1993-02-02

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 14 petitions.



CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34 I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning the NAA annual session which was held in Bruges, Belgium, November 15 to 20, 1992.
I do not know whether anyone ever reads these reports. May I commend them to everyone listening and watching so that they can get some idea of the tremendous work that is done by these delegations, especially the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate
Wednesday, February 3 as the first of seven allotted days for this supply period?


PETITIONS
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the pleasure to present a petition that the Quebec National Assembly has already passed recognizing the importance of April 24 as the anniversary of the Armenian genocide.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to offer its sympathy to the Armenian people, especially to Canadian Armenians who survived the genocide of April 24, 1915, and support the international lobbying efforts aimed at compelling the Tbrkish government to recognize and acknowledge the events of April 24, 1915.


Mr. Don Blenkam (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege and honour to present a petition calling for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.
This petition is signed by a number of people in the province of Ontario, particularly in the city of Mississauga. It calls upon the government to make sure that its commitment of November 24, 1989 is complied with and that the government does everything in its power to work exclusively for the elimination of child poverty.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition from the Malartic School Board in Abitibi stating that films that portray violence on television are dangerous and should not be tolerated because they make violence seem desirable.

February 2, 1993
Routine Proceedings
The petition says that toys that are an incentive to violent games are unacceptable and their manufacture should be banned. The petition also points out that when acts of violence are reported, freedom of the press should be restricted, and that the repeated reporting of acts of violence on TV channels and on radio may lead to further, identical acts of violence.
Consequently your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to legislate a remedy to this problem in order to wipe out violence in our society and thus protect our children and provide all citizens with a better quality of life.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamcl (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, this first petition is a request from citizens that the GST on books and other reading materials be removed. They point out that Canada has had a zero tax on these particular items since its beginning.
They also underline that reading, literacy and education are cornerstones of democracy and make a major contribution to the increase of productivity, effectiveness and efficiency in our nation.
They ask the government to review its policies and remove this tax.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition. The petitioners request that the Parliament of Canada be very vigilant in ensuring that the CRTC carefully regulates the use of foul language on radio and television.
They indicate that many of their efforts as parents are counteracted by what happens on radio and television. They also underline that it is not necessary to use this kind of language in order to inform or to entertain.


Ron J. Duhamel: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from social scientists in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland who are upset, which is perhaps the right way of saying it, with the government's impending decision to merge the SSHRC with the Canada Council.
The petitioners point out that our greatest challenges today are social problems that could be addressed by social scientists. They point out there was no consultation and that the system has worked well since its very beginning. They believe it is a step backward.
They ask that this decision be deferred until consultation takes place.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today signed by numerous residents of my riding of Kingston and the Islands, and some residents in Ottawa and Nepean, Ontario.
These Canadians are concerned about the failure of the government to take any steps to eliminate child poverty in Canada. They call upon Parliament to reaffirm and keep its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.
I am sure they join millions of other Canadians in wishing there was an election so they could elect a government which would implement this and present a plan to Parliament to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000 in accordance with the expressed wishes of this House. Unfortunately the current government seems bent on doing nothing and, frankly, as it comes to the end of its mandate, it ought to get out of office and call an election at once.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition is being presented on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops, and includes the signatures of many residents of Iroquois Falls, Ontario.
The petitioners point out that the goods and services tax is an unfair form of taxation and the they call upon members of Parliament, the Government of Canada and the House of Commons to reject the current goods and services tax and reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of presenting a petition primarily from the parishioners of the St. John's Presbyterian Church in Windsor outlining their concern about violence against women and children.
February 2, 1993

They ask Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate that violence which, as we all know in this society, is most invidious. They pray that Parliament will act to resolve this problem.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to present several petitions, all on the goods and services tax, from residents in Saskatoon and in Ontario.
The petitioners point out that the goods and services tax is a particularly unfair tax because it puts an undue burden on those who are less able to pay. They call upon Parliament to reject the current goods and services tax and reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on the wealthy and corporations.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a number of petitions from constituents in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk dealing with the sale and manufacture of killer cards.
The petitioners want the laws of Canada amended to stop the importation of these cards and to let the distributors of these cards in Canada know they will not be tolerated in this country.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a number of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The first set of petitions deals with the goods and services tax, an issue which is still very much in the minds of the people of Canada.
These petitions are signed by people from all across Canada but interestingly many from the Oshawa area, formerly represented by Mr. Broadbent and at present ably represented in this House by one of my colleagues. The petition calls for a rejection of the goods and services tax and the reform of the tax system in Canada.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions were gathered on behalf of the member for Burnaby-Kingsway who has been an advocate for
Routine Proceedings
many years for changes in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
These petitions call for an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to add sexual orientation. As the House will know, a bill has been introduced but the government has still not given any sign of proceeding with it. I would hope this House will listen to the prayers of these petitioners and encourage the government to proceed forthwith with this legislation.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the privilege to table a petition that has been certified correct as to form and content.
It was submitted and signed by Canadian citizens of Armenian origin who remind us that the Quebec National Assembly tabled a similar motion recognizing the importance of the anniversary of the Armenian genocide. I therefore wish to join my colleague from Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, who is actively involved in these issues, as well as several other members but mainly the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, who represents a large segment of this group, as I do, but she is still the leader.
These people have been residents of Canada all their lives, have contributed to Canadian society and earnestly hope that Parliament will continue to express its sympathy to the Armenian people in recognition of what they suffered during the genocide that took place on April 24, 1915, and that Parliament will support international pressures on the Tbrkish government to recognize as factual the terrible events of April 24, 1915.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 389 and 418.

Government Orders


Mr. Caccia: What is the total amount of funds allocated in the last fiscal year for the support of research and development and production of alternative transport fuels and the amount of funds allocated in support of research, development and production of fossil fuels used for transportation in Canada?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am informed as follows:
Energy, Mines and Resources Canada 1991-92
Approx.
Funds allocated in support of research and development of alternative transport fuels: $6.2 M
Funds allocated in support of research, development and production of fossil fuels: $5.5 M
Environment Canada
Funds allocated in support of research and development of alternative transport fuels: $3.7 M
Funds allocated in support of exploration, development, and production of oil and gas: $3.2 M
Note: The money spent on oil and gas activities supported research in transportation fuels as well as other uses such as heating.
National Research Council of Canada (NRC)
Although some National Research Council of Canada (NRC) research and development activities do produce indirect benefits in the areas of alternative transport fuels and fossil fuels for transportation, NRC does not directly allocate funds for such programs.
NRC has, however, provided finding to external organizations under its Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP).
IRAP provided the following funding:
Alternative fuels:	$31.9	KOil sands/heavy oil technologies:	$23.9	KFossil fuels:	$25.2	K
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
Funds allocated in support of research and development of alternative transport fuels:	$1.2 M
Funds allocated in support of research and development of fossil fuels:	$3.1 M
Transport Canada
Funds allocated in support of research and development of alternative transport fuels:	$3.5 M
Funds allocated in support of research and development of fossil fuels:	Nil


Mr. Holtmann: Were any government funds paid to D'arcy and Deacon, barristers and solicitors, and/or Mr. Graeme X Haig of the same firm, for legal services rendered in the case of the Fisher River Band Housing Program-section 56.1 non-profit housing and Klug Construction Ltd., Helmut Klug-and, if so, what is the total amount of moneys paid?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not pay any funds to D'arcy and Deacon, barristers and solicitors, and/or Mr. Graeme T. Haig.


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


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1,1992, as reported (without amendment) by a legislative committee.
February 2, 1993

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have a brief decision to announce on Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992.
There are four amendment motions on the Order Paper for report stage of Bill C-98.

Motions Nos. 1 to 4, standing in the name of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, seek to delete all clauses of the bill. These motions will be grouped for debate and a vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4. I shall now propose Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to the House.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-98 be amended by deleting Clause 1.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-98 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-98 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-98 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it might logically be asked why one would attempt at report stage to simply eliminate a piece of legislation coming from the government.
There are two answers to that question. The first answer is that I believe, as do many Canadians across this country, that this government has lost its right to govern the country. This government has turned its back on so many commitments. It has failed to listen to the people. It has reached and exceeded the usual four years that people grant to even the most unpopular government when it is elected. It is now frankly living on borrowed time and is doing so without any sense of commitment, any sense of new ideas, any sense of new directions to put the 1.6 million Canadians who are out of work back into employment.
We have a government which simply does not deserve the right to continue to sit in the seats of power on the front benches on the government side. That is because this government is doing nothing. This government has had a chance for over four years to write its direction and to respond to the concerns of people but it has refused to do so.
Government Orders
Most recently, at what was effectively the four-year mark of this past government, in the economic statement made last December instead of bringing in a plan to get people back to work, it brought in a plan to attack the jobless. Instead of bringing in a plan to do something to make our tax system fairer, it brought in a plan to make it less fair by simply extending the tax exemption of 21-year family trusts virtually indefinitely so as to give perhaps billions of dollars a year to these trusts. We really cannot calculate it because of the lack of information from this government but it is perhaps billions of dollars a year to these tax protected trusts.
That is one reason. The fact is this government has become an illegitimate government. It simply has not got the moral authority in our view to go forward and borrow from the people of Canada and from the rest of the world the billions of dollars which it suggests it is going to borrow with this piece of legislation.
We must also point out that for the average person, for the average family, for the young person in this country the economic crisis continues despite brave announcements from Statistics Canada that the recession is over. The reality is that since Statistics Canada made that announcement the first statistics came out to show that in the most recent month for which we have data this economy in Canada actually declined instead of advanced. Some proof that the recession is over, some proof indeed.
Today we have given to us the final figures of bankruptcies for the year 1992. We see that this government has succeeded with all its brave talk about managing the economy to achieve under its direction the largest level of bankruptcies this country has ever experienced.
I say shame to this government. Shame to a government that speaks about the importance of small business and lets hundreds, thousands of small businesses go under because of the government's poor economic management.
I say shame to a government that talks about its concerns for people and yet has seen in this past year over 76,000 bankruptcies in Canada. We have never had figures like that before. We have never had statistics that have been so dramatic. Even in 1991 the previous year in which the recession was also biting deeply we had fewer bankruptcies than last year. In the most recent month, December, on the basis of which Statistics Canada said the recession was dead there were more bankruptcies than in the previous month.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
We see absolutely nothing as we look at the economy in front of us that suggests this government has anything to offer, has anything but bankrupt solutions to go with the bankruptcies which it has created and extended throughout this country.
We cannot possibly support this legislation. We cannot support other legislation coming through this House as part of this same economic package from this government.
We cannot support legislation which in fact will leave women frightened and unable to react to sexual harassment in the work place as a result of the cutbacks and the elimination of unemployment insurance support for anybody who leaves a position under such circumstances and cannot prove definitively that sexual harassment was the cause even though it may have been the major factor in what happened to that woman or that man.
We cannot support that. We cannot support this government's plans later this week to create this vast new tax bonanza for Canadians at the top. These are Canadians who have already benefited tremendously from changes that both the Liberals and the Conservatives have brought into our tax system. These changes that the Liberals and Conservatives brought in have created the vast deficits at the federal level which are so dangerous to the future of our country.
This government and the previous Liberal government have created an economic situation which is damaging Canadians across this nation, hurting the future of not just ourselves but our children and our children's children. We in this party will do everything we possibly can to stop this government from being able to proceed.
There is just one act, one action and one decision which this government has the right to take. This government has been in power too long. This government has stopped listening. This government has failed the economy and the people of this country.
The responsibility now exists for this government to call an election, to give the people of Canada the right they have been waiting to exercise for over four years. That is the right to kick this government out and the right to create a new direction in Canada.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would entertain one question with regard to his comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: According to the rules, there are no questions or comments. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member states that the government really has no right to continue.
I read here according to The Gazette that Statistics Canada's figures project Ontario's net debt will reach $53 billion by the end of this year. That is a 63 per cent increase in debt in two years. It also speaks about the federal situation in which we have dealt with the debt.
How can the hon. member stand in this House and compare what an NDP government has done in Ontario by increasing the debt? He also said for example that the NDP government is considering tough welfare reform, possibly forcing recipients to take job training or do voluntary work which is a move that one time would have been unthinkable for a socialist government.
How can the hon. member stand in this place and make the statements he has made in view of the reality and the facts of what has been happening with governments run by the NDP?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that the New Democratic Party in all three provinces where it has been elected has had to clean up the mess left by previous governments. The Liberals and Conservatives who created the mess chuckle.
The reality in the province of Saskatchewan for instance, from where the hon. member who just spoke comes, is that the banks were very clear that Grant Devine, the previous Conservative premier, had taken the province to bankruptcy.
In the province of Ontario, you may remember-you may not have been perhaps as close to the Ontario situation as some of us who come from there-the Liberal government went into an election and went through an entire election campaign saying: "Yes, we
February 2, 1993

have a deficit from the past, but so far as the present is concerned, we are running with a surplus of $25 million". The new New Democratic government came into office and was told immediately by the very civil servants selected by the Liberal government that the deficit for that year which the Liberals had started was going to be close to $3 billion.


An hon. member:: Oh, that is wrong. Mr. Speaker, how can you allow this? How about Ontario?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party Government of Ontario has had to clean up this mess. It had to clean it up in Saskatchewan.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They cleaned it up? They tripled it.


Steven W. Langdon: It had to clean it up in British Columbia. The reality is at the federal level at this very moment, for every single tax dollar which a Canadian citizen pays, 35 cents is taken out of that dollar to spend on the federal debt created by Liberals and Conservatives.
New Democrats have never run the federal government. In the province of Ontario, for each dollar taken in taxes from the people of Ontario, only 12 cents goes to pay for the debts which exist in that province.
It seems far more responsible to be in a situation where you lead a government and are able to take 88 per cent of the tax revenue and put it to good use than to be in a situation such as the Liberals and Conservatives have created here at the federal level where 65 cents is all that is left out of each tax dollar to actually spend for services and benefits to the people of the country.
Let us hear no more from Conservatives and Liberals about deficit difficulties and New Democrats because what has happened is that Liberals and Conservatives have taken this country nationally to virtual bankruptcy. Frankly, it will be up to New Democrats after the next election to clean up the mess here just as it has been in the provinces.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I would love another question, but I have to speak to this amendment.
Government Orders
I sat here and I listened to this give and take between the people across and the hon. NDPs to my left. I heard the gentleman to my left talking about how the Ontario NDP dealt responsibly with the debt in Ontario. I guess my way of dealing with debt and their way of dealing with debt is not quite the same. I always thought that dealing responsibly with debt was eliminating it, not tripling it. Now I do not even know how much bigger it is going to be, but the line we are hearing is that the Ontario deficit will be well in excess of $10 billion. When they took over, despite all the bad things that the Liberals did in Ontario and all the things that of course the glorious NDP did shortly afterward, they were only able to come up with a $3 billion deficit at the end of that one year.


Robert (Bob) Speller: It was actually $2 billion.


Diane Marleau: Okay, it was actually $2 billion. I stand corrected. All of a sudden we have these people who really know how to deal with deficit and debt trying to tell us how great things will be after they take over. I am very worried about that.
As members can all remember, and I remind Canadians, in 1983-84 in the period leading up to the election of a massive Conservative majority government here in Canada and subsequently, we heard about how Conservatives were going to deal with deficits and debt over and over and over again. They also had all the answers and they were making all these wonderful predictions and all of the other things.
I must admit they were not quite as successful at tackling the debt as the NDP have been in Ontario. I have to admit that. They did not triple it in one or two years. I mean they really did not. I have to give them credit for that. They did double it though in the space of eight years. Perhaps they should be listening to my colleague from the NDP. They might learn how to do it better, I do not know.
That is not my way of dealing with debt and deficits. I of course am very well aware that there is no real easy answer except hard work and trying to create economic growth. One of the ways of tackling debt and deficit is to create more growth within the economy. We have been through some very trying economic times.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
I read an article in today's Toronto Star by David Crane. I quote from the article:
Pyongyang is the isolated capital of North Korea where politicians and bureaucrats are the last people in the world who still believe in
communism.
Ottawa is not so isolated, but it's probably the last capital in the Western world where politicians and bureaucrats still cling to the idea that free markets by themselves will guarantee full employment and prosperity.
Certainly, that's the view in such citadels of Ottawa power as the Department of Finance, where any idea of an industrial strategy is shot down the instant the words are mentioned.
Fortunately, some provinces are not waiting for Ottawa to tune into the 21st century. Instead, they are actually working together to see what they can do without Ottawa.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of what we have governing this country. Do we wonder why Canadians have lost faith in government? No small wonder. We have a Minister of Finance who in the midst of one of the most terrible years in terms of job losses, high unemployment rates and bankruptcies who on a television program the other day had the nerve to say that we have created the most jobs of any G-7 country. What he neglects to say is that we have also lost more jobs than anybody else and the jobs that the government has created are low paying, part-time jobs that a person is lucky to have.
The Conservatives are tired. They have had it. They have had it with us criticizing them. They have had it with Canadians criticizing them. They have just plain had it. The time is up, ladies and gentlemen. It is time to call an election. They are tired. They deserve a rest. Canadians are very ready to give them that rest. Many of them may retire and lead a very nice restful life after the hectic days of destroying the economy of our country.
I offer them the opportunity, and Canadians will give them the opportunity whenever they say so. Of course, they are still all debating and watching our Prime Minister as he fiddles with his future. He fiddles: "Am I staying? Am I not? Am I staying? Am I not?" It is for them to guess. That preoccupies their minds. They are really busy worrying about whether he is coming or going, but they are not doing anything for Canadians. We can joke about these things but this is very serious. They have created paralysis in Ottawa where the people wait for some direction from this government. Step down. Call an election or try something; anything.
If you have been laid off and are looking for a job you do not want Statistics Canada to tell you: "Oh, by the way, we are out of the recession". Go and see the people who have just lost their jobs. There are many of them everywhere in this country.
Statistics Canada can say there is a slight upturn in the economy. We are very happy with it but what we want to see are jobs. We do not want to see just a slight upturn in the economy. We want to see an upturn where people will be able to get good jobs. We want to see a government that can focus on people. We are witnessing the price of inaction. We must take some action. Any action is better than what has been happening here. I would ask everyone to defeat this bill.


An hon. member:: The amendment.


Diane Marleau: No, not the amendment, to defeat this bill. I support the amendment because I want to defeat this bill and that is what the amendment will do. I will do anything I can to convince those opposite to step down. I think it is very important that an election be called, and the sooner the better.


An hon. member:: Give yourselves a break and vote for the amendment.


Diane Marleau: If voting for the amendment means that we are going into an election, by all means let us go to it.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could speak for half an hour today. There is so much one could say in response to my hon. friends opposite. However, I will not do that.
With all due respect I must say this is a phoney debate. It is a waste of taxpayers' money. It is a waste of the House of Commons' time because these amendments, while in order-Mr. Speaker, you must rule them in order because they are in order-are amendments that simply propose to delete the bill and force this House to debate an extra stage on this bill.
What hon. members opposite should do if they are against the bill is simply vote against it. They should simply speak against it and vote against it. By putting frivolous amendments like this, we have an extra stage of debate which is of no benefit to the Canadian people whatsoever. It is a considerable cost to the taxpayer. Let us be perfectly clear about that.
February 2, 1993

My hon. friend from the New Democratic Party says this government has lost its right to govern. Does he not know his basic political science? Does he not know that a mandate in this country is five years? Certainly he should have learned from the former premier of Ontario, Mr. Peterson, that a mandate is five years. The Liberals have learned that lesson.
If one looks back one could chronicle the different circumstances. I remember, for example, that during the last two decades the Liberals had two majority governments. In 1974 and 1979 Mr. Trudeau went five years before calling an election. From 1980 to 1984 Mr. Trudeau went four years and, I believe, seven months, from February until September. Let us not get sucked in by this phoney nonsense about a term being four years.
A term is five years. This country has problems that need to be addressed. Last fall there was an incredible uncertainty in this country with the referendum and the constitutional situation. The last thing this country needed was the uncertainty of an election so let us not deal with that nonsense.
Regarding the economic crisis, my hon. friend from Essex Windsor says: "Woe is me, woe is me, woe is me". This is the essence of this man's conversation every time he stands up in this House. Yet earlier this morning he and I attended a joint meeting of the external affairs, finance and environment committees in which we heard one of the leading officials of the United Nations say: "I find it interesting to come to Canada and hear Canadians talk about how tough it is in Canada when in fact in any other country in the world the people would give anything to trade their problems for the problems of Canadians".
Sure we have problems in this country. Sure the recession has hit us hard. Sure it has hurt individual Canadians and families. One person unemployed is too many. One bankruptcy is too many, but my goodness let us put things in balance.
The fact of the matter is that this is the best place in the world to be. Why is it that this is the country more than any other that people from other countries in the world want to come to? If they listen to my hon. friends
Government Orders
opposite nobody would ever want to come to this country, but I am not sure who listens to my hon. friends opposite, except maybe the media, when they go on about all this nonsense.
I listened to my hon. friend from the Liberal Party talk about debt. There is the pot calling the kettle black. When this government came into office the Liberal Party had left a $38 billion deficit. How much different is that from the $32 billion we have today? The difference is that they had an operating deficit. They were running the country on $16 billion more than they were taking in and they only had $22 billion in debt.


Shirley Maheu: That was 35.


Peter L. McCreath: Today this government is running this country in the black. There is a $6 billion surplus on the operating side. Meanwhile the compound interest on the over $200 billion debt, the legacy of the Thideau government to Canadians, has taken us up to a point in excess of $400 billion. By running the country in the black for the last four years this government is returning some of that deficit money and paying down the national debt. Let us stick to the facts and not hear this malarkey opposite about debt and deficit. My goodness, what nonsense.
The bill before the House would be eliminated by the proposals of my hon. friend in the NDP. It provides for the financial needs of the government. Unlike my friends opposite, this government does not like to see the Government of Canada operate on borrowed money. The philosophy of this party is that we should live within our means. That is why we have had a program of deficit reduction, a program, I might say, consistently opposed by my friends opposite who fought against every cost cutting measure of this government: spend, spend, spend.
We have seen what the Ontario New Democratic Party has done. There is an interesting article in The Montreal Gazette today that talks about debt across the country. It notes that in the last two years provincial debt has increased 50 per cent. What do we see in Ontario? We see a 63 per cent increase.
What is the record of this government? This government's debt has increased by 16 per cent. That 16 per cent is too much but it is a hell of a lot better than the 63 per cent the Ontario New Democratic Party has given the people of that province. It is a heck of a lot better than the 50 per cent the provinces from coast to coast have generally given.

Government Orders
It is interesting to note that the only province that has operated consistently in the black for 20 years is the province of Alberta which just happens to have been governed by a Progressive Conservative government during the same time. I suppose that is coincidence.
We need this borrowing authority to keep the affairs of state going. Revenues are down because we have been through a difficult recession.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: A Tory induced recession.


Peter L. McCreath: UI and transfer payments are up. They talk about capping the transfer payments, yet Canada Assistance Plan payments and UI payments are up. That is the way we govern.
We have had other precedents. We had a precedent in 1982 when the Liberal government came to this House looking for an $11 billion supplementary borrowing authority.
This is a realistic situation. We have no choice. It is the way we have to go. If this government continues in the way it has we are going to get that debt situation completely under control, and we think that is what Canadians want.
Our friends in the New Democratic Party have offered more spending. More spending means more borrowing and more debt. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, at least the NDP offers something. Our other friends over there have nothing to offer. We heard their leader the other day say: "I am going to scrap the GST. I do not know where I am going to get the money to replace it, but if you elect me I will tell you then in my first budget". How stupid do they think Canadians are? It cannot possibly be the case. We have no choice.
I will conclude with this remark: We have no choice but to get on with the business of the day and not use up the time of this House in frivolous debate. Let us get on with the business of government. Let us get on with the legislation that is necessary and will benefit Canadians. Let us get on with passing this borrowing bill.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that members on the opposite side should stand and applaud their economic record. Let us try to return to the facts because, I put to the House, Canada is in terrible economic shape. Canadians are worried and they have every legitimate right to be worried about our
current economic circumstances and our economic future.
Let us look at the record of the Tories. With respect to our ability to compete in 1989, we were fourth among all OECD countries. We have fallen to eleventh place today. Since 1984, when the Conservatives took over government, the Canadian share of world trade has fallen from 5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product to 4 per cent, a 20 per cent decline. Our trade surplus with other nations during those eight and a half years has gone down $12.4 billion.
I will refer to what is probably the most alarming figure to me in terms of the future for young Canadians and for our ability to sustain high paying, value added jobs in Canada. In 1984 Canada had a high-tech trade surplus of $1 billion. Today we have a deficit in high-tech trade of $30 billion. If that is not a sign of a declining ability to compete and create wealth through innovation in the industries of the future, I do not know what is.
Turning to some more bad news, in 1984 manufacturing accounted for 20 per cent of wealth production in Canada. Today it is down to 17 per cent. We have seen how since the early 1980s Canada's manufacturing productivity has grown at only about half the rate of all G-7 competitors. In other words we are falling behind in our capacity to do what we have to do to sustain a high level of income for Canadians.
This Tory government has told us that it has put the fundamentals in place, that it has given us the fundamentals to compete. The fundamentals are going down and have gone down consistently since 1984 because we are above all else a trading nation: 30 per cent of our wealth comes from trade and exports. If all of these indicators of our ability to compete are going backward under this Tory program of getting the fundamentals right, what hope are we trying to give to our children?
We have seen the results in terms of unemployment. Today 1.6 million Canadians are without jobs and these are just the ones who say they are still in the job market. It does not include the many other Canadians who are so despondent about their prospects of getting a job that they no longer even try to find one. They know those jobs just are not there.
February 2, 1993

Probably even more alarming is the fact that since January 1989 Canada has lost 365,000 or 18 per cent of its manufacturing jobs. This is deindustrialization of the highest order. No Canadian believes what the Tories have been trying to say, that this was simply a result of previous governments in Canada. This government has been in office now and has had control of the reins of power for more than eight years. It has been its responsibility to set the directions.
What we have seen is a decreasing ability to compete globally, a decreasing ability to be productive, and finally the deindustrialization of Canada. The Tories will also say that what is happening in Canada is a result of globalization, international restructuring, and even the world recession, all factors beyond the control of Canadians.
If these apologists for our present sorry plight are correct, how do they answer the following question? If these are factors beyond Canada's control, why is it that during the same period Canada has lost 18 per cent of its manufacturing jobs and the U.S. has lost only 6 per cent of its manufacturing jobs? How do they explain that unemployment in Canada is at 11.5 per cent and in United States unemployment is at 7.3 per cent?
This is not the result of forces beyond our control, beyond the purview of this government's responsibility to Canadians to set an environment in which we can prosper and compete. This is a direct result of policies introduced by this government. This government gave us a made-in-Canada recession. Even many Tories admit that their single-minded economic measures to get inflation under control cost Canada thousands and thousands of jobs and created a made-in-Canada recession. Why else did our recession start before the international recession and why did it have to last longer?
These people deliberately set about to drive up the dollar from the mid-75 cent area to 90 cents at the same time they gave us free trade. That 25 per cent increase in the value of our dollar was a far greater barrier to our export than any of the tariff restrictions that we negotiated out of the United States in terms of increasing our access there.
Government Orders
How can we compete with a 25 per cent added burden over those years on our backs? It was totally unfair. It was totally unrealistic. It was a trade driven policy, an inflation driven policy which the government chose rather than concentrating on what it is we can compete with and how we can get more of those goods into foreign markets so that we can have more and more Canadians working in our plants, factories and service industries which are dependent upon our exports.
Canadians realize that this government has set these policies, that it is responsible for them. This is why Canadians have shown consistently through their polling that these Tories had options, that they could have done things differently but they did not, and that they were wrong.
I only hope in the last gasping breath of this government that it will tiy to reverse its policies and that it will try to deal with some of its long-term problems that it has neglected in the past, such as increasing literacy, creating an educational system that is responsive to our job needs, increasing funding to science and technology and a renewed commitment to research and development.
Can the government not see what it has done? At least, can it not start to change it or say: We will not change it, we will give Canadians a chance to decide and let Canadians go to the polls.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, during this debate on the borrowing authority I would like to spend a bit of time talking about the role of the government and its treatment of the Public Service of Canada. The cuts it has undertaken within the safety infrastructure provided by Transport Canada on the coast of British Columbia I feel endangers the lives of Canadians who live and work in that area.
A rather misguided approach by the Auditor General in some of the criticisms of the Canada Coast Guard I believe has led to a number of ill-conceived programs by Transport Canada.
I would like to start with a basic policy of Transport Canada that seems to be a response to the government's demand for cuts in the services provided to the public, to the people who live in the small communities along the coast of British Columbia, on northern Vancouver Island, the west coast of Vancouver Island, probably a line from Gibsons right up to southeast Alaska and beyond, as it moves up the east side of the panhandle in British Columbia. It is my opinion and the opinion of many

