1993-03-15

Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the discrepancies in the Northern and Isolated Areas Tax Allowance should be cleared up and the tax benefits continued.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to a motion sponsored by me that has been chosen for debate today.
The motion first presented some time ago reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the discrepancies in the Northern and Isolated Areas Tax Allowance should be cleared up and the tax benefits continued.
I have reviewed some of the previous debates on this issue. It is interesting to note that this may be the first real debate this House has had on this issue, certainly since changes were made to the program by the government in late 1990.
Before proceeding I want to thank a couple of my colleagues who have been helpful in our northern caucus in doing research and following this issue very closely.
The member for Churchill has done much of the work for our caucus on this issue. I thank him and his staff for their assistance. As well, the member for Skeena, whose seat adjoins mine to the west, has had much experience on this particular issue and has also provided valuable information. As well, my colleagues from Prince Albert-Churchill River and The Battlefords-Meadow Lake have participated in our caucus discussions. This is a very important issue to our constituents.
I thank them and others who have expressed their ongoing concern over this issue. I look forward to the debate and discussion today.
.(1115)
Canada is a northern country. Many of us now recognize that with the subtle change in our description of Canada as being from sea to sea to sea.
We now recognize that a large part of our country exists beyond the 49th parallel and our close relationship to the United States. Many of us who represent constituencies like mine also have communities that are remote even from the major centres in our own ridings. In my area, for example, communities like Fort St. James, Granisle and Valemount come to mind.
The important point to make is that these communities are just as much a part of Canada as are the cities we see most often on television and in the news. Our communities may not be the setting for programs like Street Legal and the like but they are part of what makes our country.
In fact many have argued that the wealth of Canada has been largely created by these remote areas. One just has to look at the forest industry for example. Over 300 communities in Canada depend on the forest industry for survival. Many communities live or die by the mining or fishing industry and their success or failure. It is the financial return to those businesses and the tax revenues to government that have enabled us to have many of the services we have today.
However, inherent in much of the way the system has evolved is that it is not fair in the way many of these communities are treated by the tax system and generally

March 15, 1993
Private Members' Business
speaking, by the lack of services and programs that government provides.
It is my view that the northern and isolated areas tax benefit program helped many of these communities and the rationale for reinstating the program in those areas that this government cut it from is still relevant today.
In a report prepared by the Library of Parliament a number of reasons were given as to why such a program was needed. The higher cost of living is mentioned, as is the lack of services that do not exist in many large centres or are taken for granted in many communities. It also notes that the northern tax benefit helps offset the higher tax burden on those who receive higher wages for just living and working in a community like this.
As a country, if we are to develop and gain from our resources we must be able to attract the people to those areas to help extract those resources and of course to hopefully add value to those raw resources. A benefit program helps with that. The development of these resources and these communities clearly helps all the people of our country.
I want to make the point as well that while my interest is in those areas which might normally be defined as northern, the original program was also for isolated areas. Living in certain parts of the Kootenays in British Columbia or parts of New Brunswick or Saskatchewan is just as remote as living in a northern community.
It is my view that not only should the program be reinstated, it should also be returned to those areas deemed remote that might have been eligible before. I will return to that point later.
Under the original program which came into effect in 1987 all individuals residing for at least six consecutive months in qualifying communities received a deduction of up to $450 per month. The key object at that time according to the Minister of Finance in a May 1990 response to a petition I tabled in the House was to "encourage workers to move to and settle in northern and isolated areas where recruitment is difficult".
The administration of the program was clearly a problem at the start. Members who have had experience with the system can cite many of them. Most of the problems resulted from boundary disputes-a point I will discuss later as well-in determining which communities were eligible.
As well, it would seem that the department, in this case National Revenue, certainly was not prepared for the administration of the program. Just to use one example in my riding, McBride which is east of Prince George was confused with McBride Lake which is south of Houston and a four hour drive from Prince George.
I am sure other members dealt with many similar problems my office had. Those of us who represent these northern communities, ourselves and certainly our staffs, have become somewhat expert in having to deal with the particular program and some of the discrepancies in it.
The problems were immense. In April 1988 the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas was established to look at these problems. After public hearings were held throughout many areas the report was presented to the Minister of Finance on October 27, 1989. The report's recommendations were not well received in many parts of the country. Even the current Minister of Forestry, the member for Prince George- Peace River, said in the November 17,1989 Prince George Citizen that he was disappointed with the task force recommendations.
Among the problems with the task force was its initial instruction to produce a revenue neutral recommendation. This direction could only lead to a reduction in the program. I want to spend a bit of time on the next point because it goes to the crux of the problems the government has accepted and the alternative I wish to present.
The report's main recommendation was to reject the community-by-community approach. They argued that it was difficult to administer the program because of this and they developed a strict northern zone. Their argument was that the communities in the northern zone had the characteristics of being in the north. The question of being remote, that is a community in the Kootenays of British Columbia, was rejected out of hand.
Finally, after much prodding the government released its position in December 1990. The government's position was to accept the northern zone as recommended by the commission but to create an intermediate zone which reduces the program in that area to 50 per cent of the benefits by 1995, for example the community of Mackenzie which is not in my riding but north of Prince George. Communities outside the new area that were previously
March 15, 1993

eligible would see their benefits reduced by a third each year to the point where this year, tax year 1993, two-thirds of the benefit will be available. Then in tax year 1994 the last third will be provided. In 1995 the benefit would disappear completely.
I am calling for a return of the program to its original concept, including a return of full benefits and the inclusion of remote areas. I cannot see why we could not start with a new program of phasing in the new areas starting in tax year 1995 where we would start building the program back with two-thirds of the benefit being available again. This would mean that in 1996 the full benefit would be returned. Those communities which will only be receiving 50 per cent of the benefit in 1995-for example, Dawson Creek in northern British Columbia-could be returned immediately in my view to full benefits in the tax year 1994.
The main reason for the commission and the government to reject the program was that the community-bycommunity approach was too hard to administer; it was confusing and created too many discrepancies. It is my view that time has proven the government and the commission wrong on this point.
There is no doubt that the original program had many problems, as does the current one though on a much reduced scale. My research indicates that the problems on the whole have been resolved. For example, the Auditor General who had a team of auditors working on this program in the department removed them saying that the problems had largely been resolved, at least to the point where he no longer felt a need to have a specific monitoring of the department's administration of the program.
I have also discussed the problems with accountants in my riding who say that the number of problems has gone down dramatically. One firm reports that Revenue Canada reviewed 20 per cent to 30 per cent of northern tax benefit claims when the program started. This accountant now says that it is down to at most some 2 per cent. In other words, as soon as the government figured out how to run the program, it cancelled it. Unfortunately the government is not listening to people in those areas that want to see a return to the program.
Private Members' Business
In the December 21, 1990 Prince George Citizen the mayor of Mackenzie, British Columbia, just north of Prince George, a community in the phase-out area, hoped that there was "still an opportunity to talk to the government". Unfortunately that opportunity has come and gone. In an August 14,1992 letter to me the Minister of Finance said that the government "was not contemplating any change to the new program at this time".
It is unfortunate the Conservatives will not listen to northern or remote communities to have the program reinstated. They may be taking their cue from the Reform Party which apparently wants to axe this program completely. Northerners are obviously concerned about this lack of support from that particular party.
It is my view that a properly developed, well-known community-by-community system is the best approach to take. As we all know there are degrees of remoteness. A system well designed could be an ongoing measure of the level of services to a community. The more in improved services the less the benefit might be. It forces governments at all levels to be aware of the needs of remote communities, be it airport expansion or the provision of medical services.
Collective agreements already recognize the needs of employees who live in remote areas. For example, the isolated post directive is part of the collective agreement between the federal government and its employees. While these collective agreements recognize the needs of employees it is time the government did as well.
According to the Library of Parliament research paper on this issue, some 296,000 Canadians claimed the northern residence deduction. The "cost" to the government was thought to be around $305 million. That is a fraction of the defence department's $5.5 billion helicopter acquisition program and is a program that clearly would extend all across the country.
This program was a valuable one. It was well received by the public and once in place for some time the government departments charged with administering it were able to run it properly. In other words, it is a program worth keeping.

March 15, 1993
Private Members' Business
New Democrats have recently released a jobs paper that outlines our economic alternatives to this government and most important it clearly lays out our alternative in the tax field, something we have not heard from other parties. The measure alone on the GST would put at least another $600 a year in the pockets of each Canadian, not just northerners.
I welcome the comments from other members and hope that they will consider supporting this motion and allowing northerners the fairness we deserve.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to 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 share with hon. members my views on motion M-376, which suggests that the alleged discrepancies in the northern and isolated areas tax allowance should be cleared up and the tax benefits continued.
First of all, I would like to give you a brief history of these tax benefits for residents in northern and isolated areas. In the late 1970s a routine audit by Revenue Canada, Taxation revealed that many employees in northern and isolated areas received assistance from their employers for housing and travel. The value of this assistance was not always reported on information slips, even though it clearly constituted a tax benefit under the Income Tax Act. A proposal by Revenue Canada to adjust the tax returns of affected individuals generated great concern. In order to study the issues, the government announced a moratorium on taxation of these benefits.
This moratorium was implemented by means of a remission order. From 1978 to 1986 certain employer-provided travel and housing benefits for workers in eligible isolated areas were exempted from income tax. In his budget of November 12, 1981 the Minister of Finance announced his intention to limit the application of the remission order to employees who had participated in benefit plans established on or before that date. On December 2, 1982, plans for phasing in the taxation of these benefits and rules for their evaluation were announced. Evaluation rules were set up in a second
remission order. However, the proposal to phase in taxation of these benefits was subsequently rescinded.
The government continued to study the issue. Concerns were expressed at meetings held in Northern Canada with local residents and groups representing employees, entrepreneurs, native people and others.
Two themes were a constant in these discussions. First, employers reported difficulties in attracting and retaining employees. Second, certain aspects of the remission orders were felt to be unfair because they benefited only workers receiving housing and travel assistance from their employers, and only employees covered by arrangements made prior to November 13,1981 were entitled to a full exemption.
Acknowledging the inequities of the remission order system the Minister of Finance proposed in his budget of February 26, 1986 that the tax benefit should apply to all residents of qualifying areas. These areas were identified community by community, on the basis of factors such as distance from an urban centre, condition of roads and latitude. According to this approach, which was applied from 1987 to 1991, all employer-provided benefits became taxable but certain tax deductions became available to all residents of qualifying areas. A transitional deduction was granted to residents in areas that were previously covered by remission orders but no longer qualified for the tax deduction.
Unfortunately, determining qualifying areas on a community-by-community basis did not prove as effective as the government had hoped. Although many of the discrepancies referred to in the hon. member's motion were eliminated the government continued to receive many representations stating that the northern tax benefits system remained unfair, mainly because some communities located near qualifying communities were not eligible.
On December 10, 1987 the Minister of Finance announced his intention to establish a task force to study the appropriateness of changing the eligibility criteria for determining the Northern and Isolated Areas Tax Allowance. The task force was instrumental in moving this debate forward, suggesting in its report published in 1989 that a zone system should replace community-based
March 15, 1993

determination of qualifying areas, in determining eligibility for benefits available to residents of northern and isolated areas.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as some members of this Elouse may be aware as well, a zone system was introduced in 1991. The zones did not cover all communities previously covered by the remission order system or community-based determination of qualifying areas. However, residents of these communities were and still are receiving benefits on a transitional basis. These transitional benefits will be phased out gradually by 1994, by which time we will have eliminated many of the inequities of the previous systems. The new zone system has already simplified the process considerably and is a more effective way of assisting residents of northern and isolated areas.
Considering these developments, I think all hon. members will agree that previous measures to determine eligibility for the Northern and Isolated Areas 'lax Allowance have proved unfair and ineffective. Perhaps it would be easier to understand the problems that existed under the old system and the kind of discrepancies involved if I were to describe a typical case.
Consider the person who lives just outside the perimeter of a qualifying community. He works for the same employer, goes to the same grocery store, has the same family doctor and has access to the same local school as another person who lives within the perimeter of the qualifying community.
Under the old community-based system for determining qualifying areas one person was eligible for tax benefits while the other was not. To make matters worse, although the person outside the perimeter of this community was actually living in greater isolation he was nevertheless not eligible for these benefits. It has been said that the community-by-community method for determining qualifying areas was inherently unfair because it created border problems between adjacent communities that were treated differently for income tax purposes.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you now why I believe that the present system of zones is a better solution and probably
Private Members' Business
the best solution for determining eligibility for these benefits.
In its report of October 27, 1989, the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas proposed creating only one northern area in which residents have major problems and are isolated. The task force recommended that only residents of the northern area continue to receive tax benefits and that the transition period for communities losing benefits not exceed one year.
The task force stated just as clearly that the then-current method of determining prescribed zones community by community could not be maintained. The government therefore had to choose one of two alternatives: either a modified method of determining prescribed zones community by community, like the one that existed before, or a zone system. Since experience had shown that a system of determining prescribed zones community by community was untenable, the government accepted the task force's proposal to establish a zone system.
The present system of zones is based on recommendations from the task force and many other presentations received throughout the country. Areas eligible for the deductions given to northerners, which are areas in the north and in the intermediate zone, were defined using two classification systems developed by the task force.
The northern area classification system included mainly environmental factors like the severity of the climate, the growing season, the heating season, plant cover and permafrost. The classification system for isolated regions put more emphasis on community characteristics such as population and distance from urban centres. This is an effective and objective way of determining eligibility for the deductions given to northerners.
According to this method, northerners are eligible for full benefits, while residents of the intermediate zone are eligible for half the benefits. Furthermore, as I already said, transitional provisions were established. Residents of communities that are no longer eligible under the zone system will receive two-thirds of the benefits in 1993 and one-third in 1994. Only after that date will benefits be fully eliminated.
No perfect system exists. Whatever solution we decide on to determine eligibility for the northern benefit some people will still believe that they should be included if we want the system to be fair.

March 15, 1993
Private Members' Business
Nevertheless, extending the benefits further south would reduce the relative advantages for those who are really isolated. I believe that our present system is the best. It is based on the objective opinions we received from an independent task force. It gives a temporary break to those who are no longer eligible for benefits or those whose benefits will be reduced. At the end of the transition period, the new system will have eliminated many, if not all, of the inequities in the former system.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to enter into this debate today to talk about a very important issue to northern Ontario and to northern Canada in general.
In discussing the northern and isolated areas tax allowance, first of all we have to put into context the reasons that this legislation was introduced and try to focus on that particular issue so we do not get sidetracked concerning what we are talking about today.
This measure was put in place by the Conservative government in 1987. The main reason for its implementation on January 1, 1987 was based on the theme of economic development in the north. When this initiative was put in place, there was some discussion about the inequities of the system and because of that the Minister of Finance established a task force on April 29, 1988.
The task force was to find alternatives to the community-by-community approach to allocating these benefits. One of the reasons we are having this debate today is that there was a feeling among communities that the system which was in place before 1987 was not a completely fair system for all northerners.
I want to suggest in this debate that the new system, as defined by the zones created by a task force and put in place by the Minister of Finance as of December 1990, has again not met the major initiative that was undertaken during the process of the task force hearings, which was to put fairness into the system.
Let me give some examples that show why. The issue in this debate is what is the north. We all know, those of us who live in northern Ontario, that the north can easily be defined with a map and a ruler and a pen. Once we
had defined the north, which is based on a different	B
climate, vegetation and the large geography of these	fl
particular regions, the issue at hand was the one that	B
dealt with isolation and how to set in place the criteria	B
that would best ensure that benefits were given to areas	B
most in need based on their isolation. At the same time	B
we kept in mind that they were still part of the whole	B
criteria, which is that they were citizens living in the	B
north.	B
The task force recommended two zones: a northern B zone and an intermediate zone. The reason for this is B that it wanted to get away from a community-by-com- B munity criteria to determine how people would get B benefits under the northern tax allowance.	B
What it has done is simply create more problems for us B in northern Ontario. I want to tell members exactly what B I mean by that. Since the changes to the northern tax B allowance the roughly 50 communities in Kenora-Rainy H River, in northern Ontario, were broken down into H zones. Originally there were close to 50 communities and	H
now there are 16 communities in the northern zone and	H
9 communities in the intermediate zone. Through this	H
new process it phased 24 communities out of the north-	H
ern tax allowance as of 1995.	H
Mr. Speaker, you would ask, and people watching	|B
would want to know, why I would be opposed to that if	SB
those particular communities should not have access to	|H
the northern allowance and the benefits that accrue	|H
from it. Let me give an example of why the inequities	|B
that were looked at under the task force still remain.	|H
In the northern zone there arc communities that are |B only accessible by air. The majority of	communities in	|Bnorthern Ontario that still meet the	criteria of the	|Bnorthern zone are all fly-in communities. However, in	SBthe phased-out zone, the one that we objected to	|Bseverely, there arc also communities	that are only	|Baccessible by air. Lac la Croix, which is	in the southern	|fl
section of northern Ontario, is only accessible by air and |B therefore has the same isolation problems as the com- |B munities that are still included in the northern zone.
I have suggested to the government, and would like to	BH
suggest it again today, a formula which is much more	BH
effective than the one that was originally put in place.	BH
The formula should be based on the fact that wc all know	BH
where northern B.C. is, wc all know where northern	BB
March 15, 1993

Alberta is, and we all know where northern Ontario is. So that issue is easily resolved.
The next issue is the one dealing with isolation. Isolation can be easily broken down into certain categories: one, the availability of basic services in a community; two, the availability of basic goods in a community; three, where goods are regularly available, their costs including transportation and transportation taxes; and four, where goods and services are not available, the availability and cost of transportation to and from the closest service centre.
In my mind it is easy to make a decision as a government as to whether people meet certain criteria based on living in northern Ontario and establishing criteria to deal with isolation. For example, in some communities in northern Ontario there are no publicly funded elementary schools. In some communities there are no publicly funded high schools. In some communities there are no publicly funded medical facilities. In some communities there are no banks or other financial institutions, no post offices or no telephone service.
Those unique needs require some sort of northern tax allowance benefit. If they can easily be put into a criteria, then based on that criteria we could decide what level of benefits would be given. It could then be phased in depending on where communities would fall in terms of the kinds of services and products they would want to offer.
For example, let us talk about transportation. Some communities are only accessible by air. Communities in northern Ontario that are only accessible by air should get 100 per cent of the northern tax allowance because it makes obvious sense that if a community is so isolated that it has no road, no railway, no bus, and only possibly air access, then more than likely it does not have very good medical facilities and those other kinds of situations that we are talking about.
To identify isolated areas we could also use the costs of goods that come to people in that community. We could easily use the CPI standard. Let me give an example of how we could do that. Lac la Croix is a community that was phased out under the new northern residence deduction system that the minister implemented in
Private Members' Business
1990-91. Lac la Croix is being phased out and should not be simply for the reason that it is only accessible by air. So it should get 100 per cent of the NRD. Ignace, which is a community in northern Ontario that is on the Trans-Canada Highway, only has bus service so it should be allowed, and this is only a suggestion of course so we can fool around with the numbers, to get 25 per cent based on the fact that it only has bus service.
Then there is the CPI which is much higher than in southern Ontario. It would give them about another 20 percentage points so a community like Ignace which was completely phased out should get roughly 45 per cent of the tax benefits under the northern tax allowance. Savant Lake has no public transportation, no banks, and no high schools so based on the criteria that I have outlined it would get 110 points, which is over 100 so it would get 100 per cent of the northern tax allowance.
That is how the system should have been put in place to deal with the isolation of northern Canadians. It should not have suggested that now we will arbitrarily create a zone somewhere in northern Ontario, northern B.C. or northern Alberta. In effect, that pits one northerner against another.
The whole objective was to give benefits to people who would not be able to access the services that we just take for granted in urban centres in this country.
I suggest to the government that if it had listened to the suggestions that were made by northerners and by members of Parliament on this side of the House then it would have implemented a system that was much more acceptable to all of us and which would have met the criteria it established when it first tried to implement this new system. That criteria was to stimulate economic development and growth, entice people from southern portions of our country to come to northern Canada to work, and to give them those benefits which would reduce the cost of living for those northerners.
I appreciate the short period of time I was given to outline a much more acceptable way of giving northerners the northern tax allowance.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to participate in this private members' debate today because it directly affects many of my constituents.

