 senators, and we understand from the Privy Council Office that a number of appointments are going to be announced tomorrow, I guess in the hope that nobody is going to notice.
Oral Questions
My question for the Deputy Prime Minister is this. Would he not table those appointments today? Is it the intention of the government to break the Liberal record of 1984 of 229 patronage appointments in one month in order to prevent the next prime minister from having to say "I had no choice"?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is the hon. member worried about his application, or has he not yet got it in?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, with that weird answer I suppose I am able to go on.
In his role as the finance minister the hon. member said that funding will be increased for the highly successful industrial research assistance program. My question to him is why did he not keep that promise; why did he leave the IRAP funding where it was before and where it has been for the last two years, without an additional penny?


Thomas Hockin: I think my hon. friend is going to regret that he asked that question. Here is what has happened.


An hon. member:: Today they have to regret every question they ask.


Thomas Hockin: In the estimates tabled by my colleague this morning, there is an increase of over $14 million for science and technology.


SEXUAL OFFENDERS
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, The Globe and Mail reported on Tbesday that the Solicitor General had cut funding in Ontario for programs that treat sexual offenders. I understand that a reallocation of funds will occur in the next few months.
I and many Canadians are concerned about cuts to these programs. I ask the Solicitor General if he will assure Canadians that treatment programs for sexual offenders will continue to be a high priority for his department and will not be subject to funding cuts.

Tributes


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take this question on behalf of the Solicitor General who is out of the House on business.
There will be no cuts in funding for sex offender treatment programs for 1993-94. Indeed, treatment programs in Ontario will be expanded to offer additional programs such as relapse prevention programs at Fronte-nac, Beaver Creek and Pittsburgh Institutions and Portsmouth Community Correctional Centre. All four programs are expected to be operational by April of 1993.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise the House that notice has been brought to me that members would like to rise and pay tribute to our deceased colleague, Chuck Cook.


THE LATE CHUCK COOK
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, in my close to 14 years in this Chamber, this is the first time I have risen on an occasion like this. I do so with a sense of sadness and yet a sense of anticipation.
Chuck Cook has been a good friend of mine since 1961. For most of us, the friends we encounter in this Chamber are people who we encounter upon our arrival in the Chamber or maybe slightly before. It is unusual that you have a friendship that goes back so far.
Charles Henry Cook was the director of the School of Business Administration at Mount Royal College, the United Church college in Calgary, Alberta in 1961 when I arrived as the director of student affairs. I used to tease him a little. He was a bit older than I was and he seemed to me at that point in my life a little bit wiser than I was and that was probably true. He had a law degree and masters in business administration from Western University. He was putting together a program of academic studies in business education at the university level that began with no acceptance anywhere except among his students and ended up as credit courses accepted by most universities in North America.
The tribute to that part of his life is the reality that the school is bigger, stronger, has more programs and he was the person who began it all. It was long before we had
our own university in Calgary and long before we had a school that specialized in any kind of business education. He was indeed a pioneer.
However, the part of Chuck Cook's life that preceded my time with him, and it has only come to my knowledge in recent years, was that he was famous in the city of Winnipeg by 20 years of age. He had achieved the kind of fame and fortune in his local community perhaps that we aspire to in the Parliament of Canada and in our home communities. He was well-known. He was the most popular disc jockey in the city of Winnipeg by the age of 20. He was a lawyer by the age of 30 and he was a politician in this Chamber by his early 50s.
Chuck Cook is survived by his wife, Dale. On behalf of my wife I would like to say something about that relationship. As luck would have it, when our paths crossed at that community college, within a year we became neighbours of the Cooks, just down the street. Our children are of similar ages. My wife and his wife became friends. It was not inconsequential in our early days as parliamentarians that you had somebody who you had known for a while who understood your life and your lifestyle, the difficulties that were caused in your family, somebody who you felt comfortable talking to because of that earlier association. We have thought a lot since Thesday of Dale Cook and their three children, then-sons Kenneth and Colin, and Colin's children Michael, Trevor and Sean, and of their daughter Kimberley.
I think the House would like to know that as a family they were together in the last few days of Chuck's life. I think the House would like to know that the death was not sudden. It was the result of cancer, a disease which can exist over a long period of time.
Perhaps it is at least partially the mark of the man that I do not think anybody in this Chamber knew the severity of his illness. I was his Whip. I knew there were days when he found it difficult and sometimes impossible to get on an airplane to come from Vancouver to Ottawa and to go back. There was pain involved. There were other complicating factors. It was not Chuck's way to talk a lot about those kinds of things. Throughout the time I knew him he simply got on with life.
February 25, 1993

He is probably the person in my life who had read the most books. There was no such thing as paint or wallpaper in a Chuck Cook house, it was just books everywhere, tables, floor, bookshelves. Everywhere you went in Chuck's house were books and lo and behold he had read them all time after time.
That is probably what made him turn his talents to radio when he was at military college, I suspect in part to pay off a mortgage. In 1962 he became the very first talk show host. Talk radio came to Calgary in 1962 and Chuck Cook was the host. His program was from ten o'clock at night until midnight.
I became the semi-permanent guest. Chuck was a neighbour. At 9.15 the phone would ring and he would say he had just lost his guest. I put my coat on, he picked me up and told me what we would talk about in the car on the way down.
In retrospect I cannot think of a better background for budding politicians. You got on the telephone; people told you what was on their minds; you listened; you responded; you talked about it; together you sometimes came up with suggestions or solutions and you moved forward to try to implement them.
That is what talk radio was about in the early 1960s. The big city of Vancouver is what took Chuck Cook away from Calgary. In western terms, at least, it is our big city in western Canada. It beckoned with little richer radio stations. He had great ratings and off he went to Vancouver where he continued that talk show career.
He practised law. He was an entrepreneur. Ultimately he achieved something that had been on his mind for a while and that was an entry into politics. He succeeded in the election of 1979 as I did in Calgary and, lo and behold, here we were together, neighbours, same building, running around doing what the Whip told us, going from this committee to that. It was a minority government as members might remember. That is an awful shocking way to arrive in this place, as a member of a minority government. Believe me. You learn and you learn fast. Just when you thought you had learned something, you were back in an election. Both of us were lucky enough to come back with slightly increased majorities.
We experienced the thrill of opposition, the critic's role, Question Period, all those good things that so many
Tributes
members of this House are enjoying these days. It was kind of a good world for talk show hosts to have those roles. They fit quite well with past patterns and past backgrounds.
By 1983, in the middle of it, Chuck became the opposition Whip and subsequently, our first government Whip in a majority government in quite some time. He set some patterns and got us started on some paths in what was indeed a very big majority Parliament.
After the 1988 election, he concentrated more on the committee side of things and chaired not only the privileges and elections committee but the liaison committee which deals with all committee chairmen.
He made his contribution always in this place without seeking the limelight.
Members may want to read today the column by John Warren.
Many years ago, John Warren was a third member in our triumvirate, in the same period of time and in the same community college in top broadcasting. Chuck Cook hired him. In John's testimonial today I thought the words were really appropriate. I would like to put them on the record.
The words from John Warren that I would like to put on the record are as follows. In describing Chuck, he said:
He could be serious but never took himself too seriously. "You do
what you can, love your family, do not hurt anybody and hope for
the best."
A simple credo but one which Chuck lived by. If you know his family, his wife Dale and the children, there is a piece of that credo in all of them.
You could disagree with Chuck Cook. In our very first meeting there was a rather serious disagreement between the two of us, but there was never an element of personal animosity in the disagreement. It was a clash of ideas from somebody who took the responsibility of learning seriously and adjudicating wisely. He never put you down. He expected you to do the same. If you came to a different conclusion, it was simply because your analytic processes were a little different. Your knowledge base might be a little different but there was certainly never anything wrong with thinking differently.

February 25, 1993
Tributes
From time to time he had the courage in this Chamber to express that in a voting situation. He always had the courage in a committee situation.
One of the finest tributes that can be said of him is that when he chaired a committee, opposition members felt comfortable and government members felt comfortable. All were valued and all would have an opportunity to make a contribution.
He will be missed. Our thoughts are with his family. We wish them well. They know as members of our parliamentary family that if any of us are in a position to help them, if our help would be valuable, all they have to do is call.


Hon. Mary Collins (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Environment) and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add some words at this time about our colleague Chuck Cook.
Our constituencies adjoin each other, Capilano- Howe Sound and North Vancouver. After the last election, Chuck took over part of my constituency. We worked very closely together. We represented a lot of the same people. We were involved in a lot of the same issues on the north shore of Vancouver. Our staffs really got to know each other very well over the past eight years.
I was really shocked yesterday. I was not prepared for the news of Chuck's death. It really made me think that we are indeed only here for a very short time. I still find it hard to even accept that Chuck is not here.
Chuck and I did not always agree. That would be of no surprise to anyone in this House. Chuck had this way of putting across his points. My colleagues in the British Columbia caucus know this very well. He would come in to a meeting and he would just go right at it. Whether it was in caucus, in this House or a committee, he could be gruff. He could certainly be uncompromising and he certainly stood up for what he believed in.
That is a real mark of a representative of the people in this House of Commons.
One incident last fall that I will always remember is indicative of the larger family that we are all part of in this House. It was during the referendum debate. Chuck and I were on opposite sides of that debate. That was not easy. On a number of occasions I had to argue with him on television programs and in forums in my riding. I am
sure, as we would all agree, that was not an easy thing for either of us.
Our local newspaper tried to make it a real fight between us. It tried to really pit us against each other. You know how they take glee out of that kind of thing and try to make it a permanent animosity. After the referendum was over, Chuck obviously reflected well the views of his constituents once again. Veiy shortly after he had an occasion to address the members of his riding at a meeting and he made some very kind comments about me. That meant a lot to me because it really buried the hatchet and the difficulties we experienced over that particular issue. When Chuck was back in Ottawa I had a chance to share my thanks and feelings with him.
For all of us it is a difficult time when we lose someone who has worked so hard on behalf of Canadians, first as a lawyer and then a broadcaster, on all the different issues with which he was involved. Perhaps his greatest love was horses. That was a very special part of his life.
He will be missed but he will be remembered by his friends here in this House and by the people of North Vancouver and the north shore for what he contributed. He gave himself to the service of his country.
I would also like to add my thoughts at this time to Dale who has been so supportive all these years, it is very difficult to be the spouse of a parliamentarian, and to his children, Colin, Ken and Kim. We are indeed with them in our thoughts today.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add a few words to the tributes we are paying to our colleague Chuck Cook.
Someone I once knew told me that he had written a book on banking law and was making a tour of talk shows across the country. Among those he appeared on was Chuck Cook's, when Chuck was in north Vancouver. He discovered to his enormous surprise that Chuck had actually read his book and they engaged in an extraordinarily intelligent and interesting dialogue. He said it made a profound impression on him that this was someone who had actually taken the trouble to research the work of the person he was interviewing. This was not "fly by the seat of your pants" entertainment. It was a serious effort to provide to his listening public ideas, discourse and dialogue that would give them something lasting.
February 25, 1993

The member for Calgary West pointed out why that was so. It was because of Chuck's love of learning and his insatiable capacity to read and explore ideas.
When I think of Chuck Cook I also think of his sense of humour, occasionally at my own expense I might add. However, Chuck was always somebody who could enjoy a good joke. He smoked way too much and he was not an advertisement for healthy living. When we would come into caucus or the parliamentary dining room Chuck would always have a big plate of fries in front of him which he would then finish off with eight or nine cigarettes.
I think of Chuck and I see smoke coming out of his nose and mouth but he was full of pleasure and joy, and had an ability to love life.
Another impression of Chuck which I would like to share on this occasion was his enormous pride in his children. He had a daughter whose name is also Kim, who is a lawyer. I remember a couple of years ago at the Prime Minister's dinner in Vancouver, the pride with which he introduced me to his daughter and talked about her aspirations as a young professional. Of course it was a great pleasure for me to encourage her. At that time I was the Minister of Justice.
He had that wonderful air of a father who seriously suspects that his children may have outstripped him in intelligence and that delightful deference that parents have when they look at their children who have launched into wonderful careers.
He was a truly well-rounded human being. Like my colleague, the minister for western diversification, Chuck and I were not ideological soul mates on a lot of issues. However a lot of us realize that what is really important in this life is to have genuine dialogue and a genuine clash of ideas with people who are intelligent and well informed. I do not think any of us want to be surrounded by people who only ever agree with our own positions because those positions can then become flabby and ill-founded.
Chuck Cook was always a very important part of our caucus, and kept us on our toes. As others have said, our hearts go out to his family. We will miss him, because the very bottom line is that Chuck Cook was good company.
Tributes


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure other colleagues will understand why members of the British Columbia caucus mourn the loss of Chuck Cook so deeply. He was a friend to all in this House.
Some of us knew Chuck Cook very well. As my colleague, the member for Capilano-Howe Sound has said, he could be gruff. Perhaps that is why he was successful as a pioneer in open-line radio. It was perhaps Chuck's manner, but those of us who knew him came to discover that Chuck Cook had a heart of gold. He was always very concerned about each one of us, as our colleagues have indicated, and was always ready to offer a compliment and offer positive and helpful advice.
Chuck came to Ottawa shortly after I arrived here and took an office across the hall from me. I remember the long nights he used to work. There are two things about Chuck Cook that the House should remember. He was a consummate politician but a classic servant of his constituents in the best possible way.
Some people used to wonder how Chuck Cook could be elected and re-elected as often as he was. Those of us who knew him know he did it the old-fashioned way, by wearing out shoe leather door to door. People could not understand how some of the giants, such as Iona Cam-pagnola and Gordon Gibson Jr., could fall to defeat to Chuck Cook, but we knew Chuck Cook. We knew what a dedicated British Columbian, and Albertan by birth, he was.
Something else that the House may not know is that Chuck Cook was-I know his family is very proud of this-the first supporter of our Prime Minister in British Columbia. In 1982 he invited the Prime Minister and Mila to come out to British Columbia where the Prime Minister spoke on the first occasion and won over friends and supporters in British Columbia.
The friend who he won first and to whom the greatest loyalty was shown was Chuck Cook. He was steadfast and dedicated to his party and to this government, and especially to the Prime Minister. For that we will always respect him.