Government Orders
British Columbians that this area is very poorly serviced when it comes to transportation safety infrastructure.
Transportation safety is not the responsibility of ships at sea, of privately operated aircraft, commercial aircraft or of locally organized search and rescue groups of various types, whether they be the marine search and rescue group that is under the sponsorship of the Coast Guard or the volunteer air search and rescue group or the ground search and rescue parties. These people do an enormous job and are a tremendous service to their communities. It must be remembered that in that area, the prime deliverer of transportation infrastructure services is the Government of Canada.
Probably the primary one is the helicopter service out of CFB Comox. For years that service has been totally inadequate. They have some of the best trained crews in the world. They have some of the best equipment in the world, contrary to what the Minister of National Defence and this government would like us to believe. It is my understanding from discussions with people who work at the base, who maintain those aircraft, that the airframe of the Labrador helicopter never wears out. If it is refitted properly and fitted with proper engines, it is one of the most stable vehicles to work with, especially in mountainous terrain.
The problem with the helicopters at CFB Comox is that they have in some instances a two-hour callout time. A member of the Billie family of Comox drowned off Quadra Island. Apparently the boat caught fire. The base, which is about six minutes flying time away, could not get a helicopter out there within two hours. It is absolutely useless if you cannot deliver a primary search and rescue vehicle into that area within a shorter period of time when the base is that close.
In the United States, in southeast Alaska and in the state of Washington, they operate on a totally different principle. Their helicopters are ready to go immediately. There are crews on site. They fire up their machines and they are gone. That is the kind of service that is needed on the coast of British Columbia. It is the kind of service that every British Columbian has to a right to expect, as they do in other areas of Canada.
Ultimately the government has decided that the saving of money is more important than human lives or a legitimate attempt to rescue and save human lives. That is an absolutely clear statement. The example of the Billie family drowning off a fish boat off Comox is a clear example. There are also others.
One of the great things that Transport Canada and the Department of National Defence brag about is the tremendous job they do and the assistance they were able to render to the Princen Dam which was a cruise ship which caught fire off Prince Rupert and southeast Alaska. They were absolutely blind lucky that there was not a storm blowing and that it was not the middle of winter. They could never have reached the ship in a situation like that.
The reverse situation occurred with the sinking of the freighter Lee Wang Zin off that area. By the time you leave Comox, if you get the report after twelve o'clock, you cannot reach that area in daylight hours. The distribution of equipment, callout times and a whole host of other money saving initiatives of the government make sure that the safety equipment is not delivered in a period of time that is useful for searching and for saving lives.
Let us put aside the saving of money in areas that endanger human lives. I say that is completely unacceptable. The helicopters at CFB Comox should be distributed along the coast in a more effective fashion so that those extremely well trained, dedicated crews and that upgraded equipment can be delivered to people in a timeframe which is meaningful. Otherwise we might as well not even have them arrive in time.
Transport Canada had decided that it too was going to get into the saving of money in response to the government's demand. If it had to save money by endangering human life, so be it. It got some solace from the Auditor General who I think in a very misguided fashion said: Let us close all the lighthouses on the coast of British Columbia.
Those lighthouses have provided safety services to mariners, aviators, tourists and people in the commercial marine environment for years and years. Contacts were made and the lines of communication were opened even though they were not formally established. Because some of those lighthouse keepers were not provided with radios, they bought their own so that they could talk to
February 2, 1993

passing ships, give weather reports about local sea conditions in the area and advice on what was happening. They provided that service.
On a large number of occasions, the lighthouse keepers effected their own rescues. They bought their own boats.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I have been listening with great interest to my hon. friend. We are speaking on an amendment which would delete borrowing authority from the government and deny cash resources.
Can my hon. friend tie in his remarks to taking financial resources from the government. Would that enable the government to do what he is advocating?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am not sure that is a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, what affects the area that I represent, 300 miles of the coast of British Columbia, affects the south coast of Nova Scotia where five fishermen drowned recently.
I am sure the hon. member is interested in exactly the same points I raise. This is affected by borrowing authority and the way we go about it. Borrowing authority involves the money of the Government of Canada and that money should be spent in areas that are extremely relevant. Perhaps he would be prepared to listen to the remarks and I will draw them together to make the relevant point that he is concerned about.
If I could return to these remarks, the policy of Transport Canada and the Auditor General in scrutinizing the funding of the Government of Canada has led to an impression in Transport Canada that there should be cuts to the lighthouse services. The point I was making is that those lighthouse services provide an important safety service to the people of British Columbia.
Those people have affected rescues and they are not provided with vessels to do that. They are not provided with training and they are not provided with proper equipment. When somebody is in a desperate situation and in danger of losing his or her life and the lives of their family members, there is no choice. Names have been submitted and forwarded in the hope that these lighthouse keepers can be given the Canada 125 medal in recognition of the tremendous service they have provided in an isolated environment without resources.
Government Orders
The government finally talked to people in the field including mariners, aviators, tourists and commercial users of the service. They have been told not to cut out those lighthouse services but to upgrade them so they can provide weather reports, radio contacts and provide them their own vessels.
As a result, the Coast Guard turned around and did a study. It was called "The Future Use of Lighthouses Report" and made some very positive recommendations: not shutting down the lighthouses, providing them with radios, providing them with some training for giving weather broadcasts, which is absolutely the most crucial need.
When one gets so far up the coast of British Columbia, one cannot leave without a weather report. One cannot get a decent weather report because they are not provided. Only the lighthouses do and they are so sketchy they are hardly useful. "The Future Use of Lighthouses Report" stated these people should be given the skills they need and the equipment they need to get this rolling. Now they are under the gun again.
I would just like to draw the conclusion together. The government has also cut back fire-fighting services at Port Hardy Airport. It has done it with flight service stations. It has done it with the closure of Bull Harbour, the closure of the Cape St. James lighthouse. It is talking about removing the hovercraft from Parksville. Ultimately that involves endangering human life. We cannot tolerate the removal of these infrastructures.


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


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I was wondering if the House would be in agreement to give unanimous consent to asking questions of the hon. member who just spoke.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to give the hon. member the opportunity to raise a question?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker for the New Democratic Party, the member for Essex-Windsor I believe, was making the point that this government has no legitimacy to carry on because it is so low in the polls. Would the hon. member apply that same standard to the New Democratic government in the province of Ontario and ask Mr. Rae to step down and call an election?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that another Mr. Peterson was holding on at the same level of legitimacy as the government across the floor.
I think the member's question missed the point. Obviously he was not paying much attention to my speech. The point I was trying to make is that even beyond politics there is a far more important issue. That is the responsibility we all have to protect human life. This government's financial cuts to the Public Service and what it has done to a dedicated group of people by completely demoralizing them, has created a tremendous amount of uncertainty. To the government, saving cash is more important than serving people, even if it is to save its own life.
For the benefit of the hon. member from the Liberal Party I mentioned the question of removing the hovercraft from Parksville, the shutting down of the Cape St. James lighthouse, the closure of lighthouses, the closure of the Bull Harbour lifeboat station, the purchase of inappropriate but certainly cheaper equipment, the failure to end the callout time so that crews are on site at CFB Comox and are able to depart immediately with well-trained crews and good equipment. [DOT]'
All of this really seems to stem from a much greater concern about saving money rather than saving people. That is what I think is going to be the end of the Conservatives.
I should point out that the closure of the lighthouse stations and the shut-down of many of the search and rescue equipment was the fault of the previous Liberal government. Otto Lang, a previous Minister of Transport, was one of the most serious offenders against concern for the lives of people who work on the west coast and I am sure the east coast as well. That Liberal government was certainly the precursor of this government and the terrible cuts that have come in. The Liberals are really no different from the Conservatives.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-IFinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I want to lead off in this debate by making a few preliminary comments on some statements that were made that I certainly would like to clarify for the benefit of anybody watching the debate here this morning.
First of all, the penultimate speaker from the NDP said they would not really know about deficits and all that sort of stuff because federally they have never been in power. I would suggest that if they continue going the way they are going right now they will never be in power. I think this was a precursor to some of the concerns that they have. When people are frustrated they lash out. Therefore I take a certain amount of what the NDP say about my party's record with an understanding of their frustration at never forming the government.
My good friend the Conservative member for South Shore was accurate in one sense when he said that the Conference Board forecasted that Canada would grow
3.3	per cent this coming year. I cannot quarrel because that is what it said, although whether or not it happens is another thing. What he did not mention is that it also said that we would have the highest unemployment rate among the G-7 countries, except for Italy, at 11.3 per cent. Italy will have 11.5 per cent and Canada will have
11.3	per cent.
The whole point of this discussion, the whole point of the government's attempt to get its act together, and the whole point of one of the things that we have been doing with our platform is to try to get jobs back in this country and to get people working.
I come from a riding where not many people are working as a result of mismanagement of the fisheries, poor employment opportunities and a litany of other things that I have talked about in this House, as have other members from Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada. I am not here to reiterate those things. I will be doing that at a later time.
I want to more closely examine the over-all context of what we are discussing this morning, which is the government's business of borrowing money to run the country. The Tories are stretching their credibility when they continue after eight and half years in power to blame another government, whatever government it is. It happens to be the party that I represent. To continue
February 2, 1993

year after year with the same litany of excuses is not only irresponsible but it shows that they are giving little importance and little credibility to the intelligence of the viewers who hear this litany. People would have to be very dedicated Conservatives to really believe all these things.
I like to deal in facts and figures. It is good to be qualitative from time to time but it is very difficult to argue with the facts and figures which are available to any member. Nobody can dispute them. They are available.
When this government came into power in 1984 there was a certain debt and a deficit. The deficit was $38 billion. After eight and a half years in power, 33 tax increases and after saying in every budget that the name of the game was to reduce the deficit the government has not reduced the deficit much. This was at a time when the economy was growing. In the first four years this government was in power the economy of the world, and particularly the economy of Canada, was buoyant and the government had an opportunity to reduce the deficit as it kept promising to do budget after budget.
What was the government doing? Program spending was increasing at the rate of 4 per cent a year. The government talked about cutting the deficit by increasing taxes, although it never really talked too much about increasing taxes. The government talked about reducing the debt. Yet every year the government would increase its spending by 4.1 per cent, which is the average over the last eight and a half years, and the interest on the annual deficit grew at 9 per cent, which is about three times the rate of growth of the economy. If it does that in periods of growth and a good economy and it cannot control the deficit what on earth is it going to do in a recession or depression?
The government has run out of tools. It has run out of tricks. It has taxed the middle class, sometimes at the expense of the rich, sometimes at the expense of corporations and sometimes at the expense of certain business interests, to the point where the middle class cannot pay any more.
Government Orders
The interest payments on the debt when the Tories came to power in 1984 totalled $27.5 billion. It is double that today. Yet they say it is the fault of the Liberals.
Where have the taxes gone? Of the $122 billion that was taken in by this government to run the country, which is the subject we are talking about today, 50 per cent came from income taxes. The middle class pays most of the income tax. Twelve per cent was from the goods and services tax, which is the most hated and most unique tax in the world. Thirteen per cent came from UI contributions, to which the government no longer contributes and so it comes from the working class, the middle class, and business. Thirty-seven per cent came from sin taxes on gas, alcohol, cigarettes and those kinds of items and 8 per cent came from corporations.
I regret that I have not been able to get the exact figures for 1984. I have been told by the research effort that I was able to mount yesterday and today that if we include the GST the ratio paid by the middle class compared to other classes is 60:40. In 1984 it was more like 40:60. It has reversed. The middle class proportionately is paying almost double what it was paying before.
Economists agree on very little but one thing they do agree on is that we cannot just talk about the debt we must talk about growth as well.
The amount of goods and services, of anything that is worth anything that is produced in this country is the Gross Domestic Product, which is essentially what we earn as a country. Our debt is what is owed as the national debt.
The ratio of one to the other in 1984 was 46.4 per cent. In other words our debt was 46 per cent of what we produced. It is as if an individual earned x dollars and would be paying 46.4 per cent of everything he or she was worth on interest payments.
That figure has gone up 30 per cent. In other words the ratio of Gross Domestic Product to debt is now 62.7 per cent. That is an incredible rise. In other words an individual owes 62.7 per cent interest on what he or she has borrowed as an individual. That means an individual would have less than 40 per cent of his or her income to spend on delivering the goods, on raising a family, on sending kids to university and everything else.

Government Orders
More important, that individual is worse off by 30 per cent than she or he was eight and a half years ago. Would that individual blame that on somebody else? One would have to take responsibility for that oneself.
In the closing moments of my presentation I must mention one thing that has arisen in my riding time after time, and I am about to meet with the community. At a time when spending has been increased by 4 per cent and people are being taxed they feel they are not getting value for their money.
One of the areas that has been of great concern in my party and for a lot of my constituents is the way in which rural people have been treated with respect to postal services. In 1986 this government came up with a plan to reduce 10,000 people and 3,221 post offices in rural areas. It has done so despite countless speeches in this House, tens of thousands of people presenting petitions, admonitions, letters to ministers, and meetings at town halls. I cannot tell the House the number that I have attended. I am about to attend another one in a couple of weeks time. The community is very concerned that it is paying all these taxes and it is not getting the postal service that it feels it should get.
I am particularly concerned about this because about 83 per cent of those who work in the post office are female. There is great concern about jobs for the female part of our population and that is another concern.
I have given just one example but it is a universal example that concerns people. Quite frankly the government has no right to be proud of its record and it should be very much ashamed of where it has us today.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on this borrowing bill which arises out of the mini budget that the government brought down in the fall. It really outlines the direction this government wants to take our economy in the next few years, before an election in the fall.
Neither I nor the people in my riding support the economic direction in which this government has been taking the country. This country is really facing an economic crisis. There are 1.6 million Canadians out of
work and many of those Canadians reside in my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk.
The government talks about economic growth. As the hon. member said earlier, it plans for 3 per cent economic growth. However in all those discussions the government does not talk about jobs. Although it talks about economic growth it hides the fact that even though we will have economic growth over the next few years no more jobs will be created.
The government likes to talk about competitiveness, saying proudly that we will grow. However it says to the unemployed Canadian or the unemployed person from Haldimand-Norfolk, for example in the steel industry, that there will be no jobs for steel workers who are being laid off because Canadian steel is being unduly and unfairly attacked by our counterparts to the south.
This government made a commitment during the free trade debate that our steel industry would have open access to the American market. As we have seen over the last few weeks, this has not been the case. The government does not seem to be prepared to do anything about it.
There are no jobs for fanners in this economic statement. Farmers are devastated by low commodity prices and must deal with a government that does not seem to want to represent them internationally. It does not seem to want to stand up against the unfair trading practices of the Europeans and our neighbours to the south who constantly use export enhancement to send grain that should have been Canadian into our previous markets.
Farmers in the supply managed areas of dairy and poultry are extremely concerned about this government's representation of them at the GATT negotiations and the way in which this government has caved in at the negotiations with regard to its position on article XI.
There are no jobs for our youth. Youth unemployment is at 19 per cent. Canadian youth, whether in Vancouver, Montreal or my own riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, see no hope for their future. They do not see an economic plan that gives them a chance for a job, or even a chance to become trained and to be able to compete for these new jobs that the government talks about.
February 2, 1993

I and the former youth critic, the member for York North, travelled across this country and talked to young people about their hopes and about their needs if they are to compete in this changing economy. We found a real lack of hope. In many cases it seemed that young people have given up because they have been faced with a government that seems not to have listened to their ideas for economic change.
A few weeks ago we presented alternatives to the Canadian public. We presented future directions that we thought the government might take and future directions that we as a government will take in order to include young people in this economic plan, in the economic future of our country. We hope to be able to present these ideas in a general election, which hopefully will be sooner than later.
We can no longer put blame on past governments. I sat here listening to the government blaming the provinces, the NDP blaming the Liberals and the government blaming the Liberals for our economic woes. The time for blame has stopped. The time to take action is now. I wish that hon. members on all sides of the House would quit blaming each other and get on with the action that is needed. I know it is easy to criticize. As a member of the Official Opposition, my role in may ways is to criticize government policy. We do that in order to try to keep this government responsible and keep it aware of the problems being faced by ordinary Canadians. At the same time we must be willing to offer solutions and alternatives. I am sure my hon. friends across the way were listening very closely when my leader gave a speech last week at the University of Ottawa, which was very widely accepted by the young people there, outlining alternatives, the Liberal's position and the directions we would like to take this country economically.
My leader, I thought, outlined very clearly the alternatives we would be bringing forward in an election and those are the directions we would be moving in once we became government.
The simple fact is, as my leader said, we have to make economic growth and job creation the top priorities in this country. We cannot have economic growth without jobs. Strangely, these days we seem to hear from the gentlemen across and from many Canadians how we have to become competitive. However, we must be
Government Orders
willing to build a more highly educated and skilled work force. This government is not giving Canadians the tools which would enable them to compete globally.
It talks about competitiveness but at the same time it does not talk about how Canadians can be competitive and where these jobs are for Canadians to compete in. In order to be competitive we have to put Canadians back to work. We have to be able to meet these so-called global challenges of the 21st century. We must be committed to new initiatives to promote labour force training, research and development and marketing support. Ultimately, as I heard when I was at the University of Calgary last week, this country must be committed to education.
Unfortunately, nothing in this government's economic policies and the economic statement by the minister really outlined in any meaningful way any sort of government commitment. It just promised to fulfil old promises and make new ones while sneaking in cuts on the side. Canadians can see through these empty promises and they are not going to buy them any more.
One thing I have learned since I have been here over the last four years is that government really needs to regain the confidence of Canadians. I do not mean the government across but we as parliamentarians need to regain this confidence or else this economy will not build. I believe the way to regain this confidence is to show them a direction, show them they are important as individuals and give them the tools that are necessary for them in order to compete in this changing economy. Those tools include training and retraining. That is why my leader has announced a co-operative program in which governments, businesses, educators and all involved in this process work together to give not only our youth but all unemployed Canadians an opportunity to be able to compete.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan on the second sitting day of Parliament in 1993, exactly one week, seven days after 12,000 to 15,000 farmers and concerned Saskatchewan residents rallied in Saskatoon to bring to this government's attention their desperate situation. That rally with that many people strongly indicates that their call for help is not idle chatter. Their situation is very serious. Their situation is serious and demands immediate attention.

Government Orders
It points out that 1993 will be one of the most challenging years that Canadians have ever witnessed. Certainly it will be one of the most challenging years that Saskatchewan people have ever witnessed or will have to go through.
When we look at what the agenda is for this government in 1993, we see an incredible amount of attention regarding issues that directly affect Saskatchewan people. We see possible changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, the transportation system for agricultural production, a desperate need for a third line of defence funding and deficiency payments that have not been met for two to three years.
We see changes to the way in which credit will be offered by this government to farm people and residents of rural Saskatchewan. We see changes to the supply management system being negotiated at the GATT that will be a direct threat to many of the residents of rural Saskatchewan.
While those are related to agricultural issues, the people of Saskatchewan also face the same challenges that other Canadians will be faced with as well. There is the continuing attack on them from an unfair taxation system and a North American free trade agreement that is threatening jobs and the security of Canadians from coast to coast. The disputes that concern steel, pork, fish and other matters in our fight with the United States are also matters that will greatly affect the people of Saskatchewan.
I want to bring a number of matters directly to the attention of this government during the course of debate on this bill in which the government is asking permission to borrow more money to carry on with more of the same failed programs and policies that it has had over the last few years.
At that Saskatchewan rally the producers had a number of important things they wanted this government to hear. It was not just a matter of the need for immediate cash, but that was certainly what prompted many of those people to be there. The farm crisis is quite desperate. The numbers are quite overwhelming, indicating that without deficiency payments for the last two years, Saskatchewan producers are already behind $1 billion to $1.5 billion of where they would be if there was
a fair trading system in this country and this world related to agricultural products.
Deficiency payments, a third line of defence payment, is a very immediate need of Saskatchewan producers, an industry that is very important to this country, to all of the people who live here, whether they are in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax or St. John's. The crisis in agriculture affects all of us.
The first message out of that farm rally was that we have to get some cash into the hands of the Saskatchewan producer immediately. The producers went much further than that, indicating that we have a long-term problem. Obviously if we have a problem now it is because existing programs have failed us dismally.
The first year of the 1991 GRIP program has just ended. It is that program which has helped to produce the shortfall in cash that we have on the farm today. We can project that there will be further decreases in agricultural income over the course of the 1993 crop year that will result from the 1992 GRIP program but the current crisis is related to the existing program that was put in place by this government in agreements with the provincial governments prior to 1991.
We have to correct the long-term program as well. That long-term program is a very important one for all those producers who can survive the immediate financial crisis that we have now.
There were other matters that the producers raised at the farm rally that I want to bring to the attention of this government. The overwhelming majority of those 12,000 to 15,000 producers had four other important things they wanted to say to this government.
The first one is very specific: Oats must be put back under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. This government must maintain and enhance the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board because it is the only way that Canadians are going to have the opportunity and the ability to stay involved in the international marketplace in the long term. This government is contemplating removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, leaving only wheat under its jurisdiction.
The message from that farm rally was very clear. They want barley maintained under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board. Under no circumstance should barley be taken out from the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.
February 2, 1993

There are two very important messages from that farm rally right off the bat. They do not want cash just today. In the long term they enhanced and strengthened powers of the Canadian Wheat Board. Keep barley there and put oats back under the jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Canadian Wheat Board has to be our central desk selling method, which is a very important matter. This government is contemplating changes to the way in which grain is transported from the farm gate through the elevator system to the ports.
The Western Grain Transportation Act has certain guarantees to producers. The government wants to change that. It indicated after talks across the prairies last year that it is seriously considering changes.
The message from that farm rally in Saskatchewan is do not change the method of payment. Maintain the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Crow benefit and if nothing else, ensure that all Saskatchewan producers are treated fairly in the method of payment by ensuring that the status quo is maintained. That was a very important message that came out of that farm rally.
When this government talks about looking at its programs and policies and ensuring that it is looking after the interests of the Canadians it is supposed to represent, it has to take those messages into account. These are very important matters to Saskatchewan producers. We cannot forget that many of the problems on the prairies are a direct result of the continual off-loading of federal government problems on to the provinces.
The Canadian government has a minister of grains and oilseeds. At one point the grain sector was a national responsibility. In 1988, 100 per cent of farm programs relating to grain and problems like the drought that affects the farm situation were carried by Ottawa. The financing was carried by Ottawa. Today only 57 per cent of agricultural support is carried by Ottawa.
Saskatchewan, with 40 per cent of the farms and 4 per cent of the population, is having to carry the costs of 47 per cent of those farm support programs for which Ottawa just four years ago had 100 per cent responsibility.
Government Orders
We have to find ways of ensuring that the national dollar is directed at some of these resource based economies. I, speaking as a Saskatchewan member of Parliament, spoke directly about grains and the agricultural sector. I know my colleagues can talk about fisheries and other resources based economies from their parts of the world.
I have one last point as far as Saskatchewan is concerned. I attended the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities convention yesterday in Saskatoon. The premier of our province indicated that agricultural support is costing every single Saskatchewan taxpayer $200. The Government of Canada that taxpayers support is just $20. Saskatchewan is paying its way. It is time that Ottawa supported the work of all Saskatchewan producers in an industry in desperate straits.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, an agreement has been reached among the parties with an undertaking that we will adhere to the normal daily hour of adjournment.
Therefore, I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to move to the third reading stage of Bill C-98 today when report stage is completed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. We would be prepared to allow the government to proceed with third reading but we understand that there is also an accord that the hours of sitting will not be extended this evening between four o'clock and five o'clock. That is part of the deal, and on that understanding we give our consent.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I also confirm there have been discussions to this effect. We are quite willing to co-operate this early in the sitting.
I just want the hon. member to understand that we in this party are very anxious to see the government get on with agricultural support legislation as quickly as possible and, as soon as that is completed, call the election and let the people decide which party they want to have govern this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

Government Orders


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, last year the Minister of Finance presented us with a budget that did absolutely nothing to revive the economy. The Conservatives' financial measures have once again overlooked all those Canadians who are without work today and probably will be without work for a very long time; 1.6 million people are unemployed, and it goes on.
Where are the retraining programs for all these people who want to work? Where are the job creation programs? The Conservative government seems to be short of ideas, short of initiative and especially short of creativity. It is doing nothing, absolutely nothing, to put Canada back to work. That is not how one builds a strong, competitive economy. Above all, it is not the way to be seen as a great nation in this period of increasing globalization.
This government is really good at making promises that it regularly forgets to keep. How can our young graduates hope to fulfil their dreams and ambitions if they are unemployed when they graduate and have to pay back their student debts? How will our adults and, unfortunately, many of our teenagers who are illiterate or barely literate survive in our society if no program is being considered and given priority? How will this 40 per cent of the population overcome this problem?
This government seems to have forgotten all those who have major economic problems, all those who can no longer make ends meet. How will children living in poverty be able to develop physically and mentally if they are not healthy and educated?
In 1991, 700,000 children lined up at food banks. Is that acceptable? Is that right in a country which is supposed to be rich in resources? How can these children escape their predicament if their parents do not find work?
To quote my colleague from Willowdale who said in another speech: "Canadians were counting on this government to give new direction to the economy in order to help with a real recovery. Their decision to stay the course does nothing for the 1.6 million unemployed Canadians who are looking for work, to say nothing of those on welfare".
Canadian small business people who have been going bankrupt at an increasing rate get only crumbs which are barely enough to keep up with inflation. The measures taken to control cross-border shopping do not seem to be enough to stem the flow of millions of dollars to the United States. There is nothing to reassure Canadians about their economic future.