March 15, 1993
Supply
The motion that we are considering, as proposed by the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the discrepancies in the
Northern and Isolated Areas Thx Allowance should be cleared up and
the tax benefits continued.
I would like to compliment the member for putting this motion forward because there are many of us from northern isolated areas of the country, members from all three parties, who have experienced a great deal of frustration in dealing with this issue for the last number of years. I also had the opportunity to argue on behalf of the hon. member, who could not be here that day, that this motion should be a votable motion and subject to five hours of debate.
I made that intervention because it is all too rarely that these kinds of issues come before the House. It is all too rarely that the isolated northern areas of this country have the issues of daily life, services, and how the benefits of Canadian life affect them debated in this forum.
Certainly there has been an ongoing evolution with respect to the northern tax benefit. As originally envisioned, the tax benefit was to apply to both northern and isolated communities and a series of formulae were developed in order to determine what communities those would be.
There is no doubt that in the initial stages of implementation there were problems in determining how to fairly designate which communities should or should not be included. There were certainly some administrative problems.
When the government sent in the Rene Brunelle task force to hold hearings and come up with recommendations it went way too far in the recommendations that came forward because the net result of those recommendations was that only the most isolated northern communities ended up being eligible for these benefits. Many other communities that were in the mid-north-

[And the alarm bells having rung:]


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Under the circumstances, the proceedings are suspended to the call of the Chair.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.52 a.m.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 12.34 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon) moved:: That this House recognizes that the government's economic recovery plan, including the free trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement, the goods and services tax, privatization and deregulation, reduction of transfer payments and off-loading onto provincial governments, has been a failure and that this House acknowledge that a comprehensive economic recovery program must endorse a strategy for a full employment economy which entails abrogating the Canada-U.S. Free Hade Agreement, not implementing the North American free trade agreement and includes such actions as a jobs plan, an infrastructure program, and a national child care program in order to ensure job creation and prosperity for Canadians.


Mr. Angus:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before my leader rises to commence debate, I wonder if there is consent from the House to allow her to go slightly over the allotted time of 20 minutes. She anticipates perhaps 22 to 23 minutes. I wonder if that would be agreeable to the House.


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, we would be pleased to agree with that and I am sure with the wild applause it will probably go 25 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the suggestion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on my party's motion to speak about a new vision for Canada. As the motion we put before the House
March 15, 1993

outlines, this vision is based on an economic recovery program that must endorse a full employment strategy. We have seen the results of the old vision. We want to present a new vision.
The results of the old vision are quite clear: a huge debt, started by the Liberals and doubled by the Conservative Party, off-loaded onto the provinces and territories; over 1.5 million Canadians officially unemployed and thousands more having left the work force after giving up hope completely; and a 17 per cent unemployment rate in the youth of our country, and this is of particular concern when the youth cannot see a future for themselves, and four million Canadians living in poverty. We have seen the results of the old vision.
The Conservatives can select a new leader. They can put a new face on old policies but they remain old policies and they remain failed policies. More than a new face, Canada requires a new direction.
My party has put forward a detailed jobs plan which presents that new direction, which proposes a fundamental reorientation of economic policy away from the failed trickle-down approach to a policy founded on a full employment strategy. We have to destroy the myth that the economic policy which puts 1.5 million Canadians out of work is good economic policy. We have to destroy the myth that words such as a jobless recovery even mean anything. We need an economy that puts people first. We have to destroy the myth that the answer to our problems is to attack the unemployed.
The answer is not to attack the unemployed but to attack unemployment. A full employment strategy allows us to do just that.
What is a full employment strategy? It means that every economic policy would be reoriented so that every government action affecting the economy would ask the question, will this protect jobs, will this create jobs? This includes training policies and education policies. All of the actions the government would take would be oriented to ensuring that Canadians are working.
The jobs plan that we put forward would create 1.6 million new jobs over the length of the next Parliament. That is 500,000 more jobs than if Canada continued under the current policies. At the same time our plan
Supply
would lower the deficit, would bring down inflation and hold the line on taxes for middle-income Canadians.
That is not just the New Democratic Party talking. Our plan is supported by an independent analysis performed by one of Canada's most respected firms. I challenge the government and the Liberal Party to produce a plan that would get the same results.

We succeed because we recognize that the government has a constructive role to play in the economy. The other parties do not admit that.
The economies that came out of the 1980s in good shape are those where the governments played a constructive role in co-operation with business and labour. The economies that came out of the 1980s in very bad shape are those where the governments withdrew completely, as in the United States, Great Britain and Canada, and everything is left to the market. The privatization and deregulation begun by the Liberals and enthusiastically pursued by the Conservatives have had disastrous consequences.
The marketplace and the private sector do many things and they do many things well, but there are other things that they simply cannot do, nor should they be expected to. They are not in a position to ensure a national transportation, national communications and national environmental infrastructure. That is a responsibility for government.
They are not in a position to do long-term national economic planning. That is a responsibility for government in conjunction with other sectors of society. They are not in a position to provide universal health care, universal education and a social safety net. That is a responsibility for government.
A government willing to play a positive role will complement the private sector, will work with the private sector and will support the private sector in doing what it does best: generating economic growth, providing goods and services and creating jobs for Canadians.
The Europeans provide us with an example of positive govemment-business-labour co-operation. One exam-

March 15, 1993
Supply
pie is the recent development of the Airbus which has been extremely successful. It had the involvement of governments and the private sector and has created a very important market niche for Europe.
The Japanese provide another example in the way they join together to identify niche markets with the government purchasing domestically developed new technologies, providing an initial market and stimulating research and development into new products.
Our neighbours to the south are also talking about a similar form of co-operation and a similar role for government in the United States. Like our trading partners, the Canadian government can and must undertake new initiatives to create jobs and build a forward looking, smarter economy.
If I may, I would like to briefly highlight a few of the initiatives that we propose in this new vision.

First there is the physical infrastructure. Canadian businesses need good transportation systems. They need modern telecommunications systems and healthy communities. What they have is an infrastructure that has been deteriorating for 20 years through negligence.
We have a choice: either invest now or wait and pay 10 times as much. In our plan, we have chosen the most sensible approach, a national infrastructure program that will take us into the 21st century and create 130,000 jobs.
What the government has neglected in recent years is the social infrastructure-social programs, education and the health system-which is the basis of a strong, sound economy. We must rejuvenate our social infrastructure and fill the gaps in it, the biggest one being the lack of a national child care program.
A national child care program would give our children a sound pre-school education and enable parents to devote themselves to their own training and to finding work. This is now impossible, especially for single mothers.
Our action plan proposes a national child care program that would double the number of places in Canada in five years and create 70,000 jobs.

A third issue in our plan addresses the need to get more capital into the hands of small and medium-sized businesses. It is these businesses that create 75 per cent to 80 per cent of employment in Canada. It is a particularly important issue, I might add, for those entrepreneurs who live outside major cities and in less populated regions.
We see an important role for government here in helping to establish pools of capital that will invest in innovative Canadian-owned companies that create jobs here at home. Our plan presents a national investment fund that has a potential to create 200,000 new Canadian jobs.
Another important initiative we propose is a fair tax system, an important part of providing revenues and also providing a climate of fairness in our country. A part of that is the elimination of the GST. By the way, I am pleased to note that this past weekend Australia learned from our experience and elected a Labour government opposed to the GST.
In Canada, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has estimated that the GST costs businesses in this country about $10 billion to collect and has cost the country 100,000 to 200,000 jobs.
Of course, any responsible party advocating the elimination of the GST has to spell out exactly how it would plan to replace revenues. We do that in the jobs plan. I want to say that these options are reasonable and indeed, by eliminating the GST, maintain a low rate of inflation, something that has not happened with the continuation of the current economic policies.
Of course, the Liberals said that they too would eliminate the GST, but they do not tell us how. They talk about another kind of consumption tax, maybe a tax on everything, maybe a tax on food. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck. We are saying that it is in the interest of the country and the economic interest to eliminate the GST. We are serious about it and we provide the alternatives.
The final policy I want to mention today is trade. Our party's policy is very clear. We believe that the Canada-
March 15, 1993

Supply
U.S. trade deal must be abrogated and that NAFTA must not proceed.
Why is that so crucial? It is crucial simply because Canada cannot pursue a new vision and cannot pursue the kind of new economy that we are talking about if we are bound by trade deals that entrench the old vision and the old way of doing things: trade deals which prevent the government from playing a positive role in the economy and which take away from Canadians the instruments of regional development, resource development, value-adding and strategic investment.
Let us be clear about what these trade deals represent. They represent taking power away from elected, accountable people's democratic governments and transferring it to unaccountable, unelected multinational corporations. This is not in the interest of Canada nor, I might add, of any other country.
We believe that if we are to ensure the long-term viability of Canada as a great trading nation, we must replace the so-called free trade agreements with a fair trade strategy based on sectoral agreements, improved multilateral arrangements and aggressive trade diversification to areas like the Pacific Rim.
[Translation\
These are the highlights of our action plan to create jobs and revive our economy. I did not mention all the initiatives in this plan for research and development, for example, to increase opportunities for training, to create opportunities for our young people, to develop our rural communities and those that depend on natural resources.
How do we create 1.6 million jobs while reducing the deficit and controlling inflation, without increasing taxes for our families? The answer is found in my party's innovative approach to the economy.

There are two deficits in this country, both of which we take seriously. There is the fiscal deficit, which is very real and which we must all be concerned about. There is also the human deficit, the energy, talent and potential we are losing because so many people live in poverty, are unemployed or are in part-time, short-term jobs.
The approach taken by the Conservatives and the Liberals is that the only way to improve the fiscal deficit is to worsen the human deficit. In fact, through that approach they have worsened both.
Our approach is that the only way to improve the fiscal deficit situation is to work to eliminate the human deficit. Our plan will generate 1.6 million new jobs,
500.000	more than under current policies. Think of
500.000	additional workers able to pay taxes. Think of
500.000	fewer Canadians dependent on government support. Think of the resulting reduction in the deficit and the debt.
It has been estimated that the gap between Canada's actual economic output and its potential output is $70 billion. Not only does that represent an economic deficit, a fiscal deficit, but it clearly represents the human deficit.
Getting Canadians back working again will fill that gap. Filling that gap will contribute to substantial deficit and debt reduction. The reality is we have a choice in this country: We can carry on with the slash and bum or we can start to plant and grow.
That is our plan. Perhaps because the logic has not been fully grasped by some of our colleagues in the other two parties our plan has been opposed by the two old parties. I invite a debate. I invite the Conservatives and the Liberals to produce their own alternatives.
Politics in this country has changed. Canadians have come to expect an open and thorough discussion of issues. They want and deserve to know where political parties stand before an election, not after.
Canadians deserve to be listened to. Canadians deserve to be involved. Only in that way can we determine Canada's economic future. Only in that way can we restore Canadians' confidence in the political process. Only in that way can we restore optimism and hope to the people whom we are here to serve.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech of the hon. member for Yukon.


An hon. member:: Tell us about David Peterson.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member says: "Tell us about David Peterson". I was waiting for a reference to Bob Rae, but I did not hear one in this speech. I made a few from my seat, but they were not responded to. I do not want to get into the story of Bob Rae today. I have a more general question I would like to ask the hon. member.

March 15, 1993
Supply
It is about policy and concerns what I did not hear in the speech. I listened very attentively to hear some reference to the nationalization of the chartered banks.
I understand that is a New Democratic Party policy, but I did not see it in the five-year plan nor did I hear it in the speech of the hon. member for Yukon. I wonder if she could enlighten the House and Canadians as to whether it is still NDP policy to nationalize the banks.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I recommend that my hon. colleague read the strategy for a full employment economy. We speak very clearly about the national investment fund. I think everyone recognizes, and I assume the member does as well from the region he represents, that there is a grave problem in terms of getting capital into the hands of those innovative entrepreneurs all of us know. They may want to begin fairly small businesses and may not be huge employers. They may be interested in developing new products. However, getting capital is very difficult. Therefore we propose a national investment fund which addresses that very need.
We based the projection of the 200,000 jobs we say this will create on a very important Coopers & Lybrand study. It has done a very interesting research study on how developing this availability of capital, particularly in those regions where it is so often difficult to access capital, has been a targeted way of getting funds into the hands of those small businesses that create most of the jobs in our country.
When the member has an opportunity to read this, he will also see that we talk very much about democratic participation in the economy. Through a national investment fund, we see supporting things such as credit unions, instances where workers come together and decide to buy out a particular firm, involvement of labour in the work place and involvement of those in a particular region in helping to make the decisions about what long-term economic development will be best for their society. I am sure the hon. member will particularly appreciate that last point.
The member will therefore find that the national investment fund we are proposing is an extremely important contribution to enlarging the base of capital
for all Canadians and particularly the small business sector.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member's remarks. I would like to remind her that actually there are many things she said in her speech today with which we in the Liberal Party agree.
We also agree with a fair tax system. We are working on many options in this area. The member talks about fiscal deficit and human deficit. We also care about these things.
I want to ask a specific question of the leader of the New Democratic Party. She mentioned in her remarks there might be or could be a difference of $70 billion between the actual output, and potential output, and there was room for growth in that area. That is a tremendous number in terms of hope and possibility for new revenues, et cetera. How did she get that number? Where did she get that number? How did she calculate it and what was her source? I think it is worth while to debate that because it might allow us to come up with ideas if we know that is a really solid number.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is making an extremely important point. The number comes from several economists. They have estimated this and compared it in Canada as being a 10 per cent gap, whereas in the United States now it is about a 2 per cent gap. It has been reported in a number of places in the literature.
What is important about it, as my colleague mentions, is it points out that we have the opportunity in our economy and in our country to expand because we have the ability to be more productive. It is not that we need to create that ability. What we need to do is have the kind of training available. We talk about that in our plan as well, the importance of business as well as governments being involved in training. We know now it is continuous, lifelong training that all Canadians in the work force will undergo.
So the gap, as my colleague says, is quite a shocking number. It is something we should be looking at in terms of how to narrow that gap and match the potential closer to the actual. We talk about doing that, as I mentioned earlier, through the national investment fund. We get
March 15, 1993

more entrepreneurs working and get people with creative ideas being able to implement them and having the funds to do so. We also are very strong in our proposal on research and development, on increasing funding for the National Research Council, so much of which has been decimated in this country. It is shocking.
I am sure my hon. colleague will agree that the Conservative government has talked about competitiveness. It has talked about how it is a global economy and Canada must be there and be able to participate. It has a multimillion dollar prosperity agenda but at the same time it cuts training and research and development. In fact, it makes absolutely no link between the rhetoric it has proposed and the actual investment in ensuring that is going to happen.
We have to address the fundamentals of preparing the work force and allowing for opportunities for our young people. That estimate of 17 per cent, and that is just the reported unemployment for young people, has to be distressing to every Canadian. I do not visit a university where people do not ask me what we see as the potential for them to have jobs. What I say and what we say in this jobs plan is that we have to focus on how to get Canadians back working.
I invite the Liberal Party, often called the policy challenged party, to put forward its ideas. Let us have a real debate. I am glad that the Liberal member says he cares. That is very nice, but that does not put food on the table, so I challenge the hon. member to put forward his alternatives.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would take up that challenge. I will debate the leader of the New Democratic Party anywhere, anytime, no problem.
The question has to do with the opening remarks in her speech. She talked about the importance of a telecommunications network system that we must build. A little later she talked about this basically not having anything to do with NAFTA.
This is an area where we have a very special skill in this country, the area of telecommunications. There are a lot of very important potential export opportunities in that area, specifically in Mexico. There is great hope and great potential for telecommunications exports there.
Supply
How does the hon. member square basically not having anything to do with NAFTA on one hand and yet at the same time talk about moving out in this telecommunications-


Mr. McCurdy:: Now you support NAFTA.
Mr Mills: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I am asking a civil question in a constructive way. Through you, Mr. Speaker, you talk about debate and yet this is the kind of reaction you get. It is really quite amazing.
At any rate, how does the hon. member square telecommunications exports and shutting down NAFTA at the same time?