Tributes
Dale and his family, now grown up as all of our families do while we come to this place and fly that horrendous distance between British Columbia and Ottawa almost weekly, know the sacrifices he made and they too made sacrifices. Our hearts go out to Dale, Kim, Colin and Ken at this time of their bereavement. We will miss him greatly.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party about the late member for North Vancouver, Chuck Cook.
The respected journalist John Warren's tribute in today's Hill Times captures well what a lot of us in this House, across the prairies and British Columbia, and elsewhere felt about our colleague.
I have three short quotes from Mr. Warren's piece:
He understood he'd pass this way only once and there wasn't time to waste bearing grudges or regrets. Unlike any politician I've known, he was totally free of vanity or envy.
The second quote is:
He had enjoyed careers, or at least supplemented his income in all these pursuits (in politics, law, education, broadcasting, business, and horse-racing). It made for an unpredictable, often bumpy ride. And one Chuck often conceded he could not have taken without his loving and devoted wife, Dale.
The third quote is:
He read more than anyone I know but laughed at being branded as an unschooled boor for telling publishers they weren't producing the kind of books Canadians want.
Chuck Cook and I entered this House together after the 1979 election. Serving for a decade together in the same caucus I grew to admire him greatly.
He was absolutely straight. He had strong views on many subjects, developed in the cut and thrust of debate, law practice and talk shows in all four western provinces, and he feared no one and nothing in expressing them. Whenever he spoke in the Conservative caucus most listened very carefully. Not a word was wasted. He said what he meant and meant what he said. There was no double talk, no lawyer's sophistry, no blarney, and no apple-polishing. He gave only the unvarnished truth as he saw it, and many people loved him for it.
This unique but quintessential westerner loved risks and he took them, from being a party Whip, with all of that risk, to horse racing, sailing or poker. I am told today
that he kept the real state of his illness from his family until only late last week, presumably betting he might still beat the odds.
Although Chuck Cook both supported the leadership bid of the Prime Minister in 1983 and served him as Whip after 1984 he broke with his party, as is well known, over the Charlottetown accord. That was the first time he differed with his party in 13 years.
Why? After he cast his dissenting vote he said: "I don't care about the eastern press any more than they care about the voters of North Vancouver".
He believed the accord left western Canada even further under central Canadian dominance than now, and I quote him again: "I represent the people of North Vancouver. In the final analysis that takes precedence over my caucus or my leader". That is a statement that all of us in this House should reflect on very carefully.
Late last year he announced that he would not run again for Parliament because he and his wife wanted to "enter a new stage in our lives".
The North Shore News in North Vancouver said this about Mr. Cook last fall:
Chuck Cook is that rarest of political birds: one who speaks his mind rather than simply mouthing the party line-They (his views) have always rung with personal conviction and sincerity, characteristics virtually extinct in the modem political arena.
In writing about this country's 125th anniversary celebration he wrote:
One of our great strengths is the fact that we are a nation of minorities. There is no 'majority' in Canada. We are a collection of minorities, each learning tolerance from the other groups. . . To be Canadian is to have a very quiet pride and knowledge that you are extremely fortunate.
Mr. Speaker, as a British Columbian you will probably know that all of his family called him FB, Father Bear, including friends of his children. For his wife Dale's 65th birthday he flew everyone to North Vancouver for a surprise party for her. Over the past Christmas he spent many hours teaching his favourite indoor game, chess, to his six-year old twin grandsons, Trevor and Michael.
I would like to give two other short vignettes about our colleague's unique personality. When he was a 20-year old broadcaster in Winnipeg he announced that he would throw $100,000 off the roof of his radio station. There were the predictable traffic jams as he pitched the money from the building. It was Monopoly money. It made the national news.
February 25, 1993

Later in B.C. he took his family sailing. Being from the prairies I guess he did not know about tide waters and anchored near Bowen Island. At 5 a.m. they were all awakened by a rapidly approaching ship. He had anchored in the B.C. ferry lane.
Our colleague leaves behind him his wife, Dale; his children, Ken and wife Deborah, Colin and wife Lorraine, and Kim; and grandchildren Trevor, Michael and Sean. The funeral will be held on Saturday at St. Catherine Church on Ridgewood Drive.
As others have mentioned, the sympathies of all the members of this House go out to the entire family. We will remember and honour Chuck Cook in this House.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, the New Democratic Party, as a fellow member of Parliament for British Columbia and as a friend of Chuck Cook I would like to add to the eloquent words of my colleagues who have already spoken.
The hon. member for Calgary West spoke eloquently about the friendship he had with Chuck and his family. The minister from Capilano spoke about how Chuck stood up for what he believed in, and that is certainly true. The Minister of National Defence from Vancouver Centre spoke of Chuck's sense of humour, and I saw that as well.
The minister of Indian affairs, my colleague from Richmond, spoke about Chuck having a heart of gold. The member from Edmonton spoke about his admiration for a colleague who was a straight talking person. There is not a lot I can add because I think it has been covered, but I would like to say a few things.
Charles Henry Cook was born in Regina, Saskatchewan. He was educated at Northwestern University, the University of Saskatchewan, and the University of Western Ontario. He was well educated.
He was a lawyer, a broadcaster and a member of Parliament. At least in British Columbia being a broadcaster is well thought of, though I will not mention being a lawyer or member of Parliament.
Tributes
I recall his hotline show. I was on the show. Many of us were on the show. I recall him being outspoken and controversial on the show. It is not unusual to be a member of Parliament and be a former hotline reporter. The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca did that as well.
It is very important, especially in British Columbia. Chuck and I were elected together along with many others in the House in 1979. Our ridings touched just a little bit. I represented Vancouver-Kingsway then as you know, Mr. Speaker, since you represent the next riding down, Vancouver South. Our ridings all went together: your riding of Vancouver South, my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway with a little touch of Burnaby and North Vancouver.
I remember in 1984 debating with Chuck on the Jack Webster Show. I remember being surprised at how strong Chuck's views were and what a keen debater he was. I should not have been surprised. I saw it again in the House and on different occasions.
He was the government Whip, which is a tough job I am told. He did it well. I was surprised that he was the government Whip in a way because he was so independent. Whips are not traditionally that independent and outspoken but Chuck certainly was.
I recall that during the little incident where the Mace came up and hit me in the House of Commons that he was one of the few people who got up and defended me. I do not think he was defending my actions which were not really defensible, but I think some of the members were getting a little holier than thou in their speeches. Chuck got up and corrected that.
I remember sending him a note saying: "I owe you one. I will send you a bottle of whiskey," but being a Scotsman I never got around to sending the whiskey. I regret that. Chuck, wherever your spirit is, I want you to know I am thinking about you. I owe you one and I am thinking about you now.
Outspoken, a sense of humour, a good human being: What more can one say about someone? I think that is a great tribute to him.

February 25, 1993
Business of the House
I wish to give my condolences to his wife, his children, his friends and his constituents. He represented his constituents and Canada well.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, in May 1980 Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a task force to look into the issue of regulatory reform in Canada.
I had the honour of being the chairperson of that task force and Chuck Cook was one of the Conservative members. Chuck Cook was always constructive. He worked hard. He worked very precisely. He had a finely tuned mind when it came to looking at the issues.
What I remember most was the way he focused in and said: "I am not going to accept this report", and this was in the final days, "unless we get equality for western representation on our national institutions." CBC, the transport board, CRTC and things like this are what he fought for. He fought for them strongly and effectively.
Chuck was a strong advocate for what he believed in. Of course, he was right and he made his imprint. I was happy to work with Chuck and also to know his wife, Dale, who was a very supportive, decent, kind person. I know that Dale will miss him greatly. We will miss him here.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can ask a question of the government House leader with regard to the business for tomorrow.
While the government House leader is on his feet, can he indicate what arrangements have been made with regard to the special committee relating to the North American free trade agreement, which is to sit and travel the country?
Also, I wonder if he can indicate to the House perhaps something to do with his own personal plans. Does he intend to stay in the great constituency of Calgary Centre in the months ahead?


An hon. member:: In the leadership.


Mr. Speaker:: I would point out that the hon. minister does not really have to answer that if he does not wish to.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: The hon. minister is trembling in his boots at the thought of an opponent who thinks there are votes to be gained by giving out T-shirts in Cape Breton-at least votes in Calgary to be gained.
Hopefully this afternoon we will get around to second reading of Bill C-101, the labour code act, and then get on to Bill C-109. It would be nice to get to second reading on that and get it to committee. It is an issue upon which I think there is a fair degree of unanimity in the House.
On Friday we would like to complete report stage and third reading of Bill C-99, the Small Businesses Loans Act, which again is anticipated in many quarters and then get on to Bill C-73, the Canada Post Act.
As you know, the House adjourns tomorrow for one week. At this point I am not entirely certain what the business for Monday, March 8 will be but I will commit to both opposition parties to let them know by the middle of next week what the business will be for Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of the first week back.
In terms of a committee study of the legislation related to the North American free trade agreement, we are certainly favourably disposed toward getting the legislation to a committee as soon as possible so it can organize and arrange for hearings and witnesses, both here in Ottawa and in other parts of the country. Perhaps in discussions later this afternoon or tomorrow we can firm up plans in that regard. I would rather do that before we complete second reading, simply because scheduling of second reading and the nature of the debate we will have is such that if everything is done sequentially it may be some time before we can get the material to committee for proper study.


Iain Francis Angus: In the
estimates of the Ministry of Transport, reference is made to legislation dealing with drug testing of employees. The document suggested it would be tabled and receive Royal Assent in 1993.
February 25, 1993

I wonder if the minister can advise this House where that legislation is in the process and when we can expect it to be tabled.


Harvie Andre: I am sorry I do not have that information offhand. I will have to look into it, discuss it and find out just where it is and I will get back to the hon. member.


Ross Harvey: This morning I sent the government House leader a letter suggesting a very prompt, quickly dealt with motion of congratulations for the Canadian winners of the American Grammy awards yesterday. I was just wondering if the House leader or another member of the Privy Council has any intention of bringing forward such a motion today or tomorrow.


Harvie Andre: I could not get it on the cabinet agenda this morning. You can understand we may have other items of some significant import to discuss.
Like everybody else, I am proud of these two Canadian singers for their awards. As an Albertan I am proud of k.d. lang and as an Albertan I am proud of Celine Dion because she eats beef. However, I do not know if we need a government decision to express that pride.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: wonder if the government is contemplating a statement in this House by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the aboriginal fisheries strategy, which has become an extremely important issue on the coast of British Columbia. With the adjournments that are planned in the House it looks like there will be no opportunity to provide a debate on an extremely important issue to aboriginal people in British Columbia and to all those involved and dependent on that fishery.
I wonder if this has come up on the government agenda and whether it might be possible to have the minister make a statement on progress on the work on the aboriginal fisheries strategy.


Harvie Andre: My understanding is that it is more likely to get a statement out of the minister than to get a policy position out of the NDP.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Barbara Greene: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Question Period under the protection of parliamentary immunity, the member for Mississauga East stated, as is reported on page 16386 of Hansard'.
According to the chair of the kangaroo committee on poverty,
children would have to be naked, homeless or on the brink of
starvation before being considered poor.
This is a slanderous, bald-faced lie which impugns not only me but also our committee which has undertaken an important study designed to improve government accountability on the important issue of poverty.
Failing an immediate apology, I ask that you refer this matter to the appropriate House committee for disciplinary action.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, when a committee of the House, established ostensibly for the Canadian poor is under the leadership of someone who questions the motives of food bank operators, disputes the necessity for food banks and does not believe Canada's poor are really poor at all, I would say that Canada's poor are ill-served.
As someone who has experienced childhood poverty firsthand, I find the member's attitude and behaviour certainly like that of an idle spectator who really does not understand poverty at all and whose head and heart are mesmerized by the Ivy League in the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened carefully to the intervention of both hon. members. The complaint of course is that one hon. member has been described in an uncomplimentary way and in reply the hon. member who made the original remarks is carrying on what is obviously a difference of opinion between the two members.
I hope that both the hon. members can resolve their differences. However it is not a question of privilege, it is a matter of debate. There seems to be some concern that the hon. member bringing the complaint said that what was said about her was a lie. Under the circumstances, what she means is that she does not believe there is any truth in that and it is not appropriate to say those things.

Government Orders
I am not going to go further with the matter. I would ask hon. members when they are referring to each other to always try to keep the debate on the subject matter and try not to personalize it because these things do wound on both sides of the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tbesday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Danis that Bill C-101, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on Bill C-101 so that I can continue the comments I made on Tbesday, February 23. I said at the beginning of my remarks that Bill C-101 is a good example of the government's malicious tendency to present bills that combine poison and honey.

A number of provisions in this bill, changes to the Canada Labour Code which establish improved minimum conditions of work are certainly progressive. They represent a great step forward, reached after many, many months of negotiation among the government, employers and employees representatives.
Without similar consultation the government has chosen as well to include provisions in this bill that have no acceptance among its employees who are affected by this bill or among other labour relations. To the best of our knowledge they have not been discussed with anybody.
Let us talk about some of the provisions we support because they are substantial and they are to the benefit of employees.

In particular, I would like to comment on the proposed changes that would make parental leave more flexible, thus helping parents balance work and family responsibilities. As with the changes made to the Unemployment Insurance Act in 1990, parents can have continuous leave for the year following the birth or adoption of a child.
In particular, also, the changes concerning maternity-related reassignments are in line with women's right to stay at work during pregnancy. Employers must make all reasonable arrangements to modify the tasks of a pregnant or nursing employee or to reassign her.