The Conservatives simply do not care about average Canadians. They simply have not been listening to their constituents who are desperately seeking relief from these tough Tory times. Canadians are asking for this government to listen for a change. They want a federal government to lead them to economic stability and security. This is a fundamental argument for national unity. Economic instability in Canada only fuels the drive for sovereignty. That is why we must find a way to get Canada working again.
What I find incredible about the Conservatives is that the amount of money allocated for training adjustment has been cut by $110 million. It is incredible that at a time when 1.6 million Canadians are out of work this government is doing absolutely nothing. We are borrowing money to increase the debt. That is either cowardice on the part of the Conservative government or intellectual bankruptcy.
The Liberal Party is ready to meet this challenge. That is why my colleagues and I cannot wait for the writs to be issued and an election to be called. We will offer the people of this country a real alternative, one that is compassionate and understanding, one that will listen to Canadians, and an alternative that will provide the poor and the unemployed with the tools they need to be active, to prosper and to regain pride and confidence not only in themselves but in the country in which they live.
The Conservatives, fearing an attack from the ideological right, are cutting the programs that have helped build Canada. They want to co-op the Reform Party's agenda because they have no ideas of their own.
The cuts to ministers' salaries and the proposal to eliminate first-class travel in Canada that only existed for a few special ministers of this government were largely symbolic. This government really hurts average Canadians by cutting back on certain agencies that give Canadians non-partisan advice and alternatives in such areas as economic and scientific policy. In an astounding move the government eliminated the Science Council.
February 2, 1993

Canada is trying to become the world leader in science and technology. It is trying to leave behind the attachment it has had to the exploitation of the environment, and this government is blocking that progress. This action is counterproductive and will limit Canada's ability to be competitive in the global market.
As the Official Opposition spokesperson on multicul-turalism and citizenship I must comment on the government's cuts in this area. It is absolutely shameful this government is welshing on a promise made to the Canadian Japanese community. The Canada Race Relations Foundation, which this budget shelves indefinitely, was announced as part of the Japanese Canadian redress settlement. The foundation was established with a grant of $24 million, $12 million of which was donated on behalf of the Japanese Canadian community in commemoration of the suffering of Japanese Canadians during World War II.
The Conservative government, which during the last election claimed to support multiculturalism and made a promise that it would do something about it has made a complete about-face by shelving both the Race Relations Foundation and the Heritage Language Institute. The Conservatives are reneging on two-thirds of their legislative commitment to multiculturalism. At a time when intolerance and bigotry are on a rise throughout the world the federal government should be contributing more rather than less to this program.
The final issue I would like to raise is that of the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. We have talked about it before. It is reprehensible that this Conservative government would remove funding, and thereby access to the courts, for people who need protection under the charter of rights by cutting the budget on this program and then borrowing again to increase the debt. The government is attacking the rights of citizens to challenge present and future legislation that unjustly infringes on the rights of Canadians. If this government still believes in the principle of equality of the individual, I urge it to reverse this decision and reinstate the Court Challenges Program.
Government Orders
This government's economic and social agenda simply does not reflect the real needs of Canadians. It is something that the vast majority of my constituents and I oppose. It is time for new ideas and new alternatives. The Liberal Party is ready to give them.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of York West to speak to this borrowing bill which is one of the centrepieces emanating from the recent budget presented to this House and to this country.
One gets the feeling, and it cannot be helped, that through serious and long-standing economic turbulence this government and the Conservative Party opposite simply prefers to put on the automatic pilot and pretend that economic turbulence does not exist.
This latest parliamentary pause was long enough for members of Parliament to enjoy their families and certainly enjoy the benefit of touching base with their constituents in their ridings to try to get the pulse of a country. They will try, as best as they can, to reflect that pulse, that concern, those aspirations and those dreams in this place.
Members on the government benches should have talked to Canadians about their taxes, about the GST, about the record number of unemployed that is reaching almost two million Canadians, and about the fact that with their policies they prefer very much in a bravado sense to attack the unemployed rather than to attack unemployment.
They should have stopped to think about the consequences of the trade deal and the impact it is having on our work force and on some of our key sectors, as witnessed recently by the attack on our steel industry. They should have talked to the increasing number of people who have to rely on welfare or other social assistance programs or the growing number of people in the line-ups at food banks.
If they cared to talk to Canadians about these concerns they would transmit a message to the country through Parliament that they were willing to change, that they were willing to modify, that they were willing to minimize the hurt, that they were willing to admit without fear of being uncourageous or shamed that a number of

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
policies had not worked, and that they were prepared to change course.
We would have thought, if they cared about real Canadians and their families in the regions, the cities and the farms in all our constituencies, they would not have put Parliament on automatic pilot and that they would not have put shutters on and pretended that things were proceeding in a very hopeful and enthusiastic way, because they are not.
It is not because we on this side of the House enjoy the litany of statistics or of causes that we quote. No one takes pleasure in talking about those problems, but it is the responsibility of governments, legislators and elected representatives to solve those concerns and to solve those problems on behalf of a nation. It is not the responsibility of this House to be insignificant or indifferent to what is going on in real Canada.
Canadians in greater numbers are beginning to be indifferent and cynical toward our institutions because they do not believe, when they turn on their television sets, that we are anchored in reality. They do not believe that they make a difference. They do not believe that their concerns are being heard. If they are not being heard, how can those concerns and problems be addressed?
We are discussing the remnants of a budget that is already antiquated. It is not working. It is not addressing the concerns we see day in and day out.
Rather than presenting the traditional budget during the month of February which has been a long-standing practice we have a knee-jerk reaction by the government and Minister of Finance to postpone the budget. We have a knee-jerk reaction to postpone the throne speech which would have set a new course and created a new agenda. Why postpone a budget and a throne speech? Because the Tories are engaged in a navel-gazing exercise, trying to decide who should be the captain at the automatic pilot controls at the front of the plane. The country is becoming subservient to this exercise.
I submit, and other colleagues have been suggesting, that the country deserves better. It is not that any one party is holier than thou. It is not that any one party is perfect and has all the answers. We must strive to find those answers.
We are dumbfounded that the Conservative Party and government opposite have failed so miserably in even recognizing that hurt, that pain and that desire for
economic stimulation, for economic change, for economic renewal, for economic assistance, for economic hope and for economic confidence.
You cannot go into your riding without discussing with people the economic climate of the day. It is a strait-jacket on our country. It is a strait-jacket on both the young and on the old, on those who are working and those who are unemployed. It is a strait-jacket that prevents us from being what we can be. We want to help this government and this country in shedding that strait-jacket.
We marvel that this place has become so insignificant. It does not speak to the problems of Canadians who wake up early in the morning to get on with life and who are speaking to us in our offices or our churches or our school gymnasiums or wherever we meet them.


Mr. Mills:: No connection.


Sergio Marchi: There is not, as my friend from Broadview-Greenwood says, a connection. That is why people are indifferent and cynical about this institution. It is not our institution, it is theirs. This is the forum of Canadians. Therefore we eagerly anticipate the election that is coming.
Canadians during the Christmas and New Years break, after they wished you the best, eagerly suggested that judgment day is approaching or that finally 1993 is here. It is the people, not the Liberal opposition or the New Democratic Party, who have finally concluded that the only way this place will once again be connected to their concerns is by allowing them to exercise their judgment on election day.
It is for the people to set the agenda and a future government to pursue that agenda with vigour, with honesty and with a sense of compassion. We have a parliamentary majority which amounts to a parliamenta-iy dictatorship. The shutters are on. The automatic pilot is on. The turbulence continues and people are hurting. It is time this came to an end.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, as we debate this bill which allows the government to borrow more and more money I cannot help but get the image of the interchangeability between Bay Street and the House of Commons, particularly on the opposite side. I have this image of the Campeau Corporation and I have this image of Olympia & York. There are many other examples. Of course they are examples of the abject failure of the neo-conservative, monetarist theory which this government is so hell-bent on following and
February 2, 1993

has been following so assiduously ever since it got elected in 1984. With the interchangeability of it, I guess I am in a bit of a conundrum as to whether we should be saying there but for the grace of God go the people who would have trashed the Campeau Corporation and Olympia & York. I suppose if one was on Bay Street, one would say there but for the grace of God go the people who have trashed the Government of Canada and Canada as a whole.
It is no wonder, as many other members have stated, the Canadian public is absolutely distressed with us as politicians. The Canadian public is cynical about the institute of Parliament. I would like to confess to the public of Canada right now that I certainly join them in that. I do not blame them for being cynical about politicians. I have certainly become cynical myself.
We have a government which was elected in 1984 with all kinds of promises: jobs, jobs, jobs. We have a government that was re-elected in 1988, when I came into this House of Commons, with the promise that with the free trade deal with the United States this country would go into prosperity like we had never seen before.
What I have seen is that we have become impoverished as a nation because of these monetarist theories that they have been so firmly following. I as a working person can relate very well to the majority of Canadians. I have a bit of trouble relating to those from Bay Street, but I can certainly relate to those who do not come from Bay Street.
My memory is that in the late seventies and early eighties we were a prosperous nation before the previous government brought in wage and price controls, before it brought in six and five. It was going to fight inflation to the ground. It did not work, but that is beside the point. It did not work. This government which came in on the heels of a very unpopular government was going to turn things around. Of course it made it worse in spades.
I do not want to dwell too much on that. I want to address a few of the specifics of what has happened in this country, particularly under this government. I come from Saskatchewan. Other members of my caucus have spoken about the farm situation. Certainly the province of Saskatchewan, not to exclude the provinces of Manitoba or Alberta, is in dire straits.
Government Orders
While the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake was speaking one member, I think from Willow-dale, was laughing. He thought it was rather funny that we were sitting here talking about oats and barley. I guess he really could not relate to anything that went on in agriculture.
I would like to remind anyone who is watching and I certainly would like to remind the members opposite and those to my right as well-I know there are some people in the Liberal caucus very knowledgeable of the farm situation, but some of them obviously are not and can certainly stand some education along those lines-as well as the Canadian public, those who do not have anything to do with farming, those who think that there is no relationship between themselves and the agricultural people of this land, of this thought.
If you eat, you are involved in agriculture. It is high time that everyone in Canada took notice of that, paid attention to it and realized that the people in the agricultural communities of this country, whether they are growing grain, potatoes or apples, certainly do make a contribution to this country. If they do not succeed, the rest of us suffer enormously because of that.
I made reference earlier to the free trade agreement with the United States and how it was supposed to bring prosperity. It certainly has not brought prosperity to Canadian farmers. Our present government has made only a shadow of an effort, if it can even be given that much credit, of trying to defend our agricultural community in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations.
Aside from that, under the free trade agreement there is a clause which says specifically that in this instance- unlike the General Agreement on Tariffs and Tirade where there are 108 countries, the free trade agreement with the United States has only two countries, little Canada and the gigantic United States-neither country will use any kind of practice which would in traditional trading areas be to the detriment of the other country.
The main problem that agricultural people in this country face, particularly the grain growing ones which are in such dire straits, is precisely because of the United States' deliberate violation of that supposedly friendly agreement between themselves and Canada. They have used an export enhancement program to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars to steal from the Canadian agricultural producers traditional markets. As a

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
result, our ability to sell grain abroad has certainly been reduced, to the detriment of our agricultural producers.
The North American free trade agreement, signed already, hopefully will never be implemented. Certainly as a New Democrat I can assure you that we will be doing everything we can to make sure that it is never implemented. In reference to some of the things involved in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade our government is saying: "Well, it's okay, folks, we will go to tariffication if we lose the ability to have our marketing boards in Canada. Marketing boards are really our first stand but we can always fall back to tariffication and then the farmers will be protected that way. We can put tariffs in place to protect the farmers on that". Generally the reference is to the tariff protocol referred to in the free trade agreement with the United States but not referred to at all in the NAFTA. There is specifically an exclusion of any kind of tariff protocol for agricultural products within the North America free trade agreement.
With reference to the wheat board, which is such an absolutely essential institution brought in by a Conservative government during the days of the Depression, absolutely essential to the farmer in getting a fair return for his products on the prairies, this government has done almost everything it can to gut the wheat board. It has removed oats from the wheat board to the detriment of the price of oats.
I see that I have only a minute left. Let me just say that the experience is that with the removal of oats from the wheat board, the price has suffered. Now barley is going to be removed from the protection of the wheat board. We can certainly conclude that the same will happen there. Organization after organization after organization is saying please, do not do it, begging the minister responsible for the wheat board not to do that, after him having said that the best thing he ever did was to remove oats from the wheat board. Well, no more favours from the minister; please leave the wheat board alone and put it back to its former glory.
There are many more things I could refer to. Poverty in Saskatoon, the city I come from, is the second worst in the country behind Manitoba. For heaven's sake, we are behind Newfoundland which for so long had been considered to be an impoverished province. That is what the legacy of this government has been to this nation and my constituency.
Yes, the people have been calling for an election. Please call an election and relieve us of this torture.


Mr. Joseph Yolpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from the prairie province of Saskatchewan has spoken and has ended with great eloquence.
It is an eloquence that can only be repeated by the constant plea of my own constituents in the great city of Toronto. I would have said that magnificent city of Toronto, but unfortunately we have had to use more humble adjectives over the course of the last several years, in large measure and in fact almost completely thanks to the government opposite.
The city of Toronto is that great engine that drove much of the economy of Ontario and contributed in its munificence through taxes and revenues to the greater glory of all Canadian industry and social programs. I do not speak with any blushing for the constituents of Toronto who have done that so willingly as Canadians.
They find themselves today, thanks to the government opposite, with an unemployment rate that has seen close to a quarter of a million Canadians from the Ibronto area on the unemployment rolls. Think about that. There is the winging of 250,000 people. My colleagues opposite might do a little geographical research very quickly to see how many cities in Canada number 250,000 people. There are 250,000 unemployed in that place in Canada that used to drive the economic engine of the nation.
That is drastic. So tragic is the outcome of the government's economic policies in its tenure in office that even the banks, the great bastion of profitability, have taken to laying people off. The economic financial centre of Canada is close to being no more. My colleagues opposite are suggesting that perhaps we should be serious on this side of the House while they go about their business of cutting the deficit, reducing government operations and employing other types of techniques which remain a mystery in the way they will function to all Canadians but those who sit opposite on that side of the House.
February 2, 1993

I have with me my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who has presented on many occasions suggestions for tax policy, economic policy, industrial development or assistance to the entrepreneurs who used to highlight the character of Canada that was symbolized by its innovation, its risk-taking desire and its willingness to take that extra challenge in order to produce wealth to be shared by all Canadians.
A few moments ago, my colleague could not help but wonder where the ideas that should have emerged from the administration offices have gone. They probably went the way of our trade balance. Over the course of the eight years of this administration, we have gone from a trade balance of $19.8 billion to a mere $7.4 billion.
This is from a nation whose dependency on international trade is recognized by each and every one of us. This is by a government that says that close to 35 cents out of every Canadian dollar earned is earned from international trade. This is from a government that says that the future lies with the growth of international trade. It says this while it increases the dependence of Canadian goods on one client. Imagine what would happen to anybody running a business and counts on 80 cents for every dollar earned on one client alone. What shoddy planning. What absolutely abysmal near-sightedness. Just this week on an international platform in an international environment in Davos, Switzerland we see that our trade people are bereft of any representation by senior members of government. They are getting snookered by the Mexicans who are part of the North American free trade agreement.
Mexicans are in Europe looking for and pursuing new clients for products that are going to be coming out of North America. They are looking for new investment and new investors and are trying to create opportunities. Where is our government?


An hon. member:: Where are others?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Try not to defend the government by asking where are others? Take a look at what has happened. It is nowhere to be seen. In the richest market in the entire
Government Orders
world it is nowhere to be see. It is content to continue to reduce Canada to an exporter of resources only and to one client. Is it any wonder then that over the course of the administration of the government opposite our current account balance has gone from a suqtlus of $3.4 billion in 1984 to a deficit of $24.7 billion just this last year? Shame. That is an absolutely horrid shame.
This is a government that came into power with the stated desire to create jobs, to cut taxes, and to create a better environment for Canadians. It says it is trying to create wealth for Canadians. What did it do? Since 1984 direct income taxes have gone up from $37.5 billion to $73.5 billion just a year and a half ago.
Corporate taxes have actually decreased over that same period of time. They have decreased from $11.3 billion to $10.8 billion. This is a government that does not understand how to use tax policy to create wealth. It does not do anything for trade. It does not do anything for planning. Planning is a misnomer for anything that it has done with respect to the GST.
The government initially planned on gamisheeing in the range of $25.5 billion to $28 billion with a 7 per cent tax based on an exchange of goods and services of approximately $400 billion. That was the value of that exchange. That should have brought to our treasury approximately $28 billion.
Last year the government was able, or at least this is what it reports, to collect $15.5 billion. Either it has succeeded in driving 50 per cent of the market underground, and experts admit that the minimum that has been driven underground is 15 per cent, or its estimates were wrong all along, or, and I hate to say it, it is deliberately deceiving everybody with the figures it is putting out. Right now on the basis of revenues collected so far this year it is again another $1.3 billion short.
This is a government that has used taxes to whip Canadians into submission. Since 1984 indirect taxes have increased from $18.12 billion to $28.57 billion. When it is taking this kind of money from the marketplace, from Canadians, what is it forcing them to do? We have seen some of them go underground. Others have moved south. Enterprise has diminished and risk-taking has been discouraged. Even worse it has also forced municipalities and provinces to assume the burden that exists among the general electorate.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
I see that some of the members opposite have difficulty dealing with the reality of the statistics that come from their own department. Perhaps this is yet another indication that they are not only tired but insensitive and, dare I say it, unable to read the signs. They should leave and leave today.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, as I was looking over the statistics that I received from my colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence I could not help but wonder how the government could possibly think it could get away with these incredible tax increases.
In 1984 the federal revenue from income tax was $37.5 billion. In 1990 it was $73 billion, and that figure does include inflation. As well in 1990 there was close to $15 billion in GST revenues. That money came out of the system and came from individuals. Therefore, we are talking about a comparison of about $37 billion in 1984 to almost $90 billion in 1990, if we include the GST.
That is one of the reasons there is very little confidence or spirit in this country right now. I do not want to ignore the reality of there being absolutely no inflation in this country. However the ratchet the government has used on inflation has been too aggressive. It is nice to talk about there being absolutely no inflation in this country. Yesterday the Prime Minister said in the House that we have the lowest inflation in 30 years. However he must recognize that there must be a balance. When there are so many people on unemployment and welfare Canadians would rather have a little more inflation and have people in the work force with the dignity of a job.
The same goes for interest rates. We could say because of the lower inflation that we have the lowest annualized interest rates in 20 years. I recognize that. However the problem is that there is no confidence. There is no will to move ahead. Surely the government is not stupid. There are intelligent people over there. They are hearing the same things that we are hearing. How long are they going to let this torture continue? It must drive them as crazy as it is driving us. It must be the same torture for them as it is for us. What are they waiting for?
There are ways of igniting the entrepreneurial spirit in this countiy. I want to mention the Small Businesses Loans Act which the Minister of Finance presented in his financial address before Christmas. The Small Businesses Loans Act is a good piece of legislation. There are areas for improvement in it. The $5 million ceiling for eligibility is a little low. The fact that we have an instrument that will force the financial institutions of this country to loan money to small businesses, and that 85 per cent of the loan is guaranteed by the Crown, is a good thing.
I am hearing two things from the small businesses in my riding.
First, I am hearing that most of the bank managers are not aware of it or do not want to get involved in the paper work. The government must use its force and influence to force the financial institutions of this country to implement this piece of legislation. We give the financial institutions of this country all kinds of tax preferences and legal loopholes. We are hearing from these bank managers right now. The president of the Bank of Montreal says that he has ways to ignite the economy. Let us challenge him.
How many small business loans has he given out under the Small Businesses Loans Act? Why does the government not use its influence to bring these banks to a state of accountability? I read a speech the other day by the president of the Royal Bank in which he said that small business entrepreneurship is where it is at in terms of getting people back to work.
I say this in a constructive way. Why do we not take the Small Businesses Loans Act, a piece of legislation that all of us in this House support, and force these bankers to use it. The greatest hope of new job creation lies with the small businessmen and women of this country, with people who want to have a home-based business. Today with the new technology and the new economy people can start businesses right from their own recreation rooms or homes. However, they need access to capital. We have an instrument in this House but we are not using it.
The government cannot say that what I am saying is not constructive. It is totally constructive. However the government is not acting.
It is really sad to hear the glib comments over there when there are so many people who are having a tough time making it from payroll to payroll. There are so many people out there right now who are in such pain, who are in real pain. What are we doing here? Are we
February 2, 1993

making a real connection in this room? We are not really making a great connection. All we can do on this side of the House at this time is try to make the government accountable and try to push it and motivate it.
There are instruments right under its nose and it is not using them. What would be wrong with the Minister of Finance calling in the senior bankers of this country and telling them to implement the Small Businesses Loans Act and put some capital into the system.
The greatest hope for new job creation in this country lies with the small and medium-sized businesses. We do have an instrument that can put capital back into the system, back into their hands, quickly.
I would make one other suggestion. The float for the Small Businesses Loans Act is around $4.5 billion and if it needs more than that we should make sure it gets it. The cost to the Treasury of servicing the Small Businesses Loans Act in the last three years has only been approximately $25 million to $27 million. That is a very inexpensive price to pay for an instrument that can be so successful in mobilizing the spirit and the will of this nation.
Once again I implore this government to use the power of the Minister of Finance to call all these bank managers in for one of those cabinet discussions and tell them to implement this piece of legislation which the duly elected members of this House of Commons support. Let us get people back to work.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the members of this House are using this debate to put on record some of their thoughts on the government's economic policy and on the course of action we in this country should be taking to try to achieve full employment and to get the economy of this country back on track.
I would like to join in that effort and to discuss with the members of this House some ideas that I think should be looked at by the people of Canada if we are going to get our economy right.
Government Orders
Here is the first question. What is the goal of government economic policy? Over the last eight years, and particularly with the dominance of John Crow as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, this government has focused on the objective of reducing inflation to zero. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, along with the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, has made much of the gains they have made in reducing inflation to zero. They have placed this goal ahead of the goal of achieving full employment and keeping Canadians working and expanding the base of work across this country.
The result of these policies, of course, has been disastrous for Canadians. What we we hear from the government is that they are now bereft of new ideas. They continue to persist in the assumption that the free trade agreement and NAFTA have been good for Canada when in fact it is evident to every Canadian that the free trade agreement has failed and has caused miserable unemployment. This is particularly so in central Canada. It has deprived our legislatures right across this country of the capacity to deal with the economic problems we face.
The government has added to the deficit, rather than decreased it, as the natural result of its policies. If one reduces economic activity, which has been the government's set purpose, government revenues decline. If you do that through the device of high interest rates, the government cost of borrowing increases. Therefore, we have had the phenomenon of this Conservative government, and other Conservative governments across Canada, running higher and higher deficits. Year after year these people come back to Parliament or to the legislatures to explain. "Oh my goodness, we're sorry, we were out of line last year. We underestimated the deficit. The deficit has actually increased when we meant to decrease it".
Caught in this desperate mix, these governments continue to follow the same policies. They continue to cut back on public investment. They continue to scare private investment out of the market. They continue to keep interests higher than they should be. They continue, therefore, to add to the deficit rather than detract from it. They are caught in the spiral and Canadians are caught in the spiral with them.
Let me suggest that there are alternative economic policies that the people of Canada should be considering and that this Parliament should consider. First, we must get our goals right. The goal of an economic policy for our country should be to encourage employment for its people. That must be the objective and it must be the prime and overriding objective. It is through employ-

Government Orders
ment that people participate in society. I see it as a moral and ethical obligation on government to provide the opportunity for work for all its people. I believe other governments have demonstrated that it is possible to do so. If we had a government that would co-operate with provincial governments-rather than fight with them- perhaps we could pull together in this country to achieve the objective of full employment for our people.
Specifically, I would suggest the following. First, we need tax policies which focus on getting private capital investment moving again, particularly in small and local businesses.
Second, government financial priorities must focus on job creation. All government expenditures should be judged on that basis. We need to encourage public investment rather than discourage it. We must be encouraging the development of social programs which in turn provide jobs for people. We must be encouraging rather than discouraging the arts, culture and heritage because these are job creators in themselves.
Government financial policies should not focus on cutbacks, but should focus on maintaining employment in the public sector and in related sectors.
Third, the government must move to reduce interest rates even further. The Canadian public will be seeing interest rates that are lower than they have been but the public must also understand that our interest rates still remain substantially higher than they should be when related to the rate of inflation. There is significant room to further reduce interest rates in this country.
Fourth, the government must be prepared to allow the Canadian dollar to fall further. There has been a drop over the last period but it should fall significantly further. We are an export economy. We depend on tourism exports for our livelihood. This will stimulate and help our economy.
Fifth, we should encourage Canadian investment. It is critically important that we begin to regain control of our economy. Under this government, more and more of our economy has continued to be owned by outsiders. It is important that we begin to change the direction of investment so that Canadians increasingly can regain control of their own economy.
This of course applies to trade policies, which is the sixth point. Clearly the government's trade policies have failed. It is essential that we should cancel the free trade agreement, that we should not proceed with NAFTA and that we should develop a totally different set of trading relations with our partners than this government and its Liberal friends have agreed to.
Seventh, we must put a real emphasis on training and education. Training and education are at the heart of where we are as a country. We have one of the worst over-all records in terms of training and education policies of all industrial countries. We spend more and receive less. We do so because the central government, the federal government, has failed in its role of pulling together all of those involved. It is not just provincial governments but school boards and local governments, universities, colleges, the private education sector, business and labour across this country that are needed to develop a unified education and training policy in this country.
Let me give the government credit in the area of the competitiveness study or the prosperity initiative. The educational side of that study produced a number of significant ideas and it is time this government acted on those ideas.
Eighth, we need community-based economic planning. We had an economic workshop in my riding. I convened people from every sector of the community. We sat for a day and looked at ways in which the federal government can encourage job creation in Victoria. This workshop came up with a number of very good specific ideas: an ocean engineering centre, a community learning council, heritage arts and culture policies which would be of assistance, regional economic planning and a harbour that can be at the heart of job creation in Victoria. These are ideas which do not depend on substantial federal government largess, but do depend on government being ready to encourage local initiative and community ideas.
Ninth, it should reduce the deficit on a step-by-step basis rather than attempting to do it overnight when, as I showed earlier, that produces the opposite reaction.
February 2, 1993

Tenth, there should be a willingness to accept a moderate rate of inflation. It is clear that a zero rate of inflation is bad for the economy. Our economy, as has been shown since the end of the Second World War, functions most effectively with a moderate rate of inflation.


An hon. member:: What is that?


John F. Brewin: It is inflation of two, three or four per cent, in that order.


An hon. member:: How about one per cent to one and a half per cent?


John F. Brewin: My friend says one per cent to one and a half per cent, but he knows that that in fact for most people is effectively zero or minus zero inflation. We have an economic policy. It is important that this country proceeds with it. We can achieve full employment under these policies.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am of course not enthusiastic at the prospect of speaking in this debate. We have said many times that we have a tired, old government in Canada, but I must say that when it comes to economic matters even the opposition is getting tired. They are tired because the government does not seem to respond to the criticisms of its economic policy.
The hon. member for Victoria who has just spoken has put forward some policies that are quite sensible. Not all of them are sensible, but the vast majority of them are. As I listened to his list I thought perhaps he was reading from the Leader of the Opposition's speech at the University of Ottawa last week that outlined some of the policy suggestions that my friend has put forward. I know it will be followed up by him in subsequent speeches.
When he got on to free trade and tearing up the agreement and things like that, I realized that this was one of the Bob Rae crowd speaking. I note that the premier of Ontario is on a campaign against the free trade agreement that will probably ensure the agreement will likely stay on.
Government Orders
The hon. member is interested in my views on the free trade agreement and he will hear them in due course. I was not proposing to discuss free trade today, but I support our party's position which is to renegotiate the free trade agreement.
I may say this that the hon. member will be interested in knowing. We recognize that after almost five years of having had the free trade agreement in place, we assume that the damage the agreement was going to do to the Canadian economy is largely done. We assume that sooner or later we are going to see some of the much trumped-up benefits from the free trade agreement. We feel that it is going to be very difficult to come into office at this point and rip up the free trade deal.
We do think it is important for Canada to get a better deal out of it. We are anxious to take over as a government and do the negotiating because as he knows, and he must agree, this government is totally inept when it comes to negotiations. It has botched almost every negotiation it has entered. It comes up with a deal, but it is a deal at any price.
We Liberals have some principles and some bottom lines that we will not abandon. Unfortunately this government was prepared to abandon the entire country to the United States in an effort to get a free trade deal in 1988. It was prepared to give away all the powers of the federal government in order to get constitutional deals. This government has a complete lack of backbone when it comes to sensible and intelligent negotiating. Canadians have seen that repeatedly during the eight years that it has occupied the treasury benches.
This morning we were treated to a speech by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. He engaged in a creative rewriting of the economic history of Ontario in an effort to show that the New Democratic Party somehow was not responsible for the huge debt that the province of Ontario is now encumbered with thanks to Mr. Rae's government. The Minister of Supply and Services was here and heard this balderdash this morning when it was suggested, apparently quite seriously, that the reason there is a $10 billion deficit in Ontario today is because

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
the NDP inherited a $3 billion deficit when they took over from the Liberals in 1990.
Of course we know that in 1990 the recession began. Certainly economic projections both in Ontario and nationally changed as a result of the recession that began in that year. The campaign in Ontario was conducted during August. By September it was apparent that what had been projected to be a surplus in the accounts of the province of Ontario for the financial year ending in March 1991 was rapidly deteriorating and turning into a deficit.
The new government increased the deficit by fiddling the books. It changed accounting practices part way through the year to include in the 1991-92 year certain figures that would not normally have been included. It took the view that it might as well get the deficit up so it would not look quite so bad the next year. It also had a pot or a contingency fund that was allowed for in the estimates. That had not been spent when it took office in September 1990 and it promptly spent that money.
The Ontario NDP government increased the deficit by about $1.5 billion from what it otherwise would have been-in effect doubling it that one year-and claimed that that was the Liberal deficit. It was not. The NDP took over responsibility halfway through the year. It ran up the costs by fiddling the books and charging this extra money to the accounts. Then it said: "We inherited a $3 billion debt". Then the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, with a straight face, said it set to work to fix up that mess but somehow managed to increase the deficit from $3 billion to $10 billion in one year, and that was after its own budget. It introduced a budget supposedly to fix the problem and it fixed it all right. It tripled the deficit in one year.
It was an unbelievable performance by the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. The hon. member for South Shore was quick on the uptake. He figured out there was something wrong with what was being said but he went on a show and tell routine. As my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception will well recall, we referred to his speech as his swan song. It was apparent that he is getting veiy nervous about his chances in the next election. I know that the Minister of Supply and Services is getting the same feeling. There are so many people campaigning to be Liberal candidates
in Lanark-Carleton that he must be quaking in his boots by now.
The hon. member for South Shore began his remarks by blaming the Liberal government back in 1984, as this government has been wont to do, for all of the government's financial woes. What a performance it was. Imagine blaming a government that has been out of office for eight years for everything that has gone wrong. It is still doing it.