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member from the Liberal Party has finally clarified that his party is supportive of NAFTA. It was not very clear before but it is now clear.
I want to say to the hon. member that concern about NAFTA is very widespread in this country. The concern is not about increasing trade. Of course it is not. It is about an agreement initialled by this government which basically takes away the ability of this country to have control over our energy resources, water resources, transportation, foreign investment in this country, regional development and processing of our natural resources.
The NAFTA would make it impossible for us to develop in many regions of this country. I am sure the hon. member knows this. I understand that he and the Liberal Party support NAFTA. We stand against NAFTA because we do not want to sell Canada down the tubes like the Liberal Party and the Conservatives do.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend, the leader of the New Democratic Party, who is now fleeing the House because she does not want to hear what the Conservatives have to say.
I find the New Democratic Party's policies rather fascinating. I have spent time reading its economic document. Let us get this straight. The NDP proposes cancelling the free trade agreement. That is the first thing it is going to do, cancel the free trade agreement. In doing that, it is obviously going to bring back all the tariffs on the products that we ship into the United States, primarily further manufactured goods-there

March 15, 1993
Supply
were no tariffs on the raw materials and so on-where we have made the most progress in the free trade agreement. It is going to bring the free trade agreement back and put all those tariffs back up again.
Not only are the NDP putting tariffs on Canadian goods going into the United States, it will be putting tariffs on American goods coming into Canada which will jack up the price of the goods that we consume in this country. Therefore inflation is going to increase. It does not talk about that.
As a matter of fact, in its economic program it did brag about a company that did a study on it but did not take into consideration what cancellation of the free trade agreement would do to the economy of this country. It was not taken into consideration.
The next thing the NDP is going to do is stop the negotiations on NAFTA, just stop them. Never mind that almost everything Mexico ships into Canada now is duty free. The problem is getting our further manufactured goods into Mexico with high tariffs on them, some of them up to 25 per cent.
My friend from Broadview-Greenwood talked about telecommunications. I can tell the House that telecommunications is one area where we have great expertise and are doing extremely well, as well as in the environmental end of things. There are companies in Canada producing wonderful environmental equipment which is now being exported world-wide and in which Mexico has a great interest. Reducing the tariffs on these particular items will be beneficial to this country.
The NDP is going to cancel the North American free trade agreement. Then it is going to cancel the goods and services tax. I am the first to admit that the goods and services tax was probably not one of the most popular policies that any government in the last half century has brought in. However, I want it made very clear that there were innumerable studies, two royal commissions and joint committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. House of Commons committees over the last 40 years have recommended that Canada get out of the manufacturers' sales tax, which was at 13.5 per cent, and get into a form of consumption tax.
In our first mandate between 1984 and 1988 broad discussion took place across this country on the type of value-added tax we might have. A decision was taken by
this government and in the 1988 election campaign one of the planks in our platform was the goods and services tax. Nobody can deny that. It was there. It was debated. I remember the Minister of Finance at the time made two commitments during the campaign, no tax on food, on basic groceries, and no tax greater than there was on housing under the manufacturers' sales tax.
I remember very clearly that that was debated in 1988. It was not a surprise. It was part of the tax reform program and it was coming. The opposition can talk about free trade getting us elected, not the goods and services tax. That does not matter. We got elected, we formed the government and that was part of the plank of the platform. It was brought in.
I think manufacturers and exporters will tell you that one of the reasons we are more competitive in the international marketplace today is because of the goods and services tax, absolutely. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association will tell you that and the exporters will tell you that. We are not taxing our Canadian manufactured goods more than we are our imports as we did under the old system. We are not doing that any more. The NDP is going to cancel that.
It is $15 billion, $16 billion, $17 billion in income for the government. How is the NDP going to make it up? It has listed a number of things as to how it is to make it up, but at the same time it is going to bring in a national child care program costing about $6 billion. It is going to bring in a make-work project. It does not have a price tag on it, but it is a very expensive one. As is pointed out in its paper in the near term it is going to have to borrow. But it also says that in the near term it is going to get interest rates down.
When governments go out to borrow and increase their deficits, interest rates will follow because there will be insecurity throughout the financial markets where they must go to borrow and they will have to pay a premium to borrow money which will crank up the interest rates and start this old cycle of inflation up again.
The piece of work that the New Democratic Party has come out with is Alice in Wonderland. Grimm could not write a better fairy tale. There is no realism in it at all. It sounds beautiful and it looks beautiful on paper but if the NDP does everything that it says it is going to do in this paper then we are in for one terrible financial
March 15, 1993

situation. There is no question about that. We would be in more financial problems that you can imagine.
I want to state something that is rather interesting. I am fortunate enough to sit around the table with the Minister of Finance and the other finance ministers of this country. In the last while the New Democratic finance ministers are all of a sudden singing a little different tune than they did when they were campaigning or when they were in office for the first year or two. All of a sudden reality struck. Lo and behold they are talking about cost cutting. They are talking about deficit reduction. They are talking about reducing their borrowing requirements. Surprise, surprise. All of a sudden reality has hit.
I and a number of my colleagues will be speaking about some of the initiatives that were brought out in detail by the New Democratic Party. What I would like to do for a few moments is take a look at some of the things that are affecting Canada today and why the government has to move in the way it has been moving and I assume will continue to move.
There is a quickly moving global economy out there. The new world order for Canada's main street is Rome to Rangoon. It is not just Halifax or St. John's, Newfoundland, to Vancouver or even just down to New York, Chicago or Atlanta.
This is an environment where brainpower, technology and competitive muscle, not just our natural resources, are keys to our economic prosperity. This is a context where we transmit knowledge and money at the speed of light to and from every corner of the world.
These forces have led to a world of greater interdependence and competition than ever before in history. It is having a tremendous impact everywhere, but especially for Canada. In a world that is trading more Canada has become one of the great world traders. There are 114 separate countries whose yearly trade with Canada exceeds $10 million. Exports account for about 30 per cent of our economy, millions of jobs. Of the world's seven largest economies, only Germany depends more on trade than Canada.
Much of our exports are natural resources such as paper products, ores and fuels. These are commodities
Supply
marked by low prices that offer few new job opportunities. The direction Canada must now pursue is toward the knowledge-based higher margin products that can deliver good products and good jobs, and it is happening. We have had success stories that are second to none, such as large firms like Loblaws in food products and Spar in aerospace technology.
Canadian firms are finding niches around the world. I look at my friend from London, Labatt's, which bought Italy's Moretti SPA which now brews Italy's third largest selling brand of beer and smaller firms such as Montreal's Soft Image Inc. whose technology has cornered 70 per cent of the Italian market for 3-D computer software. There are stories after stories after stories, which I know my friend from Broadview-Greenwood agrees with, of successes of Canadian entrepreneurship and expertise around the world.


Mr. Keyes:: What about your friend from Hamilton and
Stelco?


John Horton McDermid: I will tell you what is going to happen to Stelco in Hamilton. Once it modernizes, streamlines and reorganizes it will become one of the best steel companies in the world and will be back on its feet doing extremely well. I predict that Dofasco will do the same, but it is experiencing the same problems that steel companies around the world are experiencing, which are reorganization and the reality of what is happening in the world today.
That is one of the things that I think all members of Parliament understand is going on in the world today. We see it time and time again.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: You don't know what the problem is.


John Horton McDermid: My friend from Hamilton West will have ample opportunity to debate today. I will be pleased to sit and listen to his side of the argument if he would just give me a chance to give my side of it. I would appreciate it.
At a time when these jobs are so important and so mobile, a nation's tax system must play a critical role in attracting or driving away business. We have met that

March 15, 1993
Supply
challenge by reforming our tax system. I talked about the goods and services tax but we also changed our business tax and the income tax system to make it fairer and more responsive to what is going on in the world today.
I notice that the New Democratic Party now wants to add a number of tax categories to income tax, and that is fine. It wants to go back and I understand that. The New Democratic Party wants to go back to the old ways. It wants to bring in the high tariff barriers again and the old tax systems again. It wants to go back.
We cannot go back any more. The New Democratic Party must understand and must learn that. As a result of the changes that we have brought about, Canada is now in the position of having veiy positive growth potential. There is not a think-tank around that is not saying that Canada is going to have the best growth in the OECD this year. The reason they are saying that is because interest rates are down and inflation is down. A lot of people do not understand the importance of getting inflation down.
Let me just talk about that. Inflation is a hidden tax, and I want people to look at it that way. Inflation is a hidden tax on young and old and on our ability to compete in the global marketplace. It eats up savings, making it harder for a young Canadian to buy a home or for parents to put aside money to help pay for their children's education. It costs workers jobs by pushing up wage demands and the costs of doing business, making it harder for us to export and leaving us more vulnerable to imports.
Inflation is no longer stealing Canadians' savings and killing jobs. Our average rate of inflation for 1992 was 1.5 per cent, the lowest in 30 years. It was also the lowest rate among the world's seven largest economies. Bringing down inflation has been a success that we can take to the bank. The simple fact is that lower inflation is the key to lower interest rates, and we are seeing results.
Low inflation has not only reduced interest rates but has also helped bring the growth of labour costs down sharply. This translates into Canadian companies being better able to compete at home and in the global marketplace.
The global economy has been struggling. Time after time we see these announcements of other countries with restructuring problems and lay-offs entering a
recessionaiy period such as we are now seeing in Germany and France.
As a result of that and because the economy's growth is slow the Minister of Finance introduced some help for the small business sector last year. The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party touched on the small business sector today and she is absolutely right. It is very important since between 1979 and 1990 it created some two million new full-time jobs, more than 80 per cent of all new employment. As a result of their importance, small business corporations enjoy a special deduction which holds the federal income tax rate to 12.8 per cent on the first $200,000 of business income. In the United States federal rates for small firms range from 15 per cent to 39 per cent over the same income range.
We have put in place a tax situation for small businesses to help them. As well, in the financial statement we helped them with their unemployment insurance employer premiums for jobs created in 1993. We have encouraged increased investment with the one-year 10 per cent investment tax credit for machinery and equipment which will apply to small businesses in farming, fishing, mining, oil and gas, manufacturing, construction and long-haul transportation.
We have also taken action to help small businesses secure financing. I could list the things we have done there but I can only say that time is running out and I cannot run through them all. I want to touch on a couple of other things.
The policies on housing have been very positive. There was the reduction of the required down payment from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, which 69,000 Canadian families took advantage of last year. I know my hon. friend from London was urging the government to do that, as were the real estate associations.
Then there were the RRSPs. We do not know exactly how much went into housing but we do know that
127,000	withdrawals were made in 1992, totalling $1.2 billion. We have to assume that a good portion of that amount went to housing.
Housing starts grew by 6.3 per cent last year and we are expecting a further 5.2 per cent growth this year. As a result of the affordability due to low inflation and the sharp decline in mortgage rates, the proportion of renters who can now afford a home has surged. For example, the proportion of renters in Toronto who can
March 15, 1993

afford to buy a home jumped nearly five times, from 7.3 per cent in January 1991 to 35 per cent by October of last year.
We have to continue our fight against overspending in government at all levels. The Canadian people are telling us in no uncertain terms that co-operation between all levels of government must intensify when it comes to tax matters and wisely spending the taxpayers' dollar.
That is probably the strongest message being received today from people from all parts of our economy. It is incumbent upon us to do that very thing. In co-operation with provincial and municipal governments we must get our act together, if I can use such a hackneyed expression, because that is what they are asking for.
That is what Canadians are encouraging us to do. We have provided the leadership in that area with the suggestions contained in the proposals in the Constitution which can be used as a basis for discussions between provincial governments and the federal government to assure that the taxpayers' dollar is being spent wisely or being saved wisely. We tend to forget that it all comes out of one person's pocket, the taxpayer, whether it is at the federal level, the provincial level or the municipal level.
I believe our policies are working. We are positioned to take advantage of economic growth this year. We will see a real gross domestic product increase of some 3.5 per cent, marking the seventh consecutive quarterly increase which is the largest since the second quarter of 1991. We must stay the course. If we deviate from this course then the financial markets will let us know in no uncertain terms and we will experience uncertainty once again.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the member has put before the House some propositions with respect to our jobs plan that I just want to briefly note and then I would like to put a question to him if I could.
He suggested first with respect to the GST if I quote him correctly that our figures show there will have to be extra borrowing as a consequence of the move to phase out the GST. In fact, the plan shows quite clearly that there will be an improvement of close to $11 billion in
Supply
deficit reduction over the present Conservative approach. That means at least $11 billion less will have to be borrowed.
In addition a lower rate of inflation will come from phasing out the GST. My former colleague on the finance committee knows the real rate is almost 5 per cent which is at an unprecedented high in this country. In Canada the real rate which is the nominal rate compared with the rate of inflation is much higher at this point than it has been in many previous years. In fact it is higher than when the previous chairman of the finance committee launched his famous attack against interest rates some years ago.
In any event, the interest rates we would expect would be lower because the cost of living would be lower as the GST was phased out. For both of those reasons one simply cannot make the case with any sense of truth that phasing out the GST would lead to more having to be borrowed and therefore to higher interest rates.
Also, the minister has suggested we would want to get out of the FTA and simply push the tariffs up to where they were in the past. We recognize that we have gone through five years of reductions in the FTA. We are not going to turn the clock back. We do not anticipate we are going to wind all those tariffs back to the level they were at five years ago. The reason to get out of the FTA is that we want to be in a position to be able to act freely, to be able to act with a sense of liberty with respect to policy matters.
What the minister has stated is simply not accurate. The rosy picture he has painted is also not accurate. I want to ask him why it is that his government is playing politics. Why is the government not acting to bring forward a budget as it should be doing right now? Then people in this country, the very business people, the very international investors that he talks about would have a sense of confidence in this country and a sense of what the future is going to bring in terms of financial matters this year. Why is it that the government has not committed itself to bringing a budget forward in its full sense within the next month or two?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation. I am sure the Minister of Finance in the not too distant future will have something to say about that.

March 15, 1993
Supply
I am not the finance minister. A lot of people out there watching are saying: "Thank God". The minister will make an appropriate announcement at the appropriate time. I will take it as a representation that the hon. member would like to see a budget within the next month or so. I will pass that on to the Minister of Finance. I am sure the hon. member will hear from him in the not too distant future.
The New Democratic Party says that we are playing politics. That statement was just made. Elere is a party that is going to cancel the free trade agreement, but it is going to keep the good parts of the free trade agreement. Is that not interesting? Absolutely. That is a gutsy statement: "We are going to cancel the free trade agreement but we are going to keep what has happened so far because it has been good". That is wonderful. It makes sense to me. It is a wonderful way of developing policies.
As I understand it today, this is great. I am going to be interested to hear how the New Democratic Party carries this further. Am I to believe it is going to cancel the free trade agreement but is going to keep the tariff reductions that have taken place to date? I wonder if that includes the tariff rates that will be coming off over the next five years as well. Will it be doing that as well? Will it be carrying that part of the free trade agreement on? Will it be wiping out the bilateral free trade dispute settlement mechanism? Is it going to wipe that out with the cancellation of the free trade agreement, or is it going to keep that part too? That is a pretty good part.
Canada has done pretty well with the dispute settlement mechanism. We have won a great number of disputes. Is the New Democratic Party going to keep that because it is a good part, but cancel the free trade agreement?
I have heard everything today. I cannot believe that the New Democrats are going to keep the free trade agreement to date, how far we have gone, but then cancel the rest of it. They now have a lot of explaining to do to the public. The New Democratic Party cannot have it both ways. It would like to have it both ways but will not have the chance to do so because it will never get elected as a national government in this country.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization, or the minister of "it's quite a state we find ourselves in today", is either totally ignorant of the problems facing Canadian steel makers or he is being conveniently evasive. I would think, given the member's intelligence on such matters, that it would be the latter.
Our Prime Minister's big promise was that he vowed the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement would give Canada special protection from U.S. trade harassment. However, the rulings in Washington against Canadian steel exports showed that it was not a promise the Prime Minister could deliver on despite his much touted special relationships with former Presidents Reagan and Bush. Of course, the chances of it ever becoming a reality are at best slim.
It has been written in different newspapers, and I am looking at The Ottawa Sun from the end of January, that what we have now is something well short of the goal I have just been speaking about. U.S. industries are still free to lay their complaints of alleged unfair subsidies for or pricing of Canadian exports.
On top of that, this government should not have rushed headlong into negotiating a North American free trade agreement when there was unfinished business. In particular the Canada-U.S. free trade deal resulted in Canadian steel makers being charged with dumping in the U.S. The verdict of guilty being handed to us by the U.S. against our steel industry shows how the FTA has failed this country.
My question is simple. Does the minister truly believe that the Canadian steel industry, with the problems I have just outlined, would be any better off today under NAFTA than it was yesterday under FTA? Or is the minister going to rely, as this government so often does, on the market forces to prevail and on the market to look after itself? We can see that the big brother government south of us is definitely going to have an upper hand on our steel industry.