These are some of the provisions we certainly support in this bill. Others clarifying the relationship of minimum standards within the Canada Labour Code to other negotiated conditions in contracts between workers and their employers and provisions relating to the obligations of the employer to an employee who becomes disabled or ill as a result of the work situation, as I said, are progressive steps which we applaud.
Regrettably the drop of arsenic the government cannot seem to resist putting into a good bill at the last minute gives us substantial concerns. That bit of poison is in fact a substantial provision of great concern to workers. I am going to address it particularly in the context of Public Service employees because this bill as well as amending the Canada Labour Code includes amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The provision to which I am referring and to which others who have spoken on this bill referred is the one that says where negotiations are not going well the employer can ask the Minister of Labour to refer an employer's offer to a vote of the employees.
I want to put this provision in the context of good management-labour relations. When two parties sit down to negotiate it is essential to maintain the balance of power between the two. There has to be a comparability of the rights of each in the process. Certainly in committee we want to look at how that balance of power is affected by giving an employer the right to come to the government and ask for a directed vote on the employer's offer. It is important not to put anything into the negotiating process that will discourage negotiations, that will discourage the parties from coming to a mutual agreement, a negotiated contract.
February 25, 1993

Although the bill refers to the public interest, there is very little in it that defines the public interest and under what kinds of circumstances the minister may act to take what is quite an unusual step.
Let me address the Public Service situation because the government as an employer of Public Service employees has substantial powers that a private employer does not have already. The employer as government has the power at any time to override collective bargaining, to legislate a return to work and to legislate the terms and conditions of a contract.
The present government has used its legislative power three times in just over three years. Essentially with Bill C-113 that was passed yesterday we will have had in the Public Service of Canada a four-year suspension of collective bargaining. I do not think that is a terribly good example to set for the private sector wherein we are trying to encourage more co-operative relationships, not more confrontation.
This present government, as I said, has used its power three times: in the strike by ships crews workers and hospital services workers in 1989; in Bill C-29 to end the Public Service strike, to impose back-to-work legislation and to impose a wage freeze; and again just yesterday on second reading of Bill C-113 which continues the suspension of collective bargaining and the wage freeze for a further two years.

In 1991, the Public Service Staff Relations Board declared the government guilty of negotiating in bad faith. Concilation board reports criticized the government for its negotiating tactics. The International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency, criticized the federal government of Canada just two months ago for no longer negotiating with its employees.

Of course we are concerned about the government's intention in wishing to introduce yet another weapon in its arsenal against its employees since it has not shown
Government Orders
itself entirely responsible. In fact it has shown itself to be quite irresponsible in how it uses the tools it now has to control rather than to negotiate.
I raise a second concern. This bill makes a minister of the Crown the arbitrator of a dispute between management and labour whether or not it is a strike or whether it is just in the midst of negotiations, if the minister decides it has gone on a little too long. It makes the minister of the Crown an arbitrator to decide that negotiations are not working and he or she as minister has the right to take stronger action to put an end to collective bargaining.
I argue that since the government is the employer no minister of the Crown can be an impartial arbitrator because that minister is the representative of the employer, the Government of Canada.
We certainly have concerns about that provision in the bill as well as about the basic fundamental principle. At a minimum a party separate from the government would have to be designated to make such a determination, and we will be putting forward amendments to that effect.
There are numerous beneficial provisions being added to the Canada Labour Code. We applaud those. We think they are a tribute to what can happen when government, labour and management work together.
However I have to point out that we can only ask why the government has not chosen to give the same legislated minimum standards of employment to Public Service employees. At present those who work for the Government of Canada, those work for the taxpayers of Canada, must go through a variety of Treasury Board policy manuals, the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Government Employees Compensation Act and the Public Service terms and conditions of employment regulations under the Financial Administration Act to find out what their rights are.
We will certainly be exploring in committee why the government has chosen not to provide to its own employees, 250,000 of them, the same minimum working conditions as it provides to those in the private sector.

Government Orders
Once again we have a situation where the government is saying that federally regulated private sector employers have to do thus and thus but as a government is exempting itself. That approach has not been well accepted by organizations that represent employers across this country in labour standards and in issues like employment equity.
We want to explore whether the government is prepared to include the same provisions for its own employees as it requires for others. We frankly think that a public sector worker who is pregnant or nursing has the right to the same protection as a private sector worker who is pregnant or nursing. We happen to believe that a disabled worker in the public sector who happens to become ill or injured on the job deserves the same protection as a private sector employee; not just at the whim of the employer and by policy manuals of the employer.
Perhaps we will have answers to these questions when the bill is in committee. Certainly good management-labour relations require balance between the two parties to the relationship. It is in Canada's best interest to continue to work toward a more co-operative, more collaborative approach to management-labour relations if in fact we want a competitive and productive economy and a sane society.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech very much but there were a couple of significant omissions. I guess my question would be: What exactly is the Liberal position on wage controls?
We remember in this country and in this House the kinds of complaints about the wage controls the Conservative government has placed on the Public Service over the years. The Liberal Party stands in the House regularly and criticizes them. We all remember Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the entire Liberal Party when they imposed the six and five program on the Public Service. We all remember the 1974 election in which Pierre Elliott Trudeau stood and said: "Of course we will never impose wage and price controls on the public sector".
That is the first interesting recollection the member forgot in her speech. What exactly is the position in the Liberal Party on wage controls?
Second, I remember when the Trudeau government was in the House and time after time after time it refused to bargain in good faith with the employees of the Public Service of Canada and simply ordered them back to work. There was all kinds of controversy.
The hon. member talked about good management practices. Good management practices for a Liberal government was that the hammer fell on the employee again. In many cases there was no attempt to put in place rudimentary dispute resolution processes. The government simply hammered the employees back to work with take it or leave it agreements.
Although I enjoyed the principles outlined very much in the hon. member's speech, I have seen previous Liberal governments smash those principles to pieces under an iron boot. I wonder if she has a comment.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do. I will admit that the hon. member's recollection in this House is much longer than mine.
I did not hear the member putting forward his own party's position on these issues. I am not sure that gives him any right to ask anybody else to do it. However we already know a bit about the NDP's policy on these issues. I heard speakers from the NDP yesterday speak against the provision for a legislated right to order a vote on the last offer of the employer.
However, we all know that Bob Rae, the premier of an NDP government in Ontario used that provision in provincial legislation very handily to terminate a strike by TTC workers to have a settlement reached and to have them back to work.
Major revisions to labour legislation in Ontario are causing severe concerns among businesses about the economic soundness of the policy of the Government of Ontario for that matter. Premier Rae, the NDP premier of Ontario has chosen not to remove the veiy provision that his party has spoken against in this House.
February 25, 1993

Against all that background, I will say to the hon. member that when back-to-work legislation has been imposed in the past, it has always been imposed by a Liberal government with provision for arbitration to continue the collective bargaining process, not to discontinue it. It is a measure that has been taken reluctantly only because of the public interest.
That is in fact a legitimate role of government. It is one that should be used rarely and with the greatest reluctance. It should be used not to suspend but to allow the continuation of collective bargaining.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the member looks at the history of her party in this place definitely through rose coloured glasses.
There were omissions of the Liberal Party in power as it herded the employees of the Public Service back to work. I guess the caution to those who watch her speak in the House on behalf of the Liberal Party is certainly beware of the wolf in sheep's clothing. The workers have been roughly handled by that government before. Clearly the promise is that this will not be imposed and then it simply turns around and imposes it. The question of putting people back to work with imposed settlements and without an opportunity to bargain was in many cases the order of the day.
Of course in Ontario, the TTC workers requested a vote on the offer. I think her view of things is certainly somewhat distorted by the rose coloured glasses and the effort to sell to the Public Service a message which really does not reflect the principles of this party with its likely prediction for the future.
That is of course on the GST, the trade agreement and all the other things that those members are preaching these days.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, I do certainly want to reply to that.
We only have to look as far as this evening's news to see how good the NDP is at living by its principles and keeping its promises once in power. We only have to look at that as a classic example of a party that would rather be in opposition because it is so much easier.
I think the positions of the Liberal Party on these issues stand up better to scrutiny than the record of the NDP government in Ontario.
Government Orders


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I too take pleasure in having an opportunity to add a few comments to the record about the treatment of the Public Service of Canada.
I am concerned about the fact that both the present Conservative government and the previous Liberal government have treated that Public Service very badly. The morale in the Public Service is extremely bad in many areas because of that treatment. I think the dedication and commitment is there, but certainly uncertainty and difficulties have come up.
We can start with pointing out in one area the kind of betrayals that have occurred with the Liberal Party and the absolute classic betrayal of Pierre Elliot Tbudeau who during the 1974 election promised Canadians, the workers of the Public Service and all workers that there would be no wage and price controls, that the order of the day would be fair collective bargaining. He did that while campaigning against Robert Stanfield.
To the credit of the Conservative Party, it may not be palatable and certainly Robert Stanfield went to the sword for his sins, but the Conservatives stood up and said exactly what they believed in. The Canadian people responded accordingly, as we do in a democracy. They believed the Liberals. I think by 1975 they clearly regretted that decision.
The government of the day was so extremely unpopular it was forced to go a full five years right to the end of its mandate before it lost to the Clark government. It did so by betraying people I think principally on that six and five issue. You cannot trust Liberals.
The Public Service of Canada has learned that today and it has learned it through the years. The Liberals prior to an election will tell you anything you want to hear. Ultimately when the day draws near, when the election is over, those promises on the election platform are betrayed.
The Liberal Party also began the process of cuts to the Public Service. Prior to making the cuts in the Public Service the Liberal Party adopted a process by which it criticized the Public Service first. The Liberals thought it would be much easier and they could gain public support. This was again during that period from 1974 to 1979 when they began a process of saying the cost of government was too high. They believed Stanfield's lines.

Government Orders
The Conservatives and the Liberals simply believed what the Conservatives had said and then they tried to convince the public of the fat and the inefficiency of the Public Service. Nothing could be further from the truth. They began the process which we see today with the cuts to the Public Service, attempts to convince the public that these are legitimate because the Public Service is inefficient and the private sector is much better. That is nonsense.
Through the years we have had tremendous loyalty and great service to the people of Canada, commitment and dedication from that Public Service and it has been very badly handled by both the Liberal and the Conservative governments, right to the point of the bill before us today.
The process of the cutbacks has been so deep and so devastating at this point in time that the uncertainty and difficulty in carrying out the tasks within the Public Service create a great demoralization.
Labour relations in the post office are catastrophic. There is systematic harassment by management. Thousands and thousands of grievances are dragged out on to arbitration. The privatization process is throwing people who are making reasonably good wages out of work and replacing them with the low wage category of workers on contract.
It is interesting how in many cases the Public Service and the labour legislation that protects them has seen this take place. Incidents from some of the employees within the post office who are very apprehensive about the security of the mail are saying that low wage contract workers have been given keys and access to a security system. Regular employees have been laid off and moved out. This has created an enormous problem.
I mentioned before the case of the Transport Canada employees on the west coast, the Canadian Coast Guard. We had a situation with light keepers on the coast of British Columbia, a tremendously dedicated group of people, who work in isolation, whose sole purpose is the protection of the travelling public and of mariners and aviators on the coast of British Columbia. That group owes a great deal to these people.
In two enormous battles, first with the Liberal government and then with the Conservative government on the destaffing of these light stations, automating them, turning those people out, those battles were won. There
seemed to be a political commitment that they would not in fact destaff the lighthouses. That is what the political end from the minister's office indicated.
Yet at the same time the operations side of it is completely replacing the equipment in the lighthouse system so that they will have in place the ability to destaff these lighthouses.
Can you imagine being an employee working within the bargaining process and the grievance process and having an absolute betrayal of commitments that are being made?
The interesting thing is the political decision not to destaff them. Yet on the other side of the coin they are preparing for destaffing. They are talking about technological changes so they can destaff. Equipment is being upgraded for automation, changing air horns to electric horns on the light stations. They are changing to a new type of light that is tremendously expensive to taxpayers and will facilitate automation. They are talking about reworking the radio system so that it can transmit automatic data from lighthouses.
Information has been dropped from the continuous marine broadcast reports. The barometric pressure has been dropped from the manned lighthouse stations but not from the automated ones. As you move forward on the issue the government has given a political statement that lighthouses will not be destaffed. Yet an enormous amount of taxpayers' money is being spent to put this process in place. Imagine how your employees are going to feel, or would feel, with that kind of betrayal.
There is another thing with the Public Service on the coast of British Columbia. There is a certain pride in providing the kind of service it does yet at the same time the government refuses to provide the capital equipment and the operating budgets to make these services effective.
It is interesting that there is a hovercraft station at Vancouver airport operated by the Coast Guard and there is another one in Parksville. The hovercraft station in Parksville is where my brother the hon. member for Comox-Albemi is the representative. He is working hard to retain that facility. However, the service is not only in his area but covers the whole northern end of Georgia Strait, which is in the area I represent.
February 25, 1993

This absolutely critical service cannot be replaced by conventional ships. The travelling public is put in tremendous jeopardy with the removal of that simply because the government wants two of them in Vancouver. It does not want to provide effective search and rescue services to the people on the northern part of Georgia Strait, a tremendously populous area, with a tremendous number of people on the water.
The people providing this service are extremely demoralized because of the continuation of the cuts. These cuts are not only demoralizing on the Public Service, creating enormous problems in gaining from it the kind of support it is capable of giving but they are also presenting an enormous danger to the travelling public.
Another example of these cutbacks is the removal of two Coast Guard vessels from the coast of British Columbia. We had been promised a major improvement in the ships on the coast of British Columbia to provide offshore protection to upgrade the aids to the navigation program and the lighthouse servicing program but how did this government handle that? It decided to take the two vessels that would have fit the bill, the George R. Pearkes and the Martha L. Black to Quebec.
What did the government do? It gave us in return an old beater by the name of the Norman McLeod Rogers which is tied up because it is full of asbestos. I guess no decision has been made whether the government is going to spend the money to clean that ship out even if it is not appropriate for the kinds of tasks for which we need it.
Obviously the Minister of Transport has made some decisions that really affect the Public Service on the coast of British Columbia and the conditions of work in an asbestos-ridden ship. It is a difficult situation. We should have proper ship equipment there so that people can carry out the kinds of tasks for which they have been trained and the experience they have to deliver to the public.
However, at the same time these cutbacks are occurring. The ship program with the Coast Guard on the west coast is abysmal. The Narwhal which is an old buoy tender really is not an acceptable vessel for outside
Government Orders
search and rescue on the Pacific Ocean but that is its function now that the main resources have been taken away and sent to Quebec.
It is interesting in the area of aviation. Because of privatization people are booted out of their jobs in the Public Service in order to give them to the private sector. It is often so that friends of the Conservative government can benefit from a position at the public trough.
There is a lot of talk now that the flight service stations are going to be privatized and they are looking at a proposal to take Transport Canada employees and turn over those flight service station positions to privatization. They of course went through a number of cutbacks which again created demoralization in the Public Service. To my way of thinking, this is really a tragic situation. We need quality service aimed at safety for British Columbians who must travel in difficult areas and this government seems not to care that there is an arbitrary rule to do those cutbacks in spite of the consequences.
The other thing is the Coast Guard helicopters. Again, friends of the Conservative government come along and make a suggestion saying: "Wouldn't it be great if we privatized and took over the operation of Coast Guard helicopter services". The employees who fly and service those helicopters are extremely concerned about their future. There is an uncertainty involved with this wrongheaded approach.
What happens is if you are out doing a medical evacuation or you are doing search and rescue work, the bottom line is the bottom line. If a private company has it then you get to a situation where it will say: "Well, maybe we will not do the kind of upgrading that is needed, we will not do the kind of training that is needed and we will not put on the equipment that is needed". The thing then begins to fall down.
They can also work it the other way, and this has been happening in many departments where you get a cost plus situation, where friends of the government move in, a very lucrative contract has been obtained and they virtually work at cost plus.