Mr. Dick:: It is the truth.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. Minister of Supply and Services says it is the truth. He knows that it is not. He had eight years to do everything right. The minister was part of that group that was elected in 1984 that had all the answers. It told Canadians throughout the campaign that it was going to solve the deficit and that it knew how to fix all of Canada's economic woes. It said that if we can just create jobs the trickle down effect will be so great that everybody will get rich. We know that is not the case. We know that during the eight years the Conservative government has been in place the relative wealth of Canadians has declined in absolute terms. It has been a tough eight years. Tory times are tough times and Canadians have experienced that. They know that. I keep getting told that everywhere I go in my constituency.
The Minister of Supply and Services laughs. He thinks that expression is-


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is 1930s jargon.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: -1930s jargon. The hon. member is right. It is 1930s jargon and it is still true today. It was true with Mr. Diefenbaker's government in 1958 to 1962. Tory times are tough times. That has been illustrated at least three times this century and the hon. Minister of Supply and Services knows it perfectly well.
The thing that was surprising, and I will grant the minister this, is that for the first four years there apparently was some kind of economic miracle in Canada and things went reasonably well. I can tell the minister, and I suspect that he secretly knows this in his heart of hearts, that it is because of the policies introduced by the previous government before it left office in 1984 that things went so well. Since then the policies that he has pursued have in fact put the economy into a recession.
The hon. member knows that his Minister of Finance stood in this House and said he was going to slow the Canadian economy down. It was the government's an-
February 2, 1993

nounced and avowed policy. It was going to slow the Canadian economy down, slam on the brakes and induce a recession in order to take the heat off the inflationary spiral it claimed we were locked in.
That is what he said. The Minister of Supply and Services must have been in cabinet. He must have been privy to the discussions that led to that incredible statement by the Minister of Finance. He put the brakes on all right and instead of taking them off once the economy started to slow down he held on.
The minister said: "We are holding the course, we are steering the course". Surely the minister remembers those statements. He said: "We are holding the course, we are doing the right thing for Canada, and if we just hold on long enough everything will work out fine". The government held on long enough and brought the whole economy to a grinding halt. The record number of bankruptcies in 1992, even higher than in 1991 which had been the highest year ever, are testament to the suffering that this minister and this government has inflicted on Canadians for at least the last four years, and I would suggest really the past eight.
The difficulty we are facing today is compounded by the government's continued insistence on eliminating inflation and pressing for a zero rate of inflation. By doing so it is driving Canadians out of work. It is keeping them from getting jobs. While the goal may be an extremely laudable one in pure economic theory the pain that the minister and the government has inflicted on the Canadian economy goes far beyond what is reasonable or necessary.
A Liberal government would not have engaged in such dogged pursuit of such an illusory goal as zero inflation. This government has badly served Canadians by its policy. It is unfair, it should not have happened. I suggest that in the proper course what Canadians need and deserve is an opportunity to express their views about this policy and the other policies the government has pursued.
We have a mechanism for doing so. That mechanism is an election. I think Your Honour knows that an election is what should happen. It should be called at once. The government has gone beyond the time-


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that there is an opportunity to wind up
debate on the report stage of this bill if the House would simply extend for a short time longer.
I understand that there is a disposition in the House to give myself and the member from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre the opportunity of making our remarks. We would then be able to wrap up report stage debate prior to coming back after Question Period. Do we have that agreement?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to extend debate now?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.
It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly condemn the decision of the minister of trade to close the Whitehorse and Yellowknife offices of Industry, Science and Technology Canada.
This decision could not come at a worse time. Northern economies are struggling to diversify, to seek new markets for local products, and to train local business people and workers so they have the skills to take them into the 21st century.
It is absolutely the opposite of what the government says it wants to do. Ironically these are the very same goals that the government's own prosperity agenda consultation sets out for northerners and for all Canadians. In fact it was the ISTC staff that organized the consultation in Yukon.

February 2, 1993
The employees of ISTC understand the unique problems faced by northern businesses. That understanding cannot be replaced by a 1-800 number from Vancouver. In the name of restraint the trade minister is silencing a strong voice for trade and business in the north. Northerners want to know: In whose interest does this government serve?


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Laval East):: Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak about recent happenings in southern Florida. As many are aware, for the second time in two years a local tabloid thought it would be humorous to attack Quebecers in a racist manner.
Because of our government's reluctance I flew down at my own expense to support the efforts of our community and their local voice, the newspaper le Soldi de la Floride.
To those who supported me and sent me off with such strong words of encouragement, my thanks. I am happy to report, for the record, that because of the unity shown by the government of south Florida and religious, ethnic and civic leaders we emerged victorious.
When people stand together against injustice every one wins.

Unfortunately, by its merciless mocking of Quebecers, this publication did considerable harm to our community.
After apologies and promises that it would never happen again, as far as we are concerned, the incident is closed, and what is important now is for us to live together as harmoniously as possible.


INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WEEK
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, International Development Week gives all Canadians an opportunity to reflect upon the importance of our efforts to promote global development and peace.
To this end Canada must provide its aid more directly to the world's poorest in the world's poorest nations.
World population growth must be addressed to priority spending on women's programs including health and education. Environmental degradation is directly linked to human poverty and threatens the globe's survival, our survival.
Aid must be directly linked to decreases in military spending and human rights protection in recipient countries. The international assistance efforts of nongovernmental organizations on behalf of civil societies must be encouraged and supported.
Government policies must be people centred with a focus on direct poverty alleviation. Poverty demands justice here and abroad. Focusing away from direct poverty alleviation to a me first economic trade focus for aid will contribute to a security disaster in this country and rejection of the government that supports such policies.


TIOXIDE CANADA
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard that Tioxide Canada has decided to cancel its plans for a new plant in Becancour and go to the United States.
For years, the company and its president, Mr. Jean-Marc Turcotte, have dumped massive amounts of pollutants into the St. Lawrence River.
For years, they have made commitments to governments and residents, without ever meeting those commitments-just like the Liberals, as a matter of fact. After spending all that time polluting the river, they have now decided to go to the United States.
They just violated the principle of sustainable development set out in the green plan. Destroy the environment and leave, letting hundreds of jobs fall by the wayside.
The damage this company has done to the St. Lawrence River adds up to billions and billions of dollars, paid by this country's taxpayers. The company's sole response was to get out and ignore its responsibilities.
This is entirely unacceptable, and I ask the people- [English]


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.
February 2, 1993


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's veterans and the employees who serve them at the Department of Veterans Affairs are very concerned. It is time this government made a clear and definitive statement about the future of the department and its plans for it.
The recent cabinet shuffle which resulted in the combining of the responsibilities of veterans affairs and national defence only heightened the concern so many people feel. At the present time there is not even a permanent deputy minister of veterans affairs. Employees fear that their department has been quietly downgraded.
Veterans fear that without a full-time minister to look after their concerns they will be forced to take a back seat and that the programs which have been up to this time the envy of the world will be allowed to deteriorate as the government pursues its relentless cutting of social programs.
I call upon the government to make a clear and definitive statement about the future of this department so that employees can get on with their job and veterans can rest easy knowing that there is genuine concern for their welfare.


FEED FREIGHT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the December economic statement the Feed Freight Assistance Program will be reduced by 10 per cent for two years. The principle behind this program is to equalize the cost of feed freight to all farmers. However the current plan to implement the reduction by 10 per cent for each farmer means that farmers in Atlantic Canada will have their costs increased as much as $6 per tonne while others have insignificant increases.
The Atlantic Farmers Council has proposed a more equitable formula which increases the cost of feed to all farmers by approximately $1.30 per tonne instead of the inconsistent formula. This approach maintains the original principle of equalized costs of feed for all farmers. I call on the Minister of Agriculture to adopt this formula or one very similar to it.


S. O. 31 TRADE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, if Conservatives in transnational corporations have their way Canadians would be stuck with another disastrous trade agreement in 11 months.
The Conservatives are attempting to tie the hands of future generations of Canadians by restricting the right of Canadians to make decisions that affect their lives. Social programs, employment and jobs, water exports, energy sales, provincial government powers and economic programs have all been sacrificed in the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and now the North American free trade agreement.
The Liberals refuse to stand up to defend either Canada's heritage or its future. Canadians can stop this new trade deal with Mexico and the United States because we must have a federal election before January 1, 1994.
Canadians know that only one political party, the New Democratic Party, will defend their rights to make their own decisions, to decide about jobs in their communities, to decide how their children will be able to find work, and to decide on the future of their social programs. New Democrats say no to NAFTA and we will offer our alternatives to Canadians.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, for several months, Mr. Robert Maltais of Amos has been a victim of serious injustice as a result of an administrative error when the unemployment insurance computer processed his file.
Mr. Maltais met all the requirements to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and was attending a training program recommended by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
The commission's mistake resulted in an overpayment of more than $6,000 and was extremely prejudicial to Mr. Maltais. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission has appealed the decision of the board of referees to the umpire.

February 2, 1993
Today Mr. Maltais gave a moving description of his case on the radio program Contact Jean Lapierre. We all hope this matter will be cleared up soon as possible.


METROPOLITAN TORONTO
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, how many more jobs must be lost in metro Ibronto before the federal government will finally do something? The latest unemployment figures indicate that 11.8 per cent living in the greater Toronto region are looking for work. That is even higher than the national rate.
The unemployed in my riding are telling me that opportunities for job retraining are virtually nil, yet the only game plan of this government is to punish the unemployed by reducing and restricting UI benefits. Everybody knows the best way to reduce UI expenditures is to create more jobs. Food banks are growing. We will never eliminate food banks in Canada until we give people good jobs instead of bad cutbacks.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has recommended good job creation programs but the Prime Minister ignores constructive suggestions. Today in metro Toronto 250,000 unemployed people are asking when they will have a chance to elect a new government.
Let us get Canada working again. Let us have a federal election.


ANTI-SEMITISM
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks, there have been a number of shocking incidents aimed at a specific group of Canadian citizens. Recently synagogues were attacked. A few days ago it was a school bus.
We all know how valued some symbols are and what they represent in a society. When symbols are violated it means a violation of what is most profound and most important to that society. In this case the targets were religion, education and small children. Children are defenceless, and most are innocence itself.
The Jewish population in the riding of Outremont and elsewhere is an integral part of Canada and Quebec. They are citizens with full rights and privileges. We cannot let such occurrences go on. It is an attack on the integrity of a society and also a form of blackmail. By protecting them, we protect ourselves.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, what more needs to be said about Jacques Parizeau's recent statements except that they do not reflect reality?
The PQ leader's fictional, exclusionary view of Quebec simply ignores the truth for we are a rich, diverse society, respectful of those who are different from ourselves. We are the Canadian people.
With so many challenges facing us, with our economy in bad shape and with so many young people looking for jobs or, worse, thinking of leaving Quebec, how can Mr. Parizeau advance his society by setting out divisions among Quebecers? Flis view that independence could be achieved without the non-francophone vote sends a disturbing message that must be turned back, for if we have learned anything from history it is that we cannot remain silent in the face of such xenophobia.
Instead of Mr. Parizeau's view of a house divided, we need to work diligently toward a more embracing, integrating society where difference and diversity are appreciated.
There is no place in our kind of Canada for his approach. We are equal citizens regardless of race, religion or gender, whether we speak English or French, whether we were bom here or have chosen to live here in Quebec, in Canada.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in an interview with La Presse the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer claimed that the dinosaurs from the west did not take part in last night's vote on New Brunswick's request for a constitutional change.
February 2, 1993

Although the hon. member either could not or would not identify a single dinosaur, let me assure him that all government members from the west who were in town were present and voted in favour of the amendment.
This is in sharp contrast to the pink elephants of the Quebec bloc that helped block the passage of this legislation in December because it showed that Canadians from coast to coast want to build a stronger and more tolerant country, a country which the hon. member apparently wishes to see torn apart by rhetoric.


ARMENIA
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks I have received hundreds of letters from constituents deeply concerned about the situation in Armenia.
In December, President Ter Petrossian declared the republic of Armenia to be in a state of national disaster. I have written to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Prime Minister urging them that Canada contribute to easing the suffering in this comer of the world.

The lives of four million Armenians are threatened by famine and epidemics. Energy shortages have paralysed daily life. Schools and factories are closed and more than
500,000	refugees are facing a harsh winter, without shelter.
The situation in Armenia is disastrous. Canada must do everything it can to end the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and relieve the suffering of the Armenian people. We have a moral duty to do so, Mr. Speaker.


PROPERTY TAXES
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, all elected representatives of the Montreal urban community have asked the Minister of Finance to cancel his decision to freeze grants-in-lieu-of-taxes paid to municipalities.
Michel Hamelin, chairman of the Montreal Urban Community, believes this decision will mean a major loss of revenue for 1993, especially since it was announced after the municipalities had adopted their budgets. The impact of this measure will be felt more and more in the years to come and will seriously affect the MUC's financial situation.
Considering that the cost of municipal services was increasing steadily, the MUC chairman pointed out that the federal government was subject to property tax, the main source of municipal revenues.
That is the crux of the problem. By not paying its taxes, the federal government is not acting like a responsible citizen. It also sets a bad example for the rest of the country. This attitude puts municipalities at risk by increasing their tax burden. It is just another example of the incompetence and irresponsibility of this government.


ELK ISLAND NATIONAL PARK
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's most important natural resources is our national parks.
Alberta's national parks have played a key role in economic development by attracting tourists from all over the world. Elk Island is one such park that invites those who appreciate species like bison, elk and beaver.
Although the National Parks Act clearly includes in its statement of purpose that parks are for the people of Canada for their benefit and enjoyment, a recent proposal has revealed intentions to limit human access and experiences within Elk Island. By closing a key access road from the Trans-Canada Yellowhead Highway 16, 75 per cent of the traffic that visits the park via this highway will be affected.
The Government of Canada must ensure a reasonable balance between isolating national environmental treasures and offering opportunities for a variety of human experiences within our parks.

February 2, 1993
Oral Questions
Let us work together to improve roads and responsible recreational opportunities in our national parks. Let us all work together for an improved environment and a better Canada.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice the concerns of citizens of the city of Winnipeg regarding the safety of the city's water supply.
The NDP government of Ontario has given leave to a mining company to start a project on the shores of Shoal Lake, which is the source of drinking water for the city. This has been done without any public environmental review of the K.P.M. project.
I am not about to prejudge the results of an environmental review but I want to acknowledge to the House the hypocritical environment policies of the NDP government of Ontario.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that the triple crown was just around the corner. This morning we received some statistics and we understand what he meant. For the third year in a row we have seen a record number of bankruptcies in Canada. That is the real triple crown nobody should be bragging about.
How can the Minister of Finance say that his economic policies are working when, for the third year in a row, we have seen an increase in the number of bankruptcies in Canada?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is true there have been a large number of bankruptcies in Canada this year. Some of them are due to the slow-down of the economy and some are due to the adjustment, the restructuring and rationalization that is taking place in the Canadian economy.
I remind the hon. member that the figures for December show that bankruptcies fell to the lowest level in four months, the lowest level since August. Obviously there is a turn around and some of the effects of the policies of the Government of Canada, the adjustment that is taking place, the restructuring that is taking place are starting to settle in.
The fundamentals are in place. It is noted that today the interest rates fell further. That is encouraging news. As I indicated, there has been new job creation in seven of the last eight months. We have had growth in the last six consecutive quarters. Therefore there are some positive indicators.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is a bit amusing because on February 4, 1992 the minister said there was a decline in December of the previous year. Using the same argument, he concluded that it would be better in 1992.
He is serving us the same argument that did not work last year. There was an increase last year over the previous year. Another promise the government cannot keep is a reduction in the number of bankruptcies in Canada.

I would like to put a question to the Minister of Finance because this morning he asked Canadians to give him suggestions for a budget that should normally be presented in the month of February and has now been postponed indefinitely, for all we know.
I would like to tell the Minister of Finance that we suggested to him over a year ago that an infrastructure program be created in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments. This would result in immediate job creation and produce infrastructures that would be useful to all Canadians in the years to come.
Why does the Minister of Finance refuse to accept our suggestion? Is it because it comes from the opposition?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that suggestion made from time to time by the hon. member has been discarded because quite frankly, he has not been able to outline to the Canadian people and to the House where the money would come from.
February 2, 1993

He said billions of dollars would be spent by the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government. All of that money would have to be borrowed or raised in the form of taxation. He has not fulfilled his undertaking to explain just how that would be financed.
Speaking of suggestions, I am rather enamoured with the suggestion the hon. member made yesterday. As a substitute for the GST, he is talking about a hidden, secretive and sneaky tax which would tax food and would be buried so that Canadians would not know how he was going to tax the Canadian people. What a sham. We are not going to buy that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have always said that when there is a program that the municipalities are asking for, they have their financial problems, but they believe that to have an economy that works we need growth. There are 1.7 million people unemployed and the country wants growth. When will the minister stop fighting inflation? The economic policies of his government are completely bankrupt. That is why we have statistics on that today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the hon. member evades the veiy salient issue which has been raised. I asked the hon. Leader of the Opposition to come-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Call an election, chicken.


Ms. Copps:: That is what you said in 1991.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Are they ever sensitive over there. Are they ever sensitive about this issue. I asked very simply that the hon. Leader of the Opposition come clean. Is he proposing a hidden form of secretive, sneaky tax to replace the GST? Is he proposing a tax that would tax food? Yes or no?


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
Twelve months ago the minister when faced with record bankruptcies had a choice: change his economic policies or do nothing. He chose the latter. The result is
77,000	additional economic casualties of this government's fiscal policies.
Was it just plain incompetence or typical Tory arrogance that allowed the Minister of Finance to sit and do
Oral Questions
nothing while 77,000 Canadians were pushed beyond the brink into bankruptcy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in my December statement outlining an economic plan there are clearly a number of very positive initiatives that will bolster growth, that will create jobs, that will generate economic activity particularly in the small business sector.
There are a number of initiatives that will beef up the small business sector and encourage the growth of jobs and strengthen and enhance that very important job creation sector.
It is interesting to note that the Liberals opposite oppose any solid initiative. What they want to do is tax and spend and borrow. That is not our policy.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the business climate in Canada for a minute. In the minister's own province of Alberta business bankruptcies are up by 12 per cent. In the province of Ontario they are up by 16 per cent. In the province of Nova Scotia they are up by 25 per cent. That is this government's record of inaction in dealing with the business community in Canada.
How can the Minister of Finance feel anything but shame with the fact that under his direction and stewardship thousands of Canadians, 77,000 Canadians, have been driven belly up into bankruptcy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated there have been a number of business casualties. I have not ignored that fact. I also indicated, and it is fair to acknowledge, that bankruptcies in the month of December fell to their lowest level in four months.
The hon. member asks me what we are doing. Well, if he would just listen for a few minutes, last December we announced initiatives that froze UI premiums to provide a premium holiday for new employees. There is the 10 per cent investment tax credit for new purchases of machinery so that businesses can become more competitive and more productive. We have improved access to capital, announced improvements to R and D, improvements in the treatment of capital cost allowances and high-tech equipment, renewed funding for the IRAP, announced an extension of the home buyers plan and provided assistance for the oil and gas sector and assistance for the mining sector.

February 2, 1993
Oral Questions
Those are all positive initiatives that are now starting to have a pay-off for Canadians and for the economic activity and particularly for the jobless.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
The minister has said that his policies are a great success. Today we have just learned that the number of bankruptcies last year broke all Canadian records. This government's policies are a total failure.
Yesterday the Prime Minister asked for alternatives and suggestions. I have a suggestion for the Minister of Finance: eliminate the tax shelters, created by the Liberal government, for rich people family trusts. This is a good suggestion.
It was unjust then, and it still is. Why does the government not close this loophole and use the money to create jobs and save small businesses?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing. We are closing the loopholes so that these trust beneficiaries will not evade capital gains tax.
This government's record in terms of closing the so-called Liberal loopholes is very dramatic in fashion. I would be glad to document it and send the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party an itemized list of every initiative we took which closes the loopholes left by the previous administration.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this government has closed more factories than it has closed tax loopholes and has lost more jobs than it has created.
There are many things the Minister of Finance could do. Ele could close the private family trusts for the wealthy. He could close that tax loophole as well as the business entertainment expenses deduction, the capital gains exemptions for the wealthy and the interest deductibility for offshore companies.
I say to the Minister of Finance that if he wants to get revenue to support the creation of jobs and the future of Canadians, why does he not close these loopholes? Why does he not do it now?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party is suggesting is that she would like to make it more difficult for the small business sector to do business in this country. We do not subscribe to that.
With respect to trusts, I ask her to read the legislation again. She will find that the loophole is being closed.
I could name 20 different items that we have addressed. We ended the abuse of the scientific research tax credit. We eliminated tax shelters based on investments in yachts, recreation vehicles and similar projects. We halted income splitting. We stopped the so-called carve-out transaction.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, it is always amazing that the great successes that are listed just create more devastation for Canadians. So I will make another suggestion to the Minister of Finance.
In a positive vein and with good intent I want to say to the minister that independent analysts have said the elimination of the GST could create over 300,000 jobs in Canada. Unlike my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, I am prepared to talk about alternatives before the election, not after. Clearly the elimination of the GST would create jobs in Canada. Why will the minister not look at this option?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party is really stretching her credibility. What would she substitute it with? It generates some $15 billion to $16 billion.
We know what the Liberals want. They want a hidden, secretive and sneaky tax. What does the NDP want? She will have to come clean and tell us.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In the November 1992 report to the House of Commons, the Auditor General reported that the defence program management system was, to use his term, expensive and ineffective.
February 2, 1993

Considering the magnitude of major projects involved, about $3 billion a year, this is a very serious indictment.
I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence what action she has planned either to refute this serious claim or to take immediate corrective actions.


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my briefings at the Department of National Defence, I have been very interested in the question of fiscal management throughout the department.
It is important to assure Canadians, simply because of the magnitude of the budget of the Department of National Defence, it is a department that is managed to the highest standards possible. I would be very pleased to discuss with the hon. member any approaches which he may have.
I am looking carefully at the Auditor General's report and I hope to be able to report further on this subject to the House of Commons as initiatives develop.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the minister. While it is not just my concern, it is the concern of the Auditor General and I would be happy to talk with her at any time at all.
I would like to get more specific now. One of the specific concerns of the Auditor General was that most of the problems observed with the major capital programs were generated in the project life cycle, early in the project initiation or in the very early stages of the project. He went on to say that none of the projects examined were directly related to defence policy and that most of the equipment failed to meet the operational requirements. That is what the Auditor General said.
Given the seriousness of this claim and the fact that the program we are looking at now is going to be one of the largest in Canada and probably one of the largest ever in DND, second or third anyway, could the minister tell this House how this charge of the Auditor General applies to the Sea King replacement program or more specifically to the $4.5 billion EH-101 helicopter program.
Oral Questions


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the program for replacing the Sea King helicopters was discussed at some length in a standing committee of the House of Commons.
I do not have time in Question Period to go into enormous detail as to how the specifications were developed and the contracts drawn up. I would be veiy happy to offer to the hon. member and any member of his caucus or any member of the House of Commons, a thorough briefing on how the specifications were developed and the decision made to enter into the contract with the EH-101.1 would be very pleased to provide that information to any member of the House of Commons.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As do many Canadians, he knows of the tragic situation at Davis Inlet, Labrador.
I want to ask the minister today what is his response to the cry for help that has come from Davis Inlet. What does he intend to do immediately, both for the short term and the long term, to respond to that community and particularly to the children whose lives are threatened?


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, members of this House, indeed all Canadians are saddened and deeply troubled by the spectre of young children resorting to gasoline sniffing and substance abuse and the unacceptable conditions in Davis Inlet in which they and their parents are living.
I have discussed this matter extensively with my colleagues, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from Newfoundland and Labrador. Yesterday I called the acting premier, Mr. Winston Baker, in Mr. Wells' absence about what the two governments collectively might do to deal with the immediate problem of the human condition in Davis Inlet.

Oral Questions
It is important for members of the House to recognize that the community, which was established some 25 years ago, is totally inadequate for the present population. It is some four times larger now than the infrastructure which was designed when the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador moved those people there a quarter of a century ago.
We have contemplated the relocation of the community to another location on the mainland. A consultant's report received on December 18 recommends that the government seriously consider that option. That is a long-term solution.
If we bear in mind that the previous relocation 25 years ago has led to the present circumstances, relocation in itself is not the solution to the problem.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare is in Halifax today meeting officials and will in all likelihood meet Innu representatives tomorrow while he is there. Officials of both governments-


Some hon. members:: Time.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I thought the House wanted an extensive report on this very serious question.
I will conclude by saying this. Representatives of both governments have invited the Innu to sit down later this week and among options decide what to do about the immediate problem of substance abuse and inadequate conditions in that community.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the immediate problem is substance abuse.
I would like to ask the minister a very specific question, a question I think the people of Davis Inlet would ask if they were here today. Can they have their own treatment centre and their own treatment program near Davis Inlet, culturally based and in their own language? This is what the people want. I ask the minister today if he is in a position to respond to that serious and important request from the people?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Minister of National Health and Welfare this morning. I am assured he will be making a statement on this matter before this time tomorrow.
I should also point out that these children are wards of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador which has clear legal jurisdiction for health care and welfare. Any decision on whether they are to be removed from the present community either to a near location or a centre
further away will be taken in consultation with the Innu leadership and with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The social disintegration of the Innu community at Davis Inlet dates to its forced relocation to a remote island in 1967 by the Government of Newfoundland, assisted by a local priest. Those people were cut off from their traditional way of life and subsistence, left without promised housing or running water and abandoned by the federal government which knew it had the constitutional responsibility for them.
Why has the federal government refused to acknowledge its constitutional responsibility for aboriginal people in Newfoundland when its own legal opinions from the Department of Justice have confirmed this responsibility since 1950?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, later today we will be releasing a full statement and account of the background to this tragic situation.
I remind the hon. member that he should read the history because if he did he would discover that the community of old Davis Inlet which existed prior to 1950 was but three miles from the present community of new Davis Inlet. There was another relocation north in the late 1940s which failed. It is a fact that on the island where both the old Davis Inlet and the modem community are located, there is an inadequate supply of wildlife and natural resources to support the people who live there.
From the time of Confederation, Newfoundland has accepted legal and jurisdictional responsibility for the Innu people who are not registered and not status Indian people. Therefore they are not entitled to the benefits of my department directly and have chosen to remain as not registered, non-status Indian people under the care of the province of Newfoundland.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, on February 19 last year I asked the minister to relocate the Davis Inlet Innu. Since my question the federal and provincial governments and the Innu themselves have all studied relocation and found that relocation to the mainland is the best and cheapest option for this community.
February 2, 1993

When will the government finally accept its legal and moral responsibility, commit the necessary funds and begin the process of moving the Davis Inlet people to a new community on the Labrador mainland?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I might repeat what I said to the hon. member for Labrador a moment ago. We would not want to repeat the mistake that has already been made. That is why an extensive consultant's study was undertaken at my request. It found that a relocation could be desirable but might not solve the human and social problems that exist in that community.
Therefore, in consultation with the Inuit leadership and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador which has legal responsibility for the care and well-being of these people, we will find an appropriate solution.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
On Friday the Prime Minister is visiting President Clinton in Washington. Presumably the current steel dispute will be discussed between them. Could the minister tell the House whether the Prime Minister will take the view, as the minister said yesterday the problem lies with the Industry in Canada, that it is a management and labour problem".
Will the Prime Minister protect and defend Canadian interests by seeking a continent-wide steel pact or, more fundamentally, seek negotiation of what is a subsidy?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, what I was doing yesterday was correcting a distortion that the hon. member for Hamilton East had put on the record. She was blaming the total problems of the steel industry on the fact that it got hit with the anti-dumping duties last week.
The point I was making is that there is a significant reduction in the competitive advantage of the steel
Oral Questions
industry amounting to $100 a tonne or 20 per cent of the value of the product. That is the problem.
On the question that my hon. friend puts, yes, I propose as I have already done, to raise the question of a Canada-U.S. steel pact with the Americans. The Prime Minister has already done that with the previous president and I presume he will be doing the same thing this week.
Our approach is to establish a blue ribbon panel to develop the framework for such an agreement and then see whether we can negotiate an agreement at a later stage.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that a U.S.-Canada steel pact, like the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement or the North American free trade agreement, would be essentially flawed unless there is an agreement on what is a subsidy, unless there is an anti-dumping code. That is the void in the free trade agreement. That is the black hole in the North American free trade agreement.
Will the minister tell the House not about a blue ribbon commission but when this government is going to address that fundamental question with the United States and now with Mexico of what is a subsidy and how we can achieve an anti-dumping code. Then the problems in the steel industry will be finally resolved.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is precisely what is being addressed in the Uruguay round of negotiations in Geneva.
If my hon. friend will review what has been decided to date on the definition of a subsidy and how the anti-subsidy disputes can be settled, he will see that there has been significant progress.
On the question of anti-dumping, my hon. friend is quite right. The United States has been absolutely adamant. Even in the Uruguay round, with a large bulk of countries trying to encourage the United States to change its anti-dumping regime, there has been no support for that within the U.S. industry or the U.S. Congress. We continue to press the Americans and I appreciate the support of the hon. member in that direction.