John Horton McDermid: That was a long question. I need to be given the chance to answer it because he asked about three or four things.
March 15, 1993

Supply
First of all, the Prime Minister and I, when I was involved in international trade and the others who were involved in the free trade agreement, never said that trade problems would end. We never said that. If we thought that would happen, we would not have brought in the trade dispute settlement mechanism that is in the free trade agreement. What we have said all along and what we said then-the hon. member was not here then,
I was-was that we now have a vehicle to handle these disputes. That is what we have had.
Let us put this in perspective. We do about $285 billion worth of trade both ways each and every year. It is growing, by the way. We are going to have a surplus of some $18 billion this year. It has grown dramatically since the free trade agreement has come in. About 3 per cent of all that trade is under dispute and 97 per cent of the trade goes on dispute free. There are some areas where we have disputes.
The hon. member said: "The Americans can lay claim against Canadian goods coming into the United States", and so on and so forth. So can Canadians do that against American goods and they do it.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: We are talking about steel here.


John Horton McDermid: The hon. member was very general before he got into steel. He was talking about the agreement. We now have mechanisms to deal with these problems which we did not have before. We can deal with them on a much better basis because of the free trade agreement.
I am going to ask the hon. member: Is he like the New Democratic Party? Does he want to wipe out the free trade agreement? Is that the policy of the Liberals when they come in? Are they going to wipe out the free trade agreement and all it has brought to Canada in the form of exports? These have grown dramatically, even during this recessionary period and have been very beneficial to our economy.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, for all its ambiguity it seems that the motion we are being asked to address today offers a simplistic and flawed prescription for the ailing Canadian economy. It seeks to turn the clock back in effect on eight years of Conservative rule.
It is true that the motion contains a rather woolly reference to a jobs plan, whatever that might mean in an era of federal and provincial fiscal crisis, and an infrastructure program. There is vague reference to a national child care program.
The real essence of the motion is profoundly reactionary. It holds out the deceptively simple idea that by attempting to reverse the course of Conservative policy over the last eight years, by abrogating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, terminating our participation in the North American free trade agreement, renationalizing industries and reopening the fiscal sluices to the provinces, we can somehow return Canada to a golden age of full employment.
In one of the ironic twists of history the New Democratic Party, once one of Canada's great agents of reform, has become profoundly conservative, a party of resistance to change, a party yearning to return to the status quo ante.
Let me say first of all that we in the Official Opposition reject any such course of action or reaction for two principal reasons.
First, it is simply impossible to turn the clock back. Of course policies can be undone, legislation can be rolled back and international commitments can be terminated. That much is relatively easy, if costly, for a future Canadian government.
What cannot be reversed, however, are the forces of technological and global change. Microprocessors, fibre optics, telecommunications satellites, transnational corporations are the real factors, are the fundamental factors that are driving the transformation of the Canadian economy. It is not the FTA or the GST or any other policy acronym which the New Democratic Party may choose to target. These developments are ensuring that the Canadian economy will be pried open, not just to the United States, but to the world whether we like it or not.
To this extent policies such as the free trade agreement mark an accelerated reflection of changes that were already occurring world-wide.
The real question is what the Canadian government should offer Canadians to help them benefit from, and not be victimized by, these global changes. Canada cannot hide itself from these changes.
As we see from its motion today, the NDP would have us believe that the best response to globalization is to rebuild the walls around Canada and attempt to hold back the forces of world change. Such an approach would

March 15, 1993
Supply
simply reduce the ability of the Canadian economy to modernize and adapt to the emerging international market. Far from creating jobs and prosperity, such an approach would further erode the living standards and prospects of all Canadians.
The immutable fact is that globalization currently requires, and will continue to demand, important restructuring in industrial economies including that of Canada. This is regardless of which federal or provincial party is in power and the ideologies that it espouses. In particular, economic transformation, emphasizing product and process innovations, improved product quality, reduced costs, greater labour skills, more effective marketing and increased productivity and flexibility in the economy is now a prerequisite for Canadian competitiveness across all sectors, from resource industries to high technology.
Canada's future lies in global links and in securing access to the world's dynamic economies, not just the United States but with the Pacific rim and the increasingly integrated European Community.
The salient question is no longer whether we should limit ourselves to fortress Canada, as the NDP would have us do, but whether we can afford to limit ourselves to fortress North America.
The second and more important reason that we reject the approach implicitly advocated in part of this motion is that it misses the real implications of eight years of Conservative rule, irrespective of the government's rhetoric about the tough and politically costly decisions which it has taken on behalf of Canadians. The real story is not what the government has done over the past eight years to help prepare Canadians for globalization, but what it has failed to do on the debt, on economic restructuring, on reforming social programs, on investing in Canadians and so forth.
When future historians write of these eight years of Conservative government rule, it will be a story of years of delayed decisions, of uncertain and irresolute leadership and, most of all, of missed opportunities.
Of all the government's failures, the one that is most central to Canada's current economic malaise and the one that, significantly, today's NDP motion simply ignores is the inability to arrest, let alone reverse, this country's accelerating debt crisis. Underpinning the
current economic crisis is the fact that consumption in Canada has consistently outpaced savings and real economic growth.
The Conservative Party that came to power in 1984 promising debt reduction above everything else chose to attempt to solve the problem not through the restructuring and streamlining of government-spending reductions have in fact received only perfunctory treatment by this government-but through massive increases in taxation.
Under the Conservatives, profligate government spending and constantly increasing taxation, both at the federal and provincial levels, led in turn to the over-stimulation of an already stimulated Canadian economy. In order to take inflationary pressure out of the economy, the Bank of Canada raised interest rates. Higher interest rates led to higher debt service costs and yet more deficit spending. This, in turn, resulted in further stimulation of the economy and yet more inflation.
The result of these policy failures is today a net public debt amounting to more than $650 billion. Meanwhile, we are running a current account deficit of well over 4 per cent of our gross domestic product, which is by far the worst performance among OECD countries today.
A less obvious result of this prolonged period of over-consumption has been a growing foreign indebtedness and a weakening of Canada's economic base. Indeed Canada has rapidly become such a large offshore borrower that the level of foreign debt has risen to over $200 billion, not to mention an additional $100 billion in private debt.
What are the costs of all this to Canadians? Instead of undertaking the kind of investments needed to prepare for a globalized economy, we are faced with unacceptably high real interest rates-I say real interest rates-needed to attract offshore capital, a dated and declining infrastructure, growing deficits in skills, training and education, and of course a mounting foreign debt which will inevitably be paid back out of the future living standards of Canadians.
The challenge is obvious and fundamental. There is not a word in this NDP resolution about the need to resolve our fiscal imbalances and foreign indebtedness. By contrast, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of
March 15, 1993

Supply
the Liberal Party of Canada, has been clear about the helped business and labour adapt to new opportunities tasks before the next government.	and to new competition.
Recently the Leader of the Opposition said that never before has Canada been so much a prisoner of foreign creditors. The Conservatives have borrowed too much abroad and they have borrowed too much in the short term. Canada has too many IOUs in the hands of foreigners. A Liberal government will aim at paying our way in the world. We must balance our international current account so that we can create jobs at home and not export them abroad.
The Conservative failure to restructure government over the last eight years has not just resulted in a mounting debt crisis and the high levels of unemployment that we have experienced recently. By refusing to confront the need for root and branch reform to the way government services are delivered in this country, the government has also refused to recognize the direct linkage between economic liberalization and the need for major domestic reform and adjustment.
During the prolonged debates about the merits or demerits of freer trade, whether it was about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA or the pending but far more pervasive Uruguay round of the GATT, there has been singularly little discussion of adjustment assistance. The phrase has a boring or even bureaucratic ring about it, yet it is adjustment assistance in all its many forms that can make the inevitable dislocations engendered by freer trade more understandable and more palatable even to those who are adversely affected, as some always unfortunately will be. Instead today, unlike in past years, large numbers of Canadians are left bewildered by freer trade.
For more than four decades Canadians have been assured by their governments that as a people heavily dependent on exports for their prosperity improved access to foreign markets and the parallel opening of our own markets was unquestionably good for them. The successive freer trade rounds of the GATT, although perhaps invisible to many, did undeniably contribute massively to Canada's affluence. However, part of the reason the Kennedy or Tokyo rounds did so was that they were matched by a commensurate degree of adjustment assistance, which were government initiatives that
Following the precedents of the various GATT rounds, the Macdonald royal commission in recommending the negotiation of a free trade agreement with the United States urged repeatedly that any such agreement be matched with comprehensive adjustment assistance in the form of training and retraining, investment incentives, the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers and so forth.
The government did not do this despite promises that it would. It sought a free trade agreement with the United States but it did not devise, based on its own studies of the likely impact of free trade, those sectoral, regional or other assistance programs that would have helped to lessen the inevitable dislocation and assist Canadians to compete more effectively.
Instead of additional jobs many Canadians have seen unemployment. Tariff reductions in the GATT rounds have disrupted some Canadian industries but most dislocations in the past have been anticipated and assistance had been designed to help. In the case of free trade with the United States, the loss of manufacturing jobs has been visible enough but not the matching adjustment assistance. The adverse impact has been yet more visible as a result of being concentrated in specific areas of manufacturing and in specific communities that remain unaware of any effort to assist them to cope with the inevitable dislocation.
Some part of the all too evident job loss is a result of new international competition and a global recession and of continuing fiscal excess at home and an overly enthusiastic anti-inflationary policy in Ottawa, bringing with it high interest rates and a greatly inflated Canadian dollar. However, some part of the job loss is as a result of the absence of effective adjustment assistance, especially with regard to the access to capital by small businesses whose equity base is too weak to borrow against.
The need for innovative measures to assist small businesses to do their jobs was well identified by the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre when it said in its recent report: "The continuous innovation and investment required to support a high value-added

March 15, 1993
Supply
economy will not occur without supportive financial assistance".
Even in this area of trade policy the government's work is at best half finished. Only the most sanguine among us today would argue that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has lived up to the extravagant promises made by the government in 1988. Its central justification was to secure access to the American market in the face of rising U.S. protectionism, yet a whole series of recent trade disputes have demonstrated just how tenuous that access is.
One of the principal reasons that the Liberal Party supported Canada's participation in the North American free trade negotiations was to correct shortcomings in the original Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. We called for tougher environmental and labour standards. We called for an accession clause to make it easier for other countries to join and thus to expand Canada's free trade options beyond the United States. Most important, we called for the inclusion of a subsidies and anti-dumping code, one which would put to an end the kind of trade harassment that has been eroding the free trade environment between the two countries and that would introduce a badly needed degree of predictability in our entry into the yet untested waters of Mexico.
As the House knows, there remains a great flaw in the NAFTA, or a black hole at the centre, which threatens to undermine the success of the entire regime. That is the continuing absence of a common set of trading rules. Not only is there no definition of subsidies in the agreement or a commitment to replace countervail action with competition law, but even the agreement's modest provision to pursue these objectives with in a specified time has been quietly dropped in the NAFTA, to be replaced by a woolly commitment to pursue the goal in some future consultations.
It is most important and most regrettable that there is an absence of common trading rules embedded in either the FTA or the NAFTA. In the long run it will undermine the legitimacy of the entire arrangement. The NAFTA is essentially a political document. However, its authority ultimately rests not on the letter of the text, but on the support it enjoys among the electorates of the three countries.
Nothing has done more to undermine enthusiasm in Canada for freer trade agreements than the highly public spectacle of ongoing punitive and seemingly groundless U.S. trade actions launched during the four years since the beginning of the supposed era of free trade with the United States. Beyond all others, it is this central question that must be addressed.
It is for that reason the Leader of the Opposition has called for amendments to the North American free trade agreement. "A Liberal government", he has said, "will seek changes to the agreement and to the North American free trade agreement". He went on: "Unlike the Conservatives, we know an opportunity when we see one. There is a new administration in Washington. It has said it wants to reopen a number of these same areas. A Liberal government will take it up on that. Not only will we seize opportunities", the leader continued, "we will create new opportunities. If it is inevitable that a western hemisphere trade bloc evolves, Canada must play an active and independent role in defining that bloc instead of always reacting to Washington's hub-and-spoke approach to trade in this hemisphere".
"Canada", he concluded, "should be working with other countries to minimize dominance by the stronger partner. While we must seize the opportunity to have trade in the Americas, a Liberal government will not turn its back on the rest of the world. The fastest growing economies in the world are in the Pacific basin. The current government has ignored that region although Canada is a Pacific basin nation. A Liberal administration will put a high priority on existing trade with that dynamic region".
For the reasons that I have touched upon and others that would be easy to elaborate on, I want to move an amendment to the motion before the House.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all words after the word
"entails" and by substituting the following therefor:
renegotiating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American free trade agreement and includes, within a framework of fiscal responsibility, such actions as a jobs plan, an infrastructure program and a national child care program in order to ensure job creation and prosperity for Canadians.
March 15, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The Chair will take the motion in amendment, moved by the hon. member for Etobicoke North and seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West, under advisement.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think the electorate will be interested in this latest brand of medicine being sold to cure the country's ills by members of a party who, when they last formed the government, produced interest rates at 22 per cent, initiated the terrible burden of debt, were absent to any significant economic policy and led us to higher unemployment rates than this government has.
What do we have? First, we have a clear indication of the honesty that is to characterize the Liberal Party. For example, it is alleged by the member for Etobicoke North that we are advocating nationalization in the resolution the New Democratic Party has submitted today. Nationalization, whether advocated or not, is not in the motion here. He then criticizes us for what is not in the motion.
I think the Canadian people will catch the message of the amendment. Note that a party which has yet to produce an economic plan, whose leader has steadfastly resisted propounding an economic plan and would suggest to the Canadian people that it will renegotiate and redefine NAFTA has amended the motion to do just that.


An hon. member:: Based on what motion?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It would do just that and include in the motion the approval of the free trade agreement and of NAFTA but it would steal-as the Liberals are wont to do so frequently-the fundamental economic portions of this platform. The only thing that is negated is the cancellation of the free trade agreement and our insistence that NAFTA not be proceeded with.
The question I have to ask is whether this party will ever have an economic plan. How does it perceive that it can proceed to renegotiate the free trade agreement when there is no provision for renegotiation?
I can just see it all now. The leader of the federal Liberal Party, that other Darryl, will go to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order, please. Time is running out. The hon. member for Etobicoke North for a short answer.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to give a short answer to all that stuff.
Since the motion suggests that the NDP is against privatization then I assume it means to renationalize industries, but perhaps its language does not really mean anything.
On the question of government spending, the member will recall that prior to the 1984 election, real interest rates in Canada were lower then than they are today. If the member has some difficulty with real interest rates then he should address himself to that side of the House, to the government, which has consistently-


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, March is National Nutrition Month. This year, the national campaign of the Canadian Dietetic Association will emphasize the fact that eating better is good for you and the search for answers to women's nutritional needs.
The purpose of this campaign is to make women more aware of their diet and the importance of what they eat. It considers the diet-related health problems women face these days, including cancer and cardiovascular disease, the thinness craze and the concept of healthy body weight. During the campaign consumers will take part in activities and receive information to help them make sensible choices when planning their meals.
The Canadian Dietetic Association and its members are to be commended for this campaign and I wish them every success. The Department of National Health and Welfare is to be commended as well since its Oanada Food Guide was used for this campaign.

March 15, 1993


THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, there are strange things going on with the Conservatives. The Prime Minister says his party is in great shape financially while headlines consistently confirm that the country is in an economic mess.
Conservatives claim to be insistent on the need for a regular accounting of the nation's finances. Yet there is talk that the budget will be put off until after the leadership convention in June or perhaps later, or perhaps not at all. They say they do not want to further tie the hands of the next Prime Minister beyond what an eight and a half year steady $35 billion deficit has already done.
The Titanic ship of state is on a course at full speed headed irreversibly for the mother of all icebergs in the midst of the storm of the century with no radar. The captain has abandoned ship while the senior officers who helped plot the course are not exactly clamouring to assume command. In fact, many are joining the 100 of the 157-member ship's company who are also abandoning ship.
The country is sinking and the lifeboats are going down with the ship. Only a change with a Liberal captain and crew will be able to refloat the ship of state and put it on a safe course.


THE CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that the free trade agreement has been very beneficial to Canada's agricultural sector.
In fact, exports of durum wheat to the United States have increased 52 per cent since 1988 while exports of refined canola oil are up 77 per cent.
The success of the FTA is augmented by the inclusion of the dispute settlement mechanism which has yielded one positive result after another.
Recently the FTA panel report on exports of durum wheat rejected American allegations that our wheat is shipped into the United States at unfairly low prices.
In fact the panel ruled that the practices of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Western Grain Transportation Act are within the bounds of the free trade agreement.
History will show that this government made the right choice in its adoption of a policy of freer trade.


FOREIGN AID
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in 1987 the Government of Canada, in a policy statement entitled Sharing Our Future, said that its top priority is the alleviation of poverty in the Third World. Last June at the earth summit in Rio the government promised new and additional aid to help poor nations in Africa and elsewhere.
Now we learn that the government is cutting aid to the poorest in Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Madagascar and Niger. We have urged these countries to adopt democracy and human rights. Now we are abandoning them to their fate at a time when they actually need our aid more than ever to improve health care, water quality, and agriculture, and to reduce desertification.
This cowardly and insensitive decision to cut aid to the poorest of the poor is not worthy of Canada's reputation abroad. This decision should be reversed in our common interest. Canada should not break its promise.


PHARMACEUTICALS
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the president of the generic pharmaceutical manufacturer, Apotex, said that Bill C-91, the drug patent bill, would destroy the generic drug industry.
Last week Apotex officially opened a new $200 million facility, which according to the president is the largest expansion in the history of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. At the same time the deficit-ridden Ontario
March 15, 1993

NDP government announced that it is providing a grant to Apotex of $1 million. Apparently Bill C-91 has not destroyed the generic drug industry. In fact, it seems to be thriving.
By the way, whatever happened to those corporate welfare bums the NDP used to tell us about?