February 25, 1993
Government Orders
We have an extremely effective Public Service. We have a very good Coast Guard helicopter service. The employees themselves have recommended many upgrades that could improve the efficiency, effectiveness and cost picture of operation, but the government continuously turns a deaf ear to those suggestions because of the philosophical fixation that I think is really leading to the destruction of our Public Service and in many cases irreparable harm to the country. This is creating an enormous problem.
There is the shutting down of the Cape St. James weather station. This is one of the most important weather stations on the Pacific coast. You cannot travel from one end of that coast without travelling through an extremely bleak area in which there are very few resources and the Cape St. James weather station. All kinds of promises were made about automated facilities that would give good weather briefing, but there is no replacement for a good set of eyes and an Environment Canada weather briefer or meteorologist to give you an indication of what you are going to be facing three hours from now when you arrive right in the middle of that cauldron with no information about what is happening.
They took the weather ships out of the Pacific many years ago. They figured they would put two buoys out there that would transmit weather information. My information is that those buoys are out there but they are floating around and they are really not sure where the heck they are. They break down. The Coast Guard has to use its limited ship resources to try to keep them up on behalf of the atmospheric environmental weather service people. I gather one is floating around broken off the north end of the Queen Charlotte Islands right now. That was a Liberal government contribution to safety, to the travelling public and to the Public Service in Canada.
We have watched a whole litany, and I have focused on the area of transportation safety, closing the Cape St. James weather station, two serious attempts by both governments, the previous Liberal and the present Conservative, to de-staff those lighthouses, and then a political commitment to keep the staff in the lighthouses and upgrade them. No upgrades, but the upgrades that have been going in are designed to facilitate an implementation of a de-staffing scheme which will automate them. This is just ludicrous.
We then have the cutbacks of hovercraft where they decided they wanted them both parked in Vancouver and
leave the whole of the Straits of Georgia, with all its reefs and shallow waters, where ships cannot penetrate to look for people out there who are lost. The hovercraft goes to Vancouver and it leaves the area I represent totally left out of that very valuable hovercraft service.
We then watched the suggested privatization of Coast Guard helicopters. A bad idea. We are now hearing things about the privatization of flight service stations. This is a worse idea, if you can get worse. We get to a situation where over and over and over again they are prepared to demoralize the Public Service, to cut that service and cause enormous harm.
While I have the opportunity, in my closing remarks I would like to talk about fisheries and oceans.
On the west coast of British Columbia we are currently going through a process by which the Government of Canada is working on an aboriginal fisheries strategy. We understand how that strategy has come into place because of requirements of the Supreme Court of Canada, but the implementation of this has been catastrophic. You could summarize it, as I guess the provincial government has done, by saying no conservation, no consultation, and no compensation.
On the conservation aspect, with the cutbacks over the nine years of this government, cutbacks to staff within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the bad treatment, mistreatment of people in the Public Service in fisheries and oceans, we have a situation where there is an enormous change, one that has to be carried out. Yet with that enormous change it does not have the resources to protect the fisheries resource on the coast of British Columbia.
We want the minister to stand up in this House and explain why there are no stream counts for escapements. It is a blind guess. Why can they not do stream clearing? Why can they not do a whole effective amount of things, not only on the Fraser River where it is extremely important, but along the coast of British Columbia where there are areas that are just absolutely untouched by fisheries and oceans. That is because of the cuts to the Public Service which this government has carried out over the years. It is extremely proud of this, but in being extremely proud of them, it has put that resource in jeopardy.
February 25, 1993

Those people cannot do surveillance, they cannot do enforcement, they cannot do proper habitat protection, they cannot do stream clearing, they cannot do proper counts. It is important that there be a guardian program so that it can be extended at critical times. It is going ahead. What we really need in this House are not the stupid remarks that are made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about what the Reform Party policy or the Quebec bloc's policy is on the aboriginal fisheries strategy, but what he is doing with extremely limited resources in the Public Service to protect the valuable Pacific fisheries resource.
I am absolutely sick of the kind of thing that is going on in this House where, instead of providing information to the public of Canada, he is playing the fool in the House of Commons by failing to give those people the understanding of what he is doing and the kind of resources he is prepared to put in place to protect the Pacific fisheries resources. It is the same with the House leader being a smart ass here this afternoon by failing to deal with this critical issue.
We need that presentation by the minister. I do not think there is another option for the aboriginal fisheries strategy. You either have a fisheries agreement by agreement or you have fisheries by chaos. That appears to be the line taken by the Supreme Court of Canada, which this House cannot overturn.
There need to be agreements. If aboriginal people are prepared to put interim agreements together until proper consultation and full fair involvement of all stakeholders occurs, we are prepared to support that. In the meantime, we are getting no guarantee that that valuable resource is protected. They almost lost it in the previous year.
I see time is drawing to a close. There is no need to lose the fishery. If we could get the proper resources and the assurance from the minister that the government is not just going to continue to cut out fisheries officers but it will put those kinds of resources in place, I think people's minds would rest easier. They would be more able to accept the kind of major structural and operational changes that are going on. In fact, politically this government would stand to win instead of losing continuously.
Government Orders
Hopefully the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will see the wisdom and the merit in coming before this House and sharing the information, not only with other members of Parliament who are willing to hear him out and support moves that would protect that resource, but with the people of Canada, giving them a fair shake on his fulfilling his responsibility and this government's responsibility to the protection of that resource.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, before offering a question to my hon. colleague, I would like to just briefly say that I understand it is your intention, sir, not to seek re-election. I would like personally to say how much I have enjoyed the time I have spent in this House when you have been in the Chair and how much I wish you well in the coming years.
With that bit of brown-nosing, Mr. Speaker, let me first of all say that I found the-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Ross Harvey: I would like to thank the hon. member for North Island-Powell River for his erudite and informative comments over the last 20 minutes. Clearly his grasp of the fishery and the problems besetting the fishery, especially as those problems relate to the continuing incorrigible actions of the federal government, can be bested by no one in this House.
At the commencement of his remarks he made a couple of statements that I found particularly compelling, having to do with the record of previous Liberal administrations. He mentioned in particular the six and five program of the early 1980s. That got me thinking and sent my mind back even further to the so-called anti-inflation program of the mid-1970s.
I remember at that time literally hundreds of thousands of people from coast to coast rallying against those particular policies. I remember the famous day of protest when literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians were out on the streets from coast to coast. I seem to remember at that time that among the things most vigorously protested were the actions of the federal Liberal government in literally grinding down the Public Service of the time.

February 25, 1993
Government Orders
In fact, a great deal of the problems in terms of morale, under-staffing problems, and in terms of simply not having the Public Service we otherwise would have today can find their origins, the germ of these problems, in those years, the mid-1970s.
I was wondering if the hon. member would care to reflect briefly for the further edification of this House on his experience in those days and what he thought at the time and, perhaps, what examples he can extrapolate from that which might be applicable today.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, first of all it is very difficult to add to the well-rounded comments of the member condemning the previous Liberal government which in all seriousness was a terrible record and a real betrayal. It is amazing that the Prime Minister of the day could present himself in this House with such a betrayal of Canadians and of the Public Service.
One thing I would like to add is that I was certainly not aware that you, Mr. Speaker, had decided not to run again. I wish to identify myself with the remarks of one of your seatmates from the city of Edmonton on how much I have appreciated the support and fellowship and the great job you have done. I will terminate those remarks and wish you very well in the future. You have done a very good job here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Thank you.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You wish to debate?


Ross Harvey: That was my hope, yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no problem with that. I thought the hon. member for North Island-Powell River was the last speaker. However, I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East on debate.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for any confusion this may cause. I certainly do apologize for any disappointment this may cause on the other side of the House. I will attempt to keep my remarks pertinent.
We in the NDP caucus would like to support Bill C-101. We would like to come into this House and say
the process that led to the contents of Bill C-101 was an admirable process, that the consultation between employer and labour groups facilitated and undertaken by the government was an excellent process and that the results of that process are uniformly commendable and ought to be implemented.
We would like nothing better than to do that. In fact, with regard to many aspects of the bill we can do that. There are those amendments to part III of the labour code that provide for such things as protection for nursing and pregnant women in the work place, improved parental leave provisions, greater protection for injured workers and administrative improvements, which most working people would never have cause to come into contact with but will facilitate the process of labour relations in federally regulated work places. As well, there are those provisions that create new protection for worker's wages, especially in the event of company wind up. All of these things are commendable, praiseworthy, and eminently worthy of support.
If there were a way that we could vote on these elements and these alone then we would happily vote with the government in favour of the bill. These are elements worthy of support, worthy of passage, worthy of adoption and putting in place to govern labour relations in federally regulated work places.
We cannot in conscience do that, and not because of any of the matters I have mentioned thus far but because of an amendment to part I of the code which at a stroke renders the entire bill insupportable.
In addition to all of those good things, the bill seeks to place into the hands of the minister the right and the ability at any time by caprice to call for a vote of the bargaining unit on the last offer of the employer.
This means that when a bargaining unit is in the process of collective bargaining, when in other words the union representatives of the workers in a given work place are negotiating a new contract or amendments to an existing contract with an employer, any time that employer has made an offer, the minister at her or his discretion may decide for whatever reason that the employees represented by the union will now vote on that employer's offer.
February 25, 1993

This constitutes an astonishing, alas not unprecedented but nonetheless insupportable intrusion into the process of free collective bargaining by the government. Further, it is difficult to understand why this provision is even presented in what is otherwise a commendable bill. It is so remarkably out of place that we really have to ask ourselves what it is doing there at all.
This provision allowing the minister at whim to tell workers with a perfectly legitimate bargaining agent working on their behalf that they have to ignore that bargaining agent and vote on an employer's offer does not come to this bill by virtue of the process that I praised earlier. That was the process in which virtually all of the stakeholders in federal labour relations got together and came up with the other proposals that we find so worthy of support.
This provision appeared out of the blue. It is as if the hand of some labour relations god came down out of the sky and touched the ministry of labour, which then so gifted with revelation, decided that this would be the ideal provision to slap into the new amending bill, Bill C-101. There is no other explanation for its presence because it does not come out of the same process that gave rise to the rest of the bill.
I cannot believe in charity that the government, on its own volition, for no good reason and to satisfy no legitimate constituency, would decide at the last minute to put something as odious as this provision into the bill by itself.
Let me be charitable. Let me just say that it is a poorly thought out amendment and one which runs counter to the spirit and practice of consultation which resulted in the amendments to part III of the code.
It is evident from the two years of consultation that went into this bill that neither the employers nor labour proposed this addition to the code. What is being served by this amendment is the hidden agenda of the government.
When I said earlier that it was perhaps the hand of some god of labour relations coming out of the sky and touching the department I was being facetious. For this I apologize, because what we have here is the further service of this government's hidden agenda. This is an agenda which gives the employer yet another reason to avoid good faith bargaining and which invites the corruption of the properly constituted free collective bargaining process in the interests of employers who simply cannot be bothered to undertake that process in good faith.
Government Orders
They cannot deal with their employees and the representatives of their employees as social equals. In other words, they cannot conduct themselves in a fair and business-like manner.
This is yet another escape hatch from good behaviour that employers have been granted by this government, and that is a shame. I know in Alberta, and I suspect elsewhere in Canada, that for many years we who toiled at the provincial level had been able to point to the Canada Labour Code as an example of good labour legislation that ought in many respects to be emulated by our provincial counterparts.
I know when I used to work for the New Democratic Party caucus in the Alberta legislature and when I worked for the late Grant Notley, many were the times that he would have occasion to rise in the Alberta provincial legislature and inform the Conservative government across the way that it could do far worse than take as a working example the provisions of the Canada Labour Code.
Unfortunately, that advice was almost never taken to heart. But now, perhaps more unfortunately, with amendments such as those proposed to part I of the code in Bill C-101 we are taking that example and tarnishing it. We are making it less useful.
In fact we are slowly accreting a series of changes around the code, a new crust of poor legislation that has had the effect over time of rendering the Canada Labour Code, once the premier legislation in the country, a sorry and sad second cousin to the more progressive codes that now exist in places like Ontario, B.C. and Quebec.
This bill simply continues that process. It gives employers the ability to evade the collective bargaining process. That means that many of the provisions of current collective agreements that were the result of protracted bargaining would never have come to pass in the first place.
When faced with a determined bargaining agent, an intractable employer could simply have said: "That is all very interesting but I do not want to bargain any more. I think you guys can be crushed so I am going to call on my buddy, the federal Minister of Labour. He is going to make your unit vote on my offer. I am going to make it clear, by the way, that a no vote on this offer means I am going to shut down the plant", or some such thing as that.