February 2, 1993
Oral Questions
It is difficult to move the United States even in the multilateral negotiations with so many other countries on our side.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The minister knows that farm income is expected to drop about a billion dollars this year. That is a drop of about 21 per cent. Today we learned that bankruptcies in agriculture and related service industries reached 421 last year.
The situation for thousands of producers is desperate and that explains partly why over 13,000 farmers attended a rally in Saskatoon last week.
What does the minister plan to do to help farmers stay on the land and maintain rural life?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is not all bad news. The hon. member will know that the Canadian Wheat Board just raised the additional payment for barley and he will know that we reached an agreement with Saskatchewan about two weeks ago that will see additional money flow into Saskatchewan. In total he will see some $260 million additional flow into farm safety net programs this year.
He will know that even though prices are not expected to improve very much, there are good prospects for grain sales and over all on a net basis government programs, federal and provincial, will put over $2 billion into farmers' hands this calendar year.
What we intend to do is work very hard at all levels of government, especially as the Prime Minister has done in the past, to see what we can do about improving international grain prices.
To say again, while there are and will continue to be concerns until we reach some agreements on international trade, the news is not necessarily all bad as far as income is concerned for farmers for the coming year.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on that aid package that was negotiated for Saskatchewan. There is only about 20 million new dollars of federal money in that aid package.
While farmers are grateful for anything they get, it should also be noted at the same time that under the WGTA freight assistance has been cut by this government this year to the tune of $70 million. It is give with one hand and take away with the other. That kind of hypocrisy underlines the agricultural policy of this government.
Again I ask the Minister of Agriculture what his government intends to do to keep farmers on the land and maintain rural life.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member cannot have it both ways. We have done considerable to control over-all government expenditures that sees a reduction in interest rates to farmers. He should know that every percentage point reduction in interest rates for farmers literally means hundreds of millions of dollars of saved expenses.
He will also know that in some areas farm input costs have not gone up and in some cases they have gone down. There are five chemicals that will be less in price this spring than they were last year.
Again, it is not an easy situation to address. We are putting out a considerable amount of support. He will know that in the economic statement of last December one of the three areas that the Minister of Finance did not touch was an over-all reduction in safety net programs. They stayed the way they were.
You can take from that that the government is veiy committed to doing what it can to support farmers through a very difficult time.


STEEL INDUSTRY
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Since the free trade agreement, 12,000 people have been laid off in the steel industry. Recent trade actions will surely increase that number. A sectoral steel agreement which we support and proposed has been rejected and rebuffed by the United States.
Now the minister is suggesting a blue ribbon committee but no concrete proposal has been put forward. The government initiatives are obvious failures.
February 2, 1993

If the minister has such faith in the dispute panel mechanism, why is he creating a blue ribbon committee to study a problem that he already knows?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the dispute settlement panel is there to deal with the issue at hand, the anti-dumping findings of last week. Surely my hon. friend would say that is an improvement in the free trade agreement over what was the case before.
My hon. friend says he wants to see a U.S.-Canada steel agreement. I agree with him. I would like to see that too. So would the industry. We are all in agreement here. But we have to find agreement with the other partners, the United States industry and the United States government.
As a basis for developing that agreement we have proposed a group of people, a blue ribbon panel of experts, to study the proposal and get through that study an element of support in the United States so we can achieve the objective that he and I would like to see achieved.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, while the dispute panel is waiting to settle the dispute and the minister is creating his blue ribbon panel, the steel industry will be gone.
My supplemental is for the minister of energy. It is with regard to Canadian jobs in steel and generally in the Hibernia project since Canada has become a major investor and in fact a shareholder in Hibernia.
In 1992 in a letter addressed to me his predecessor said: "I have directed that a systematic review be conducted to ensure that Canadian companies and workers have the fullest opportunity to participate in the management, design, construction and operation of the project". Last year Algoma Steel lost a contract to Belgium.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member could put his question, please.


Steve Butland: Will the minister table the review that his predecessor talked about and act immediately to fulfil the promise to maximize Canadian content and Canadian jobs in Hibernia?
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is fully aware, I am sure, of the action that was taken by the
Oral Questions
Hibernia Management and Development Corporation in addressing some concerns that were identified in specifications regarding steel, Canadian specifications versus European.
As a result of the investigation by my predecessor and the Hibernia Management and Development Corporation, virtually all rebar that will be used in the construction of the Hibernia gravity based structure will be Canadian rebar purchased in Canada.
As the hon. member is fully aware, there is a target of 55 per cent to 60 per cent Canadian content, Canadian supplies, and Canadian work in the $3 billion of contracts that will be let by the Hibernia Management and Development Corporation in Canada.
Where Canadian companies have the expertise, the ability and deliverability, which is very important, they will be able to bid competitively for contracts in Hibernia. That is what has taken place in the past. That is what will take place in the future.


COMMUNICATION-QUEBEC
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Since 1986, Quebecers have been able to obtain answers for their questions about federal programs and services by contacting Communication-Quebec. Today, the Canada Communication Group wants to abolish this service without consulting the Quebec MPs.
Can the minister tell us today whether he is the one who asked the Canada Communication Group not to renew this agreement and to abolish this service? The members from Quebec, especially the Conservatives, ask you to put this lousy decision on hold.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that I never asked my department to abolish this model agreement.

As a matter of fact, my department has agreements with all the provinces and territories and all of these are being examined. I have asked them to put on hold all the changes they might like to make until we can see which is the best way to go to make sure we can give a better service to Canadians at the cheapest cost to the Canadian taxpayer.

February 2, 1993
Oral Questions COAST GUARD


Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, for many years the west coast has been well served by three Coast Guard hovercraft, but like our Labrador helicopters these are now near the end of their life expectancy and are frequently not available due to mechanical breakdowns.
During the recent cold snap, which of course is rare on the coast, only one hovercraft was available and the authorities were afraid to let it out because it might be damaged. Does the government plan to replace these aging craft and, if so, when?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague that the search and rescue capabilities on the west coast and anywhere else in Canada are not being undermined at present. We are in fact going through an analysis of the requirements for vehicles for search and rescue. We are examining the suitability of the hovercraft. We know it is well thought of in most areas of this country. We are conducting a review at the present time to make sure that we have the best equipment possible at a cost that is bearable by the Canadian taxpayers to continue ensuring proper search and rescue activities in all parts of the country.


JUSTICE
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. The Canadian justice system is failing to protect women from former boyfriends and husbands who follow, harass and threaten them.
In three recent murder cases in Manitoba and in others across the country, the murderers were actually in possession of restraining orders telling them to stay away from the victims. In at least two of these cases the system failed to take away firearms which were in the possession of the murderers. These firearms were actually used in the killings.
When is the minister going to do something? Why will he not bring forward changes to the Criminal Code to protect these women from this harm?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice, Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague raises a rather important point. Indeed, the Criminal Code has provisions in sections 177, 264, 372 and 423 that allow police officers and the courts to intervene.
I realize that the administration of justice is left to the provincial governments. It is therefore important for us to make sure that we know the reasons behind this system and the sections of the Criminal Code that may apply in some cases like the one he just mentioned. Unfortunately, such incidents happen.
I said yesterday, and I repeat today, that our government intends to act quickly on that. We are now reviewing those sections of the Criminal Code and if necessary, we will act quickly to bring legislation on it to the House.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the police say that they cannot do anything until the victim is harmed. These who are being stalked are living in terror.
Just assuming that the provisions were in the Criminal Code now, which certainly not everyone agrees with, how is the Minister of Justice going to force all the attorneys general in Canada to do something.
Why does the Minister of Justice not just amend the law so there is no question, and the lives of more women in this country are not risked? Will he bring forward these amendments immediately, certainly before a prorogation of this House?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, I already said that I was as concerned as he is about these unfortunate events. I trust that with the co-operation of the hon. member and the other parties in this House, we will be able to present amendments, if necessary, so that people can feel safe. I quite agree with my colleague but we must also ensure that individual rights are respected.
February 2, 1993

I assured my colleague and I reassure him that we will react. I have asked my officials to examine all these provisions of the Criminal Code to see where improvements could be made.


FISHERIES
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of fisheries. His announcement in December that fishermen who did not use their groundfish licences for the last two years will have these licences taken away has shocked and angered inshore fishermen across Atlantic Canada, so much so that they feel compelled to take his department to court in order to get this astonishing decision reversed.
Will the minister now admit that this decision in December was an unfortunate mistake and will he assure bona fide inshore fishermen today that they will not lose their licences as a result of this absurd policy?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of the provincial governments and those who have some knowledge of this matter agree that there is a great deal of over-harvesting capacity and over-processing capacity in the Atlantic fishery. That is surely obvious to anyone.
When the Atlantic groundfish management panel was announced and accepted with great approbation by all those who were present, one of its provisions was for groundfish licences not used in the last two years, licences where not one pound of fish had been reported as being caught by the holder of the licence, that we would not reissue licences of that nature this year because we have to attempt to get under control the chaotic licensing situation in the Atlantic Canada fishery.
As always, matters are far more complicated than they appear on the surface and that is the case in this particular situation.


Some hon. members:: Time.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: If you don't want to hear what I have to say, don't ask me a question.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, nobody is arguing that there is an excess capacity in harvesting in the fishery.
The minister knows that the reason why these licences were inactive was because there were no fish to catch the last two years. These fishermen were merely applying the government's own bona fide licensing policy the way it was intended.
To the fishermen, this policy constitutes no less than a breach of trust. This insane decision will actually increase-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member, given the time, would put his question.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Only a full retreat is acceptable. Will the minister reverse his decision to take away these groundfish licences today?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is cerebrally challenged if he thinks I am going to go into a full retreat. I have never gone into a full retreat in my life and I do not intend to now.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the yahoos on the other side will let me say-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but we are going to move on.


AGRICULTURE
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
It concerns the Feed Freight Assistance Program which was originally designed to equalize the cost of feed to all farmers in Canada.
The current plan to implement the 10 per cent decrease will distort that concept of equalized feed cost to farmers. Some fanners will lose $6 a tonne and some will lose nothing.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
Will the Minister of Agriculture adopt the alternative proposal which is a fair proposal and will cause each farmer in Canada to drop the same amount of money from the equalization program?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised with me by the New Brunswick Federation of Agriculture. We said then and say now that we are prepared to look at that type of proposal with the idea of seeing that the reductions in expenditures are carried out in a way that treats everybody as even-handedly and as fairly as we can.
I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. We will certainly be prepared to consider it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton East on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the Question Period the Minister for International Trade suggested that I had distorted the facts yesterday in Question Period when I said that 10,000 people-


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, the question of privilege should have been raised immediately after the remarks were made, if it was said yesterday. Second, it is very difficult for me to see how it is a question of privilege even today.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, he said it a few moments ago. I am raising it at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, 10,000 people in my riding who have lost their jobs in the last three years do not appreciate the misinformation spread by the minister on this subject. The members on the opposite side may think it is a big joke but to those 10,000 people it is not a joke.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is complaining about the word "distortion" in debate. I certainly cannot find, under the circumstances, that it is a question of privilege.
The hon. member may have a complaint but there are other places to take it.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter into this debate today.
I want to refer to some areas that are not always discussed in this House. That is mainly the areas concerning agriculture and in a broader sense, rural Canada.
We spend approximately a billion dollars on agriculture every year. In the last eight or nine years, something like $16 billion has been given in direct payments to agriculture. Although huge sums have been paid out, the fact is that in Saskatchewan alone some 1,500 farmers are leaving the land every year and similar numbers are quitting in other provinces.
The question that has to be answered is this. In what direction are we heading with respect to agriculture in this country? The government has not given any clear direction other than it is willing to spend money on agriculture, usually at times when it is convenient for the government to help members get re-elected or when it is going to help an agribusiness that is going to remove farm families from the land and destroy rural communities.
This government does not understand, does not have an appreciation of what is happening at this time. This was made abundantly clear yesterday when I asked the Prime Minister about the problems in agriculture. I want to quote from Hansard of yesterday when the Prime Minister in his response to my question stated:
This government brought in the GRIP program. This government
brought in the NISA program. Both programs are greatly admired
by Saskatchewan fanners.
I do not know of anyone in Saskatchewan or in this country who admires the GRIP. The answer shows a complete lack of understanding, a complete ignorance in this area. I do not blame the Prime Minister. He is obviously getting bad advice from his new Minister of Agriculture.
February 2, 1993

Up until the last cabinet shuffle we had three Ministers of Agriculture. What happened after that last shuffle? We lost one outright. The Minister of State for Agriculture, who is concerned with agriculture in Quebec, is now the Minister of Justice. I doubt very much whether that minister is going to be spending very much time on agriculture. He is going to be spending more time on justice. It is a major portfolio in itself. There are many areas of agriculture that have to be dealt with. Therefore, we are left with one Minister of Agriculture.
I would suggest this government is taking a new direction. It is abandoning the concerns it has with agriculture. To leave one member as a Minister of Agriculture, with all the needs and requirements there are in this area, certainly does not bode well for the future of agriculture in this country.
The Prime Minister went on to state in response to my question:
I would like to tell my hon. friend this. This government increased
aid to agriculture including western agriculture, over the eight year
period by 650 per cent.
That is also true. However, the way money was spent on agriculture, farmers should be upset, rural people should be upset, urban people should be upset, Canadian taxpayers should be upset because money was wasted. Billions and billions of dollars were wasted. Yet the Prime Minister can say that farmers in Saskatchewan adore NISA, they adore GRIP. Patently that is not the case.
What is needed is not spending more money on agriculture, it is to spend money more wisely on agriculture. The GRIP we have today is like putting a farmer on a step ladder with a noose around his neck and every year forcing him one step down the ladder. It is slowly going to destroy the family farm. When we have a program that gives some farmers a GRIP cheque big enough to buy a half section of land and other fanners a GRIP cheque that will not even pay their fuel bills, there is something wrong with that program.
We in this party have been saying that what we have to do is first of all state our objective clearly. That objective is that we want to maintain viable farm families, viable rural communities in this country. This is not going to be accomplished with the set of programs which the government opposite has been promoting. It was made very clear last week when over 13,000 people came to Saskatoon. They were not all farmers, some were from urban
Government Orders
areas; they were not all from Saskatchewan, there were some from Alberta and some from Manitoba. They made it very clear that they did not like GRIP, whether it was Saskatchewan GRIP or Alberta GRIP or Manitoba GRIP. It made no difference. The fact is that the agriculture programs that are in place now are not the ones that we require.
The Prime Minister yesterday gave me, with all due respect, a glib answer, an answer that people in this country who have any knowledge of agriculture would mock. It is unfortunate that this is apparently the advice he gets from his Minister of Agriculture.
We have to pursue three underlying points with respect to agriculture and rural Canada generally. First, we have to realize that the primary resource sector in this country, the key sector, depends on maintaining rural Canada, whether that sector is agriculture, whether it is the fisheries, whether it is forestry or whether it is mining in those regions of Canada where there is mining.
This government has not recognized that fact. We have seen the destruction of the fishing industry off the Newfoundland coast, which is wreaking havoc in Newfoundland. We heard the remark made by the Prime Minister showing a complete lack of knowledge of what is happening in western Canada.
Until we recognize that the primary resource sector is the key sector, there is going to be problems and the government is going to be called upon to make emergency payments and come up with money to help people in those areas. Agricultural policies have to be developed with a view to maintaining those communities and maintaining farm families.
If somebody wants to farm 10 or 12 or 15 sections of land, go ahead and farm it but do not expect the government to help you keep that land and buy out other farms. We want programs that will spend money wisely. We do not have a lot of money to spend in this country and we spend far more than we should right now with the deficit we have. The money we spend now on agriculture could be spent in a much better way, where it would produce much better results and provide a much stronger infrastructure if we recognize that the primary resource sector is the key to rural Canada, and if we develop a program with a view to maintaining rural communities and farm families in western Canada.

Government Orders
Another thing we need is the co-ordination of programs. We have the Community Futures Program which is under the Department of Employment and Immigration. We also have the Western Diversification Program which is now under a separate minister. These programs sometimes work at cross purposes. There is an overlap, an overlap of bureaucracy, an overlap of money that is going back and forth, and oftentimes at cross purposes
What we really need in this country is some real co-ordinating of programs. In fact, what we need is a minister who is responsible for rural affairs. Under that minister should be the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Forestry, a minister of mining and northern development. That is what we should have, because when you stand in this House you cannot point to anyone who is responsible for rural affairs.
When this government, or any government, comes to its senses, that is the direction we will have to go. I see my time is starting to run out.
The third area where we have to make some changes is that federal governments in the past sat in Ottawa with bureaucrats or other politicians and developed programs and shoved them on to the regions. I know that when we were holding hearings on developing our rural policy and our rural paper for the New Democratic Party we heard time after time groups saying that they wanted to use program A or program B but they had to change the rules or adapt them in order to get the money, and after they got some money it never went to the full purpose and the full benefit it could have had they had more control over the money.
We need a government that facilitates and assists communities and grassroots organizations in developing their programs and helping with that development. The development of programs has to come not from Ottawa but from the regions. That is where the initiatives should come from. It is only logical but that is not what this government is doing.
In conclusion we need to ensure that the primary resource sector is primary to the future of rural Canada. We need to co-ordinate our programs. We should have a minister of rural affairs and a government that is a
facilitator and not a director of federal programs. In that way this government could save money, could cut the deficit and provide better jobs and a better lifestyle for all of rural Canada.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in debating this appropriation bill by the Government of Canada one cannot help but think for a moment that we are heading for an election in a few months. This government is going to leave Canada in a very sad condition when it dissolves this Parliament soon.
This bill is asking Parliament to approve $8.2 billion. That is a substantial amount of money. It raises questions as to how the government is administering the public good and the human and natural resources of this nation.
One cannot help but compare the Canada of today and the way we see it on the eve of dissolution of this Parliament with the Canada this government inherited in 1984. At that time Canada was buoyant and on the upswing. Canadians were in a positive frame of mind. They were confident and looking forward to the future. On the whole, Canada looked good. In less than nine years the Conservative government has managed to change the picture dramatically.
Of course what first comes to mind in this analysis of where Canada stands in 1993 compared to 1984 is the economic condition created by this government where at least 1.5 million people are on unemployment insurance and the number of people seeking jobs is greater than that. It is a terrible waste of human resources.
This government does not seem to have the intellectual aptitude, the compassion, the heart or even the sensitivity to address this in an adequate and appropriate manner. We have an increasing number of people exhausting their unemployment insurance. We have an increasing number of people turning to welfare for economic assistance. There is a picture of despair. Unemployed heads of families go through the ads in the newspapers daily. They go consistently knocking at the doors of potential employers only to return home at the end of the day exhausted, disappointed and disheartened.
February 2, 1993

That is the Canada of 1993 according to the model and the matrix imposed by the present Conservative government. It has been made worse by the latest measure being introduced for approval by Parliament to make unemployment insurance tougher to receive for those who are unfortunate enough to become unemployed.
One cannot understand why the Government of Canada would fight unemployment by pursuing the condition of the unemployed rather than by job creation programs which would at least temporarily alleviate the unemployment situation in the country. Those measures being proposed under unemployment insurance from the human, social and economic points of view are abhorrent and repulsive.
Coupled with that, if one looks beyond the importance of the development of human resources on a daily basis, one can notice another disturbing pattern. Frequently statements are made about the importance of training and retraining, skill development and the acquisition of better education and higher skills on the part of the Canadian public. However, when it comes to having access to such training, retraining and apprenticeship programs the answer at the street level, at the counter, to the individual attempting to take advantage of these policy programs is that the funds have been exhausted.
On the one hand there is encouragement to do the right thing. On the other hand when it comes to taking advantage of that opportunity, when an individual turns to the Canada Employment Centre for retraining or an apprenticeship position, the answer is that there is a waiting period of six months or longer because there are no funds. Ottawa says one thing and another thing happens in Toronto. The gap between the two is widening. It is frightening.
There is a deterioration in the social and economic fibre of our communities. Discouragement is creeping in. People are giving up. It is no wonder that against this background violence and insecurity are putting members of our society frequently in danger, as we learn from newspaper reports every day, particularly the safety of women and children.
Evidently, something is going wrong. Something is being missed by this government which apparently is not
Government Orders
capable of seeing that there is a link between the economic and social condition of the country and its population. Never before have we seen the high incidence of violence, murder and rape we are seeing now. Generally, we have not seen violence between individuals in relationships as we are seeing today.
To make things worse, weekend conversations in our riding offices and visits from people who drop by give us a picture of our youth. Our youth are fairly well-educated and well prepared for life having received good training in community colleges and universities. However, when they complete their education they cannot find their first jobs.
There is nothing more depressing for a young person after completing his or her studies than not being able to find employment. It is demoralizing and depressing. Here again this government with its economic policies does not seem to be able to come to grips with the fact that for the first time probably in many decades our youth cannot confidently look to the future of our country and cannot hope to build an economic and social life as the preceding generations have managed to do.
As part of the economic policies of this government we have also seen the decision to eliminate institutions which have served the country very well. Time does not permit me to go into the details but certainly I must mention the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program, the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council, the Law Reform Commission and the Institute for International Peace and Security.
I would like to be given a few more minutes but you have given me the signal, Mr. Speaker. I would like to deal with the matter of natural resources, but I will have to wait for third reading.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is now February but last December I rose in my place to point out the failure of the so-called mini budget to address some of the needs of Mount Royal riding. The circumstances have not changed from then until now.
I rise again today as I look at this government's borrowing bill in which it wishes to borrow $8.2 billion which is required for public works and general purposes. It is not going to answer many of the needs that were expressed by my constituents who have come into my office or whom I have met in the stores, on the streets or in their buildings.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
I rise again today to remind this government it has still not met many of the real needs of the real people in Hampstead, Cote-St-Luc, Snowdon, Cote des Neiges, or the town of Mount Royal. That sign "a louer", which I and others refer to as "Monsieur a louer", still has a lot of property in my riding. Thousands of jobs have been lost in the last few years and they have not been returned.
Young people are still thinking about leaving the province because they believe they are going to remain poor and without jobs. I advised them not to lose hope. I told them to get out and do some volunteer work while they looked around for a job because to lose hope was to lose faith in the future. That was my message then.
The big mistake in the mini budget was that it failed to change any of the Mulroney government's programs in the sense of a trickle-down economy. More important, long before it was in fashion, long before Mr. Clinton used the phrase that now seems to be current in the language and politically correct, I talked about hope and I talked about putting people first.
I talked about the fact that it is important always to have a sense for the future and that this government lacks a sense of vision and a sense of purpose for the future of people, for the unemployed who want to work, for seniors and families who simply want to make ends meet, for young people who seek only a chance to start to work and to make a living in this country.
I do not think we can be a country of little more than balance sheets where the federal government is concerned. This government has ignored the human debt and deficit in the name of fiscal debt and deficit. Giving up on social priorities not only weakens the social fabric but it also weakens the sense of belonging and the sense of participation. It reduces that sense of hope and does not make one feel that the government has put people first. People are less able to compete when they feel so diminished in and for a new economy.
In this election year the story will be told of this Conservative government, how it failed to meet the test of compassion, of putting people first, of giving Canadians the tools, not just rosy words, but the tools to win the economic competition. I said to my constituents then and I say now: "Have hope, keep hope, and move forward". It is not too late to hold on to a caring,
compassionate and, yes, competitive Canada. These goals go hand in hand and they make sense.
Once again, I want to address the particular question concerning the arts and cultural community which is under attack by this government. In its first economic statement in 1984 this Conservative government cut culture by $122.5 million. In what we hope is its last economic statement, there will be a further cut of $80 million over the next two years. This comes just two weeks after the sector suffered a 2 per cent blow by the Treasury Board president to the tune of $11.8 million.
It is really a shame when Treasury Board dictates the cultural and entertainment future of Canada.
Also, all government departments and agencies, including those dealing with the cultural sector, are facing a 3 per cent cut in their operating budgets. What does all this mean? The Canadian Conference of the Arts estimates that the federal cuts mean a loss of 8,400 jobs over the next two years. They estimate this based on the premise that, according to Statistics Canada, every $1 million pumped into the cultural sector, on average, creates 105 jobs. Therefore a loss of $80 million in grants and contributions will likely result in a loss of 8,400 jobs. Plus-let us not forget this-people such as printers, electricians, and engineers, all of whom earn their living indirectly from the arts and cultural groups, also stand to lose.
This means that granting programs such as the cultural initiatives program, book publishing development program, museum assistance programs, as well as the Canada Council and Telecom grants are being subjected to the 10 per cent knife of the Tories.
Two years ago the Minister of Communications, when tightening his belt, cut $2 million to the non-theatrical film fund. After a lot of lobbying he found a way to put that program back into place.
The Tory knife also hit loans. The Cultural Industries Development Fund, which provides loans rather than grants to the film industry, book publishing and sound recording, has been affected. This program has been in operation for roughly two years and is being administered by the Federal Business Development Bank. Over two years there have been approximately 130 loans and very few defaults. The program has exceeded beyond expectations.
February 2, 1993