THE PREMIER OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the premier of Newfoundland has learned nothing from the tragedies at Davis Inlet during the last year. The Innu find his assertions that self-government has nothing to do with the problems at Davis Inlet as arrogant and contemptuous as Newfoundlanders found the comments of Charles Lynch about their opposition to Meech Lake.
The premier says the Innu are being manipulated by their elected representatives and that unlike him they do not know what is good for Innu communities. The premier wants the Innu moved to Goose Bay or Schef-ferville.
The member for Chateauguay would have all Indians moved to Labrador and Charles Lynch would have all Newfoundlanders dragged out to sea.
If mainlanders talked about Newfoundlanders the way the premier talks about the Innu he would go ballistic.
The Innu have completed a study recommending relocation of their community to Sango Bay. A federal-provincial study has confirmed that relocation. The premier's comments are a good indication of why the federal government should assert its jurisdiction and negotiate directly with the Innu.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in its report on the St. Lawrence seaway the transport committee recognized that the seaway system is dependent upon eastbound grain traffic for its survival.
There is evidence that the current method of payment of the western grain transportation subsidy is distorting the natural directional flow of grain shipments. As such, the committee recommended that until various discrepancies caused by the Western Grain Transportation Act are dealt with, the subsidy should be extended to include grain export movements through the seaway.
I believe that the subsidy is causing a directional bias in the shipment of grain in this country to the detriment of the seaway system. This distortion not only affects grain traffic flowing east but also has an effect on cargoes that move in a westerly direction through the seaway, such as iron ore. This further impacts on a steel industry that is already suffering.
Changes are being considered in the Western Grain Transportation Act. These changes must take into consideration transportation issues in addition to the welfare of our western farmers. I ask the government to eliminate the current directional bias that is having such a great impact on the St. Lawrence seaway.


THE GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, Australian voters have said no to the GST and therefore will not suffer the disastrous effects of such a tax. Congratulations, Australia.
Here in Canada citizens did not have the same opportunity for honest and open debate to either approve or reject this tax before the Conservative government railroaded us into this terribly complex GST regime.
The Minister for International Trade has decided not to run for the leadership of the Conservative Party because he cannot divorce himself from Conservative policies like the GST.
It matters not who leads the Conservative Party. Canadians remember that this is the party that, among other disastrous policies, imposed the GST. Canadians have and are suffering the consequences.
Soon Canadians will have a say and then this government will pay the price.


EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, although staffing of the CEIC office in Springhill, Nova Scotia has recently been reduced I am assured that

March 15, 1993
services will be fully maintained and the office will remain open.
This office has served the western part of Cumberland county for many years and plays an important and essential role in the lives of people in the area.
Western Cumberland county has suffered several negative economic impacts, and although there are now some promising developments the office must be maintained.
I will be monitoring the future of the Springhill office and working with the minister to ensure that traditional services continue and the Springhill office stays open for business.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, thousands of people came out in Toronto on Saturday in the storm of the century to produce a storm of their own in protesting the UI cuts. These people obviously agree with the 58 per cent in an Ekos research poll that the proposed changes are a clear departure from the Canadian tradition of providing income support for the unemployed.
They were wanned by their concern for the unemployed and the impoverished and their outrage against the government's attack on the unemployed, both of which led them out into the bitter weather conditions.
The government should be listening to these dedicated individuals and to the majority of Canadians. The government's economic failure to control unemployment should not be shifted onto the backs of the unemployed.


WORLD CONSUMER RIGHTS DAY
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, today is World Consumer Rights Day as proclaimed by the International Organization of Consumer Unions. This year's theme concerns transnational corporations and consumer interests. Throughout the world, consumers will celebrate this anniversary by taking part in activities emphasizing their contribution to society.
Consumers have a vital role to play in maintaining Canada's prosperity and competitiveness. Volunteers who work for consumer groups have spoken up for their rights as consumers and have been acknowledged by the Government of Canada.
We want to see a strong consumer movement that continues to promote the needs of consumers. Founded in 1960 by five consumer associations from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium, the IOCU now has 170 organizations representing 65 countries on five continents. The IOCU deals with consumer problems at the international level, including those related to medical products, pesticides, tobacco and infant formulas.
That is why, as Canadian parliamentarians, through our Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, we support a movement that is so important for Canadian consumers.


PEACEKEEPING
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is not generally my custom to wear any insignia or badge on my lapel with the colour blue on it. However it is with great honour that I am wearing a blue ribbon today to salute the creation of the blue beret group, designed to honour and recognize the men and women serving in our peacekeeping missions in widespread areas around the world.
This blue beret group is the idea of Mrs. Cathy Sargent, who is the wife of a peacekeeping officer. In this new age of peacekeeping in which an increasing number of Canadians are putting their lives at risk it is critical that we find ways to say to them: We take pride in their actions; we support their efforts; and we have not forgotten them.
Other members on both sides of the House should also consider wearing a blue ribbon. I would be glad to supply them with these ribbons.
I also call on the government to endorse the notion of a blue beret day in Canada to honour our peacekeepers.
I urge the Minister of National Defence to meet with the founding members of this group in Winnipeg so we could perhaps make this a national identification.
March 15, 1993

Members will remember that during the gulf war thousands of American citizens wore yellow ribbons to support their troops in that area. Let us make the blue ribbon a nation-wide symbol in recognition of our peacekeeping troops and their courageous efforts to try to maintain peace world-wide.


THE BRIER
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, Ottawa was the site of some exciting curling this past week as the Brier came to town. Congratulations are due to Russ Howard and his Ontario rink who won the right to represent Canada at the world tournament in Geneva at the end of the month.
Those watching the Brier saw all sorts of red stetsons in the stands. The trademark hats are being sported by the 1994 Brier committee. They were here to promote next year's event in Red Deer, Alberta.
They did a fine job. Tickets for next year's Brier were snapped up and people are in for a treat when they visit Red Deer next year. There is not a bad seat in our new Centrium and there will be plenty to do between draws. Red Deer is one of the smallest cities to ever host a Brier but the 1994 Brier will be big on hospitality and the enthusiasm of the organizing committee promises a great time for all.
I encourage all curling fans to hightail it to Red Deer for the Brier in 1994.


PARLIAMENTARY EMPLOYMENT AND STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, this government clearly does not know its own mind with regard to its own staff relations. Six and three-quarter years ago, in June 1986, this Tory government drafted, introduced and, with all-party support, passed Bill C-45, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, through both the House and Senate and Royal Assent was given.
However the cabinet has still not acted to proclaim the operative sections, parts II and III, which simply extend to parliamentary employees the same labour standards
and health and safety protections enjoyed by all other federal workers.
This almost seven-year delay has to be the longest legislative pregnancy in history, and it was not an immaculate conception. It is a Tory baby and it begs the question: Did the government not know what it was doing in 1986 or does it not know what it is doing now? When is it going to deliver?


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton -Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, on March 41 hosted a special town hall meeting in my riding. The subject of the meeting was public safety and the Young Offenders Act.
We had a high turn-out, which clearly shows the level of public concern about this issue. A panel of experts was on hand to answer questions. The discussion was lively and often heated.
My constituents were very clear. They are tired of seeing a disproportionate amount of crime committed by young offenders. They want major changes to the Young Offenders Act so that the act can serve as a real deterrent. They recognize that it is only a handful of repeat young offenders who give all youth a bad name and they want the means to deal severely with these few.
Once again I urge the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General to overhaul the Young Offenders Act. It is painfully clear to the residents of Edmonton- Strathcona that the act is not working. The age for transfer to adult court should be lowered and penalties for repeat offenders should be strengthened. A review of the act has long been promised but the time for action is now.


POULTRY INDUSTRY
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton -Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, when is chicken not chicken? When it is left to this government and its trade negotiators.
According to article 706 of the free trade agreement with the United States, import restrictions do not apply on 13 different types of further processed chicken. The definition states that chicken and chicken products do

Oral Questions
not include chicken cordon bleu, breaded chicken cordon blue, chicken Kiev, chicken breaded Kiev, boneless Rock Cornish with rice, stuffed Rock Cornish, boneless chicken, chicken Romanov, chicken Neptune, chicken TV dinners, old roosters and spent fowl. Of course we see a lot of old roosters across the way.
This is a loophole large enough to drive a truck through. Indeed Campbell's Soup has decided to do just that: bring truckloads of further processed chicken into Canada. Campbell's is selling its St. Mary's, Ontario, plant which supplied chicken for its soup and TV dinners and will import lower quality U.S. processed chicken instead.
I call on the government to take advantage of the U.S. government's desire for side trade agreements to close this and all similar loopholes that are haemorrhaging jobs out of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister who I understand today is the minister of fisheries.
Last week the Minister of Finance said that he did not want to bring down a budget in the middle of a Tory leadership race. Today it is clear there is no Tory leadership race. The only race is to see who can get away the fastest from that sinking ship, the Tory record.
If last week's excuse for not presenting a budget was the Tory leadership race, what is the excuse this week?


John Horton McDermid: First, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance did not say that last week. The hon. member knows that is not what the Minister of Finance said at all.
The Minister of Finance is carrying on his pre-budget consultations. He is in Montreal today carrying out that task. I am sure he will be making an announcement to the House of Commons and to the people of Canada in the fullness of time.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister.
The number of Conservative ministers who want to run for leader is shrinking by the hour as they recognize that after nine years of Conservative policies their chances of being Prime Minister for very long after their convention is not that great.
One of the ministers who has made up his mind is the Minister of Finance. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House today whether the Minister of Finance will put the interest of the country ahead of the interest of his party? Is there going to be a new job creating, growth creating budget before the Tory leadership convention? Yes or no.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this has been answered on Thursday and Friday and again today by myself.
I might say to the hon. member that in December the Minister of Finance brought forward an economic statement which included a number of job creating proposals especially aimed at helping small business to create jobs in this country and brought forward an infrastructure program within that budget. Although it was a modest infrastructure program it was one that was responsible within the fiscal restraints that we have.
The Minister of Finance has already put in place these economic stimuli for the economy. We are starting to see some very positive results from that and we will continue to through 1993.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that it is his government which was in the habit of boasting about the merits of a regular budget cycle, but he no longer talks about that today. I would like the minister to tell us right away what must come first, the whims of the Conservative Party or the economic needs of Canada?


John Horton McDermid: The economic needs of Canada, Mr. Speaker.
March 15, 1993


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The truth is that the government seems to be more concerned about the state of the Conservative Party than about the state of the country's economy. The party is collapsing like a house of cards. Senior minister after senior minister is withdrawing from politics rather than having to defend the government's record. Over 400,000 people have lost their jobs in the last recession.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a simple question. Will there be a jobs budget? Yes or no.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question. The Minister of Finance will make an announcement in the House at the appropriate time.
She will have to wait for it. She will have to show some patience for a change.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the Prime Minister is rigging his own succession. However, his strategy is collapsing with the retreat of several senior ministers. Instead of preparing his budget, the Minister of Finance is playing with the budget in order to boost his own leadership bid.
I would therefore like to put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since more than 400,000 people have lost their jobs in this last recession will he present a job-creating budget? Yes or no.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance brings down a budget it will certainly be a job creation budget. When I brought down a budget the House brought me down so we are going to approach this very carefully.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will have a chance to bring the Tory government down in the next election.
Oral Questions
My question is for the minister of trade. It was announced last Thursday by the U.S. that it wanted another form of parallel accord to protect U.S. interests from potential import surges from Canada and Mexico as a result of NAFTA. It seems that virtually every week the U.S. administration is raising some new concern about the NAFTA deal while this government clearly has been silent. In fact the government insists on ramming this deal through Parliament without any clear sense of where NAFTA is actually headed.
Clearly there are many outstanding questions about NAFTA. Will the Minister for International Trade and his government withdraw this piece of legislation?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that question is no, but I want to draw my colleague's attention to the fact that in February 1992 the government put forward some proposals for side agreements which covered a number of the areas being raised by the U.S. administration.
The Bush administration turned down those proposals. The Clinton administration has said that it is willing to talk about the Canadian proposals. This is the basis on which we will be going into the negotiations later this week.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Clinton administration has told the government that it wants an arrangement on import surges and that trade actions should be permitted where environmental standards are not enforced.
The government has acknowledged that were this to proceed it would mean that the NAFTA deal would have to be reopened.
My question is again directed to the minister of trade. Clearly this is not a deal that has been completed. Yet the government insists on putting it before the House of Commons when there are many other negotiations taking place that will fundamentally affect the deal itself.
Will the Minister for International Trade and his government not remove this piece of legislation from the House of Commons until Canadian people and members of the House of Commons really know what they are voting and debating?

Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just say for the umpteenth time that the agreement signed on December 17 will not be reopened. President Salinas, President Clinton and the Prime Minister have all agreed that it will not be reopened. The House is being asked to consider the legislation to implement the agreement.
In addition there are the side agreements which, as I said, are a continuation of the Canadian agenda as put forward last February. We will be fully equipped, having had consultations with environmental non-governmental organizations and with labour organizations, to develop the negotiating mandate. It is that mandate the negotiators will be following when they sit down at the table, which I believe will be on Wednesday.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, clearly, as far as NAFTA is concerned, the President of the United States has decided not to present the bill to Congress before negotiating the parallel accords.
Given the concerns in Congress and the decision by the President of the United States, why does the Government of Canada insist on presenting a bill here in the House before the parallel accords are negotiated? Furthermore, why does the government not recognize the need to present a total agreement to the House of Commons and to Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are presenting legislation covering a total agreement, the agreement that was signed on December 17.
The legislative process in Canada has been under way with the hearings that have been held. It has been also under way in the United States. The negotiation on the terms of the implementing legislation in the United States is also under way. It will commence on April 1 in the Mexican Congress. The processes are all under way at about the same time.
I also want to underscore the point that the NAFTA, the agreement we signed on December 17, is a good deal in itself. It is for that reason we want to tie that one down and make sure we have the approval of the Parliament of Canada to ensure we get the full benefits of the agreement.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister for International Trade said that in any negotiations surrounding the North American free trade agreement: "A country has to be willing to give something in order to get something".
Now that the United States has reopened negotiations by demanding three parallel accords, could the minister explain what the Americans are willing to give in exchange for their three parallel accords, in exchange for Canadian government support? Is the Canadian government seeking a parallel accord on subsidies, a code which, for example, the C.D. Howe Institute in the last few days has again emphasized is critical to the success of any free trade agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me say for the umpteenth plus two times that this agreement is not being reopened. The agreement that was signed on December 17 is not being reopened, and I see my hon. friend nodding his head in agreement.
If there is to be any change in the subsidies code, that would entail a reopening of negotiations. Under way right now there are proposals under the GATT made by Director General Dunkel that satisfy the requirements of the Canadian government.
It is those proposals that we are pressing hard through the GATT negotiations. I would say to my hon. friend that by having these side agreements we are getting things that we sought in February 1992. These are going to improve upon the broad relationship between Canada and the other two countries, but they are not a change. They will not result in changes to the NAFTA that was signed on December 17.


Roy MacLaren: The minister knows that the parallel accords will modify or in some ways alter the content and the terms of NAFTA. Otherwise, they would be meaningless. They would have no purpose. If the United States government attaches such importance to its three parallel accords it must be

asking the Canadian and the Mexican governments to support it on those three parallel accords. I ask the minister, what are Canada's interests? Why does the Canadian government not advance a proposal for a parallel accord in an area of prime concern to Canada, the subsidies code?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if we proposed changes in the subsidies code we would be reopening the agreement. What we put forward as of February 1992, and which will be reiterated at the meetings on Wednesday, are proposals that we believe are important in the relationships on the environment and on labour in particular.
Let me remind my hon. friend that there are five areas that Mr. Kantor has said are the object of U.S. interest: border clean-up between Mexico and the United States, nothing to do with Canada; stronger enforcement of national laws, primarily focused on Mexico; North American commissions on environment and labour standards which are the two areas that Canada proposed in February 1992 so that it is a continuation of the Canadian agenda; and worker adjustment and retraining, which is a matter between the U.S. administration and U.S. Congress. It should be done because Canadian laws or Canadian training programs are about two to three times more generous than the U.S. laws. The fifth area is that of import surges and we are not sure precisely what the Americans have in mind on that one. We will know better as we go through these discussions later on this week.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The government has reiterated its support for Russian President Yeltsin. According to government spokesmen on the weekend, the Prime Minister wants action taken by the G-7 countries. Apparently the Prime Minister wants "an urgent and visible infusion of aid to Russia" now. The Prime Minister does not have to wait for the other G-7 countries. Our grain shipments to Russia have
Oral Questions
been stalled for months. They could be resumed if the government extended a new line of credit.
My question for the minister is whether the government is prepared to do that to help Russians, at the same time help prairie farmers.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be in a position to give the hon. member a more complete answer tomorrow. As he knows, there is a sherpas' meeting having to do with the G-7 meeting going on at the moment. Mr. Fyodorov gave the Russian position as to what they felt would be needed over the next little while. I think it is important that we not treat President Yeltsin and the Russians as a supplicant. This is a very important country in terms of the stability of the world and it is a country that has been a superpower.
We will be looking at all aspects of aid. We want to be as creative as we can. We recognize the position of western farmers, but we also want to ensure that whatever aid we give, whether it is bilaterally or multilaterally through the G-7 or other support systems, is the right kind of aid and what is needed at this moment.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, it seems to us on this side that if the government was really sincere about helping Russia it would tackle the wheat issue. Resumption of wheat shipments would help cash-starved prairie farmers. It would provide employment to seaway workers and it would restore hope to the port of Churchill which is slowly dying under current government policies. Moreover the Russians, who are good customers, want more wheat shipped through the port of Churchill. So what is it, an offer to help the Russians or just talk?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, this is definitely not just talk. On a per capita basis Canada has been among the most generous of western countries and we will continue to be in the forefront of what needs to be done.
I think it is also important to know that those have been commercial arrangements with Russia in the past that have gone on for some 35 years and they will continue to exist in the future.

March 15, 1993
Oral Questions
There is obviously some bridging needed but it is also important to indicate to the Russians and to the Russian people that the economic reforms and the economic disciplines are important as well. We are going to be there for Russia and we are going to be there to ensure that economic reform and democratic reform proceed in Russia.
That is exactly what this meeting is about right now. That is why Mr. Fyodorov is at the sherpas' meeting. When we get a full report then we will be actively considering the most imaginative and creative programs that we can bring forward to help Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union as well.



Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Finance. Despite the Minister of Finance's attempts to interfere in Australia's election the GST claimed another victim with Labour's victory there this past weekend.
I want to ask if this government is now going to concentrate on economic issues here in Canada. Is it finally prepared to recognize, with 1.5 million people out of work, that it must bring forward a full scale budget to present to this House of Commons immediately?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the House today I explained to my hon. friend that this government put before the people in 1988 a goods and services tax. They elected this government and we implemented the goods and services tax. The hon. member has a short memory.
As far as the budget is concerned, that question was answered on Thursday, answered on Friday and answered again today. The Minister of Finance is carrying on pre-budget consultations at the present time and he will make an announcement in this House in due course. The hon. member will just have to be patient until the Minister of Finance returns.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the GST will become known as the Goodbye Sorry Tories tax.
The United States federal reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, warned that the American recovery is the weakest on record, yet the government continues to rely on export increases to the United States to push Canada ahead.
Will the government recognize that we need our own domestic economic moves here in Canada? We have set out our New Democratic jobs plan. Why will the government not set out a plan for the economy?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance laid out a pretty comprehensive plan in December which has been well received and which is operating. I might note that the unemployment rate has dropped in the last couple of months. It stands at 10.8 per cent. It is still too high and we readily admit that, but it has come down from 11.8 per cent. It is dropping and is heading in the right direction.
The Minister of Finance brought forward what I believe and what most people believe to be a very responsible statement in December, giving modest help to the economy while at the same time keeping in mind the fiscal constraints in which we are operating.
One of the things the New Democratic Party's economic plan does not factor in is all these things they are going to walk away from like the free trade agreement, the NAFTA and the GST. They are not factored into their over-all plans. Once those are factored in to the over-all plans, again it is typical Alice in Wonderland financial policies of the no down payment party.


STUDENT AID
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. For over eight years the government has promised to bring forward a sensible and modern student aid program.
What has it done? It has imposed a 3 per cent tax on student loans. It has added six months' interest to student loans. Now it has brought forward a request for financing Canada student loans which does nothing to respond to the educational needs of the students, nothing whatsoever.
March 15, 1993

In fact, it is the beginning of privatization. Canadians want to know, students in particular, what will be the future eligibility requirements for student loans? Who will establish the requirements and what will be the role of the banks in the establishment of those requirements?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a question in which certainly many Canadians have shared an interest.
This year alone over 250,000 students will be receiving close to $800 million in loans to attend post-secondary institutions.
The hon. member is aware that the program has been undergoing a very careful review. The minister has promised to bring forward very soon an improved plan which will help those who are most in need. I too am looking forward to that very soon.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, promises, promises and there are no answers to the questions.

The government has set up some initiatives like Stay-in-School and Learning Well-Living Well. That is laudable. But this new program that it is proposing for student aid is contrary to these initiatives and does absolutely nothing to encourage students to continue their education.
What message is this government sending to students? What is it doing to our young Canadians?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, since the program began in 1964, more than two million full-time students have received more than $7.6 billion in aid from this program.
I am sure that the hon. member will be very grateful that the minister has already consulted. She has many ideas and will soon announce an improved program that will certainly help those who need it most.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
The Campbell's Soup Company is closing its doors in my riding next month with the loss of over 300 jobs and a ripple effect of $15 million lost from our already battered agricultural economy. It is just one of over 100 food processors to die or scale back since the free trade agreement.
What will the minister do to keep this plant open?


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is actually with his counterparts in the prairies. I will take note of that question and we will get an answer on that.
We should remember that so far with the free trade agreement, we increased our exports in the agrifood area by something around 30 per cent over the first two years of the agreement. It is really booming. We are talking about billions of dollars of exports to the United States.
Obviously in some areas, like canning, we have to get some redefining in the structure of the industry. If you look at the agrifood sector as a whole, we have had great success over the first two years of the free trade agreement.


Rex Crawford: Mr. Speaker, by my figures it has been decimated in our area.
The minister is aware that over 7,000 jobs in Ontario have gone in this industry since 1989, out of 11,000 jobs across Canada. Campbell's has been in Chatham for nearly half a century. My local tomato, pea and carrot growers have lost over $3.5 million in contracts from the Campbell's closing alone.
What will the minister do to save this crucial industry from being decimated?


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to my hon. friend, with those complex issues where industry is restructuring, we do not have simple answers to complex questions.

March 15, 1993
Oral Questions
As I mentioned, we have created the SAGIT committee on international trade in order to get people involved in industry in the agrifood sector to work together with government at the provincial and federal levels in order to work out ways and means on how to address those problems.
Obviously plants are closing but the industry as a whole has to be looked at. I repeat that there was an increase of 30 per cent in exports to the United States for the first two years of the free trade agreement. Sometimes when there are problems they are not related to the free trade agreement. As far as I know, it is related to the whole restructuring of the industry.


ARMENIA
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch -Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
For the fourth year in a row the government of Azerbaijan has continued its blockade of Armenia. This winter has found the people of Armenia suffering extreme hardships. Many have died. With the melting snow and floods of spring, epidemics can be anticipated to rage out of control. This desperate situation has reached a crisis.
Will the Canadian government move quickly to ask for an urgent meeting of the United Nations Security Council to address this critical situation to find a way to force the removal of the blockade of Armenia thereby allowing food, medical supplies and fuel to reach these desperate people?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, let me say first that like others the Canadian government is very concerned about the situation in Armenia and what has happened there over the past few years. We have taken a strong role in the CSCE in trying to bring about a solution in a series of negotiations that might help to bring this situation to an end.
I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion that this should come before the Security Council. I do want to report to him that through the CSCE, in part because Canada began the process in the CSCE well over a year ago, there was a bit of a breakthrough last Thursday in
terms of bringing people to the table. There was a meeting in Vienna. There will be an eight-member mission to Armenia and Azerbaijan to lay the groundwork for negotiations in the future working toward a ceasefire.
That has not stopped us from urging that all the parties bring this to a solution, nor has it stopped us from giving humanitarian aid to Armenia and to others in the region to try to alleviate the immediate suffering.
We will not hesitate to propose taking it to the Security Council should the CSCE efforts fail. However, we think we are seeing a breakthrough at the moment.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the seatmate of the Minister of National Defence, the Minister Responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
From rowing to the biathlon, from figure skating and skiing to track and field, the Canadian sports system is now producing world-class performances and world champions in a wide range of sports.
In view of the many benefits to Canada and Canadians of offering opportunities for our athletes to compete effectively at international levels of sport, why has the government chosen this moment to administer devastating cutbacks to the Canadian sports system?
If the minister is inclined to blame fiscal realities, how can he explain to Canadian athletes, the Canadian sport community and to the Canadian people how there is less money now for sport on the one hand but there is $5.8 billion for helicopters on the other?
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 will allow my seatmate the privilege of dealing with the helicopter issue as she did so well last week.
The hon. member raises a very important question. Sports is extremely important in Canada and the hon. member deserves an answer. Of course I did not agree with the preamble and all that, but with respect to the very serious question relating to the important issue of sports in Canada, particularly the tremendous success of some of our athletes in particular in the last week or so, whether it be in Prague, in Toronto, or elsewhere in
March 15, 1993

Europe, the government has a fiscal situation which applies to everything including the budgets with respect to sports. I am sure that with my hon. colleague's support, we will get a response from the government to the task force which makes recommendations to deal with such issues.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the other part of the minister's portfolio, the fitness side.
Is the minister aware that the health care costs arising out of inactivity by Canadians exceeds the costs attributable to smoking? If so, how does he justify the Draconian cutbacks he imposed on federally funded fitness programs last week and the demolition job he performed on active living organizations responsible for carrying out those programs?


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 suppose vocabulary is very easy and very cheap sometimes, but Draconian and demolition, I think my hon. friend would want to look back on those words.
If, as he suggests, I did a demolition job last week, I was responding to recommendations from the fall forum and from the steering committee that was set up to look at those recommendations and propose infrastructure changes with respect to active living.
This is extremely important in Canada and we have to encourage active living because it does save health costs. I am sure that with those savings we will be able to do more not only for the sports community, but also for the active living community.


FEED FREIGHT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Another important area which is about to receive cutbacks is the Feed Freight Assistance Program in Atlantic Canada. Farmers accept that is their
Oral Questions
share and they have to play a part in the reduction. The only thing they take exception to is the formula used. They have proposed a much more fair and equitable formula that still maintains the principle of the Feed Freight Assistance Program.
Can the minister give us an update and explain if we have accepted that proposal?


Pierre Blais: My hon. friend is raising a very important point. On February 25 Agriculture Canada officials met with their provincial counterparts involved with this issue. There were discussions as a follow-up to this meeting.
A compromise proposal was offered and put on the table to our counterparts in the maritimes last Friday. The proposal is now in their hands. I am told they are considering it and will get together again this week or next week. It is moving in the right direction. We are trying to get an honourable compromise to make sure that the program is working well.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of immigration.
Last week my colleagues from London East and Hamilton West asked why certain women subject to gender persecution were being deported to their countries of origin. In answer to their questions the minister referred to the new guidelines issued that day by the Immigration and Refugee Board as if this was a solution for these women.
Since these women from Eritrea and Russia were already rejected by the refugee board before the new guidelines were issued, will the minister now grant them entry to Canada on a humanitarian and compassionate basis and be consistent with the new guidelines?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week, every case of rejected refugee claimant is subject to a case-by-case review where the principles of humanitarian and compassionate considerations are given.

March 15, 1993
Oral Questions
These cases to which the hon. member refers will go through that process absolutely.


William Warren Allmand: With respect to the new guidelines of the refugee board on gender persecution, the chairperson said when she announced these new regulations that first of all, they were not binding on the board and second, that gender persecution would not stand on its own as a ground for refugee status but must be linked to an existing ground in the law.
In these circumstances will the minister table amendments to the Immigration Act to specifically include gender persecution as a ground for refugee status? I want to tell him that if he does so this party will give him rapid approval of those amendments.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, they were not there to protect the Canadian public from criminals and terrorists. However, they will be there to do something which, the hon. member is asking the government and the Liberal Party is advocating that the Government of Canada do, would unilaterally amend the Geneva Convention. That is not in the best interests of Canada and I will not follow Liberal advice.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
He will know that had the Minister of Finance been here today for Question Period he would have indicated that one of the prime planks in the government's current policy platform is the reduction of interest rates. Interest rates have gone down in the last few months. They have, for the bank rate and the prime rate-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I am glad to hear the applause because I know members opposite will want to ensure that interest rates go down for all Canadians. However, if the minister looks at the rates charged by the chartered banks on their principal credit cards, he will see the rate has stayed at about 17 per cent, in spite of the bank rate being at about 6 per cent. He will also notice that the
other major credit card companies are charging rates of 28 per cent which have not decreased.
When will the minister take action on behalf of consumers whom he is supposed to be representing and end this usury?


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member of the opposition is to be commended for his question, which is an opportunity for Canadians to become more aware of credit card interest rates and, especially, the fact that other, cheaper sources of credit are available. I think it is important to stress this point, as my department does in its regular bulletin.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I asked the question because I read the bulletin published by the minister and he has not done a thing.
However, I have another question for the minister. The government stated this morning in a press release that 9 per cent interest would be payable on unpaid income tax. My question to the minister is this: When will the government reduce interest rates for people who did not pay their income tax? The 9 per cent rate is too high, since other rates are around 6 per cent.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member on his French. I also want to thank him for saying he read the information bulletin and I hope he urges all Canadians to read it so they will of current credit card rates.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
I would like to raise the issue of the leasing and vesting arrangements which take place at federal airports. The House knows the department has been looking at these present leasing arrangements and looking for some changes. Members of the business community would like to know when these changes will take place so that they can make their long-term business plans.
March 15, 1993


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his continued interest in this very important subject for the people in his area. The member knows we have been working at this very diligently over the past few months and we have made progress.
My understanding is that officials from my department are meeting with people in the hon. member's area later on this week. We certainly hope to have a proper vesting policy some time during this spring.


LUBICON NATION
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review has presented its final report. Among its many constructive recommendations are that the previously secret discussion paper prepared for the government by the Hon. E. Davie Fulton in 1986 be the basis for renewed negotiations, that irresolvable issues be submitted to three-party mediation, and that the Lubicon Nation itself be allowed to determine its membership, as all other bands adhering to treaties have been allowed to do.
Will the government now commit itself to resuming open and public good faith negotiations with the Lubicon people using the commission's recommendations as the basis for those negotiations?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his important question.
We must remember that when negotiations started in 1986 federal negotiators indicated that the federal government was prepared to use the document that had been prepared as a basis for discussion. So far, the
Oral Questions
government's position has remained unchanged in this respect.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a commitment that the government will now commence open and public good faith negotiations on the basis of the Fulton document.
As I requested in a letter to the minister last Thursday, will the government at least withdraw from circulation in Germany its "official statement concerning the Lubicon claim question", a document shot through and through with inaccuracies and outright lies?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite wrote to the minister on March 11 and the minister's officials are now reviewing the hon. member's allegations. Since the document was drafted in German the text is being checked, and as soon as we have an answer we will report back to him.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Last week the minister responded to my question on credit card disclosure legislation by saying that the government was beginning consultation with the provinces on this matter.
The government responded to a 1989 report called Charge It in March 1989 by saying that it would: "raise the standardized disclosure recommendation for consideration in current consultations with the credit card issuers and provincial consumer ministries".
When will federal and provincial governments end the discussion phase and act to benefit consumers?

March 15, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, the government's position is that a wide variety of initiatives and undertakings exists in the provinces at this time. I think it would be appropriate to wait for these initiatives to expire before we give further consideration to the hon. member's question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from Canadians who are asking that the Parliament of Canada regulate the use of foul language and violence on radio and television.
They point out that foul language need not be used to entertain in English or in French.

They also emphasized that violence, either in the form of acts of violence or inappropriate language, undermines the efforts of parents and society.


Ron J. Duhamel: I have another petition here from Regina and Winnipeg about the GST on books and learning materials.

These petitioners deplore the fact that there is a goods and services tax on books and reading materials. They point out there has never been such a tax before. They feel it goes against one of our fundamental principles as
a democratic state and that reading and literacy are cornerstones of societies such as our own.
They also accentuate the need to make sure we have a literate and numerate society in order to be competitive and increasingly productive. They ask the government to remove this tax.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from residents of my riding of York West who are petitioning this Parliament, and particularly the government, to rescind Bill C-91, the pharmaceutical legislation that did away with the compulsory drug licensing system.
Over the weekend we in Toronto had a very impressive public debate on the future health care system of this country. One main point that repeatedly came up was the increasing price of prescription drugs. Just when the Americans are beginning to see the light and contemplate copying the old system, we in this country are doing away with compulsory drug licensing, allowing prices to increase, increasing the cost of health care, and discouraging Canadian entrepreneurs and Canadian pharmaceutical companies from doing well in Canada and across the globe.
Therefore the petitioners are hopeful the government, perhaps under a new leadership that we will soon see, will take a second look at pharmaceutical legislation that has clearly hurt the Canadian interest.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker,
I have close to 800 names on two petitions from my riding. The petitions are submitted in the memory of a little girl, Dawn Shaw, who was raped and murdered in the Comox valley.
The petitioners note that the present justice system fails to protect the children of our communities who are increasingly becoming victims of sexual assault. They make a number of suggestions for parliamentarians.
They suggest that judges should not be allowed to drop sexual assault charges because of delays in bringing a case to trial and that the jail sentence for sexual assault offenders should be lengthened for any person convicted. They also suggest that the police be permitted to take DNA samples from persons suspected of sexual assault and that DNA imprints of paedophiles and sex offenders be kept on a national police database.
March 15, 1993

They propose that sex offenders should undergo monitoring by police when they are released from jail, even after parole, that paedophiles and sex offenders should be required to register with police in their communities of residence, and that the police should be required to contact schools and other agencies dealing with children regarding the whereabouts of such paedophiles and sex offenders.
The undersigned residents of Canada, in memory of Dawn Shaw, request that Parliament enact legislation to change the justice system to provide greater protection for children from sexual assault and to assure conviction of offenders.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions that were prepared by the British Heritage Institute of Canada and are signed by almost 1,200 people.
They acknowledge the fact that Canada has adopted a policy of official multiculturalism, allowing peoples of all racial origins and ethnic backgrounds the opportunity to retain and enjoy their native heritages. They acknowledge as well the fact that funding has been provided to allow multiple heritage actions and activities and yet there have been no such provisions for those of British origin or background to secure their heritage.
They indicate there is a strong conception among many Canadians that multicultural provisions do not apply to Canadians of British heritage. They call upon Parliament to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the provisions of official multiculturalism apply equally to all ethnic groups regardless of origin.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege of presenting to Parliament petitions signed by many of my constituents.
The undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to accept legislation designed to eliminate violence against women and children, to support women and children who report incidents of assault or abuse, to provide assistance and support for women and children reporting assault or abuse, to provide relief and support to women as mothers to protect their children,
Routine Proceedings
to concentrate special effort on the training of lawyers, medical and therapeutic communities, court workers, judges and police to become knowledgeable about women and child abuse, and to emphasize the need for realistic and adequate child support orders and enforcement to focus public attention on this very important and long ignored problem.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by many people in my riding.

This petition is with regard to a board game. Parents and grandparents seek a ban on the new game to be introduced in Canada called serial killer board game, first edition. The game comes with a body bag, 25 babies and four serial killer figures. Its object is to commit murder and the person with the highest body count is the winner.
The game is not in the best interests of children and in the wrong hands could become dangerous and suggestive to easily impressed young people.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament and I support them whole-heartedly, to urge the Government of Canada to ban the sale of the serial killer game and prevent any other such game or material to be made available in Canada in order to protect innocent children.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Murray Cardiff: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 437 and 457.