February 25, 1993
Government Orders
Do not think it cannot happen because it happens all the time. It is central to our collective bargaining process that the government sets the parameters of the bargaining process and then leaves the two sides of that process by themselves to reach an agreement.
This measure of government interference into the process that we find in the proposed amendment to part I of the labour code tips the balance in favour of the employer. It puts the government, rather than in an impartial third party position, into the position of what amounts to an arbitrator. Depending on the circumstances in any given individual dispute, the government could perhaps be in the position of an arbitrator that loses its impartiality.
Let us think for a minute of any major labour dispute that has happened in this country in the last few years. For example, there was the Gainers dispute in Edmonton. I understand that Gainers was within provincial jurisdiction. I am just offering this as an example with which I am particularly familiar.
If the first offer from Peter Pocklington to the Gainers workers had not been rightly rejected, and with every last dram of justice we can imagine, those workers could have been compelled to sign a contract that not only would have been as bad as the one it was eventually able to salvage but it would have been far worse. The forcing of a first vote could have compelled that.
Within federal jurisdiction I think of the most recent strike at Canada Post. The compulsion of a first vote on the employer's first offer would have resulted in the workers at Canada Post accepting a contract far inferior to the one they were eventually able to get from that employer.
What is granted in the proposed amendments to part I of the code in Bill C-101 puts the government, in the person of its minister, in the position of potentially becoming an agent of the employer in labour relations.
This will be an invitation to employers within federal jurisdiction to harry and hound ministers of labour, seeking at every step of the way the compulsion of the vote on the first offer.
The inclusion of this amendment in the bill, if passed, will result in a situation in which, regardless of who that
minister of labour may be and regardless of the party that minister may serve, the minister is placed in the position, if she or he is to continue to be fair, of continually saying no to those petitioners within federal jurisdiction who will be coming to that poor minister and saying: "Well, we have this offer on the table and we want you to force it to a vote".
It may be difficult, oh it may indeed be difficult, for a minister of labour from time to time to say no to a company that has been generous to that minister's party in the past and that gives every indication of intending to continue to remain generous to that party, all other things being equal.
It may be very hard for a minister of labour to say no to a company that can marshal resources in that minister's riding or in the riding of friends of that minister for the purpose of making that minister's further political life much less comfortable than previously had been the case.
We are setting up a minister of the Crown for ongoing, unreasonable pressure from interests within federal jurisdiction which will want to use this new provision of the code as a stick with which to beat their workers further into line.
I suspect that the Minister of Labour in the current government will not find that a particularly difficult prospect. I suspect, given the actions of the government of the day, that the idea of this new element of the code being used to further subjugate Canadian workers causes no trouble whatsoever to the current labour minister or indeed any labour minister who may prove to be that hon. member's successor.
I suspect this because in truth these provisions seem little more than an extension, another instalment, in what has been a long and consistent record of anti-labour legislation and conduct by this government in its dealings with its own employees and in its dealings with workers generally in Canada. It has been so, right down to such things as the way it has refashioned the Canadian economy to a degree that has been, and bears the potential of being, a boon to Canadian employers but a positive disaster for Canadian working people. It has done so to the point that we are now talking in serious tones, even hushed excitement, about the grand coming economic recovery.
February 25, 1993

We are talking about a circumstance in which, by all sorts of indicators, the economy will recover and unemployment will remain at or above 10 per cent. For the first time in our nation's history we are talking about a jobless recovery.
This in itself is bizarre. It is the clearest evidence that the current government's policies in total, while exceptionally felicitous for segments of the Canadian population, have been exceptionally harsh for most of the Canadian population, certainly that majority element that works for a living.
It is in that light that we have to see the amendments to part I of the labour code contained in Bill C-101. It is in that light that we have to understand that the good parts of Bill C-101, the parts that amend part III of the code and bring in such admirable elements as protection for nursing and pregnant women in the work place, improved parental leave provisions, improved protection for injured workers, improved administrative procedures and improved wage protection come despite the general program of the present government.
What comes in consequence of the application of the principles of the program of the current government is that amendment to part I of the code will put a whip hand over workers into the hand of the minister of the day to be called upon whenever it is wanted by employers who could not otherwise get what they want through free collective bargaining.
It is with some considerable sadness that I conclude by saying that that is why we in the NDP must vote against this bill.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
Government Orders
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 Prince Albert-Churchill River-Agriculture; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-Employment; the hon. member for Western Arctic-Health care-the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-Peacekeeping; the hon. member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley-Economic statement.


CRIMINAL CODE
Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-109, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and the Radiocommunication Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-109, as it includes two specific provisions related to privacy which I believe this country needs. The first deals with electronic surveillance and is used by the police. The second is the interception of radio-based telephone communications.
The changes being proposed by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, to part VI and part XV of the Criminal Code respond to a series of Supreme Court decisions which significantly affect the way police and other agents of the state can do their jobs.
The first decision involved an undercover drug investigation. An informant and an undercover police officer rented an apartment which they equipped by placing audio-visual recording equipment within one of the walls. Both the informant and the police officer gave their written consent to the interceptions of their conversations, but the court later held that the interception by the state of private communications without the consent of all of the participants was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Government Orders
This decision is important because it limits the police in using not only this technique, but also body packs to help undercover agents deal with suspected criminals.
The second case arose out of a suspected gambling operation. A pin-hole video camera was installed in a hotel room. It produced evidence which allowed police to conduct a raid on illegal gambling activities. The court decided that video surveillance and locale, where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy without prior judicial authorization, was also contrary to the charter.
The court also noted that as there is no explicit statutory authority for video surveillance, Parliament should provide for it.
The third case involved the tailing of a suspected serial murderer by using an electronic tracking device installed in the suspect's car. The suspect was eventually charged with blowing up a $2 million communications tower based on evidence collected this way.
The court ruled that an unreasonable search and seizure had occurred because police used the tracking device. However, it also indicated that legislation should be drafted to allow judicial or statutory authority to police to engage in these practices when criminal activities are suspected.
The fourth case arose in a trial for conspiracy to import cocaine. Much of the evidence was based on intercepted private communications obtained by the police after receiving various authorizations. During an appeal, the court held that section 7 of the charter entitled an accused to have access to the material used to obtain an authorization. It noted there was a procedural quagmire to establishing this in an orderly fashion. It called on Parliament to eliminate these difficulties through legislative amendment.
As a result of these four cases and the recommendations made by the courts, the Minister of Justice is proposing the following amendments to the Criminal Code: first to provide for a statutory authority for an electronic lifeline to permit police and others in potentially dangerous situations to have their conversations surreptitiously intercepted by backup teams; second to provide for a warrant procedure for police and others to intercept communications with the consent of a participant to a conversation, to gather evidence or information relevant to suspected criminal activity on reasonable grounds; third, to provide for warrant procedures so the police and other enforcement officials can use video and other surveillance technology such as electronic tracking devices; fourth, to provide protection from civil or criminal liability for individuals assisting in the execution of authorizations or warrants; fifth, to provide for warrants and orders to engage in activities or obtain information or co-operation which would otherwise constitute an unreasonable search or seizure; sixth, to streamline the evidentiary and procedural regime applicable to evidence gathered through electronic surveillance.

The primary purpose of these amendments is to permit the use of technology by police forces in the performance of their duties, but only in a way that does not contravene the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The amendments would have the effect of simplifying the rules of admissibility of evidence. They would also increase the effectiveness of both the police and Crown prosecutors, in accordance with the recommendations of the Supreme Court.
We are talking about the resources police officers need to perform their duties satisfactorily.

The second amendment included in Bill C-109 is close to my own heart and deals with the issue of cellular radios and personal privacy. Not long ago The Financial Post conducted an experiment listening to cellular conversations on an easily obtainable inexpensive scanner. In a brief period of time the Post intercepted calls made by stockbrokers, real estate agents, federal bureaucrats, police and others. The subjects varied from the mundane to the illegal, everything from what to serve for dinner to where to conduct a drug transaction.
The Post gained access to all kinds of confidential information from personal and corporate finances to intimate personal conversations. When you think about it, the potential for damage if scanned information were to be misused is staggering.
February 25, 1993

Government Orders
What might happen to the woman when her car breaks down on a lonely highway and she transmits her location to thousands of eavesdroppers? What could happen to the real estate agent who gives out confidential bidding information over a cellular? What would happen to someone who calls a pizza parlour and gives out his credit card number over a cellular phone?
Although we have all heard stories about public figures caught transmitting sensitive information by cellular, it is ordinary citizens and businesses that are most at risk across this country. During one two-hour session The Edmonton Journal heard one caller give his credit card number over cellular, one woman give her address to a date, several intimate conversations and numerous business telephone calls. Another caller mentioned by name a man recently diagnosed with terminal cancer. It is possible the Journal reporter knew about this before his next of kin.
We know there are hundreds of thousands of people out there with a potential to listen. There are a million Canadians with cellular phones and almost as many with scanners capable of monitoring their calls. Privacy is disappearing and Canadians are worried about it.
I know this for several reasons. The first is that my own department, in concert with several other interested parties from government and industry, has just completed the first comprehensive national survey on privacy.
The results were very interesting and confirmed a few things I had suspected. We found that the majority of Canadians feel they have less privacy today than they had a decade ago. There is a sense that personal privacy is under greater pressure today than used to be the case. We found that Canadians believe new technologies pose increasing threats to personal privacy. Two out of three of the respondents told us that they did not know who to turn to if they wanted to do something about an invasion of their privacy.
Finally, we found out that Canadians hold very strong views that something must be done. While they recognize the need for individual responsibility, they want the government involved either on its own or in partnership with business.

Canadians are worried and they hope their government will do something about this. In fact, I think there is a great deal the government can do.
One of the first things I did when I arrived at the Department of Communications was to ask departmental personnel to look for new ways to deal with protection of privacy in telecommunications. The problem was so new and opinions so diverse that I decided we should first set the ground rules. We had to reach a consensus on what Canadians expect in the way of protection of privacy.
I asked the Department of Communications to draft a set of principles on protection of privacy. We submitted this draft proposal to a committee of informed people representing industry, consumers, the academic world and government for improvements. We then published the results which were submitted to the public last fall. In December, I was able to disclose a set of six principles that those providing telecommunication services are expected to observe.

Briefly, the principles are as follows. Recognition: privacy is a right, respect it. Informed choice: users must be aware of privacy implications of services they are offered. Fairness: where services are introduced which erode personal privacy, privacy should be restored at no charge. Control: personal information should not be used without the customer's permission. The right to be left alone: unsolicited telecommunications must be subject to clear ground rules. Review: as technology in society changes, privacy principles and protection methods should be reviewed.
If these principles had been in place prior to the introduction of cellular services, we might have been able to avoid a lot of grief which has occurred since. A large part of the problem is that people who use cellular radios think they are using telephones, enjoying the same degree of privacy they expect from their regular telephone service.
The truth is a cellular phone is not a telephone at all. Every conversation is a radio broadcast transmitted into the air on radio waves and is very public indeed. Therefore the first part of our strategy has to be public education and we have started that already.

Government Orders
We have also asked my department to release a simple brochure to the public which explains the issues and ways to improve personal privacy. I have also asked cellular service providers to take leadership in informing their customers, ideally through brochures or messages attached to the bills themselves, about the safest way to transmit confidential information. I have also asked my department to work on a media campaign which will help to transmit our message.
The second element is equally important and that is protection. I will ensure that cellular service providers offer effective and affordable encryption services to their customers. I have asked the Communications Research Centre to co-operate with them to help refine and implement these technologies. I am pleased to see that Bell Mobility Cellular has already cut its charges by almost two-thirds.
Encryption alone is not enough. What about the individual who uses a land line and, believing the conversations to be private, receives a call from a cellular? I have asked the Communications Research Centre to explore the technical feasibility of inserting an audible signal on the line which will indicate whenever a cellular is involved.
I am pleased to report we found that there is little to prevent the cellular companies from introducing this new technology.
This brings me to the third crucial element of our strategy which is prosecution. There is nothing particularly damaging about listening into someone else's conversations. However when a third party uses that information or passes it to another party, irreparable damage can take place. Radio-based communications are not specifically addressed in existing legislation because when it was drafted cellulars were not yet on the market. The result is a loophole. Canadians need to have legislative tools to defend themselves against invasions of their privacy. Give them these tools. The Minister of Justice and I are proposing complementary amendments to the Criminal Code and the Radiocommunication Act.
Mr. Speaker, I see that it is almost five o'clock. Perhaps I could pursue this at the next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You may or else I will not see the clock. We are anticipating Royal Assent and I am expecting Mr. Speaker to come in very shortly. Maybe the hon. member would like to cany on until Mr. Speaker returns to the Chair.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to my colleagues in the House.
First of all, these amendments will deem all encrypted radio-based telephone communications to be private and protected by the full strength of the law.
Second, the proposed changes to the Criminal Code will prohibit malicious and profit-motivated interception of any radio-based telephone communication. Anyone who deliberately intercepts communications with the intention of harm or any other motive of securing a financial advantage would be subject to prosecution.
Third, with a limited number of exceptions, the disclosure or subsequent use of any intercepted radio-based telephone communication would be prohibited without the consent of a party to it.
Anyone who contravenes these provisions can be punished on summary conviction with a fine of not more than $25,000 and/or one year in jail in the case of an individual, or with a fine not exceeding $75,000 in the case of a corporation.
Finally, the Radiocommunication Act will be amended to allow private right of action. Any victim of such wrongdoing will have the right to take the perpetrator to court for damages. This provision will give a clear civil recourse for individuals who suffer damages because of unauthorized interception.
I am convinced that these provisions for protection, prevention and prosecution, when taken together will offer the most effective solution to the complex issue of privacy.
Not everyone agrees with me. A writer in The Hill Times wrote recently that Bill C-109 was an Orwellian bill which "will stifle everyone's freedom of expression" and that "journalists and all citizens would be vulnerable to prosecution for activities which have never been considered to be immoral or unethical".
February 25, 1993

I do not believe this to be true. If you write something down on a piece of paper and someone else reads it when you have not given them permission, that is considered to be immoral. If someone intercepts your mail, even if it has been sitting untended for hours in your mail box and opens it that is illegal. If you say something on a telephone and someone else uses a wire tap to intercept it they could go to jail. Eavesdropping and using other people's private information has always been considered immoral and unethical. The difference is that technology has outstripped the law and so interception and divul-gence of cellular phone calls for malicious or harmful purposes is not yet considered illegal.
Bill C-109 will protect Canadians by giving them legal recourse if they believe their privacy has been invaded by people who intercept or wilfully disclose a radio-based telecommunication for gain.
The words maliciously and for gain are key. We are not interested in the inadvertent scanner, but the deliberate focused eavesdropper who intends to use other people's private information for his personal gain or for harm.
New technology has promised to speed up and add to the different ways we transfer personal data. It would be irresponsible for the government to ignore this technological revolution and allow open season for anyone wishing to intercept and use information sent this way for their own malicious purposes.
Most people, including journalists, recognize this. As an editorial in the December 12 issue of The Montreal Gazette pointed out: "Had those conversations of Diane Wilhelmy and Bud Smith taken place over conventional phone lines, any authorized person who divulged the contents by tape, transcript or even orally would have been liable to charges. Users of cellular or cordless phones have no such legal protection of privacy".
That is what the federal legislation aims to fix. Clearly, strong measures are needed to discourage scanners from divulging information, blackmail, industrial espionage, credit card fraud or any number of illicit acts.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately I must interrupt the hon. minister.
Private Members' Business

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


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1992, without amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall,
Ottawa
February 25, 1993
Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Charles Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada in his capacity as Deputy Governor General will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 25th day of February 1993 at 5.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony P. Smyth, Deputy Secretary,
Policy, Program and Protocol



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved:: That in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of substantially increasing federal funds available for job training and retraining programs.