It is my understanding that there will be an evaluation. I hope the minister will take a good look at this because these types of loans are a way of leveraging and increasing funding to the film industry. I think it is a very important program. This has also been cut by 10 per cent and I think that is rather sad.
Regrettably, organizations that speak for the arts and art interests, such as the Canadian Conference of the Arts and the Canadian Museums Association, have suffered a 10 per cent loss.
When you have a constituency out there of artists, creators and entertainers, most of whom earn less than $1,400 a month, you need some way of empowering their speech and empowering their concerns. Those organizations, the NGOs that were there to help them, have now had their voices cut and I think that is very sad.
Let us for a moment look at this government's support to culture since 1984 since it took office. I would like to point out that the numbers I am about to place on the record here are the government's own spending estimates. From 1984-85 to 1991-92 there has been a 24 per cent cut in direct and indirect federal cultural spending in real terms. If direct and indirect cultural support had grown at the same pace as the total federal program spending, an additional $500 million would have been provided.
I realize this amount is unrealistic in today's economic environment, but this drastic cut is unconscionable if we truly believe in nation building and giving voice to Canada's artistic expression in its many forms.
It is also interesting to compare the trends in cultural spending with that of the defence budget. I do not want to start a war between Canada's defence community and Canada's arts and culture community because they are both defending our country, our shores and our people. It would seem to me that where there is a rise of $8.8 billion to $12.2 billion in the defence budget, that a nation that should be so proud and independent should really also concentrate and share its interests in the arts sector.
The economic impact of the cultural sector should not be underestimated. It employs 432,172 people. This is more than the agricultural sector alone. This represents a 58 per cent increase in 20 years. It generates $17.2 billion for the economy, which is an increase of 124 per cent in 20 years. Over the last 20 years, the cultural
Government Orders
sector has outperformed the whole of the Canadian economy by 83 per cent.
In terms of the gross domestic product, the cultural sector accounted for 2.7 per cent in 1989, which was up from 2.2 per cent in 1981. This is big business. Entertainment, films, books, music and sound recording is big business. It is time that this government and all the people in Canada recognized that it is an important aspect of our daily life.
Culture includes entertainment and going to the museums and the libraries. This is the very essence of our national identity and the bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride. It gives meaning to the lives of every Canadian and it enriches this country socially, politically and, yes, economically. It is a business. It gives us pride in our country.
It is cultural defence for Canada that I am calling for. I am addressing not only the Minister of Communications and Culture who is good enough to be sitting here in this House today, but it goes to all ministers, all potential ministers and to every member in this House. They should remember that when people go to the fair and the library and when children are exposed to graphic arts or to any of the other arts and crafts, that this is part of living in this land and it is worth investing in if you want to have a place on the global map of this world.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is the borrowing authority where the government is asking authority to borrow $8.2 billion as required for public works and general purposes.
I think the crucial part in looking at any borrowing bill is in looking at where the government has been, where it is planning on going and where it is at the present.
If we look at the economic outlook given by the Minister of Finance in November, we see the projections of the government and how accurate they have been. It was stated this year that the deficit will rise to $34.4 billion, which is $7 billion higher than what the government said it was going to be in its budget of last spring. It is $10 billion higher than what it had projected only last year. It projected that next year's deficit will be $32.6 billion, which is twice the amount it was projecting last year. It appears the projections of the government's finance department have not been very accurate in the past. I would suggest it probably will not be very accurate in the future.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
It was interesting to listen to the Prime Minister just prior to Christmas when he talked about economic growth in Canada and the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. He stated that economic growth in Canada is expected to increase by 3.2 per cent in 1993 and 4.2 per cent in 1994. This is the highest growth rate of any of the G-7 countries. He continued to emphasize that we were going to be the top G-7 country as far as growth went.
There was an article by Don McGillivray of Southam News that was published in The Vancouver Sun on December 28, 1992. It was interesting when Mr. McGillivray looked at the OECD record. He said that it has not been too great so far:
In its December 1988 forecast, the OECD said the Canadian economy would grow in 1990 by three per cent.
A year later, on the very brink of the recession, it forecast growth of two per cent in 1990.
In 1990 itself, near the end of the year, it said growth that year would be 1.1 per cent. In other words, as it sat in the midst of the recession, it did not see any recession.
By the time the December, 1991 report was issued, a year after the end of 1990, the OECD still saw nothing but positive growth for the year, estimated at half of one percentage point.
It was only in 1992 that the organization was prepared to say that the economy failed to grow at all, in fact, that it shrank, in 1990.
Its record is similarly flawed for 1991, the second year of the slump. In its 1990 report, with the country already in recession, the OECD could see no downturn.
This shows that by the OECD forecast the recession never happened. It only shows up in hindsight. That is an example, I would suggest, of exactly where this government has been. It would not admit that there was a recession until we were well into the recession. However, when it was announced by Statistics Canada that we were finally coming out of the recession, it was quick off the mark to say that the recession was now over.
I think this shows where its economic, fiscal and monetary policies have taken this country.
I would like to point out that a number of their policies with respect to privatization and whatnot are part of the over-all problem of where we have been and where we are going and why we have been in such a deep recession, why there are such massive unemployment rates and why the small business community is having such a tough time.
Look at the bankruptcy figures for 1991. There were 13,496 bankruptcies. In 1992 there were 14,317 bankruptcies. Our small business community is having a tough time making it with things like the GST, the free trade agreement and the increased cost of unemployment insurance. I could go on and on and on about the problems that this government has handed out to the small business community.
I would like to turn my attention for a minute to one of the problems that is not just in the small business community. Regular citizens are having problems out in rural Canada with respect to the privatization of Canada Post. The government has pushed Canada Post into making a profit in spite of the lack of service.
When I was in business eight years ago, we used to have guaranteed delivery overnight into eveiy major city in the country and second-day delivery between little places like Osoyoos, Oliver or Penticton or any other place in the province. Quite frankly, we were getting almost overnight delivery between our small communities.
I got a letter from some people in Okanagan Falls in my riding just three or four days ago. They tell me that a letter was mailed to them from Penticton on January 12, 1993. It was to be sent to Okanagan Falls, which is some 15 miles away. It arrived on Wednesday, January 20. It took eight days to get 15 miles between communities where it used to take one day for delivery and takes a simple 10 to 12 minutes to drive between.
That is not all. Look at what they are doing to the community of seniors. Seniors depend on the mail in order to get their communication back and forth between themselves, their families, their children and their grandchildren. It is taking longer and longer. I am getting more and more complaints.
February 2, 1993

The most recent one that really struck me was how low we can go when it comes to Canada Post. An intermediate care facility in Oliver called Sunnybank pointed something out to me. Under the new guidelines of Canada Post, when people who previously had been on intermediate care are transferred out to extended care, or in fact are deceased and mail has to be forwarded to their estate, they are now required by Canada Post to add postage to their mail before Canada Post will allow it to be sent. Further compounding the problem, most intermediate care facilities in my area have always taken the mail in one box at the post office, sorted it and presented it as a daily routine to the seniors in that facility.
Canada Post says that it can no longer do that. That is not its policy. These places are now being required to put up postal boxes for each one of their tenants and Canada Post will then put the mail into these postal boxes.
It is an added cost to these facilities. It is money that the facilities could better use for the care of the seniors in those areas.
The direction this government has moved shows that it does not care for people. It does not care at all for seniors. It is making it almost impossible for facilities that are trying hard to create a home away from home for our seniors who can no longer care for themselves. Canada Post is putting another hurdle in the way of places like Sunnybank, the retirement centre in Penticton; Trinity Centre in Penticton; Coquihalla-Gillis House in Merritt; and Sagebrush Lodge in Osoyoos.
The direction of Canada Post and this government is a profit oriented one. It talks of competition. I say nonsense. It simply does not care about people. All it cares about is the bottom line.
We must look at where we are going in the future. We must look at our seniors. We must look at our small business community. These are the people who make up our communities. These are the people who matter to me. I would suggest that it is important that the government pay attention to those people because they are the people who will throw it out of power the next time around and vote for those who will pay attention to their needs and the needs of other Canadians.
Government Orders


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I want to address this particular legislation today and make a number of points that are important to my constituents in particular. However I will begin on a slightly different note. While I should be critical, hopefully in a constructive manner, I want to point out that there were elements in this economic statement with which my party agreed.

I want to say at the beginning that the good parts in the economic statement and the budget are as follows: the extension until 1994 of the Home Buyers' Plan, a plan which the Liberals proposed. We find that quite commendable.
IRAP. In 1991, the Liberals suggested increasing the funding for the Industrial Research Assistance Program. Of course, we are pleased with that and we congratulate the government for listening.
CNARIE. Despite the lack of a national telecommunications policy, the government has committed itself to establishing a high-speed national electronic highway, which my party has called for. It is good to see that good suggestions like that are accepted from time to time. Frankly, they should be accepted more often, I think.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you are a very honest member, but no doubt you noticed something interesting during question period today.

It was interesting because I could not help but listen to my colleagues to the left who kept suggesting that they had clear-cut policies. Of course, they did not put them on the table so that we could debate them.
I would like to see their clear-cut policy with respect to economic developments so that they could share it with the Canadian people. Whenever I talk to Canadians that is one of the great concerns they have about my colleagues to the left, the NDP.
During Question Period today I also observed another interesting thing. The government has desperately tried to suggest that we have no economic plan. That is unfortunate. Either it is trying to mislead Canadians to try to increase its popularity or it has not understood what we have been saying. That is equally serious. Clearly if this government that has been in power does not understand what we mean by stimulating the economy or by building the infrastructure of our cities and towns then we have a large problem.

Government Orders
The problem is, and this economic statement makes the point, that it is bogged down in an ideology that prevents it from being creative. This is a continuation of the disastrous and growth stifling economic policies of the past.
Cabinet has collectively decided, not just the Prime Minister, that this government's ideological position is such that it wants to stay on course. It wants to stay on course and give us the same economic policies that got us into this recession, that have made this recession, as some people would suggest, a depression. They have failed to get us out of it.
There are about 1.7 million Canadians unemployed. Almost five million Canadians are living at the level of poverty or below, most of whom are women and over one million of whom are children. There are two to three million people, or perhaps more, who are receiving social assistance. There are about two million Canadians in our country, one of the richest in the world, who will be fed in food banks this year.
These are the kinds of policies that created those conditions in large part and these policies will be continued. What does one expect? It is not an assault on unemployment as the government would have us believe but rather an assault on the unemployed.
Canada has been in its worst recession since the 1930s. I have provided statistics about all of the people living in great difficulty and yet there is a continuation of those policies.

I find that quite deplorable. I understand that choices and decisions are made, that people prefer certain options and policies, but when you realize that it is not working, I think that you should try something new. That is why you are there, to govern, to try to make sure that your policies are working and to change them if they do not.

The Liberals want to stimulate growth through policies that will create jobs and encourage the private sector to
expand. We are not advocating spending recklessly, as some people would suggest. We believe that very thoughtful, sensitive, and moderate spending would be good for Canadians because it would provide jobs for many of those Canadians who want to return to the work force, whose greatest desire when they wake up in the morning is to be able to find a job and to be able to fully contribute to the Canadian economy, to Canadian society and to their families.
While the government has accepted some of our proposals my leader and our party created a five point emergency economic plan designed to help create jobs and promote economic growth. That was given to the government to use if it had chosen. If it had it would not be in the mess that it is in today. As a result of the fact that the Conservatives forgot or simply ignored it they will have to pay the price, and pay it very shortly.
Canadians and Canada cannot afford the cost of inaction. Each unemployed Canadian costs the federal Treasury roughly $15,000 and about another $7,000 in the loss of tax revenues. That is really unconscionable and totally unacceptable when many of these people could be working and contributing to their own personal development and to the development of their families, their communities, their provinces and their country.
The infrastructure program that was suggested, and it was a Liberal idea, would have been so much better if the government had taken the idea without diluting it.

But they have diluted it so much that only 4,000 to
5,000	jobs will be created. This is much less than half the jobs that will be cut at CN alone.

I could have spoken of many other companies that will be downsizing in a significant way. Downsizing is a polite word for dismissing people and removing jobs. Therefore the infrastructure program is inadequate.
There is the assault on the unemployed. What an assault it has been. The government will say that the premiums have been frozen, but at what cost? Many people who needed to leave their jobs for legitimate reasons will not be able to do so without paying a heavy
February 2, 1993

penalty and there will be fewer benefits. What kind of an assault on unemployment is that?
That is not an assault on unemployment but rather an assault on the unemployed.

These people are often powerless and feel very bad because they are out of work. Any jobs that do exist are short term and low-paid. Frankly, it is totally inadequate.

I have mentioned the small business measures. They are a step forward but they are certainly not enough. Business people say that the payroll paper work is immense, that it is crushing them and draining their resources to the point where some of them want to abandon their businesses.
Today we talked about all the bankruptcies. They are at a record level. My next point is that there are no economic projections with this. If we examine the government's projections, whether about the deficit, real growth or unemployment, they are always in the wrong direction.

So as I just said, even if I agree that some small steps have been taken, which we think are good, there is still much that is bad. I did not even talk, although of course I could have, about the old people who are very unhappy in our society today. My colleague mentioned the post offices and a small community called St. Germain. They were promised better postal services. What did they get? Much less than they deserve. I will have to go there to see whether it can be corrected. I did not even talk about our young people who are often desperate because of all the cutbacks imposed on them, when all they want is just to go back to school or university so that they can contribute fully to society.
So I, like all my colleagues, reject this whole policy outright and we hope that there will soon be an election that can give us some hope.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on Bill C-98, the borrowing authority bill.
Some of my colleagues have pointed out that it seems bizarre to be faced with a request for authority to borrow
Government Orders
up to $8.2 billion when this government has given us absolutely no indication as to what the money is to be used for. All we have is a vague description in the bill that the funds are to be made available for the purposes of public works and general purposes.
This government is five years into its mandate and paralyzed with indecision. It is exhausted, demoralized, and bankrupt. Its only interest is in determining which candidates have launched what campaigns, which backbenchers have joined which frontbenchers in what leadership campaigns. We would have to be completely foolish to give our permission to submit with enthusiasm to this government's request for an additional $8.2 billion.
The people who live on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, on the Strait of Belle Isle, and along the Ste. Barbe coast and the fishermen whose livelihoods depend upon the gulf fishery, and who have seen that fishery destroyed by the mismanagement of this government which not only has a moral obligation but a constitutional one to manage that fishery, do not want me to give this government permission to borrow $8.2 billion when it has not defined in any way, shape or form what that money is for.
More important, there is no indication whatsoever in this bill that even one penny, that even one dollar of the $8.2 billion will be put to use to assist those fishermen who have been driven out of their boats and those plant workers who have been driven out of their fish plants as a result of the lack of any substantial fisheries policy on the part of this government.
Those fishermen on the great northern peninsula are asking themselves what kind of government introduces a compensation program, and we applauded it, for fishermen affected by a northern cod failure but refuses to provide any level of assistance for fishermen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia who have also been negatively affected by a fisheries failure. They have been offered no assistance whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what kind of government does that. A government that says it is important during a time of restraint, important during a time of failure for example in the fishery area, in the agricultural area, a government that is looking at 1.7 million unemployed across Canada, that announces a $4.5 billion program to purchase new helicopters for Canada, $4.5 billion.

Government Orders
As my friend from Bonavista-Tlinity-Conception, an admiral in the Canadian navy, a citizen who has made an outstanding contribution to this country both in his military capacity and now as a member of Parliament, now as one of the most sane and reasoned voices in this place, has said and said again and again and again, yes, it is important to ensure we have a good top notch search and rescue helicopter, and yes, it is important in the next period of time to replace the Sea King that is 30 years old, but if you can replace it with a vehicle that has 90 per cent of the capability of the new EH-101 being proposed and do it for only half the cost, then common sense dictates the government do the responsible thing.
Has the Minister of National Defence listened to the representations of this Admiral, the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception? Has the Minister of National Defence and this government listened to representations of many others who have said let us do the job efficiently in a cost efficient manner and let us free up those funds over the long term to provide other necessary services for Canada? No. This Minister of National Defence now has turned a blind eye to the people of Canada who at this time are in great need.
We do not buy, we do not believe, we do not subscribe to this line by the Minister of National Defence that this purchase at this time is absolutely essential, that this $5 billion expenditure must go ahead as planned.
This is the same government that announced a $10 billion nuclear submarine program and said it was absolutely essential, the same government that then cancelled it.
This is the same government that announced a $800 million northern terrain vehicle program just before the 1988 election, a massive joint venture project to be carried out in the province of Alberta, just before the last election. Immediately after the election the program went from 800 vehicles to 400 vehicles and finally the contract was cancelled.
This is the same government that announced a nearly $1 billion Polar 8 ice-breaker program for the province of British Columbia, great work, years of work, tens of thousands of manpower work years for the shipyards of British Columbia, and announced it with great fanfare. Whether there is ice these days off the west coast of Canada as there has been recently with the cold snap or
not, Mr. Speaker, you will not see a ripple of the Polar 8 ice-breaker because it was never built.
This government has announced with the same intensity, the same sincerity, the same conviction this new Cadillac helicopter fleet that it announced the Polar 8, the nuclear submarines and the northern terrain vehicles.
I am convinced that just like those other great promises so necessary at the time that this one will also disappear as soon as an election is past.
We in this party say to that kind of promise it shall not proceed. It is a question of priority in Canada at this time. The priority now in 1993 for the people of Canada is not a Cadillac helicopter fleet. The priority is not the dreams of a new Minister of National Defence opposite. The priority is not to be found in the briefing note of the slick, multi-million dollar lobbyist who sold this harebrained scheme to this government. The priority for Canada at this time is to be found in the face, the eyes, the conscience, the soul and the heart of the 1.7 million people walking the streets of this country, feeling the chill of unemployment in February 1993. That is where the priority is.
Until this government once again demonstrates, indeed it is questionable that it has ever demonstrated, that it knows where it wants to take Canada, that it has a plan to put Canadians back to work, that it understands the real pain that is being felt by those who are dislocated daily in this country, that it understands the true meaning of a record rate of bankruptcies three years in a row in this country, until it demonstrates some compassion, some understanding, some small measure of humanity, we can never say yes to this request for authority to borrow another $8.2 billion.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill C-98 which as my friend has just pointed out is to borrow $8.2 billion. I take the opportunity to speak this afternoon having spent this morning and the lunch period with Dr. Mahbub U1 Haq, the special adviser to the administrator of the United Nations Development Program, in relation to his most recent report which was provided to members of this House today, a very important report called Human Development Report 1992 published for the United Nations very recently.
February 2, 1993

What we do know is that this government will probably use all of that $8.2 billion as a pre-election slush fund. Regrettably most of that money will probably be used to put up more "for sale to the lowest bidder" signs and more signs saying "sorry, closed, moved to the U.S." because this government has shown no signs since 1988 of concerns about poverty in this country, unemployment, regional disparity, the half million Canadians who worked in the manufacturing sector whose jobs were lost under the free trade agreement and transferred to the United States or to the couple of hundred thousand more Canadians who lost their jobs during the recession related to the economic policies of this government.
It is certainly not going to deal with the question of the homeless. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to realize how dire the situation is and the consequences are from the economic policies of this government.
More than $100 million a day goes out of this country as dividends and payments to foreign owners of the means of production in this country and for payments of interest on our debt, principally to Japan, Germany and a handful of other countries.
This is the same federal government that during its term in office under this Prime Minister has given over $200 billion in grants, subsidies, tax breaks and loopholes to large profitable corporations, the majority of them owned by people outside this country.
What kind of government would do that? One of the things that drew my attention in the report tabled today by our friend from the UN is the idea of setting up something called Honesty International. It would contain several hundred journalists who are particularly good at what they do, investigative reporting. They would dig out and monitor corruption at both national and international levels because it is now going on at the rate of billions of dollars every day.
What has this government done recently in terms of off-loading debt, debt that historically was programs that were federal, dumping them off on to the provinces? We can see quite quickly that by the end of next month the net debt of the provinces and territories will be $127 billion, an increase of more than 50 per cent in two years, almost entirely directly related to the off-loading of debt
Government Orders
by this government so it can shift all of the benefits, all of the largesse, all of the extras, all of the loopholes over to its corporate buddies.
We have seen it happening and those who try to deny it are intellectually and factually dishonest.
The federal debt has now risen to $447 billion. Not a single Conservative Minister of Finance has risen in this House and made a prediction on the deficit or on the debt that they lived up to. They have misled Canadians every single time.
My friend from Newfoundland who just spoke pointed out that the government promised a gigantic ice-breaker to protect sovereignty in the Canadian north. Absolute hokum. It never intended to do it, it was just to trick the public through deceit and dishonesty. The government promised it for British Columbia and never delivered. It promised hundreds of millions of dollars in rapid deployment rubber-tired vehicles for the Canadian north, again sheer hokum.
The government promised frigates, it promised F-18 contracts, it promised this, it promised that. One of the stupidest procurements that there has ever been in the history of Canada is probably tied to Bill C-98, the purchase of $4.5 billion in EH-101 helicopters. Not a single frigate in the Canadian fleet can have an EH-101 helicopter land on it. Supposedly they are for chasing subs. There is a worthless approach that the Minister of National Defence continues to peddle as one of the reasons they are being purchased, or because polling tells them it might be popular to sell them as a vehicle for search and rescue. Every single serious search and rescue expert in the country knows that they are absolutely worthless for search and rescue because the downwash is too strong. You would blow people off a cliff face and you would drown them in the ocean and you would kill them on the land, trying to rescue them with an EH-101.
This is just straight graft and corruption at its very worst, these kinds of acquisitions. We need international bodies like Honesty International to start looking into these kinds of national skulduggery.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
What kind of debt have these Tories led us into, $21,259 per person? How many Canadians would want to be born today knowing that that is what has been bequeathed to them by this government, this government that is always saying: Oh, the socialists; oh, the spending; oh, this, oh, that. These are the most incompetent deranged financiers that there have ever been in this country, ever on this continent.
Let us take a look at where this is leading. Our witness today, Dr. U1 Haq, made it very clear what the dimensions of this are at the global level. There should be a peace dividend of $1.5 trillion by simply reducing the military budgets by 3 per cent during the 1990s. In fact, since 1987 global military spending has gone down by $258 billion cumulatively.
What about Canada? Page 87 in this UN report points out that it is dropping in the United States, it is dropping in eastern Europe. But what about NATO and Canada? It stayed exactly the same during this period. In Canada this Conservative government rises with pride to say that it is giving more money to the Canadian military, more than a billion dollars a month, whereas all the intelligent countries in the world are going the opposite direction.
It is appalling when one thinks of the kinds of expenditures that this government has allowed to go on under eight years of its administration. I refer those who are interested to a speech I gave following the release of the Auditor General's report.
The Prime Minister likes to travel around and say that on the human development index Canada is number one in the world. We heard from the author of the study today who wanted Canadians to think about a few other things: Canada is number one in the industrialized world in terms of drug crimes, 308 per 100,000. This is the same Prime Minister who proudly announced and crowed when Ronald Reagan said he was initiating a war on drugs and said that he was going to launch a war on drugs in Canada. Well, his war on drugs has made Canada number one in the world in terms of drug crimes. Who is fooling who? I think there should be an investigation into just who is allowing the major drug networks to operate with such great ease in this country.
How about Canada being number one in the industrialized world on automotive accidents and deaths, 976 per 100,000? We do not hear the Prime Minister crowing about that or doing anything about it either.
The highest per capita release of greenhouse gases in the world of any country, this one. What about Canada's foreign aid, something that Canadians do care about? Only 30 per cent under this government. It has been reduced every single year. Now 30 per cent of Canadian aid goes to the poorest countries and twice as much goes to the countries in the world with the highest military expenditures.
What is going on? One need only refer to Dr. U1 Haq's study on page 87 which points out that the highest military to social spending ratios in the world start with Iraq at 511. Then it goes to Somalia at 500 per cent. If one wanted to look at the soldier to teacher ratios in the Third World, Iraq is 625 per cent and Somalia 591 per cent.
There is a direct link between the kinds of expenditures made by governments like this one in relation to military expenditures, in relation to tax breaks, grants and special deals for large corporations. What happens to the poor, homeless and unemployed here in our country? If we cannot bring focus to dealing with these issues in our own country, we have damn little chance of finding ways to help the developing world out of the crisis that is coming.
There is one other statistic that is well worth thinking of for the moment. In 1960 industrialized countries had 30 per cent of the world population. By the end of 1992 industrial countries had only 5 per cent of the live infant births. The 21st century is soon to come upon us and what is happening in terms of the populations in the developed countries must be reflected in terms of how we deal with international debt and the debt in our own nation. We must halt the kind of expenditures this government pursues.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate to increase the borrowing authority of the Government of Canada by $8.2 billion.
I have gone back and made some comparisons over the years. It is $8.2 billion of initial borrowings and all we know is that it is to be spent on public works and general purposes.
I looked back 10 years. In 1982, in a recession, the shortfall between the people receiving unemployment benefits and the total number of unemployed was 170,293. By this year, October 1992, that shortfall had more than doubled what it was in 1982 and we were in a recession at that time.
February 2, 1993

In Canada last fall there were 378,240 people unemployed who were ineligible for unemployment insurance payments. This was directly due to the continued attacks on the unemployment program by the government and the made in Canada recession that may not be over yet.
The government's reactions to these figures tabled in its December economic statements make it that much harder to get unemployment insurance benefits. It should also be noted that in 1981 the gap between the unemployment rate in the United States and Canada was only 1.3 per cent whereas in 1991 the gap was 4 per cent.
Going back again to 1982, the deficit of $14.9 billion was 4.2 per cent of the gross domestic product in Canada and the national debt was 28.2 per cent of the gross domestic product. Those are the true measuring sticks as to our ability to pay.
After eight years of Conservative mismanagement, this government claims it is attacking the deficit and the national debt. The 1991 budgetary deficit and the national debt had both increased compared to the gross domestic product. The budgetary deficit of $34.6 billion was 5.1 per cent of the gross domestic product. The national debt of $423 billion was 62.7 per cent of the gross domestic product. That national debt will be close to $450 billion at the end of this fiscal year and we will seriously look at our ability to service and repay that tremendous debt.
Regarding foreign investment, Canadian government bonds to cover the yearly budgetary deficit increased dramatically between 1982 and 1991. In 1982 just under $12 billion in Canadian government bonds were held by persons or institutions outside of Canada but by 1992 that had increased by $14.4 billion or 120 per cent to $26.4 billion.
Including all sources in 1984, the foreign debt of the federal government was $16.1 billion. Today, after nine years of this government, the foreign debt federally is $80.9 billion. In other words, in 1984, 92 per cent of the borrowings of the Government of Canada was from the Canadian people through Canada Savings Bonds or Canadian lending institutions.
Government Orders
Our ability to make decisions and control our future will be severely compromised if we must operate at the whim of the foreign corporations and investors. They will be calling the shots in this country.
In 1981 the government collected $29.2 billion in taxes from individuals and $9.3 billion from corporations. By 1991 under this Conservative government, taxes on individuals had increased by 160 per cent to $75.8 billion. For corporations, between 1981 and 1991 taxes increased by only $100 million or 1 per cent. It was 160 per cent to individuals but only 1 per cent to corporations.
In 1982 the interest on the national debt was $27.1 billion but by 1991 it had increased by 142 per cent to $65.6 billion. In 1982 there was a shortfall between the interest charged against our national debt and the interest payments of $10.4 billion. In 1991 the shortfall had increased 228 per cent to $23.8 billion. If this gap, which has increased dramatically under the administration of this government, is allowed to grow unchecked, we will never be able to balance our books in this nation.
I have spoken on this before but I want to put it on the record again. In the early 1980s, Canada had a surplus current account position. Since 1985, Canada has had a negative current account. The current account measures the balance of international payments. It is a measure of trade accounting for the difference between the export of goods and services as well as the inflow of cash and imports of goods and services along with outflows of cash.
Arthur Donner, one of our prominent economists, argues that each $20 billion of current account deficit equates to roughly 500,000 jobs. We have had six consecutive years under this administration and have had record all time current account deficits. Since 1982, Canada's current account has gone from a surplus of $2.7 billion to a deficit of $29 billion. This is equivalent to
700,000	jobs in this nation and 1.6 million Canadians unemployed at this time.
Another comparison made is between Canada's situation and that of some other industrialized nations. In fact, Canada has the third worst current account deficit of the G-7 nations. It should be noted that these figures are from the UN report that rated Canada as the best country in the world in which to live. Clearly these policies are on the wrong track to steer to prosperity.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
Some of the cuts that I see here as the government tries to balance this situation are unacceptable. I spoke on this issue in the House of Commons in November and again in December. I believe that the government has over-run its mandate. The Canadian people need a new direction and they must be placed at the top of the list of priorities. There has to be a sense of pride instilled in this country. Canadian people built it and were proud of it. That sense of pride and determination has made it the best country in the world in which to live.
You have heard me speak in this House about quality standards as they relate to our food production processing as being among the best in the world. I have spoken about the U.S. media reports of the horrible sanitary conditions in the poultry and red meat slaughtering plants to the south of us. Those plants that hire their own inspectors are being severely criticized and yet our Canadian government is going to deregulate our food inspection services in Canada and claim there is no risk.
Let me tell you that on January 11 in the state of Washington, and the story appeared in The Vancouver Province on January 29, a large number of children fell victim to food poisoning by eating tainted hamburgers. This is what the result will be of deregulating the sanitary conditions in our food industry. Five of those children were in British Columbia. There were 19 cases that they know of in the state of Washington alone and one of those children died. Most of the children were under the age of 10. Now, after the horse is out, they are trying to lock the door. There are now USFDA inspectors on the job trying to find out where that meat came from.
Cuts such as these which place the health of the Canadian people, and in particular our children, in jeopardy are not acceptable and not acceptable for budget cuts. When the government brings forward this legislation to further deregulate our agriculture and food inspection industry, I will be one MP who will stand up and strenuously object to these cuts.
We need to spend money to instil a sense of pride in being Canadian. We do not needs cuts that will lower the quality of the food we eat and the lifestyles that we have built for ourselves in this nation.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak on Bill C-98 that this government has introduced, asking us in this House and asking Canadians to permit the government to borrow $8.2 billion again.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, for what? For pre-election goodies? This appears obvious because the mandate of this government to run the affairs of this country has long passed.
There is nothing specific in the request. It is all mentioned in generalities for Public Works expenditures. There is nothing specific at all and yet this government is asking us to trust once more, to keep faith. However, I ask: Can we once more trust this government?
Let me first outline for you, Mr. Speaker, the magnitude of misery in Canada. This government has been the creator of a recession and the creator of high unemployment. There are 1.6 million Canadians unemployed across the country. In Manitoba alone there are some
50,000	people unemployed. The recession has led to the loss of some 28,000 jobs in the province. This is the government that has allowed the growth of recipients of social assistance, not of their own choosing but forced to receive them for survival, to some 2.3 million of them and 3.8 million poor Canadians, one million of whom are children who may never see the benefits of adulthood. Two million have been created by this government to rely on food banks for subsistence. The government is now asking us once more to keep faith and have confidence in it. Can we?
On top of that I would like remind this government that it has cut $2.4 billion from the UI benefits. It has cut $350 million from regional development. It has made cuts to farmers, to native programs and $172 million from the protection of our environment.
To add insult to injury, this government has seen fit to change the unemployment insurance rules so that employees are placed in a difficult predicament. On top of that, this government has introduced the GST and has increased taxes 32 times in its lifetime. This government has not closed tax loopholes in our tax system. It has not yet scrapped the $4.4 billion helicopter program, although I remain optimistic in light of my leader's plea, that really serves no useful purpose at this time and is an example of misplaced priorities by this government.
February 2, 1993