Mr. Althouse: Regarding the competitiveness conference held in Saskatoon in November 1992 (a) what was the attendance (b) of those attending how many were (i) Agriculture Canada employees (ii) provincial government employees (iii) industry representatives (iv) university

March 15, 1993
Supply
personnel (v) others (c) what would be the breakdown of the costs associated with the conference, including total travel costs for Agriculture Canada employees?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: (a)
Approximately 600 people attended.
(b)	(i) 64 Agriculture Canada employees (ii) 40 provincial government employees (iii) 354 industry representatives (iv) 25 university personnel (v) Others: 32 registered and 85 non-registered.
(c)	Including departmental planning costs, such as the coordinator's salary and research contracts, the total cost of the conference amounted to $989,000. Travel costs for Agriculture Canada employees were approximately $91,000.


Mr. Edwards: With regard to the supplying by Siemens Co. of airside guidance signs for Moncton airport, (a) were objective tests conducted concerning (i) frangibility (ii) alignment of output bundles (iii) maintenance access (iv) redundancy and are mirrors used to simulate redundancy (v) visibility (b) was the Siemens product subjected to two winters of on-site testing?


Jean Corbeil: {a) (i) Yes. Review of conformance to specified requirements was conducted and certified by a recognized independent testing laboratory.
(ii)	No. Test of the alignment of output bundles is not a requirement of specification. The photometric performance of these output bundles, however, is a test requirement and this was conducted and passed by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA).
(iii)	No. This aspect of design is not specifically subject to a particular test requirement of the specification. However, it was addressed during trial at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport and judged to be acceptable by the approval authority.
(iv)	Yes, through the Toronto evaluation. The mirrors do not "simulate" redundancy, but are used in a manner which provides such redundancy. Siemens has adopted the mirror technique which has proven successful for European roadway sign application.
(v)	Visibility of the Siemens sign was verified during the evaluation at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. As well, since visibility relates to photometric performance, this was addressed through the CSA photometric tests mentioned above for alignment of output bundles.
(b) There is no requirement for any airports product to be subjected to two winters of on-site testing. The Siemens product was installed for one winter at the Lester B. Pearson International Airport. However, the process of evaluating the Siemens product, including site testing and testing by the Canadian Standards Association, extended over a period of two years.


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


Murray Cardiff: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Ms. McLaughlin (p. 16964) and of the amendment of Mr. MacLaren (p. 16978).

The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: This morning, the hon. member for Etobicoke North presented a motion in amendment which, upon consideration, was ruled admissible.

There are six minutes remaining in the question or comments period after the speech of the hon. member for Etobicoke North.


ALLOTTED DAY, S. O. 81-THE ECONOMY
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insightful and comprehensive address with respect to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA and for his questions in the House today.
I want to ask three very quick questions. The first one is with respect to the amendment. Does infrastructure refer in any part to education, training and retraining programs?
March 15, 1993

The second one relates to his mention of the black hole. As I understood it he was referring to common trade rules, the lack of definition of subsidies and anti-dumping rules, and the insistence I believe by our party-and I would like some confirmation of this-of protection of our energy sources, our labour standards, and our environmental standards. Would my colleague from Etobicoke North in fact address these particular issues?
A final point is that he did make very clear the difference between our party and the governing party. Perhaps he could say a word on what the differences are between our party and the party to my left. I would appreciate that.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, on the question of whether infrastructure includes training and retraining, yes, indeed. Central to our policy going into government will be to emphasize the ways in which Canadians can be helped to benefit from freer trade, whether it be global or hemispheric. That includes the necessity for much more effective training and retraining programs as supported by labour and government as outlined, for example, in the recent report of the Canadian Labour Market and Productivity Centre.
Second, dealing with subsidies, the black hole that I spoke of and which the member has in mind is the absence of any agreement on trade remedy law or, to put it another way, on what is a subsidy. There is a need to fill that hole to complete what is unfinished business. The opportunity is there, presented by the American interest today in parallel accords. Why not seek a parallel accord with the United States and Mexico based on the proposed GATT wording with regard to subsidies and take that as a Canadian initiative to improve our opportunities in the world of freer trade?
Third, on energy, our party is committed to protecting Canada's energy interests in accordance with our international obligations. It will remain a principal concern as we review all questions surrounding freer trade on a hemispheric or on a global basis.
Finally, I thank the hon. member for his kind words and appreciate his continuing involvement in the further definition of the areas of prime interest to Canadians in the question of freer trade.
Supply


Steven W. Langdon: I have a short question, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday during Question Period the leader of the Liberal Party when asked about how the GST would be replaced twice mentioned the manufacturers' sales tax which existed before the GST. I wanted to ask the member who has just spoken for the Liberals if this indicated that the Liberal Party is now looking at the manufacturers' sales tax as one of the replacements for the GST?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House regard the goods and services tax as flawed and as having been introduced at the most inauspicious time imaginable, exactly when the Conservative government did so.
With regard to alternatives, it is the commitment of our leader and our party to review the issue in a parliamentary committee when we form the government and give to that committee a mandate to review all aspects of taxation questions and to report back to the House within a year.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let me start, if I could, by giving the House and the people of the country some sense of just how seriously we see the decline this economy has experienced in the past period of years.
Frankly, we see a devastating reduction in economic opportunity and, most important, the elimination of hundreds of thousands of jobs in manufacturing, but not just in manufacturing. There has been a record number of bankruptcies across the services sector. There are serious problems in the farm sector of this economy, and the resources sector has run into considerable difficulty.
It is quite clear that under this government's leadership we do not see prosperity developing or movement toward full employment, which are so crucial for Canadians across this land.
We have tried to put forward a counter-position to the government's approach. Each time we say to the government that it must do something different it says: This is it, this is the only direction we can take; we have to stay the course, we have to keep to this path because it is the right approach. It has kept saying that as unemployment has mounted, as the numbers on the welfare rolls have

March 15, 1993
Supply
mounted, and as the misery of many Canadians has become worse and worse.
We do not believe that just staying the course is a proper response to one of the worst recessions that we have seen in this country. We do not believe that it is a proper response to one of the weakest recoveries we have seen in this country, a recovery which has been called a jobless recovery. It is such a contradiction in terms that there should be a jobless recovery. For us the only recovery which makes sense is a recovery that puts people back to work and lets families again feel a sense of hope about their future.
What is the different approach that we would take? It is based on three crucial points. First, we believe that it is time to stop following the Reagan-Thatcher-Mulroney approach of trickle-down economics, which says we should give huge new tax breaks to those at the top of our income structure and load new taxes, like the goods and services tax, on those in the middle and then somehow expect that new growth and new prosperity will result for everyone.
This trickle-down approach has not worked in the United States, where it has vastly increased the differential between rich and poor in that country. It has not worked in Britain, where the British economy has found itself limping badly in comparison to its European partners. It has certainly not worked here in this country, where a trickle-down approach has simply meant an increase in poverty, an increase in joblessness, and an increase in the welfare rolls across this country.
We think it is important to instead have a trickle-up approach which gives the tax benefits to that 80 per cent of the population that has been hit so hard by this government and so badly deserves some tax breaks for the future.
We want to have those at the top of the income system pay not an exorbitant share but their fair share of what is required as revenues in this society.
Let us stop giving the benefits to those at the top and give benefits to the vast majority in our economy through the tax system and then let those benefits trickle up and give us prosperity that way.
Second, it is time to stop tying ourselves so closely to the United States and hoping that foreign investment from the United States will solve our economic problems in Canada, hoping that we can attract new capital and new entrepreneurs to come in from the United States and give us a set of new jobs for our people and new opportunities. If we have learned anything from the free trade deal, from this experience of relying on the United States, it is that we cannot depend on what happens to the south of us to give us a future in Canada.
We need to tiy out our own freedom as an advanced, high-technology economy able to use measures such as Canadian content laws, which we are stopped from using under the free trade deal, to build new jobs in this country and establish trade ties with the entire world, not just to increase our ties with the United States.
Finally, third, it is time to stop attacking the unemployed as the Conservatives have done with their changes to the unemployment insurance system and as the Liberals did in the last recession when they attacked the unemployed in exactly the same way. It is time to say that the problem in a recession does not lie with the unemployed. The problem is unemployment, the joblessness that has been created as part of these recessionary conditions.
We need a jobs first strategy. That is why we have brought before the country and we bring before this House this strategy for a full employment economy, a jobs plan for Canada from the national New Democratic Party. It is a plan that would show us how to stop this trickle-down approach and how to free ourselves from the United States trade deal and improve our world trade ties. It shows us how we can create half a million additional jobs over the next five years for a total of between one and a half and two million jobs to be created in this country. That is an extra half million over what the different projections suggest we might achieve with the present approach.
This is not a plan that would achieve Utopia in a first parliamentary term. It is a plan that would give us a significant reduction in our unemployment rate to about 7 per cent. That is not good enough but it is much better than the 9 per cent to 10 per cent unemployment rate projected by all the economic forecasters if we continue to follow the present plan this government is following.
March 15, 1993

At the heart of this plan is a commitment to the step-by-step elimination of the goods and services tax. In our first budget we would remove the GST from four or five key areas that have important job benefits for the country. In our second budget we would reduce the GST from 7 per cent to 5 per cent. In our third and fourth budgets we would reduce it to first 4 per cent and then to 3 per cent. In our final budget, under this plan, we would eliminate that final 3 per cent of GST.
We would do so because we think it is a bad tax. It is a tax that hurts small business. It is a tax that kills jobs. It is a tax that damages the drive to improve our economy. It is a tax that hurts consumption. It is a tax that hurts our border communities.
Taking this step-by-step approach would permit a big job push at the start of our plan, partly through job gains from eliminating the GST step by step and partly through initiatives that would come from cutting existing expenditures, especially in the area of defence.
It is also important to recognize that moving forward with the elimination of the goods and services tax would stop our cost of living from rising as quickly as it otherwise would.
This would mean a lower rate of interest and that means lower expenditures on the interest payments that we have to make on our national debt.
About 25 per cent of our replacement for the goods and services tax would come from extra employment. Another 25 per cent would come from cutting expenditures. The final 50 per cent, to get rid of the GST, would come from making our tax system fair through three steps.
First, we must see to it that four existing and damaging loopholes in our tax system that help the large-scale corporations and benefit the wealthy in this country are plugged. We would change the present system that allows corporations to deduct interest payments so that they can then take the loans that they are taking out and invest them in foreign countries. We would plug the possibility that exists for corporations to deduct their entertainment under the present tax system. We would change the capital gains tax system so that the unfair
Supply
benefits for the wealthy no longer exist. We would see to it that there are steps taken so that the family trusts set up over many years under the Liberals and under the Conservatives start to have to pay the capital gains taxes they owe. That is one set of changes to make the tax system fairer.
A second set of changes would be to put into effect a wealth transfer tax. This is something they have in the United States. This requires that when people receive inheritances from estates of over, let us say, $500,000, or $1 million as it is in the United States, they pay normal tax on the income which they get from those inheritances. Again, this is something that is perfectly straightforward and fair and something the U.S. has had in effect.
Finally, we see it as crucial the benefits that have been established by both Liberals and Conservatives in the income tax system should change. These are benefits that give tremendous handouts to those at the very top of our income structure. People whose individual income is over $100,000 per year would pay income tax on that last amount over $100,000 at a rate of 35 per cent federally instead of the present rate of 29 per cent. Those whose individual income is over $135,000 would pay at the rate of 40 per cent instead of the present 29 per cent.
These changes would make it possible to completely replace the GST, to establish an extra 500,000 jobs and to reduce the level of deficit over the next parliamentary term by $11 billion.
It is not just New Democrats who claim this. We have had this plan tested and tested carefully by an independent organization that even Conservative spokespeople have said do a good job in making these kinds of assessments. Informetrica has said that this will work and will achieve the goals that I have been talking about. By achieving these goals we will put this economy back on the road to recovery.
We will do it as my leader has suggested today by recognizing that there is a human deficit and not just a fiscal deficit in this country. To attack that fiscal deficit we must attack the human deficit too. We must do so by getting people back to work. We must do so by making

March 15, 1993
Supply
our tax system fair. We must do so by being honest and up front about exactly what we would do in government.
This disappoints me the most about my friends in the Liberal Party in opposition. I would have hoped that they would have been challenged by the issuing of our plan last month to issue something that says what they will do about the GST, free trade and the NAFTA.
Elowever, this is not so. On the GST we just heard the spokesperson for the Liberal Party say that the Liberals will set up a committee after they are elected to sort things out and come back with an answer after a year. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen across the country. Vote for the Liberal Party and you might know what you get after a year.
The same spokesperson has said that they want to renegotiate the NAFTA and the free trade agreement but they do not say what they will do if they do not succeed in everything they want in their renegotiation. They do not say: "We need this or else we would scrap it. We do not need that in order to stay in". They simply say: "Trust us just as in the past". They want you to trust them as in 1974 when the Liberal Party ran a magnificent election campaign and said to the people of this country that it was a terrible idea to freeze wages: "It is a terrible idea to have a wage freeze. It is terribly unfair so we will not do it. We are against it". Then, when they were elected, they put that very wage freeze into effect a short eight months later.
I say to the people of this country that they should not trust the Liberals again. Do not give us nine more years of Conservative rule. Adopt the jobs plan of the New Democrats and we can put people back to work and make this country work once more.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to my hon. friend, the member for Essex-Windsor. While I do not always agree with everything he says I must give him credit, as my leader and our Prime Minister has said, because at least his party has clear and unequivocal policies.
I know there are individual members of the Liberal Party, like the member for Broadview-Greenwood, who have put forward many policies, as has the member for Etobicoke North. In fact, I have never understood why
the member for Etobicoke North sits on that side of the House since he supports the policies of this government.
In any event I want to address two questions to my hon. friend because I find myself somewhat confused with some of the things that he and his colleagues have been saying. In particular I want to ask him about this oft-repeated proposal that they have to not allow businesses to deduct as tax expense items hospitality and lunches and so on. This is notwithstanding the fact that I have noticed that when various organizations around the country have come to Ottawa and put on receptions the New Democratic Party members are glad to avail themselves of those receptions.
Here is my specific question with respect to that. Can my hon. friend tell me what studies his party has done that will show the impact of such a proposal on the hospitality industry in Canada and could he table these in this House? How many restaurants in our cities will go out of business, for example? How many hotels will go out of business? Clearly a major part of the business done by restaurants and hotels in the hospitality industry in this country is business related. I know my hon. friend would not suggest that such a proposal, if implemented, would not have an absolutely devastating effect on the hospitality industry in this country.
I would ask him to advise us about the studies they have done. I would ask and invite him to table those studies in this House.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the various receptions that take place here, I think that those reception are paid for out of money they have raised. Various organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that raise money and put on receptions do not get a subsidy from the taxpayer. There is no subsidy that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities gets from the taxpayer. There is no subsidy that the trade unions get for any reception they put on. There is no subsidy for the Canadian Federation of Agriculture if it puts on a reception.
However, when the Canadian Petroleum Association comes here and puts on a reception it is able to deduct money that is spent by individual firms that help sponsor it from what is paid in taxes. One always notices on the
March 15, 1993

program that there are certain individual firms that helps sponsor the reception.
I do not think people realize what this means. It means that instead of paying a full level of corporation tax on their profits the money is taken and spent on this reception. It comes right off the amount that would have been paid as taxes to the people of Canada. This means that each and every one of us as taxpayers across this country is subsidizing Imperial Oil, Shell Canada, or the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Royal Bank, or some of the biggest, richest companies in this country, to wine and dine members of Parliament. With all due respect, I think these companies are sufficiently rich that they ought to be able to pay the amounts involved.
The member has suggested that surely there will be damage done to the tourist and hospitality industry. I want to tell the member who raised this question that it has become virtually impossible for me to go out and visit a restaurant in my constituency in the Windsor area because restaurant after restaurant has just been hammered by the goods and services tax. If you ask any of those restaurants if they would prefer to have the hospitality deduction kept or if they would prefer to have the GST eliminated, there is no question that their answer would be to get rid of the goods and services tax.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, the 300 restaurants in my riding will appreciate hearing that the NDP is doubting the legitimacy of a true business expense in their restaurants. To me it is just beyond comprehension. Elowever, I do not want to focus on that. I have a lot of respect for the finance critic of the New Democratic Party.
In the centre of my riding on a side street is Hampton Variety. This variety store is operated by a young entrepreneur whose name is Terry McAdorey. The basis for his work is the community, not competition. He bakes his own muffins and bread. He makes his own soups and stews. He buys his cheeses from small family farms. He is the spirit of neighbourly love in the community. He employs and encourages young people. He represents a contrast to the existence one experiences when working for a transnational corporation.
Supply
It seems to me that we need to revisit and review the contribution of community-based work as a contrast to the type of work that is imposed upon us because of these exercises in the free trade agreement and NAFTA. Could the New Democratic member give his party's position on that community-based work and its importance to the economy?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I am not sure whether I have told my friend this before but I started in politics by canvassing in Broadview in the first election of the New Democrats back in 1965.1 know his constituency well.
He mentioned the many small restaurants and I ate in a lot of them when I was part of that community. I know those restaurants would be much more concerned with the elimination of the goods and services tax and the benefits that would bring to them than with the potential benefits business deductions bring.
After all, we already treat deductions for business luncheons differently. We only permit the deduction of 80 per cent of them. That shows there is something we are a little suspicious of with respect to them to begin with.
The second point he raised is an excellent one. Part of our effort with this plan and with a number of the approaches to changing the economy we have tried to put forward over the last four or five years have been to say that we have to start looking at economic development from the bottom up instead of the top down.
Now that includes establishing things like a national investment fund which my leader talked about this morning. This would be of particular benefit to small business. It gives small business people the potential for access to capital which they so rarely have at the moment without having to mortgage houses or, it almost seems sometimes, having to mortgage their families.
That is important but we also see as part of our jobs plan a crucial emphasis on community development. We see the establishment of community development organizations and support for community development groups. We see support for co-operatives and credit unions based in the community as all part of that same effort to build from the ground up. This is instead of assuming everything will flow from some great new enterprise that is attracted in from the outside. Yes, that