February 25, 1993
Private Members' Business
He said: Madam Speaker, I hope to get a start here before we are summoned to the Senate.
I put a motion before the House today to call upon the federal government to spend more money in terms of training and retraining in this country. I believe it is a very important issue. If we look around our country today, 11 per cent of the work-force is unemployed. Many other people are on social assistance across the country and many more people are working part-time at odd jobs here and there, drawing very low salaries. All that has a tremendous effect on our economy in terms of driving down government revenues, driving up the national debt and driving up the deficit each and every year. Since 1984 the debt in this country under the present government has more than doubled.
One reason for that is we have a very weak economy in Canada. The economy of our country has been going down instead of up and I think we have some long-term structural problems that we have to deal with as a nation. One solution is to spend more money on education, training and retraining of our work-force. Another is to spend more money on research and development.
These are two reasons why our country is not doing as well in many aspects as the Europeans, the Americans to the south of us or the Japanese. We can look at all the statistics and find we are lagging further and further behind.
Years ago theories about labour and capital were important. Today I think knowledge has become the most important thing. Countries that are good in knowledge, information, training, skills and research and development are the countries that will really go ahead.
I would just like to place on the record today a couple of statistics that really paint a very stark picture as to why I moved this motion today. In The Financial Post of March, 1991 I read an article about training and it compared our country to other countries around the world.
In Japan, for example, the average worker gets 200 hours of training per year. In Sweden the average worker receives 170 hours of training per year. In our country the average worker receives 7 hours of training per year.
I think that tells us why we are falling further and further behind.

It is a big problem, because in Canada only seven hours a year per employee are spent on training compared with 170 hours in Sweden and 200 hours in Japan. This means there is a big difference between us, the Europeans and the Japanese.
According to Statistics Canada, the government's own agency for gathering statistics, only 5.3 per cent of Canadian workers in 1987 received any training. If we go to the European countries, to Japan or to the United States, we find that more and more of their workers are receiving training compared with what we have in this country. That is one reason we have tremendous problems of unemployment today.
The other reason is that we are spending less and less on research and development. We are spending less on a per capita base in research and development than the French, the Germans, the Swiss or the Swedes, than indeed most European countries. We are spending much less than the Americans and much much less than the Japanese.
For those kinds of reasons we are falling further behind. I suggest today in my motion that the federal government should start spending more on training and retraining our workers for the challenges that lie ahead.
I believe we have a great country. We have a great future in Canada. We can be second to none in the 21st century. But we are only going to be second to none if we start to make some of the structural changes to be more competitive on a global basis. If we do not do that we will continue to lag behind.
I call on members of the other parties to start doing some thinking about what we can do in terms of putting more money into training. For example, if we look at the private sector we find out that it spends a lot less money training its workers than does the private sector in Europe, Japan or the United States. A lot less money is spent by our corporations, by our business community. It is in their interest to start spending money on training workers in Canada for long-term jobs and in terms of building our economy.
February 25, 1993

When people are working they are paying taxes. When they are paying taxes, the country is stronger and the deficit is lower. We have more money for social programs, more money for economic development, more money to help poor people and more money to help aboriginal people. We have more money to do the things we want in terms of building a strong country.
When people are not working the reverse is true. More people are drawing unemployment insurance. More people are starting to draw welfare across the country or assistance in other forms from the federal and provincial governments. It is not only the federal government that has a fiscal problem. It is now being transferred to the provinces with more and more people being on the welfare rolls.
My province of Saskatchewan is a prime example of that. The unemployment rate for the first time since 1966, when they started keeping statistics on a provincial basis, is 10 per cent despite the fact that it has a net population loss and an aging population. We are in a province that has seen a government debt grow from only $3.5 billion in 1982 to $15 billion today after nine years of Conservative government by Grant Devine.
Yet we see an economy gradually grinding down in comparison to what is happening around the rest of the world because we have not had the foresight at the national level to make ourselves more productive, to spend more money on training and research and development so that we can start producing more things in this country.
There is no reason in the world why we should not be the top-notch people in the world in producing a number of things that are natural to a country like ours. We are the biggest, most vast country in the world. There is no reason we should not be first and foremost in terms of communications and transportation. We have a tremendous resource base. We should be first and foremost in terms of resources, mining machinery, mining equipment and things of that sort. In many cases we are not. We are tremendous agricultural producers in Canada, yet we import a lot of our farm equipment, farm machinery. Research investment dollars in terms of development and technology are spent in other countries around the world. Then we import the technology, the machinery and those devices into Canada.
Royal Assent
These are things that should not be ideological. These are the kinds of things done by governments of the social democratic stripe, Conservative stripe or Liberal stripe in Europe or Japan. These are things that should be done here.
If we were to spend that money it would not be a short-term investment or a short-term cure. It would be a long-term cure. If we were to spend that money today it would pay dividends in five years, ten years and fifteen years down the road. There would be tremendous dividends in terms of dollars and cents and more important dividends in terms of ordinary people on the street who are suffering today, lining up at food banks and unemployment insurance offices or facing the humility of applying for welfare when they have the ability to work and support themselves and their families.
That is the problem. What can we do about it? I suggest two or three things can be done. First, if we had a proper day care system we could start providing more and more children with skills, with a bit more training and education at a very early age. That is something we have talked about in our party for a long time in terms of a national child care policy.
Second, in terms of our schools and universities I get the feeling we are lagging behind many countries in the world as far as teaching our children, our students, the kinds of new skills they need going into the 21st century.
I know it varies from province to province. I have talked to many people who are saying: "We do not think our children are learning what they should in school. They are not getting the kind of information they need compared to what is happening elsewhere". This is something that is under provincial jurisdiction, but once we get to the universities it is the federal government that pays much of the bill.
I hear a knock at the door. After royal assent I will continue with my remarks.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
[Stage Direction]
Private Members' Business
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
["The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper."]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy to the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Biil C-54, an act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and other acts in consequence thereof-Chapter 3.
Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992-Chapter 4.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Nystrom (p. 17495).
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief because my friend from St. John's East is champing at the bit. He wants to make a long speech and announce what a wonderful motion this is. My motion is to spend more money on training and retraining in this country.


An hon. member:: An excellent idea.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is a very good idea in terms of what we should be doing. We call it an investment, investing in our future.
I have already suggested we should do more in our educational system; in our schools, our universities. I believe the private sector has to do a lot more.
One thing we suggested in a recent document, our job strategy, is to phase in a 2 per cent levy on corporations and businesses that have more than 10 employees. If that were done we could raise, on a 2 per cent levy on their payroll, about a $7 billion fund for training and retraining. We believe that could be phased in over a number of
years and would be an investment in the future of Canada.
Firms that were already doing training in their own right would not have a levy imposed on them. Those that did not have their own training programs would pay into a fund where there would be training programs set up on behalf of the country in general. These are some of the things that could be done.
The other thing that could be done is the federal government itself could spend more money on training, retraining and research and development in the country. Those are some of the things that should be done.
I wanted to move this motion today to try to move the debate along. It is important to look at long-term solutions to the problems we have in this country. These are some of the things which will solve some of the problems that we face in restructuring our economy, making it more competitive, putting more people to work and allowing more people to make a contribution. If we do that I think we have a tremendous future.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on this motion from my very good friend from Yorkton-Melville who, as quite often is the case in this place, makes some very good sense.
The essence of the motion and the comments that we have just heard is that the commitment to training in this country is something that we must recognize as an investment, partly in our present but more particularly in our future. It is a responsibility all of us share. It is a benefit that in the long run all of us will share. A country whose work force is trained has a capacity to take on more knowledge and more training, is a work force that is adaptable, that is flexible and can modernize itself as the demands of the economy dictate and change.
To my mind one of the unfortunate conditions of education and training in this country today is that we do not see education as a life-long process. The attitude of many of us is that we go to school, graduate from an institute of secondary education and then many of us, who have been lucky enough, go on to post-secondary education but that is it.
My friend talks about the fact that the private sector spends so little compared to other countries. That is quite true. Every dollar that the private sector spends on
February 25, 1993

training-I think it is $2 in the United States, $5 in Japan, and in Germany about $8-says an awful lot not only about the attitude of our economy but the attitude of this country toward education and training.
There are a number of comments that come to mind in that area. I have long been very concerned about our attitude in the comparison of an academic education to a technical education. Far too many of us, be we legislators or public servants or educators or students, often give less value to a non-academic education. It is a loss, it is a tragedy and it is unfair and based on nothing. I would suggest it is an attitude we must overcome as we face a very technical world and a world of very great challenge in terms of our capacity not only to deal with technology but to manufacture and process technology.
The question is, should we be spending more? Yes, we should be spending more and continue to spend more.
In 1992-93 Employment and Immigration Canada is investing $3.55 billion in training for over 900,000 Canadians. Next year Employment and Immigration Canada will spend about $3.8 billion in training for over one million Canadians.
What is it spent on? There are a number of programs I can talk about: $110 million for self-employment assistance; skills training for 326,000 Canadians, 164,000 of those are courses purchased by Employment and Immigration Canada for $430 million; another 162,000 will arrange their own training under the fee payer program; $120 million budgeted for job creation under the unemployment insurance job creation program where 31,000 unemployed workers will get back and $130 million for the work-sharing assistance program.
I want to take the opportunity to comment on a couple of things that are happening in my constituency and province. I am told that one of the highest expenditures by a constituency on training in this country is in St. John's East. Frankly that is not as much a testimonial to my ability to get funds as it is to the academic institutions in my community and constituency and the number of community groups that have come forward and said that
Private Members' Business
they have a contribution to make in the training of others.
Memorial University is recognized as one of the best medium-sized universities in this country, with a whole variety of very specialized and very important international faculties. The Cabot Institute or Cabot College was what we used to call a trade school and is now a technical institution in my constituency. It has a number of campuses: three in St. John's, one on Belle Island which is in Conception Bay and one in Seal Cove. They are important contributors to the community. They are providers of education. They are sources of innovation.
We are telling young people that the education they get not only helps them take advantage of opportunities and creates opportunities in the future, but the process of education and training is in and of itself valuable. It gives the opportunity not only to learn from books but to see the world from a different focus and a different function.
I want to very quickly mention the business school at Cabot where they have tried to take practical opportunities to learn about trade in terms of what Newfoundland and Labrador businesses are doing in pursuing their opportunities and exposing their students to them. The initiative of the faculty, such as Dan Mosher and Dean Baker and others, to ask government and companies if they could take these students and expose them to opportunities that they may see for the future, gives their training more relevance and more practical application.
We are aware of the Pathways to Success program which is important for aboriginal people. I want to refer to a couple of others that have been particularly important. We have two WISE programs. One is Women Interested in Successful Employment and one is Women Interested in Science and Engineering. They have very different focuses and functions. One is very much a grassroots community program that is I think sponsored under the job entry component of the Canadian Jobs Strategy. It provides women who have been out of the education milieu and out of the work force for a considerable period of time not only the tools and skills