I should remind everyone that this government has not eliminated the federal deficit. In fact, it has increased it, particularly the proportion of debt owed to foreign countries. That is serious because if that problem is left unattended we may not even have a Canada at the end of the next century.
That this government should be asking us once again to permit it to borrow money is really asking for too much of Canadians. In my home province, Manitoba, the highway renewal program that this government has said it will give to help boost the Manitoba economy would be a miserly $6 million per year over five years. Manitoba alone spends $100 million on highways, and it is a poor province that is filled with excellent people who are determined to help the Canadian economy. Give us a chance.
This government has cut transfer payments for education and health. Education is needed to train our young of today so that they will be prepared for the future. Transfer payments are needed to pay for health care to keep us healthy so that we can be productive citizens in Canada. Add to that the impact of Bill C-91 which will allow a monopoly on the production of new drugs. That will have an adverse impact on the cost of drugs and therefore on consumers, particularly seniors, the ill, and those who need essential medications. This government has denied Manitoba the benefit of the renewal of the core initiative program. It had helped in the development of the inner city, though much yet remains to be done.
The government has not told us how we will keep our port of Churchill alive. It has not concluded a labour market training co-shared program with the province of Manitoba. It has not told us when the centre for disease control will be completed, thereby creating jobs for Manitobans. It has not even concluded an immigration agreement that will give Manitoba a significant say in determining the number of skilled new immigrants that we should welcome to Canada, to Manitoba.
The question is: Shall we blindly permit this government to once more borrow $8.2 billion? The answer is an unequivocal no. I should remind this government that Canada belongs to Canadians. They have long lost faith in this government. Call the election. Let Canadians decide. That is the prescription I will offer to this government.
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: 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 Scarborough-Rouge River-Canadian Security Intelligence Service; the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell-Canada Post Corporation; the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke-Emergency Preparedness Canada; the hon. member for Comox-Alberni- Justice; and the hon. member for North Island-Powell River-Indian Affairs.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to explain why I cannot support Bill C-98.
Basically, this is a bill that authorizes the government to borrow, that provides additional borrowing authority for the modest amount of $8.2 billion.
Many of our listeners or viewers may find it hard to understand why the government has to borrow this amount and why it has to keep coming before the House to ask Parliament's permission to borrow. Perhaps it would be easier if I compared today's exercise with someone using a credit card. That someone is the government. Our government has a credit card. In fact, I call Bill C-98 the MasterCard bill.
The government has just realized it overspent. Its MasterCard credit card is already up to the limit: $447 billion. So instead of cutting its spending and getting rid of the card, the government has decided to go out and borrow more money, and to do that it needs the authorization of Parliament. Of course, we in the NDP, and the Liberals probably as well, will vote against the bill, because when a government or an individual is unable to control his spending, we have to cut off their source of income and say: Whoa. You haven't learned your lesson, and until you have, we are not going to give you more money than your initial budget called for. I am sure my colleagues in the consumer movement in Quebec and members of family savings co-operatives would agree with this approach because that is what they have been teaching Quebecers for a long time. It is too bad the government did not take advantage of the advice available from the people in these grass-roots organizations in Quebec because I believe Quebecers are very good at managing their money and staying within their budget. The trouble is, the government is not.

February 2, 1993
Government Orders
I wanted to know what the $8.2 billion the government wants to borrow will be used for. In the economic and fiscal statement presented on December 2, 1992 by the Minister of Finance, the government made three promises, not six, about the way it would spend our money. The first promise was, and I quote: "We will continue to invest in policies that make our economy work better". Quite frankly, is giving $5 billion to Hibernia a policy that will make our economy work better? Is wasting $50 million on Canadian Airlines really a policy that will make our economy work better? I don't think so.
The government's second promise is about the way it will spend the money, and I quote: "We will further strengthen our investment in people". People, my foot. I could talk about the cutbacks in unemployment insurance. Especially in Quebec, people are very upset and that includes the Conservative caucus. The hon. member for Chicoutimi is very upset about this and in fact a number of Conservatives are upset about these cuts in unemployment insurance. We have trouble understanding how they can cut money for the unemployed but give more for various pieces of equipment like helicopters and so on for the Department of Defence.
That is not all. There is also the tough, painful dispute on labour force training between the federal government and Quebec. They say: "We will strengthen our investment in people," but that is not what they are doing.
The third promise is this: "We will make additional investments in public infrastructure". Yes, but where? When? How much? Where are some specific examples of this famous public infrastructure? Personally, I have not seen them.
I come to the fourth promise in the budget: "We will continue to invest in broadening trade opportunities". I am in favour of trade but before talking about free trade with Mexico and all that I would really like more free trade among the provinces. I remember that when I was
on the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee one thing this government promised was to make Canada a country where there was free trade among the provinces. But we do not have that yet and we never had. It is really ironic to see all that in the pamphlet or brochure that the Minister of Finance distributed.
The fifth promise, still telling us how they will spend money: "We will continue to invest in sound monetary and fiscal policies". I do not think that our present monetary and fiscal policies are sound. This government has not kept to its budget since it took power. We have had two finance ministers and so far we are $447 billion in debt. That is certainly not a sound monetary and fiscal policy.
Finally, I quote the sixth promise that they say they want to keep: "We will invest in partnerships with the provincial governments, workers and business". As far as workers are concerned I have already told you about the cuts to unemployment insurance. I can tell you that is a joke which Quebecers do not find funny. There was no partnership.
When Bill C-91 on pharmaceuticals was tabled all the provinces except Quebec were against it because they knew that drugs would cost more as a result. I am not proud that my province, Quebec, was in favour of it because ultimately, this bill is at the expense of the most vulnerable people.
In closing I must tell you that this government is bankrupt, not only financially but also in terms of leadership and vision. That is even more serious because one can always find money somewhere but a government so lacking in leadership and vision deserves a slap from the voters and I hope it will get it soon in a federal election.


Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
February 2, 1993

That the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill
C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Shields, seconded by Mr. McCreath, pursuant to Standing Order 26 (1), moves that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of consideration of the report stage of Bill C-98.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize but I am reading the motion. I will take your point of order after disposing of this matter.

I am sorry, but I am putting a question to the House and according to the rules of the House, I cannot interrupt the process that has begun.
All members opposed to the motion will please rise.
And fewer than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since fewer than 15 members rose, pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In my view, you improperly refused to hear me Sir, when this motion was put to the House. I want to say that we earlier agreed that this motion would not be put if we agreed to allow third reading stage to proceed today.
I want to make it clear that the agreement to proceed at third reading is also null and void. I trust that Your Honour in putting the question before the House bore in mind that it was null and void. I wanted to make that point perfectly clear before the question was put.
If Your Honour has any other thoughts on the matter I would appreciate hearing them. In my view that agreement is out the window because the deal was clear concerning the motion that the government put earlier to dispense with the unanimous consent required to proceed at third reading if report stage was completed today. I said we would agree to that on the understanding that the hours would not be extended today.
Government Orders
Now we have an extension of hours so I assume that deal has gone by the board. I ask Your Honour to confirm it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: After consultation, it is very clear, according to our rules of procedure, that the extension just granted by the House applies only to the consideration at report stage of Bill C-98.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments I wish to put on the record with respect to Bill C-98, commonly referred to in debate as the borrowing authority.
As the House knows, and as the people of Canada know, this country is currently in the worst recession that it has experienced since the early 1930s. Indeed, it is a depression.
If it were not for such things as social assistance, welfare, unemployment insurance and so on, the visible, tangible effects would be much clearer and much more graphically displayed day after day. However, because of our social safety net in this country, people are provided with emergency income and with unemployment insurance when they are laid off or when they lose their jobs.
We know what the causes were. The government likes to think that the causes of this recession were entirely offshore: the international money markets, world-wide inflation, the money supply, overexpansion, overexten-tion and so on.
The fundamental fact is clear and we have made this argument many times before. The present recession or depression began in this country and the reason it began in Canada was because the Conservative government insisted throughout the 1980s, and even into the early 1990s, on a policy of high interest rates that was designed to fight inflation and not to expand the economy in a meaningful way. At that very time when our economy was getting into trouble, they precipitated upon this country the free trade agreement with the United States and that was followed by the GST.
There was a series of deliberate attempts by this government that made the recession even worse. In retrospect we realize that all of them were detrimental

Government Orders
to the Canadian economy. In large measure, but not entirely, these things made the recession even worse.
I want to stand here today and say something I have never said before. I am speaking primarily as a member of Parliament from the province of Ontario. In almost all the speeches I have made in this House over a course of nearly 22 years I have tried to address issues from a national perspective. Today I am going to become a little more specific and a little more insular. I am going to speak on behalf of my own province of Ontario. It is the industrial heartland of our country and it has been devastated primarily by the free trade agreement.
We have lost 275,000 jobs nation-wide as a result of that free trade agreement and most of those job losses have been in the province of Ontario.
This has resulted in plant closures and massive layoffs. As a result of the plant closures, the bankruptcies and the massive layoffs, the revenues to the province of Ontario have been severely restricted and there has been a very real decline.
The province of Ontario was always considered the richest province in Canada. It always led Canada out of recessions in the past but that is no longer happening in the province of Ontario. Our economy is sluggish. It is going through a period of adjustment, change and overhaul and it is going through this period at a time when the federal government, whose policies largely caused this recession and this industrial devastation in the heartland of Canada, has decided to cut back on its transfer of payments to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. If that is not bitter irony I do not know what is.
Take, for example, such areas as post-secondary education, hospitals and medical care services and the Canada Assistance Plan-which of course relates directly to welfare and social assistance-the federal government currently owes the treasurer of Ontario over $5 billion. A lot of people in the province of Ontario do not appreciate the fact that the reason the province of Ontario has had to borrow money in order to maintain social assistance is those two factors: a severe shortfall in government revenue at Queen's Park, plus a cutback of the transfer payments from the federal government to the province of Ontario based on a formula that was in effect as late as 1989 and 1990.
The NDP came into power in the late autumn of 1990 to be faced not only with a recession that was growing by the minute, but with a treasury whose revenues were declining rapidly and at a time when the previous Liberal government under David Peterson had spent its way almost into oblivion during Ontario's healthy years from 1985 to 1990.
David Peterson said during the election campaign that his government would leave a balance in the accounts at Queen's Park of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 million to half a billion dollars. When Bob Rae took over as premier he discovered that not only was the treasury bare, but there was a deficit of some $300 million to start off and face the recession.
The province of Ontario is in terrible financial shape. There is a bankrupt treasury at Queen's Park thanks to the provincial Liberals, a severe decline in revenues from the corporate sector and from the private income-tax sector in Ontario to the provincial treasury, as well as a decline in the rate of increase of transfer payments from the federal government to the province of Ontario which now account for $5 billion. It is not Ontario's fault. Day after day the Minister of Finance loves to hurl barbs at his provincial counterpart at Queen's Park, blaming the Rae government for over-spending. All the Rae government has tried to do is maintain a lifeline to those who have been severely affected by the recession which it did not cause at a time when the federal government has cut back on transfer payments to the tune of $5 billion.
It is fine for the federal government to offload its debt on to the provinces. However, if the federal government is really serious about turning the economy around in this country, if it is really serious about getting people back to work and about modernizing the industrial base which used to exist in Ontario, the federal government will change its attitude toward transfer payments. It will do everything it possibly can to assist the province of Ontario to get itself turned around and out of this severe recession.
I am speaking now to members from Quebec, from Manitoba, from British Columbia and Alberta. If Ontario's industrial heartland does not get turned around, if it does not get productive again, if it does not get competitive again, neither will the national economy of this country. It was Ontario that led us out of recessions in
February 2, 1993

Private Members' Business
the past and if it cannot lead us out of a recession this time the whole country is in severe trouble.
Today in this very brief intervention I prevail upon the Government of Canada to enter into a new fiscal relationship with the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, the three so-called rich provinces, to loosen up the purse strings, to start spending some money to expand and modernize the economy, to get things turned around so that we have productive industries paying their fair share of corporate taxes. In this way we get the unemployed back to work so that they can begin to live meaningful lives again and begin to pay their taxes to enhance the revenues to the treasury of the province of Ontario. That is the way we are going to come out of this recession, not by tightening the belt over there and squeezing Ontario till the last pip pops.
We have to act and act fast or we are going to slide back into a recession that will make the 1991-92 one look pretty mild. If we slip now, if we do not move when we have the opportunity in Ontario, the industrial economy of this country will be severely restricted for the next several years.
I notice my time is up. I appreciate very much this opportunity to speak.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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

After the ringing of the bell:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the Chief Opposition Whip has asked me to postpone the vote.

Accordingly pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at eight o'clock p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

It being 5.10 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South) moved: that Bill C-281, an act relating to indoor air quality, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Natural Resources sector.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe that most Canadians view environmental issues as concerning the outdoors-water, air, parks and perhaps the global issues that we are all now aware of such as climate change, et cetera. But I believe that the most serious environmental problems that now affect Canadians' health are problems related to the indoor environment.

Mr. Speaker, given our climate and the fact that it is not suitable outdoors today for humans or non-humans alike because it is so cold, it will not surprise you to realize that about 93 per cent of our time as Canadians is spent indoors. Increasingly problems related to the indoor environment are becoming more and more frequently related to the health of Canadians. Very often in recent times this has been the focus of the popular media.

February 2, 1993
Private Members' Business
I pulled out just a few recent articles that I have seen and there have been items in the electronic media as well. The Windsor Star, May 14, 1992, states: "More evidence has been gathered to show indoor air pollution is a bigger problem in Windsor than anybody, even those you would expect to know, realized. Local volunteers who carried air monitors around for a week last summer typically recorded higher readings for some cancer-causing toxins in their homes than they did outdoors, in the office or while commuting".
The Ottawa Citizen, September 2, 1992, states: "Canadians breathe a cocktail of hundreds of toxic chemicals in their homes, offices and cars, far more than they get from the worst urban pollution outdoors, a new study
says".
The Ottawa Citizen, September 10, 1992, states: "Place de Ville called sick building. Public servants blame fungus for allergic reactions and sickness".
The Globe and Mail, September 10, 1992, states: "Hospital workers ailments baffling". This story reports on the Camp Hill Medical Centre in Halifax, where about 100 of the hospital's 2,500 employees are off work each day suffering from headaches, nausea and severe breathing problems they believe were caused by the air they breathed and the chemicals they used at the institution over three years.
"How to prevent your office from making you sick" in the Financial Post. "Is your office poisoning you?", it states in The Globe and Mail.
"Spooked by asbestos", is close to home. It refers to the West Block which a number of us share as our office homes. I might add that in the study that was conducted under the auspices of the Speaker's office, the only office in the West Block that was actually found to contain a fragment of asbestos was Room 408 which happens to be mine. "An environmental sleeper is roused. Employees are waking up to the major economic, health and social problems of indoor air pollution". So on it goes. This is becoming a subject about which people are aware, are concerned and are beginning to seek answers and understanding.
There are a variety of impacts of this indoor air pollution. Many of us have heard of the concept of the sick building syndrome to which several of these articles
refer. Generally thought to be caused by exposure to airborne contaminants indoors, the results can be headaches, dizziness, nausea, burning eyes, fatigue and irritability. The nature of this problem is becoming more and more well known and well commented upon, as I have been saying.
It is not just comments in the popular press either. Increasingly agencies and research foundations, some sponsored by governments, have been reporting on the problems related to indoor contamination.
Dr. Stephen Barron prepared a study in 1990 for the research division of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation concerning environmental hypersensitivities. In his study he cites a number of other studies which have been done concerning these problems.
For example, the report of the ad hoc committee on environmental hypersensitivity disorders which was prepared for the government of Ontario in 1985 reported: "Our study raised our collective concern about the role of environmental factors as a cause of human illness. It seems clear that we are inexorably increasing the toxicity of our environment.
In our opinion there is good reason to believe that environmental hypersensitivity goes beyond what has already been verified and to suggest that there are a number of persons who are being adversely affected in various ways by exposure to one or more agents in our environment".
In December 1989 a study for the New Jersey state department of health entitled "Chemical sensitivity" concluded:
Chemical sensitivity does exist as a serious health and environmental problem and public and private sector action is warranted at both the state and federal levels. Chemical sensitivity is increasing and could become a large problem with significant economic consequences related to the disablement of productive members of society.
Acceptance of chemical sensitivity as a bona fide physical disease may also be facilitated by the recognition that it is wide-spread in nature and is not limited to what some observers would describe as malingering workers, hysterical housewives and workers experiencing mass psychogenic illness. We are struck by the fact that individuals in such demographically divergent groups as industrial workers, office workers, housewives and children report similar polysymptomatic complaints triggered by chemical exposure.
February 2, 1993

This was a study for the New Jersey state department of health.
In a report dated 1988 the Human Ecology Foundation of Canada described hypersensitivity disorder. This is very important because it addresses the claims that some critics have made that these problems are really imaginary or psychological in nature. I am quoting again from the Ecology Foundation report:
Individuals are all sensitive to their surroundings. An environmentally sensitive person is excessively reactive to external and internal factors and reacts much more intensely than others to the substances that she or he is sensitive to and often other factors such as chilling, fatigue and infections.
A person may develop a sensitivity at any time in his or her life. Sometimes the illness develops following a viral infection. There appears to be a genetic factor connected with environmental hypersensitivity. However, repeated and prolonged exposure to almost any toxic substance will result in hypersensitivity to that substance regardless of genetic inheritance.
What is important in that quotation is the fact that individuals who might not otherwise or previously have demonstrated sensitivity or allergic reactions can, as a result of prolonged exposure to low levels of various substances, develop sensitivity which may be debilitating to them or at least impair their ability to work in a work place.
In addition to this sensitivity reaction we also have the phenomenon of building-related disease. The best and perhaps most striking example of that is the development of what came to be known as Legionnaires' disease as a result of an incident that occurred in Pennsylvania in 1976. Members of the American Legion fell ill after attending a convention in Philadelphia.
The first one to be identified, Mr. Ray Brennan, was 61 years old. He came home from the convention feeling a bit tired. Three days later he had chest pains, fever and difficulty breathing. His sister said that he did not want to go to the hospital. That very night, on July 26, 1976, with his lungs filling with blood, Brennan died of an apparent heart attack. Three days later another Legionnaire, 60 years old, died in much the same way and so did three other Pennsylvania veterans. On Sunday, August 1, there were six more ranging from 39 to 82 years of age.
Private Members' Business
All of them had one thing in common: They had been to the convention in Philadelphia. They all came down with the same signs and symptoms of headaches, chest pains, high fevers and lung congestion. The result in all of the cases was death.
We now know something of what caused Legionnaires' disease. We know that it was spread not through contact with other sufferers but through inhalation of materials that were spread through the ventilation system of that hotel building and the results were disastrous.
We have this variety of effects of indoor air pollution, everything from the irritation caused by the sick building syndrome through to the drastic effects of Legionnaires' disease.
My Bill C-281 simply proposes that the Government of Canada recognize that the indoor environment is directly related to the health and well-being of Canadians; that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, as the minister primarily responsible for the health of Canadians, be empowered to take actions that will endeavour to ensure that Canadians in the 93 per cent of the time they spend indoors can do so in relative confidence that their health and well-being is protected.
I am suggesting that the minister be given the power to establish a national research centre. It would conduct research and studies into all aspects of indoor air contamination and would develop methods and technologies or processes for the detection, correction or prevention of indoor air contamination.
I am asking that the minister be enabled to formulate comprehensive plans and designs for the control and abatement of indoor air contamination; that he promote through public education and discussion an awareness of the hazards of indoor air contamination to human health; that he develop and disseminate information materials relating to indoor air contamination. I am also suggesting in the bill that he be enabled to carry on these activities in co-operation with and perhaps also giving financial assistance to the provinces.
We have debated this issue in this House before. I know that a government representative is going to get up and, I hope this time not sarcastically, point out that the government and various agencies are doing some of these things now.

February 2, 1993
Private Members' Business
Since 1990, when we last debated this issue in the House of Commons pursuant to a private member's motion that I put forward, in July 1991 the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation published the booklet: "What CMHC has been doing about indoor air quality". It is interesting timing that it came out after our last debate. CMHC has published numerous material relating to indoor air quality. In its consumers' series there are "Guide to Radon Control" and "How to Improve the Quality of Air in Your Home". In its builders' series there are "Guide to Residential Exhaust Systems" and the study "Indoor Air Quality Initiative at CMHC, 1980 to 1990".
All of this is good. I do not mean to criticize it by proposing that instead of simply leaving this as a builder's issue, instead of simply leaving some items being done by the National Research Council, the government should take a focus of public health and welfare on this issue. It should say that what we have here is first and foremost an issue of public health. Let us look at it from that point of view. Let us recognize that as a matter of public health. Canadians need the protection and assurance that a government-sponsored initiative can give them that is primarily focused on their health.
All of the rest is good. All that should be continued, not replaced as a result of this initiative. The research activities of NRC or CMHC can just as easily be carried on by reference to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as is the case at the moment.
I would like to acknowledge that there has been a great deal of work on the occupational side of this issue by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and for good reason.
I will not take the time to read the list of all of the buildings in which federal public servants work and about which serious complaints have been raised with respect to indoor air quality. To give an idea of how broadly spread this issue is, some of the buildings are: Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere, everyone in Ottawa-Carleton knows that it is famous; Megastructure in Quebec; Taxation Centre in Sudbury; Joseph Sheppard Building in Toronto; Pavillion Central in Lennoxville; Canadian Grain Commission Building in Winnipeg; Queen's Square in Dartmouth; 12171 Horseshoe Way in Richmond; the Superannuation Building in Shediac; "F" Division Headquarters in Regina; Harry Hays Building in Calgary; Ikxation Centre in Winnipeg; Canada Employment Centre in Kelowna; and buildings in Ottawa and Labrador among others. The problem is widespread and serious.
PSAC also made a lot of useful suggestions in a report "The PSAC Position Paper on Indoor Air Quality" dated 1991. Many of these should be acted upon by the government and could be under the umbrella of the kind of legislation I am proposing.
For example PSAC suggests the federal government must initiate legislative action together with the provincial and territorial governments to ensure effective and co-ordinated action on the growing problem of poor indoor air quality. It suggests a new indoor air authority must be created to initiate and co-ordinate research activity on a large scale. There are many other issues which PSAC raised.
Interestingly enough, the government's own study entitled "Public Service 2000" much criticized of course by PSAC, came to similar conclusions on this issue. Let me read from the PS 2000 report of the task force on work force adaptiveness:
Sick buildings mean sick employees. We recommend that the Bureau of Real Property Management and the Department of Public Works undertake as a matter of urgency a comprehensive reassessment of their standards for materials, air, heat and lighting in federal buildings, and that they take the healthiest and most effective private sector examples as the norm for new buildings and the model for retrofitting existing ones. In so doing they should take account of the fact that the ability to affect one's own space is an important element of employee empowerment. Task lighting, windows that open and a modicum of privacy are all important in organizations that value productivity.
I agree entirely with that. I know my time has virtually run out. I simply wish to stress that in dealing with the problem of indoor air environment a multi-disciplinary approach is required which takes in not only the concerns of the building sector, building owners and building managers, producers of things that are potential contaminants, carpets, paint, furniture and so on, but also under the auspices of the Minister of National Health and Welfare recognizes that the primary concern has to be the health and well-being of Canadians from coast to coast.
February 2, 1993

Mrs, Barbara Sparrow (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Ottawa South for his excellent presentation and very fine remarks. Indoor air quality is of prime importance to human health because of the large amount of time that all of us spend indoors.
Occupants of indoor environments may be exposed to a variety of pollutants originating from either human activities or the presence in the home of such items as combustion from heating and cooking, or vapours from consumer products, furnishings, building materials, as well as pollutants from the outdoor air.
There are a number of national agencies in Canada besides the Department of National Health and Welfare which have a role to play regarding the improvement in the quality of indoor air. These include: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources; CMHC; the division of building research under the National Research Council; Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada; Canadian General Standards Board; and the Department of Public Works.
Much of the research conducted on indoor air quality at the Department of National Health and Welfare is partially funded by the Panel on Energy Research and Development known as PERD.
The PERD program promotes information and technology transfers through various seminars and publications as well as some cost-sharing and co-operation within the departments, with industry, with the provinces, universities and other countries.
This panel is truly unique to the federal government. It is the only major program in which an interdepartmental committee recommends a package of work with the appropriate resource allocation for each of its member departments. It recommends this to a single minister, the minister of EMR, who in turn makes recommendations to the cabinet or to the Treasury Board on behalf of all departments.
The PERD program is divided into seven tasks: energy efficiency; coal; fusion; renewable energy and generic environment; alternate transportation fuels; oil, gas and
Private Members' Business
electricity; and co-ordination and international co-operation.
Each of those tasks is further divided into programs. Each program is co-ordinated by the parent program committee. The Department of National Health and Welfare is directly involved in two programs, environmental and buildings and energy.
In 1987 the department published a report entitled "Significance of Fungi in Indoor Air, Report of a Working Group". This document prepared by the departmental working group on fungi in indoor air reviewed the emerging issue of moulds and fungi as indoor air pollutants and potential hazards to health. It included the participation and support of Agriculture Canada, naturally NRC which is extremely important, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.
The Department of National Health and Welfare publishes exposure guidelines for residential indoor air quality. These current indoor air quality guidelines are restricted to residential buildings. The quality of air in many offices is the responsibility of the provincial governments.
Unfortunately most of the conspicuous problems we have today deal with the air quality in non-residential buildings such as offices, schools and public buildings. As a result a federal-provincial working group has drafted a technical guide to investigate these particular problems. The guide again advises methods for investigating and correcting indoor air problems.
Funds for the project are provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare and two reports are due out very shortly. There have also been five international conferences on indoor air quality and climate. These were held in 1978 in Copenhagen, in 1981 in Amherst, in 1984 in Stockholm and in 1987 in West Berlin.
The Fifth International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate was held in Toronto in the summer of 1990. The federal government was a major sponsor of the conference. The Department of National Health and Welfare also sponsored that meeting. There was one in Montreal in fall 1992 on the subjects of buildings and energy. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources presented some very interesting and investigative papers on the exposure guidelines, specifically dealing with residences.