February 25, 1993
Private Members' Business
to get back into the work force or into the work force for the first time, but self-confidence.
People ask why we are spending all this money on self-confidence. I have never seen anything like the transformation those women go through having completed those courses, and the contribution they make not only to their families and their communities but to the economy of which they now want to become a part.
Women Interested in Science and Engineering and another program known as Wi l l are designed to expose women to science, engineering and also the technical opportunities that developments like Hibernia provide. They are driven by the recognition that not only non-traditional occupations should be pursued but also that women particularly have the capacity, the capability, an interest and a desire to pursue them. They not only should be looking at non-traditional occupations for women but women want to be able to develop a knowledge of technology and an exposure to technology to open up all sorts of new vistas.
I think that approach of putting the academic community together with the business community together with two levels of government and going forward in partnership is providing training opportunities the likes of which we have never seen before.
I can mention numerous other projects that have been developed to provide skill training, to enhance the training that people have or to bring job opportunities to allow the skills that are already in possession to be able to be maintained as job opportunities come along.
One of the biggest components of the fisheries program for which we in this country will spend approaching $1 billion is saying to those people that through the moratorium are either not fishing or not working in fish plants that they will have the opportunity for training either inside or outside the fishery.
The work of the Fishermen Food and Allied Workers Union in developing these training programs under the directorship of Father Des McGrath will prove that while people have not been working, they have been taking advantage of the opportunities provided through these programs.
As we deal with the opportunities of oil and gas, hands-on training, specific skills reinforced with basic skills training is a particularly critical component.
If there is any approach that we need to take as we go into the 21st century as my friend says, it is to have the basic capacity to continue training and education. It is that life-long process of training and education that we must adopt in this country if we are going to have the flexibility to take advantage of the opportunities of the next century.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate because I am a firm believer that training is indeed important in establishing this country as a leader in the 21st century. I believe that training is crucial to young people who need it to succeed in the global marketplace and it is important for older workers who must adapt to our changing economy.
As we all know, our economy is going through a period of profound transformation. While in the past we were able to rely on our abundant natural resources to pay for our standard of living, that is no longer the case. Many of our forefathers could expect to get work in the forestry, fishery or mining industries and have a good job for life. Others could look forward to long careers working at an automobile plant, a textile factory or a steel mill. That kind of job security is a thing of the past. The era of well paying, low skills jobs has ended for Canada.
In order to compete against Germany, Japan and the United States, not to mention South Korea, Taiwan and Mexico, Canada must focus on creating a high skills, high wage economy. Tb do that we must invest in training.
As we move from a resource based economy to a knowledge based economy, we must help Canadians acquire the skills they need to prosper in the new global marketplace. The fact is that training is not a luxury, it is a prerequisite for prosperity in the 21st century and beyond.
Throughout its term in office I have called on the government to increase its commitment to training in recognition of that fact. Unfortunately, the government does not seem to realize how urgent the question is. While it talks a great deal about the establishment of a
February 25, 1993

learning culture, the present government does not reinforce its words with actions.
For example, on February 7, 1992, the minister of employment said in this House: "This government has shifted the priority from make-work projects to training in order to help young Canadians obtain jobs that can last". That is simply not the case. The fact is that while the government has shifted funds in order to train UI recipients, it has consistently cut the amount it spends on training for Canadians who do not receive UI.
Last year the government cut $200 million from its general training budget. Gerald Docquier, co-chair of the Canadian Labour Force Development Board called those cuts devastating. He also said that increases in training funds from the UI fund should not absolve the government of its responsibility to ensure that Canada has a well trained work force.
This is because most Canadians do not have access to training funds earmarked for UI recipients. Many students graduate from university and cannot find work. They are ineligible for training programs funded through unemployment insurance. Many women, immigrants, disabled Canadians and aboriginal Canadians do not have access to these training funds.
People who have exhausted their UI benefits, and there are many in this situation after a three year recession, cannot apply for these training programs.
A case was recently brought to my attention where a training advisory board has money for training but cannot spend it because the money has been allocated for UI recipients and all the people who might benefit from these training programs have exhausted their UI benefits. That is unbelievably sad.
At a time when so many Canadians need training in order to find work, it is unacceptable that people are excluded because of the neglect this government has demonstrated on the training issue.
We in the Liberal Party understand that if the government does not get serious about training, Canada is going to be left behind by our foreign competitors.
Private Members' Business
Liberals understand that without a real commitment to training, we cannot hope to help the 460,000 people whose jobs disappeared in the recession. Liberals understand that without a commitment to training we cannot promise a future to our young people.
As a member of Parliament, I have spent the last four years listening to the voices of young people throughout Canada. Many young people are worried about their prospects. Many have lost hope and have given up on the possibility of ever finding a rewarding career.
As co-chair of the Liberal Senate and House of Commons committee on youth, I was pleased to present a number of recommendations on training to our party. In a major policy speech on January 27 our leader outlined what a Liberal government would do in this area.
He said that a Liberal government would work in partnership with business, labour, educational institutions and other governments to create a national apprenticeship program. He also said that a Liberal government would put in place a tax based incentive to encourage on-the-job training.
Another aspect of our program for young people would be the establishment of a Canadian youth service to help young people develop the skills and work habits that are much required in a competitive society.
A Liberal government would take these steps because we understand the importance of training. We understand that we cannot afford to waste 100,000 high school students who drop out of high school each year.
Anyone who questions whether or not the government should be doing more in this area should remember these two figures: First, there are 1.6 million Canadians who cannot find work. Second, there are approximately
600,000	good jobs that cannot be filled because we lack people with the skills needed to fill them.
Those numbers reflect a great injustice toward the unemployed. The government has a responsibility to address that injustice and see that unemployed Canadians find work. The best way and the only way to help these people is through training.

Private Members' Business
Therefore, I call on the government to take immediate action and address the urgent training needs of Canadians.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the youth critic for the Liberal Party for having noticed some of the recommendations that the New Democratic task force on youth wrote in the year 1985.
He might expand upon that and perhaps study the proposition of a youth opportunity program that would show no bias among choices with respect to colleges or universities or with respect to training or entrepreneurship. He would be aware of our recommendations with respect to work experience, co-operative programs and all levels of education.
He would know something about the grant levy proposal for training in industry which was a part of that document. It is a part of the document that the New Democratic Party released last week with respect to the creation of jobs in this country based on a solid economic plan in order to accomplish that.
I would like to congratulate the Liberals for reviewing history and catching up with it. They have not yet achieved the detailed proposals for actually doing something about attacking the inadequacy of opportunities for lifelong learning not only for youth but for all Canadians.
I found the discussion that was introduced by my colleague up until this point a very edifying one, but I think there is still a tendency to have a relatively narrow perspective. I agree with the hon. member when he says that the global economy has changed substantially and that the focus in the new economies is on knowledge, skills and learning. For this country to compete, it is obvious that we must enhance the opportunities for training and education at all levels so we can be more competitive.
However, I think that our analysis has so far been based on a rather narrow construction of what is really at issue here. Not only does a new global economy require a higher skill level to achieve higher wages and increase higher value added, it implies an absolutely different structure and organization of the work place.
No longer, as the hon. member mentioned, are we going to have a situation in which workers can depend upon access to jobs which are dependent upon a routine, standardized, low knowledge based assembly line process in which management gave commands to the workers and where there was a strict hierarchical structure. Instead there would be a work place in which the success of a corporation, the successful production of goods and services is going to depend upon a great deal of mutual respect for the particular skills and knowledge that every worker, described as management or otherwise, is going to be a precious, necessary thing. It means that the status of the worker is going to improve in terms of his or her contribution.
In other words, I am trying to say that the worker of the new economy is going to be an empowered worker. It will be someone who has the confidence that he or she has something to contribute that everyone else in the work place is bound to respect because he or she has it.
That is why the New Democratic job strategy, although described as an attempt to deal with the deficit and all of those things is, in fact, a strategy for the empowerment of the Canadian people.
The hon. member for St. John's East alluded to this empowerment when he described the reaction of women who had an opportunity to gain more training. If we have missed the point, the New Democratic job strategy is focused on empowering the people through skills and knowledge and it recognizes that for all we may say about improving training and all we may say about lifelong learning, we have not yet got to the core of the problem.
In the new global economy, if there is one thing that we as government can affect in a significant way, it is the capacity of our work force to contribute to the creation of wealth, the prospect that the workers will be empowered economically, socially and politically because that new worker empowered by education and training is not going to be the worker who is going to take the guff of the sort this government has handed down any more than the guff employers too often impose on workers. But then the employer of the future will also be a very different employer, one who recognizes that inherent quality of the work force which can, through its creativity, knowledge and capacity, create wealth and success for this country.
February 25, 1993

We must start at the very beginning. We talk about those who are being trained through UI and through the Canada Jobs Strategy, but what is being ignored is the 35 per cent of the population who still remain functionally illiterate. Any program to address the issue of training and education that does not include an urgent attack on that level of illiteracy will fail the country, fail our prospects and fail the many people of this country.
We cannot miss the fact that there is a changed social environment in which many children are confronted with the reality that in their lifetime 65 per cent of them will sooner or later have a single parent struggling to raise them and if they have both parents in most situations both of them will be working. So the kind of educational preparation that we can usually assume is going to exist in a home and which has been traditional in the past can no longer exist.
We talk about investing $2 billion in day care. Yes, that is to the benefit of parents, but fundamentally it is aimed at starting at the very base of the issue by providing every kid in this country with the kind of educational preparation that will be necessary to succeed in the schools of the future.
Yes, it is true we spend more on education than virtually any other industrial nation. However, it must be clear that it requires dramatic reform and national leadership if our educational policies are going to be in accord with the economic future we intend to achieve for this country.
My hon. colleague has brought forward a motion that we should all support, which is that there needs to be more investment in training and retraining. In our job strategy we propose a grant levy tax system on industry so that industry that does not train its workers would be taxed and industry that does train will not be taxed.
Mr. Speaker, I only have 10 minutes. I can see that you are waving your hands and saying: "I know that you should go on, but the time limits do not permit you to do so". However the substance of it is that if we are going to develop as a successful economic player in this new world global economy it is not going to be by talking about resources as human resources or any of this sort. It has to be based on-
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I love to hear the hon. member in debate, but I must cut him off. It has been a little over 10 minutes now.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to say as much in 2 minutes as my colleague has in more than 10 minutes.
It would appear to me that the first thing we must come to grips with when we talk about education, training and retraining is a sense of vision of where the country is headed. We must know exactly what it is that we want this nation, Canada, to become and know the kinds of relationships, trade and others, that we are going to undertake with other nations.
It is only logical that it is only then that we can address two basic questions. What do we need in terms of education, training, retraining, and research and development, to continue to provide those individuals who will make sure what we have working in our country today will continue to happen? We have people who will be taking retirements and people who will be going to other jobs so we need a certain group of workers to make sure that what is happening today will continue.
We need to address another question that is much more difficult. What are those new jobs of the future? Those jobs of the future can only be determined if we know where we are going as a nation, if we understand the kinds of relationships that we are going to have with our trading partners and if we have insights into what will happen. Otherwise, we are educating and training in a void.
I would also like to suggest that we need appropriate support for colleges and universities. That absolutely must be a priority. We also need an enhanced apprenticeship program.
I am delighted that my leader has made that a priority. We need to focus on the importance of learning in the work place. Learning in the work place is an area that has been underestimated and has not been sufficiently appreciated.
We also need to make awfully certain that there is a better co-ordination of the relationships between the learning institutions and the work place. This is of critical importance.

February 25, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Finally, I believe that we have not appropriately understood the importance of having programs to respond to the needs of older workers. Retraining them will be a major priority in the future because, as a number of my colleagues have said, learning is going to be a lifetime undertaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask again the question that I asked the Minister of Agriculture on November 26, 1992 regarding the changes being pushed by this government in terms of the method of payment of the Crow benefit to the railways, and the removal of barley exports to the United States from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The background to this question is that the net worth of Saskatchewan farmers has fallen $8 billion since this government was elected in 1984. The average projected family income of Saskatchewan farmers next year is going to be $4,000, which is less than they would make on welfare. It is also a startling statistic that there are more farmers in Saskatchewan over 70 than under 30.
It is against this backdrop that the government is pushing changes to the Crow benefit, which would change the method of payment from the railways, where it has historically been paid, to the producers.
As well, since the time I asked this question the government has made a 10 per cent cut in that Crow benefit, which in my constituency alone represents a drop of more than one million dollars in income to
farmers and in the money they have to spend with businesses there.
Why is the minister pressing ahead with these changes when it will have an impact on the value of farmland, cause a drop in farm income and further unravel the social and physical infrastructure of prairie Canada? Why is he pressing ahead with these changes when over 70 per cent of Saskatchewan farmers said they did not want them and when the one thing that the 13,000 farmers at the farm rally in Saskatoon on January 26 were unanimous about was that they did not want changes in the Crow rate?
Second, why is the minister proposing to take barley exports out of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board when his own figures indicate that since the government has taken oats from under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, exports of oats to the United States have been cut in half while the export of grains that have been controlled by the Canadian Wheat Board has virtually doubled in that period of time?
Why is the Minister of Agriculture continuing to treat agriculture like the black knight in the Monty Python movie by lopping off one limb at a time until finally agriculture is left dancing around on bloody stumps not able to get anywhere?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must indeed give the hon. member credit for presenting his argument in a colourful fashion. However I regret to say that the basis on which the argument is made is not well founded.
In fact, the Government of Canada has not proposed to change the method of payment nor has it proposed to take the sale of continental barley out of the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Government of Canada has addressed these two important issues as ones which require further study, consultation with producers, and consultation with the industry in general. That consultation is now under way.
We provide some $700 million annually to the grain industry to assist with the costs of movement of grain to export points. The question is how to most efficiently use that $700 million or so. That is the issue that is being discussed, and it is being discussed in consultation with all the players.
With respect to the question of the method of sales of barley to the continental United States market, I want to stress that the discussion and study which is now taking
February 25, 1993

place relates only to that portion of barley sales, and that it is a consultation which has taken place. Unfortunately, the hon. member is very wrong when he implies that there is a set government position because that is just not the case.


EMPLOYMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I have come here this evening to speak on a subject which is of great concern to my constituency, namely unemployment.
On February 19, 1993 I posed a question to the government with regard to the consequential effects of a bill it introduced with amendments to unemployment insurance. At that time I asked what these changes to the unemployment insurance would do for the people of my constituency.
We have an unemployment rate of 26.4 per cent. That is the last recording we have from Statistics Canada. My constituents in Glace Bay, New Waterford, Reserve, Gardiner, Dominion, Louisbourg, Sydney River, Mira Road, South Bar, Grand Lake Road, L'Ardoise, Framboise, East Bay, Ben Eoin and all other parts of Richmond county as well as Cape Breton county are feeling the effects of the government's actions and inactions over the last number of years.
I would hope that the parliamentary secretary who will respond on behalf of the government will understand that these regressive measures, as contained in the piece of legislation making changes to the unemployment insurance, will do absolutely nothing for those individuals who find themselves without work or, worse still, who find themselves having to go to municipal and provincial welfare.
As I have said repeatedly in this Chamber through you, Mr. Speaker, to hon. members opposite, my constituents do not wish to be on unemployment insurance. They do not wish to be on municipal or provincial social assistance. They wish to have the opportunity to have a meaningful job. I suggest that this government has been grossly negligent in bringing forward policies which would have a positive effect on the Canadian economy, in particular the regional economies of this country.
Adjournment Debate
I find it unsatisfactory that the Minister of National Defence would proceed with the program of putting billions of dollars into helicopters when in fact we have such high unemployment in the areas I have just previously mentioned. It is not fair. It is wrong. It is stupid. It is idiotic. It represents a government which has lost touch with the ordinary Canadian.
I have come forward tonight to speak on their behalf, to get the opportunities and jobs so they can provide for their families and make a contribution to the society we all hope they want.
In conclusion, I urge the parliamentary secretary to stand in his place and tell the people of my district what these unemployment insurance changes are going to mean for them and how he will create the kinds of jobs we need in the great district of Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration of Canada, I am pleased to inform the hon. member that the government is fully aware of the economic difficulties in certain regions of the country including Cape Breton.
EIC offers a wide range of programs and services to all Canadians, the unemployed, the employed, the underemployed, employers, and communities. The type of assistance offered depends on a number of factors such as what type of assistance is needed. Sometimes this means counselling or a service needs determination test. It may mean one of our training programs.
We have recently streamlined all of our services into four programs. This was done so that we could better serve our clients. These programs in the 1992-1993 budget are as follows: information and special initiatives for all clients, $43 million; employability improvement for worker clients, $865 million; community development for communities, $122 million; labour market adjustment for employer clients, $273 million. We believe these four programs make up an effective way to help Canadians find and keep meaningful employment.
I can assure the hon. member that Cape Breton has and will continue to receive its fair share of funding. Last year Employment and Immigration Canada through the Canadian Jobs Strategy provided Cape Breton with over $32 million.