February 2, 1993
Private Members' Business
Other presentations on indoor air quality were made at the 92nd annual meeting of the Canadian Lung Association. The Department of National Health and Welfare does participate in many working groups specifically dealing with the air quality of the residences. We also deal with the CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That group has a specific committee that examines air quality inside houses.
To better co-ordinate the federal government's activities the government has an interdepartmental committee that co-ordinates and brings forth all recommendations dealing specifically with indoor air quality. The Department of National Health and Welfare chairs this committee because it believes that health is dependent upon the air that we breathe inside residences.
During public consultations on the federal government's green plan the Canadian public truly expressed concern about indoor air quality. We intend to meet the concerns that were expressed by the public through ongoing and future projects with close co-operation and close communication with all other governments and non-governmental organizations.
My colleague from Ottawa South has outlined some very good recommendations concerning the establishment of a national research centre examining air quality in all buildings. He is talking about occupational buildings and industrial buildings as well as residential. I congratulate him on these fine recommendations but I really must point out that the federal government has a co-ordinated committee that takes specific action with regard to residential air quality. At this time, with the co-operation that exists at the government level, some of his ideas may be a little redundant.
In closing, I must emphasize once again that there is no doubt that the air we breathe, whether at work or at home, is extremely important. It affects our everyday life in terms of the increase of productivity and learning at institutions. I cannot give agreement to his bill but I do thank the member for bringing it to our attention and for outlining not only his concerns but the concerns of all citizens right across Canada.


Philip Edmonston: The last time I spoke I was as much against the bill under discussion then, a bill authorizing the government to borrow $8 billion, as I am now, I think, in favour of my colleagues'
private members bill, Bill C-281, an act relating to indoor air quality.
The people who are listening to us and following these proceedings may find that an act concerning cleaner indoor air is a bit strange because people think it should be clean and uncontaminated and they may find that we are somewhat paranoid, creating problems where none exist.
This bill is extremely important and there is nothing paranoid about that. It is important for us to pass this bill. The government's representative just said she cannot support the bill. I fail to understand why the government refuses to follow up on the initiative taken by the hon. member and support this kind of bill because today environmental factors are becoming an increasingly frequent cause of illness. Doctors agree that today's diseases of the 21st century are diseases we have created ourselves, whether we are talking about the connection between smoking and cancer or other problems due to the contamination of our water, our food or our environment in general.
There is not a trace of paranoia in this. This bill responds to an increasingly critical need when we consider how contaminated our environment has become today. Consumers in Quebec, in Canada and North America are becoming increasingly suspicious of products that are seemingly harmless, like a glass of water, for instance. I drink from this glass which contains water, but what else? I heard a report on the radio yesterday that a certain brand of bottled water in Quebec contains nitrate.
I remember when I was a member of a consumer protection group a few years ago and someone discovered that Perrier water from France contained benzine. Imagine Perrier being something you can drink or put in your gas tank. Mind-boggling.
So we become increasingly suspicious of products that seem absolutely harmless. I think a bill that calls on the government to develop a comprehensive strategy for improving the quality of indoor air makes good sense. I think it responds to a critical need.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever travelled and had to stay in hotels where the windows didn't open? Did you feel comfortable breathing this artificial air containing God knows what, perhaps filtered, perhaps not? I don't. I feel terrible if I can't have a window that opens so I can more or less control the quality of the air I breathe.
February 2, 1993

What is the air like here in the House of Commons right now? Does it contain asbestos? We don't know. What are the government standards for air quality right here? Have there been any checks recently? Do we have any federal standards for indoor air quality in this building? Where does our air come from?
I know the quality of air circulation varies, but of course we produce our own. Seriously, if we agree that 90 per cent of our time is spent indoors, the problem is a critical one. It is not only about contamination due to poor filtration or certain substances but about the need for clean air because it has a dramatic impact on the health of individuals who work indoors.
I could talk about radon, for instance, a colourless and odourless gas. According to the experts, radon has apparenbly been responsible for 5 per cent to 15 per cent of lung cancer cases. This is a serious problem. And I am not being paranoid about this either. These were figures presented by well-known physicians.
Now we know the problem exists and that the problem of contaminated indoor air has been criticized several times by employees and by other members, what is the federal government doing about this in a comprehensive way?
The hon. member said: We are trying to co-ordinate our efforts. Fine. I couldn't agree more. We also have guidelines, the difference being that the hon. member prefers specific standards. There is quite a difference.
In concluding, I want to say that as a member I am proud to support a bill that really makes good sense. I am proud of this bill. It does not happen very often because I get the impression that there is a lot of talk in the House about things that are not really important, except for last night, when I was also very proud to see my Conservative, Liberal and NDP colleagues support the entrenchment in the Constitution of the recognition of both languages for New Brunswick. I thought that was splendid. I was very proud indeed.
This evening I am equally proud of the hon. member's initiative in tackling a problem that is obvious, serious and far-reaching. And I wish him good luck with his bill.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this evening to take part in this debate on air quality.
Private Members' Business
We all know that air pollution has been recognized for quite some time as a serious threat to health. Air pollution has probably focussed the public's attention on the quality of our environment to a greater extent than has any other form of environmental deterioration. Since the 15th century, smoke and the odours emanating from burning coal were considered a public nuisance. Laws designed to control point source emissions have been part of the history of most industrialized countries and were passed many years ago.
Interestingly, indoor air quality did not become a subject of debate and intense research until quite recently. The recent flurry of activity proves that indoor air quality has become a major health concern, especially in this country, where we unfortunately spend up to 90 per cent of our time indoors.
Here in Canada, we had the controversy about urea formaldehyde foam insulation. You will recall the UFFI debate and the government's ban in 1980 which I think was a major factor in drawing the public's attention to the problem of indoor air quality. Reports on scientific studies which showed a higher concentration of chemical contaminants indoors than outdoors have tended to heighten these concerns. Furthermore, office employees claim that current energy conservation practices in large office buildings are responsible for poor air quality.
No single Canadian agency has full responsibility for investigating and checking the potential impact on health of air contaminants inside residences. In the case of residential buildings, the government's presence is perceived by some as an intrusion, by others as a necessity. The wide range of strategies and approaches for controlling exposure to indoor air contaminants are an indication of the complexity of the problem. Finally, controlling indoor air contaminants involves measures such as ventilation, removal or replacement of sources of air contaminants, making changes so as to avoid contaminant sources, air purification, restrictions on household use of potentially hazardous chemical products, certification programs for builders and trades people, compulsory courses for engineers and building designers and educational programs for the general public.

Private Members' Business
Corrective measures may include a balanced application of several of these approaches, which are not necessarily incompatible. Standards or criteria defining air quality levels that are conducive to health and comfort must be used to determine to what extent controls are necessary. That is why in 1987, the Department of National Health and Welfare published the following document: Exposure Guidelines for Residential Indoor Air Quality.


Mr. PJamondon:: In 1985?


Lise Bourgault: No, in 1987. The first one of its kind to be published by any government in the world. Although provincial departments across the country approved these guidelines, they are neither compulsory nor binding. However, it is expected they will help individuals and public agencies to be consistent in their assessments of the need for corrective action. In the longer term, these national guidelines will be used as a basis for developing or modifying the building code, standards for construction materials and furnishings, and ventilation requirements.
The department developed these guidelines in June 1980 when the Ontario Deputy Minister of Health requested a federal-provincial study that would set standards for air quality in new residential housing projects. A proposal to form a task force on indoor air quality was officially tabled at a meeting in October 1980 of the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. I mention this so that people who are interested will realize there are a number of committees and that a number of things have been done in recent years. The deputy ministers of health subsequently approved the proposal. The advisory committee created the federal-provincial task force on indoor air quality, whose mandate would be to examine a definition of acceptable air quality, the need to establish acceptable objectives and maximum acceptable concentrations of specific substances, and standards for ventilation or air recirculation. The scope of the mandate was restricted to residential establishments and the task force was to make recommendations designed to protect the public, based on constant exposure, in other words, 24 hours a day.
When it wrote these guidelines, the department wanted to protect the health of the great majority of the general public, including groups at risk like very young children, the elderly and persons with known health problems. These groups are especially concerned with indoor air quality because, as we know, they spend most of their time indoors. The department set itself two major objectives: (1). To develop guidelines on the concentrations of particular air contaminants in homes, taking account of factors like the sensitivity of groups at risk and the sources and modes of action of the contaminants; (2). To develop as much as possible other guidelines or recommendations on measures to protect or improve air quality in domestic establishments.
The federal-provincial task force met for the first time in September 1981 under the aegis of the Department of National Health and Welfare. In the next four years it collected and examined scientific documentation on 18 substances or groups of substances before setting the guidelines and recommendations contained in the document published by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in April 1987.
The government agreed in principle to update the guidelines in 1992-93 so that is now going on. The group will consider other substances to be added to the guidelines. If it seems possible to develop guidelines on these substances the work will again be facilitated by the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health.
That is why the very existence of these guidelines, combined with the research now under way in various federal government departments, shows that we have implemented a national strategy for reducing the threats posed by exposure to contaminants in indoor air.
Also, our government's tobacco policy is another measure that has particularly improved indoor air quality in public buildings. Nevertheless, it should not be taken for granted that everything is going well. As a member of Parliament when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I had to deal with the case of a citizen who is fighting a constant struggle throughout the country with the problems of asthma and the possibility that he might have to work or even live in buildings that are insulated in different ways.
February 2, 1993

I think that we are doing many things, but fully regulating single-family homes in Canada is still a long way off. Nevertheless we must continue to work for increased protection of the health of Canadians, especially those who work in public, semi-public and even private buildings, because health is a subject that concerns all Canadians. Health costs being so high, it is obviously desirable to implement all kinds of preventive policies.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa South, on Bill C-281, an act relating to indoor air quality.
The quality of the air we breath is essential for good health. 1 think that is a very basic statement and one with which we are all very familiar.
North Americans spend over 90 per cent of their time indoors. Here in Canada this is as high as 98 per cent, given the climate. I was alarmed to read of a study by the Ontario environment industry which states that Canadians breath more toxic chemicals in their homes, offices and cars than they do from the worst urban pollution outdoors.
Obviously something needs to be done to rectify this situation. Checks need to be set in place to ensure that the quality of indoor air is clean and safe.
In other words, this bill is long overdue. As a member of Parliament for a local riding, Nepean, many of my constituents work for the federal Public Service. My colleague has mentioned that many federal buildings across the country have contaminants seeping into the space in which the employees are working.
I would like to specifically zero in on one building in the Ottawa area-
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry but 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.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the fact that the bells rang for 10 minutes at the beginning of private members' hour we did not begin the hour until about 5.10 p.m.
I know my colleague has remarks prepared and is ready to deliver them. It does not seem right that we have an abbreviated private members' hour in this case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I accepted the hon. member's question out of courtesy, even though the debate on the adjournment motion had begun. I do not have to receive the point of order. That being said, the Standing Orders clearly state that the time for Private Members' Business ends at six o'clock. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, I proceeded to the debate on the adjournment motion at sue o'clock.
If the hon. member wants to change the Standing Orders he can always address the committee that periodically considers improvements to the Standing Orders.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Perhaps there would be unanimous consent of the House to at least allow my colleague from Nepean to complete the remarks that were under way at the time. I think many of us contemplated that she had until 6.10 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but once the debate on the adjournment motion is under way, I cannot receive requests of this kind. It should have been done before sue o'clock.

Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, last autumn I put a question through the Chair to the Solicitor General regarding a matter involving the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
I was seeking from him an assurance for Canadians that intelligence gathering and analysis had not been politicized. Politicization of that type of information can cause significant problems for democratic governments. There are many examples in modem history such as the case of J. Edgar Hoover in the United States who perhaps used information for purposes other than for that which it was originally intended in the field of security intelligence.
The background to my question involved two allegations that were publicly made. The first was that the names of intelligence sources were made known to the Solicitor General and were routinely disclosed. The second was that the political staff of the Solicitor General attended meetings of the target approval and review committee within CSIS.
On the first question the Solicitor General responded that in a small number of exceptional cases names were disclosed but in none of those cases was the person a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident. In that way he perhaps got a little lucky but that does not speak for other Solicitors General prior to this one. What he did not say but should have said, and he might if he had the chance, is that any reference in the Solicitor General's routine business to persons without using a code name should only occur on an exceptional need to know basis. I hope that is what is occurring because anything beyond that risks politicization.
The second question involved the allegation that political assistants of a previous solicitor general had attended meetings of the target approval and review committee. This was not fully addressed in the question.
A committee of this House reported in 1990 on CSIS and did not include that type of person at meetings of TARC. I hope that is the case. That is not to say that before 1988 such persons did not attend those meetings. I hope they did not. In any event we do not have a lot of information that they are now, and I believe they are not.
The point I want to make, and I make it on behalf of members on this side of the House for the benefit of the Solicitor General, is that disclosure of source names and attendance by political staff at meetings of TARC or any other committee within CSIS should not happen. It is a matter for continuing monitoring by the security and intelligence review committee that acts on behalf of this House and all Canadians in monitoring CSIS. The Solicitor General should always be in a position in this House to assure Canadians that the security intelligence gathering systems within CSIS are secure and have not been politicized as those public allegations suggested at that time.


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, last June, the media did say that the names of CSIS's human sources were regularly passed on to politicians. More specifically, they said that the minister's instructions issued in 1986 described how CSIS's human sources should be treated and that the names of these informers should be disclosed to the Solicitor General of Canada.
Naturally, the director of the service keeps the minister informed on all important operational activities. The identity of human sources is a very sensitive issue and the promise of anonymity is a significant factor in obtaining their co-operation and trust. Their identity is always protected.
In this regard, Parliament gave the service an important responsibility which is found in section 18 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act that reads as follows:
-no person shall disclose any information that the person obtained or to which the person had access in the course of the performance by that person of duties and functions under this Act or the participation by that person in the administration or enforcement of this Act and from which the identity of (a) any other person who is or was a confidential source of information or assistance to the Service-can be inferred.
February 2, 1993

There are departmental instructions dealing with human sources. Here, I would like to refer to On Course published by the government in February 1991.
Page 14 of this document contains the following statement: "Sources are to be managed so as to protect both the security of the service's operations and the personal safety of sources". Nevertheless, there is no requirement in these instructions to disclose the identity of a human source to the minister or another politician.
The identity of a human source will be revealed to the minister only if it is directly related to his responsibilities which is a very rare and exceptional occurrence.
In conclusion, the media's statements that the identity of human sources is regularly revealed to the Solicitor General are unfounded.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on December 9, 1992,1 rose in this House to put a question to the minister responsible for Canada Post. I wanted to know why he was pursuing this policy of shutting down rural post offices. I asked in particular for his intervention in the case of the post office in Saint-Clement de Riviere-du-Loup. Post offices are closing in my riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in Martin-town, just as they are closing in my colleague's riding here.

The worst thing about these decisions is that they are arbitrary. Canada Post shuts down rural post offices whether or not the post office is still needed and whether or not the post office is making money. It does not make any difference to them. The only criteria Canada Post uses is whether or not the postmaster has left. We call this the natural opportunity criteria.
This so-called natural opportunity is what Canada Post is taking.
I submit to you today that several post offices were not shut down. There are discrepancies in the administration of this policy. In some cases post offices are allowed to remain open in the ridings of certain members opposite
Adjournment Debate
even after the postmaster retired. But, in the ridings of members of the opposition it was quite another matter. I do hope that the government will answer these questions.
What I want the government to tell me today, is why pursue this policy of so-called natural opportunity to shut down rural post offices. The parliamentary secretary may argue: "We are not shutting them down. They are being converted". Go and tell that to my constituents in Summerstown for instance. When the post office was closed down one of these converted outlets was opened but it has moved three times in the past ten months. Canadians from rural areas are not provided with service at least not the level of service they are entitled to.
Today, I urge this government to reconsider its decision and eliminate immediately this criterion for shutting down rural post offices.

There is still time for this government to change its ways in regard to closing rural post offices. If the Tories will not do it, we will do it very soon.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation has worked very hard to improve the efficiency and accessibility of postal services in Canada and thus meet the expectations and changing needs of all Canadians. Like other organizations offering services to the public Canada Post has had to find new ways to provide its services and meet the pressing needs of all Canadians. Canada Post continues to improve access to its postal services and products for Canadians.
For example, the corporation reaches its goal in rural Canada by using the resources and knowledge of local businesses in order to significantly increase the number of outlets which provide postal services and products. It should be noted that other businesses providing services in rural areas have reacted to changes by interrupting their services. The corporation, however, has made every possible effort to maintain its business ties in the community by consolidating its partnerships with local businesses, and it has been doing so for more than 100 years.

February 2, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Canada Post implemented a program which has been misunderstood in more ways than one, namely the program to reorganize rural service by converting from an institutional outlet to one that is being taken over by a local business in a rural area. Therefore, all retail services such as postal money orders, mail collection and parcel postage, as well as items which require a signature are available at the postal outlets in rural areas.
The corporation has also developed a number of methods to continue mail delivery in a given community. For example, we can mention mailboxes in a retail postal outlet, community mail boxes or rural route delivery. In this way Canada Post makes sure that the community maintains its specific postal identity and that all customers can send and receive their mail locally.
The corporation proceeds case by case and bases its decision on criteria such as the size of the community, its commercial base, revenue, the distance to the next community, population trends and the present service. Although it is a rather rare occurrence, Canada Post will sometimes decide that it should continue on its own to provide the postal service. This is mostly the case in remote areas such as the Far North.
A survey was done-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot go much beyond the two minutes allotted to her.


EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CANADA
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, late in 1987 the then Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Welland-Grey-Duffer-in-Simcoe, introduced legislation in this House to set up Emergency Preparedness Canada which was to replace the War Measures Act in this country. The reason it was done was that the War Measures Act applied to the whole nation. Whatever we did under the War Measures Act, it applied all over the country, whereas under the Emergency Preparedness Canada Act we could zero in on one area of the country, one community, one province or wherever the main problem was.
I piloted that bill for the Official Opposition at the time. We totally agreed with the legislation with some minor comments on it but by and large looked upon it as an excellent idea. The Emergency Preparedness Canada
organization was a government agency to stand on its own but it was to report to Parliament through the Minister of National Defence.
Shortly thereafter during the election campaign of 1988, the minister, who was then the Associate Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Lanark- Carleton, announced that a new 120 room residence would be built at the Canadian Emergency Preparedness College in Amprior. That location was picked as the centre for emergency preparedness because there had been emergency preparedness work going on in that centre for many years. The building was supposed to be up and in operation by December 1990 but the project has not even started. There has not even been a spade in the ground.
Along the way the previous Minister of National Defence was involved in trying to move the centre out of Amprior. Rumours were all over the place among the civil servants and the organizations and the community. I asked the Minister of National Defence a question on June 16: "Will the Minister of National Defence tell us today when we can expect the construction of the long-promised new residential building to be built in Amprior?" This was after the Minister of Supply and Services, who was then the member for Lanark-Carle-ton, had again reassured the community that it would be done in Amprior and he sent a letter to the mayor of the town to that effect.
The answer I got from the then Minister of National Defence, the hon. member for Frontenac, on that day was this: "In the latest budget all responsibilities for civil defence were transferred to the Department of National Defence. All procedures, including infrastructure, are under review".
I was not satisfied with that because that just confirmed my suspicions that the government was indeed looking for a centre in other places in Canada. We are very proud to have this facility in the Ottawa Valley. Therefore, I asked the minister a second question: "The property and facilities on which this nationally used Emergency Preparedness Canada training centre is located is owned by Public Works Canada. Can the minister inform this House whether or not the total plans for the new residential building which was supposed to be up and operating by December 1990 are now ready for presentation to Treasury Board and are they planned for Amprior?"
February 2, 1993

The then Minister of National Defence got up and said: "Mr. Speaker, the whole question is covered in the first answer".
I was not satisfied with that, so I am raising the question again today. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence is present. He was very civil in his answer the last time and I am certainly looking forward to what he has to say today.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke has said is an accurate resume of the history which brings us again to this issue being discussed in the House of Commons. For almost four decades now, since 1954 when this centre was established in Arnprior, it has been fundamentally important to the government and the country to have the emergency preparedness programs and training carried out there.
Certainly a great many people in his constituency who are directly involved and interested in that training centre are understandably interested in its future. As he is a conscientious member, he has kept at the government to be clear as to what the future would be.
When I last spoke in the House on this it was June of last year. I indicated at that time that the plans the government had announced with respect to the facility effectively had been held up because of the financial problems that the government faces, which is the deficit problem. The facilities that do exist there now are not adequate in anyone's estimate or suitable because everyone knows that new and better and improved facilities are required. Plans have been developed for that and so on, but the money to pay for it-quite a few million dollars is being discussed- had to be reassessed.
I wish I could, on behalf of the minister, tell the member tonight that the plans are going to be announced now or tomorrow, but it is still under review. This is in conjunction with the over-all review of the infrastructure of the Department of National Defence. He is informed about this and he knows that across the country we are making a lot of changes and it is all being
Adjournment Debate
done in that context. I would certainly like to go with him-perhaps we could both interest other members of the defence committee for example-to visit the facilities and to keep the pressure on to get this clarified.


JUSTICE
Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question was prompted by the death of a little six-year old girl in my riding, Dawn Shaw, who was raped and murdered by a person in the community.
The RCMP at that time were having some difficulty locating the perpetrator but a suspect has now been arrested. It was felt that the broad availability of DNA testing could have assisted in this matter. There is more precision in terms of identifying the perpetrator of the crime.
In fact rapists do not leave fingerprints but they do leave samples of tissues such as hair, semen and blood that can be analysed by forensic laboratories. Within a very narrow range those analyses can identify the perpetrator of the crime.
The people in the community were asking for the RCMP to have the right to administer DNA tests or take samples on the same basis as they would be able to obtain breath samples for driving under the influence of alcohol. This would result in a much more assured prosecution of the victims and it was therefore felt that there would be much more protection for women and children who are the prime victims of sexual assault by these people in the community.
I do not want to create the impression that all Canadians are targets of sexual assault. Ninety-two per cent of these assaults happen within the family and the perpetrator is a person known to the victim. The Ottawa Citizen at one time said you are mostly likely to be sexually assaulted by the person looking across from you at the breakfast table in the morning. Only 8 per cent of perpetrators are unknown to the victim.
I think the best way to deal with sexual assault within the family is to provide some kind of assistance to the family so that people who have a tendency to commit these crimes find out how they can stop. Many of them were victims of the previous generation.

February 2, 1993
Adjournment Debate
The other way to do it is to increase the certainty of detection and conviction and that is through using such screening processes as DNA typing. I was quite satisfied with the minister's response but I would certainly hope that she would carry it through much farther to make sure that DNA sampling is available and can be used on suspects and also that it would be available in virtually every part of the country to assure the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators of sexual assault, especially those who assault children.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Albemi has raised an important issue. As his question indicates at the moment there is no provision in the Criminal Code which permits a judge to authorize obtaining bodily substances, including samples suitable for DNA analysis, except in limited circumstances in relation to drunk driving charges.
In response to his specific concern, DNA testing could assist in positively identifying perpetrators of crimes, particularly in cases of sexual assault or homicide where identification is often the central issue.
I can inform hon. members that the Department of Justice is now conducting an in-depth study of the legal issues related to the collection and use of bodily substances for evidentiary purposes with a view to the development of proposals for amendments to the Criminal Code.
DNA profiling undoubtedly has the potential to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences. However, the future of the role that DNA typing will play in our criminal justice system is dependent on a number of factors and there are various issues which must be examined within this context. The issues being explored include search and seizure, admissibility, evidence of population frequencies, data banks and the accreditation of laboratories.
Ultimately legislation would be needed to set out the manner and circumstances in which samples can be obtained from suspects so that the investigation of crimes is not frustrated and the suspects' rights to a
reasonable expectation of privacy and personal dignity as guaranteed by the charter are minimally interfered with.
The protection of society could well be enhanced by the enactment of legislative amendments to permit the seizure of samples of bodily substances for the purposes of DNA testing and the use of such forensic evidence in criminal prosecutions.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, tonight I would like to speak about the Gwa'Sala 'Nakwaxda'wx Indian people who live at Port Hardy at the Indian reserve at Tsulquate.
One particular group used to live at Blunden Harbour, the others at Smith Inlet. The Department of Indian Affairs for its sole convenience of cost of servicing asked them to move from their communities. They promised them housing, community infrastructure, education, economic development and health services. They were virtually forced out of the community by continued harassment and the promises that things would be better at the new location in Port Hardy.
They moved. Their houses were burned behind them when they asked to go back after none of the promises were kept.
When they hit Port Hardy they were amalgamated, two different groups. They did not know each other. They had no homes. They had no community. They had no infrastructure. They were not provided with education and school services and no health services. They were at the same time put into a community that had just received several thousand single men who were building a mine at the location. Those people wreaked absolute havoc on a completely disorganized community.
What were the results? Thirty years of indescribable hell brought on by almost complete alcoholism, complete total social destruction, despicable housing and desperate poverty and unemployment.
Is there anything that can happen? Thirty years later as this community is gradually rebuilding itself, two generations later, with the people who are just youngsters in the community, the government could visit the community at the highest level. The minister of Indian affairs should visit there.
February 2, 1993

Also, the senior leaders of government departments of employment, health, and Indian affairs should go and meet with the elders and the leaders of that community to discuss the health programs they developed for social rebuilding, employment programs and the responsibilities of Indian affairs.
Direct financial assistance is needed, compensation for the catastrophic impact that was forced on this community in the forced move, the forced amalgamation and the broken promises.


Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis: Mr. Speaker, as stated by the minister in the House on June 12, 1992, he is certainly prepared to meet with the representatives of the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw on one of his future visits to British Columbia.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is familiar with the situation in this community on northern Vancouver Island. For some time now, departmental representatives at the district, regional and headquarters level have been making a joint effort to resolve as many problems in this community as they can, bearing in mind budgetary restrictions and general policy.
The specific claims of the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw were first submitted in 1988, re-submitted to the department in 1991, and then put on a priority list for research and analysis. On May 15, 1992, preliminary discussions took place between band representatives and the department's special claims office. It was agreed the Band should prepare a more thorough analysis of its claims before submitting them to the Department of Justice, to ensure the presentation would be as fair and detailed as possible.
Adjournment Debate
Meanwhile, the department is busy helping the community achieve its economic, cultural and educational objectives. The Band has just finished developing a comprehensive plan stating various options for promoting the community's expansion. With the 45.8 hectares added to Tkulquate Indian Reserve, No. 4, it will be possible to proceed with a new development that will include construction of 80 new homes, a school and a community hall.
Furthermore, the department plans to spend $1.6 million, spread over a certain period of time, in connection with the community's expansion. Funding totalling $200,000 will be released during 1992-93 and 1993-94, to help the Band build a community centre. Furthermore, $215,000 was spent in 1992-93 on improving sanitation in the community. Similarly, $15,000 will be spent on a preliminary feasibility study for the construction of a school; the plans should be finished by 1994-95, at a cost of $150,000, while construction is slated for 1995-96, at a cost of $1,250,000.
To help the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw find ways to resolve their financial problems, departmental representatives had a number of meetings with them. The band and the department have set up a joint committee that is now examining innovative proposals to meet the land requirements of the band.
Furthermore-and I speak on behalf of the minister- he says he is very interested in seeing the situation improve and is prepared to have discussions with the Gwa'sala-Nakwaxda'xw communities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 3, 1993