February 25, 1993
Adjournment Debate
There are now several programs and committees in place to deal with the situation in Cape Breton. For example, the community initiatives fund, community futures committees, business development centres, and industrial adjustment services agreements are in place.
I see my time is running out. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for his concern.


HEALTH CARE
Mrs.   Ethel@: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare specifically to explain how the department's new health policy to hand over the administration of non-insured health services of First Nations people to Blue Cross, a private corporation, would further the cause of self-government.
I did not think his answer was satisfactory so I would like to raise the issue again. The minister stated that the process of implementing this new policy had been done normally. The appropriate consultations, he said, had taken place and despite the resistance in Manitoba the phasing in of this new policy would continue.
I do not believe the minister fully understands or is listening to the position taken by the First Nations people of Manitoba.
Simply stated the First Nations people of Manitoba strongly object to the unilateral redefining of their health services by the federal government. The minister must realize and accept that it is a long time historical and traditional belief by elders and all First Nations people that quality health care services and non-insured health benefits are a treaty right.
First Nations people have asserted this right since treaties were first signed with the Crown in 1870. The federal government believes health services are provided only as a matter of policy. Why then will it not provide an explanation for this position? Why will it not enter into nation-to-nation dialogue to examine the assertion that health services are a treaty right?
It is constitutionally, legally and morally wrong for the federal government to make unilateral changes to health services without the agreement of the First Nations.
Is the minister aware the Supreme Court has ruled the federal government may not modify policy which impacts
on treaty rights without first seeking the concurrence of First Nations? Why does the minister and his government speak of the right to self-government but act differently? The contract for non-insured native health services was given to Blue Cross by selected tender. Why were First Nations not offered a chance to bid?
In giving the contract to a non-native corporation the government is taking away from First Nations people the opportunity for employment, decision making, accountability and self-determination.
Administering this new program will provide employment opportunities. First Nations communities experience 90 per cent unemployment. Of the 125 employees employed by Blue Cross in Manitoba two people, 1.5 per cent, are aboriginal.
The minister believes that the Blue Cross administration will better serve aboriginal people in Canada. Surely then he must admit that this new policy is not without its own shortcomings. How can he unilaterally determine what is best for aboriginal people without having their full support and participation in any decision-making process? He has also stated that his department will continue in collaboration with aboriginal people.
In closing I ask the minister to consider that a number of Manitoba First Nations and tribal councils have willingly put together plans for managing this package of non-insured health benefits. This would be self-government in action. He should make public to the First Nations people of Manitoba, as they have repeatedly asked, the Manitoba Blue Cross contract document. Why is the federal government holding back?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, non-insured health benefits or health services are provided to registered Indians and Inuit in Canada by the medical services branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Some services include the provision of prescription drugs, medical supplies and equipment, transportation for medical reasons, vision care services such as eyeglasses, and dental care. The non-insured health benefits program is designed to help registered Indians and Inuit reach a level of health comparable to that of other Canadians.
February 25, 1993

Adjournment Debate
Non-insured health benefits of various types have been paid for and provided to registered Indians and Inuit by the federal government for many years. In 1979 a variety of policies, practices and guidelines were replaced with a new Indian health policy. This was based on three principles of community development, the traditional relationship of the Indian people to the federal government and the utilization of the existing Canadian health system.
Since 1979 national non-insured health benefit program expenditures have increased from $36 million to over $400 million in 1992-93. Eligible beneficiaries have increased from 325,000 registered Indians and Inuit in 1979 to 560,000 in 1992.
Because of criticisms about the lack of adequate management and control of non-insured health benefits programs, Health and Welfare Canada was asked by Treasury Board and the Auditor General to make concerted efforts to implement administrative improvements.
This has been accomplished by the development of directives and administrative procedures coupled with the development and implementation of a health information and claims processing system under a contract with Ontario Blue Cross.
First Nations were informed of the changes and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare met on numerous occasions to describe the changes and inform First Nations leaders and communities of the program. Workshops have been held in many regions at regional, tribal and community levels.
The Manitoba First Nation leaders have taken the position that the directives are an attempt by the federal government to define treaty rights unilaterally. Manitoba chiefs have also claimed that implementation of the automated claims processing system by Blue Cross is a move to transfer federal responsibility to the private sector.
The position of the federal government is that the program is derived from the Indian health policy and changes to it in no way prejudice or are intended to prejudice treaty rights. The federal government retains full control of the non-insured health benefits program and Blue Cross is merely providing administrative support for an automated system to process claims and provide information on benefits utilization.
The system is operating and functioning well in Ontario, Saskatchewan and Quebec. Health and Welfare Canada did not have the capacity to operate the automated process and pay the bills. It decided to identify a company with the capacity to develop and operate the system through the normal Supply and Services Canada tendering process. Open tender was called from the companies with experience in the area of health insurance. A significant number of companies indicated interest and attended the bidders conference. Four of those companies or groups submitted tenders from which the successful bidder was picked. Blue Cross was the successful bidder.
Health and Welfare Canada is committed to self-government and has approached First Nations leaders to discuss the development of a framework with which non-insured health benefits can be considered for transfer. One of the prerequisites of central agencies prior to approval being given to the transfer of this program is that the costs should be within control.
The automated system allows the department to demonstrate the real costs of the program. This information allows for accurate forecasting expenditures and the development of a formula or formulae for allocations upon transfer.
As soon as these parameters are developed and agreed upon, transfer authority will be sought.


PEACEKEEPING
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a follow-up to a question I raised with the Minister of National Defence on February 16. It concerned peacekeeping.
The tenor of the question was based on the concern and observation that there are a number of red flags being thrown up regarding the manner in which we deploy our troops, the risk that is under way and the strain on personnel resources and operational maintenance resources for the remainder of the Canadian forces. The fact that these operations take place without consideration in Parliament I believe is the overriding concern.
Another reason for the concern and the real reason I am here tonight is that I see the Canadian forces participating in peacekeeping operations because of their excellent record in this regard and because of the understandable desire of any government, including our own, to participate and continue to participate given the condition of the world today.

February 25, 1993
Adjournment Debate
There is a point when I believe discretion has to be used. Peacekeeping in the last four years has more than doubled. In fact more peacekeeping operations have taken place or been generated in the last four years than in the past forty and I do not see that decreasing. I will tell you why. There are 179 countries in the world today speaking 4,000 languages. I think 60 of them have a population of one million or less and 40 of them have a population of less than 200,000. More importantly, less than 10 per cent of these countries have a homogeneous ethnic population and less than 5 per cent have an ethnic group that accounts for more than 75 per cent of the population.
Therefore what you are in fact seeing is an explosion of nation states downward to the point where they are really comprising the smallest ethnic or religious groups.
In fact it is tribalism. These forces of tribalism and nationalism are intractable forces. I think you are going to see more and more of it as time goes by.
If you add to that the low level of tolerance that seems to be dominant in the world today for religious, social and ethnic differences, then I think that is another nail in the coffin for more peacekeeping operations.
I should really call them peace operations because, Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the United Nations is now responding to peace operations in many ways, not just peacekeeping in its traditional sense as we know in the Cyprus operation in which we have been involved for many years.
There are things like humanitarian assistance as we have in Somalia, guarding food convoys as we have in Bosnia and indeed such things as election monitoring as we have in Cambodia. None of these operations, despite the heroic efforts of the men and women in the field, appear to be moving with a great deal of success. That is another reason why we have concerns.
I merely want to follow up on the minister's response which touched on the business of some time in the future being discretionary only because we will have run out of resources. I trust that my remarks will have some influence on the minister and indeed on the government
as they make future decisions on committing our forces to peacekeeping operations.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to reply on behalf of the hon. Minister of National Defence, particularly to my hon. friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. You may not know this, Mr. Speaker, but our ridings are side by side at least for one patch of about 30 kilometres.
The point that my colleague makes is one that I guess should have been obvious to many of us over time. It is one that is only becoming evident now as Canada continues, by the force of its tremendous reputation, its tremendous commitment and tremendous quality of her forces to be asked to participate in the variety of operations that my colleague referred to earlier.
The point he makes that should have become evident and is now very much becoming evident is that it cannot go on forever. Canada cannot be everywhere all the time. That I think is clearly understood in a number of ways by national defence.
For instance, in Somalia, while we are part of the enforcement action, we have made it clear to the United Nations that we are not going to be able to be part of the subsequent UNOSOM II process. These are decisions one has to make.
It is clear that each operation must be evaluated not only in terms of risk but in terms of personnel, equipment availability and duration. For Canada to assess its position in any United Nations operation, it must be assessed in light of that capacity and also the impact that it has on the ongoing numbers and responsibility of the Canadian forces.
Another response involves obviously the ability of Canada to be more creative in the approaches it takes in meeting these responsibilities in these calls.
The minister while appearing at committee the other day said something and I will not go through the whole quote. She said:
We are looking at a number of new ideas on how to participate in
future peacekeeping operations.
February 25, 1993

One emphasis she would put is perhaps on our skills within our forces as opposed to simply people. The effort that we have made in developing the capacity of our reserves is particularly important. Our troops are very well trained. They are very well prepared. When the reservists are sent into these situations, they receive the same 90-day course that our regular forces receive.
There are 460 reserve peacekeepers serving on United Nations missions at present. They are constituents of mine as I know they are constituents of my friend across the way.
We must have a flexible general purpose combat capable armed force. The number of the reservists in our forces makes that possible. They have a number of roles to play.
It is critical that the Department of National Defence reinforce that with funding. That is important. I know my friend, even though his experience is on the sea, will appreciate that the land forces component of national defence will see a 12.3 per cent increase in expenditures over the last fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, I see you giving the message that my time is up. I commend my colleague for raising a point that is important. I hope I have been able to shed some light on it. I certainly appreciate your endurance this afternoon as I go on far beyond my time, as is quite often the case.


ECONOMIC STATEMENT
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, the day after the Minister of Finance tabled his economic statement last December I rose in the House and asked the Minister of State for the Environment what the impact of that particular statement by the minister would be on the government's green plan, be it the number of programs that are involved with that, the Fraser River basin management plan, model forests and other particular programs. I asked that of the government because it was, as many people said then, a black day for the green plan.
We have seen further in the estimates today a new way of cutting funds. It is called reprofiling of funds for some very important programs.
Adjournment Debate
I hope that tonight the parliamentary secretary can respond and shed some light on the nature of the funding of the green plan because I think it is fair to say that for many who have been following the plan, it has been very difficult to determine department by department, with the profiling or the reprofiling by the government of the funds in the green plan, where we actually are at when it comes to the funding under the program.
I note under the estimates that were tabled today in the House that the government is intending to release a progress report on the green plan in April. I would encourage the government, through the parliamentary secretary, to make a very clear outline of just exactly where we are going with the funding under this particular program.
It is very important to the country that we know what is happening with the green plan and many of the projects under that taking place in our ridings. I referred previously to the Fraser River program in my area. There is a model forests program taking place there as well.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he could address some of those comments and certainly take it to the minister. When this progress report is released, let us have some progress, let us have some light shed on just what kind of spending plans there are by this government for the green plan.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with my hon. friend when he talks about the importance of the green plan. As you know very well, Mr. Speaker, this indeed is the first long-term comprehensive environmental protection program put forth in Canada by any government. In fact, not only is it a first in Canada, but indeed it is a first throughout much of the world.
That is one of the reasons why Dr. Mostafa Iblba, who was director of UNEP prior to Elizabeth Dowdeswell, was so supportive of it.
On the other hand, the Government of Canada is facing some very harsh economic realities based upon the fact that we have a national debt which exceeds $400 billion. We have annual deficits running in the $30 billion range due to the excessive expenditures which occurred at an earlier time and under different circumstances.
*

February 25, 1993
Adjournment Debate
I want to stress today, and I think my hon. friend is probably aware of it, that while most departments in the federal government are either experiencing a freeze or in some cases even having to accept a reduction in the amounts available to them, the amount of money available under the green plan has actually been increasing on a year-by-year basis.
For example, the Main Estimates for 1993-94 total $351 million which, according to my calculations, is a 23 per cent increase from 1992-93. That is a very significant increase. Indeed, it demonstrates that the principal objectives of the green plan will clearly be met, albeit over a greater extended period of time than originally anticipated.
I think it is important for us to remember that the green plan is about a lot of things other than just spending. I think one of the dangers quite frankly is we tend to measure government programs only in terms of dollars spent. I think that is a false premise on which to evaluate.
The green plan is about decision making. The green plan therefore is about our ratification of the Convention on Biodiversity where we provided such leadership at Rio.
The green plan is about the Environmental Assessment Act that has been proclaimed into law and will soon be implemented.
The green plan is about the fact that the North American free trade agreement itself was subjected to environmental assessment, the first such major policy initiative so subjected in Canada.
It is about pulp and paper regulations which are very important in your province, Mr. Speaker. It is about a code of environmental stewardship.
Mr. Speaker, if you would give me additional time, which I know you cannot do under the rules, we would have a greater opportunity to discuss how this plan is so significant to decision making.
We must remember that the green plan is more than just spending. It is how decisions are made. That will be the ultimate value of the green plan in years to come. [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed adopted.
The House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 26,1993