March 15, 1993
Supply
does give us some jobs but it does not give us enough jobs for the future.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am glad the New Democratic Party has put the broad spectre of economic issues before the House and the nation today because I think these are things that are very much on the minds of Canadians. These are issues that should be debated seriously and frequently in this House.
The particular motion the New Democratic Party has put forward causes me some concern. It seems to me it is in conflict with itself. When one talks about an economic recovery program that must endorse a strategy for full employment which entails abrogating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and not implementing the North American free trade agreement, it seems to me that those concepts are very directly in conflict with themselves. They do not seem to make any sense at all. I do not know how the New Democratic Party proposes that our economy and the standard of living of Canadians should grow if we are going to turn our backs on the opportunities to sell the products that are the absolute basis of that growth.
I listened earlier today when the leader of the New Democratic Party spoke. She talked about not being dependent on the North American market. She talked about reaching out to other markets in other parts of the world.
With the greatest respect, that is precisely what Canadian business people are doing. They are doing it already and they do not need the government to suggest to them that they should do that. They know perfectly well where their market opportunities are. They want the government to create the climate and the opportunity in which trade growth can take place. Through trade we have an opportunity to see economic development in this country. This country is a trading nation, first and foremost.
A couple of realities have been ignored by my hon. friends in the New Democratic Party in the position they have taken with respect to the free trade agreement and the NAFTA. I would love to have an opportunity to discuss a number of the issues that are included within
the resolutions they have put forward. Time will not permit it so I am going to focus on these trade issues.
First, I think the New Democratic Party has to realize that the Canadian market is not big enough to sustain the standard of living that Canadians expect. It is as simple as that. We export a quarter of what we produce in this country. We must have access to markets abroad.
We have only one alternative if we are going to build big walls around Canada and turn down the opportunity to trade abroad. Realistically, we are not going to trade abroad unless we wake up to the reality of global competitiveness. Then we have only to sell internally in Canada.
If we are ever going to achieve full employment, which the New Democratic Party says is its goal and aspiration, then the only way we are going to do that is to have the government put everybody on the payroll.
That would not work either. The Liberal Party tried that for 15 years and we know what the outcome was. You just spend yourself into a cycle of debt and nine years later we are still trying to dig ourselves out. I have a feeling there will not be too many of us left in this House by the time we do get around to digging ourselves out of that cycle of debt which was imposed on us by 15 years of irresponsible spending by the previous government.
The second reality the New Democratic Party is ignoring is what is happening in the world today. There is a change in trading patterns going on around the world. It is not just in this country or just on this continent, but indeed all over the world. Global trading blocs are developing. The nations of the world are negotiating new sets of trading rules. This will facilitate as well as liberalize trade around the world.
The name of the game, whether the New Democrats and the Canadian Labour of Congress-and I realize they are relatively indistinguishable-recognize it or not, is that the world is going to go on with or without us. What is in the interests of Canadians is that we be there and we be there to benefit in what is happening.
The New Democrats do not have to take it from me, this business about competitiveness. They think barriers can be erected around this country and high wage levels can be protected forever but it will not work. You have to be able to sell your products. You cannot sell your products, quite simply, unless you can offer competitive prices. That is the name of the game from now on
March 15, 1993

whether we like it or not. Anyone who doubts that does not have to take it from me.
Just look at the phenomenon of cross-border shopping that has gone on. We tell people to buy Canadian. What have Canadians done? They say: "I will buy where I get the best deal". If that is in Buffalo, Seattle or Bangor, that is where they are going to shop.
The only way we are going to be competitive within our own market is the same basis on which we are going to be competitive abroad. That is the fundamental weakness. Building walls simply will not work because our market is not big enough to sustain the economy we wish to live by.
When the New Democratic Party leader suggests, as she did earlier today, that we should look to other markets I cannot help but reflect on what I hear her trade critic saying time and time again when he talks about low-wage Mexicans taking away the jobs of Canadians. This is the great fear of the NAFTA we are told. In 1988 we were told by both opposition parties that the entire Canadian economy would grind to a halt because of the free trade agreement. That was because people in Alabama were ready to work for lower wages than people in Canada. That has not been the case. We have been through a recession. It has been tough. It has been tough not just in Canada but all around the world.
The truth of the matter is if low-wage Mexicans were going to be putting us all out of work why is the leader of the New Democratic Party talking about seeking out new markets in Asia, Africa and all these other places? Does she think with respect to the Philippines, Thailand, India or Senegal that there is any difference between low wage rates in those countries and Mexico? Of course not. We are able to compete with the best of them.
Look at our trade with Japan, one of our biggest trading partners. Wage rates are higher in Japan than they are here. Europe is a major trading partner. Wage rates in Europe are as high or higher than they are here.
What constitutes ability to compete in the marketplace is not simply wage rates but competitiveness. That is what it is all about. That is a concept that the New
Supply
Democratic Party does not seem to fully and adequately understand.
We do have to seek access to new markets. Europe is creating its bloc of 12 countries and that is possibly going to grow. Eastern Europe has IFTA. There are the trade developments in southeast Asia. What better opportunity is there for Canadians than to be part of the largest trading market in the world, which is that created by the North American free trade agreement? It is an opportunity and it has worked. The concept has worked in the past.
I would simply cite the example of the auto pact which was created in 1965. I might say it was roundly and thoroughly opposed by the New Democratic Party of the day and by the Canadian Labour Congress and the United Auto Workers, as they were then, now the CAW. All were opponents of the auto pact when it was brought in. They do not feel that way now. It is a sacrosanct thing as far as Canadian auto workers are concerned.
I suppose if we come back here 20 to 25 years from now we will hear the NDP standing up and taking the credit for the North American free trade agreement. Its members will be saying it was all their idea in the first place. That is what we are going to see.
This business of losing jobs to Mexicans is something we hear time and time again. It is time that my friends in the New Democratic Party realized that what really counts is the unit cost of production. That is what is significant. Labour is a component of that. It is true that on average, labour costs are 7.5 times lower in Mexico than they are in Canada. However, what is the other side of the equation? The other side of the equation is productivity. Productivity is 6.5 times higher in Canada than it is in Mexico.
In addition to that, the cost of capital is lower in Canada. A business cannot be run without money. Money is more accessible here. Capital productivity is higher. We get more out of our technology and our equipment here than they do in Mexico. Add it all up. The result very simply is that Canadian workers and Canadian companies can compete with the best the Mexicans have to offer.

March 15, 1993
Supply
Therefore, NAFTA gives us the opportunity to access a market of 85 million people that is largely closed to us today.
If the Mexicans were going to put us all out of business then we would be out of business now. Most of the goods that come to Canada from Mexico come in tariff free now, so why have the Mexicans not supplanted us already? On the other hand, virtually everything that we wish to sell in Mexico is either completely blocked through import licensing restrictions or must come through a 20 per cent tariff.
The facts, and I know sometimes my hon. friends opposite do not like to have facts injected into discussions, sustain the argument that the North American free trade agreement in this context is very good.
I want to talk for a minute about trade in general. I want to talk a little bit about my own part of Canada, Nova Scotia and more particularly the south shore. Trade has been the lifeblood of Canada but also of the maritimes. If we go back in the history of this country and of my region there was a time before Confederation when little old Nova Scotia, my province, had the fourth largest volume of shipping of any nation in the world. I know you knew that, Mr. Speaker, but I do not know if my hon. friends opposite knew that. Confederation came along and with it came tariff walls that disrupted the natural flow of trade between the Atlantic provinces, the maritime provinces, and the United States. Our economy has never really recovered from that blow.
Now we see the opportunity, and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has given us the opportunity, to re-establish those lines and the flow of trade that comes from them.
Look for example at my own constituency of South Shore where because of the kind of scaremongering by a lot of people there are many people in my area concerned about what the impact of free trade has really been and what the impact of the NAFTA will be.
Over 8,000 people in my constituency make their living from the fishery. My constituency has the highest volume of fish landings by value of any constituency in the country and that includes the ones in Newfoundland, and I see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans here. I want to tell him that my constituency has the biggest
volume in value of landings of any constituency in the country and one-third of those landings goes to the United States. Access to that American market is critically important.
We have a paper mill. The Bowater Mersey paper mill employs over 800 people in South Shore and 60 per cent of the product of that plant goes to the United States. Sixty per cent of those 800 jobs are dependent on trade to the United States.
We have a Michelin Tires plant. I am told it is the most productive Michelin Tires plant in the world, in the entire Michelin system. We are very proud of that plant and we are even more proud of the workers in that plant, who are the best in the world according to Michelin. There are 1,400 jobs there and last week they celebrated the production of their 50 millionth tire. That is a tremendous thing. It has been wonderful for Nova Scotia. Two-thirds of that production goes to the United States.
You have heard me in this Flouse before, Mr. Speaker, talk about Christmas trees. We export 1.5 million Christmas trees a year from South Shore. There are some 500 people in South Shore who make their living from Christmas tree production, and 90 per cent of our Christmas trees go to the United States.
Then there is the tourist industry. There are a couple of thousand people employed in the hospitality industry and in the tourist industry. The American tourists that come up, particularly in the summer and fall, and the cruise ships that come up from the United States, create work for Nova Scotians. If we add it all up the conclusion that we come to is that trading links and the access to the United States and now to Mexico, which is the most important part of these agreements, are critically important to the economic development of our industry.
We do not have an historic trading relationship with the Mexicans but now that the NAFTA has come about and now that it has been signed we are finding increasing interest. All of a sudden we are discovering that there are new market opportunities for our processed fish. We are finding that there might even be opportunities for Canadian fishermen and fish companies to go down and assist the Mexicans in the harvesting of their own fish resources because to date the Mexicans have not had the technology and vessels to harvest their own fish resources. One of the solutions to our own fishing prob-
March 15, 1993

lems is to find fishing opportunities for our fleet and for our companies in assisting the Mexicans in developing their own area. Obviously we have a great new opportunity in terms of Christmas trees. The Mexicans celebrate Christmas and they have not been bringing in Christmas trees from Atlantic Canada.
I want to give the Mexicans due notice here today that we are going to be down there selling them some of the finest Christmas trees in the world because the finest Christmas trees in the world come from the south shore of Nova Scotia, as everybody in this House has come to know in recent times.
Then there are investment opportunities that flow from the access that we get under the FTA and indeed will get under the NAFTA. Companies that say they are interested in settling their plant and living in Canada, in particular in this case in Atlantic Canada where there is an excellent work force and the opportunity for a wonderful quality of life, are still going to have the opportunity to sell to that market of more than 350 million people in the United States and Mexico. The investment opportunities that are created by the NAFTA, on top of the success of the FTA are really quite encouraging.
My friends opposite sometimes entertain themselves by debunking the free trade agreement. We all know that we are not really going to know for another 10 to 15 years exactly how profoundly the free trade agreement has impacted this country, though it is very obvious that the initial signs show that it has been very positive. We have been through a difficult recession in this country and yet we have seen the benefits of the free trade agreement already starting to show in a serious way.
I would refer my hon. friends, who may not take as gospel everything I say though I cannot understand why, to the independent study done by the C.D. Howe Institute and released not so long ago. It shows that since the FTA Canada's trade balance with the United States has improved more than its trade balance with other regions.
Supply
The FTA has led to more trade between Canada and the United States. It also shows that in those sectors liberalized by the FTA exports have increased most, in particular those in non-resource-based manufacturing.
Merchandise exports to the United States have increased to record levels since the FTA, from $102.6 billion in 1988 to $122.3 billion in 1992. That is a 19.2 per cent increase. Exports in 1992 increased 13.6 per cent over 1991.
In other words, as a result of the free trade agreement we are seeing more business being done. Our exports to the United States are growing steadily under the FTA, notwithstanding the fact that we have been through a recession which would, generally speaking, have a negative impact on the economy. The same can be said with respect to our merchandise trade surplus with the U.S., which has grown by 27.3 per cent since a year ago.
I have so many more things I would like to say on this subject and I know my hon. friends would like to hear them but I will just make one last point about the FTA and its impact and the anticipated impact of the NAFTA and that is encouraging foreign direct investment. That means other people investing money in Canada. Investing money in Canada means creating jobs for Canadians. That is a good thing.
We have seen a significant growth in investment. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association survey of some 325 companies conducted early in 1992 found that nearly half the companies said they increased capital investments in Canada after the FTA was implemented. Only 9 per cent reduced their investment. Investment means jobs.
I could quote from various authorities on the success this agreement has had and the wonderful things that it has done for us, but let me say simply that what NAFTA does is provide us an opportunity to go beyond the FTA. There were some problems with the FTA and they have been sorted out in these negotiations. Canada got the things it was concerned about.
The key points about the NAFTA are: the auto pact remains the same; agriculture is the same except barriers will be removed against Canadian opportunities for export of grains, oilseeds, pork, fish, potatoes and processed foods; our supply management system is not

March 15, 1993
Supply
touched at all; health and social services are fully protected; and the Canadian government policy prohibiting large-scale export of water is unaffected.
I see you are giving me the sign, Mr. Speaker, so I will stop for now and say that I look forward to hearing from my hon. friends opposite.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the government member who just spoke talked about "creating jobs for Canadians" and also said that: "The free trade agreement did create some problems".
The government member knows better than anyone else that over-all the free trade agreement entered into by his party and the Government of Canada on balance clearly created fewer jobs than the member spoke of. Plants have closed in this country, not all as a result of the free trade agreement but clearly on balance there has been disruption and dislocation and there have been fewer jobs created.
Then he has the gumption to say now that we are entering the NAFTA, based on their track record with the free trade agreement, we should basically trust them.
Obviously if we take 10 Canadians the vast majority of those 10 Canadians will not trust this government, not only for these reasons but for others, and will certainly not trust this government on the NAFTA given its track record on the free trade agreement.
Can the hon. member explain the rationale for why this party wishes to rush enabling legislation on the NAFTA through this Chamber at the same time that our American counterparts, President Clinton and his trade representative Mickey Kantor, have made it abundantly clear in the last number of days that they have no intention of proceeding with the NAFTA until the other side agreements are concluded?
My question is very simple: If the Americans can look after number one, namely defending their own workers, their own industry, and their questions about the environment, why are we, from a negotiating standpoint, heading right into this situation rather than standing back for a second and looking at the deal to determine where we can make it better and tighten up those areas on behalf of Canadian workers?
Canadian workers and Canadian industry want to know that we have a government that is defending their interests and aspirations. They are obviously puzzled when we are entering into legislation and the American partner, the third in the deal, is still very far from that point.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, of course I would be delighted to answer my hon. friend's question but I wish to clarify some confusion that obviously exists in his mind with respect to the job situation.
It is obviously going to take time to totally sort it out. I know that in the last couple of years, as I think somebody in the opposition said, every sparrow that has fallen has been blamed on the free trade agreement. The fact of the matter is, now that we have figures in for 1992, my hon. friend should be aware that we have had a net increase of 118,000 jobs in Canada for 1991-92.
If he examines what is going on he will see that our recovery is being driven by exports, primarily by exports to the United States. If that is not the testimony my hon. friend needs I do not know what I can present him with.
Second, he raises questions about the environment, the parallel accords, and the process of ratification. By the way, Canadians know where this government stands on the NAFTA and they know where the New Democratic Party stands on the NAFTA but they are not too sure where the Liberal Party stands on the NAFTA.
The reason this government is bringing forward this enabling legislation, which is an act to support this agreement, is that we believe it is good for Canada. Interestingly, so does Canadian business. The people who create jobs in this country believe it will be good for Canada, and it will be good for Canada.
My hon. friend's third question made reference to parallel discussions with respect to the environment and labour. I want to assure my hon. friend that the government thinks it is a marvellous idea to proceed with further negotiations with respect to the environment and labour issues.
A year ago, in March 1992, we proposed to our two partners in this agreement that we should do a parallel agreement with respect to the environment. The American government of the day was not interested. Now we,
March 15, 1993

have a government in the United States that is interested and of course Canada fully supports it.
As the American president himself has made abundantly clear, the NAFTA will not be reopened for negotiation. That agreement was negotiated over many months by the three parties and will not be reopened. Hopefully we will reach an accord with respect to the environment. Even so, I want my hon. friends to be aware of the fact that never in the history of the world has there been a trade agreement concluded with as many provisions on the environment as the NAFTA.
In conclusion, I want them to be aware of the fact that the NAFTA contains a strong commitment to the concept of sustainable development and environmental protection. I want them to bear in mind that what is most important to Canadians is the protection of our own environment. Nothing in the NAFTA precludes our ability to establish our own environmental standards.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for South Shore. What we have experienced in this member's speech today is the typical Conservative lean, mean machine approach in the name of global competitiveness.
I realize that in every trade deal there are winners and there are losers. The problem we have today is that a lot of people are losing. A lot of people are unemployed, almost a couple of million.
I was reading an article on the weekend written by Joe Mancini who was talking about competitive global mass production, more threat than promise. He made an interesting statement. He said: "Communities and families are dissolving as work takes on an increasing importance and puts greater demands on people's time. This trend in work results in spouses not having time to experience their children. People do not have time to build community outside work. The result is increasing isolation. Growth as recorded by Statistics Canada is no guarantee of economic development. Unfortunately politics is such that illusions of growth are more important than real innovation. Individuals and families can disentangle from these illusions by creating real growth through innovation in the household using traditional skills".
Supply
Does the member not realize that this singular focus on ratcheting inflation to a point where it is a point and a quarter and putting such intensity on global competitiveness influence our whole fabric, our whole notion of community and family, and that this transnational thrust basically controls the agenda of this country to the exclusion of human dignity?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I tried with care to listen to my hon. friend's question, although I must say he confused me a bit with his logic.
I noticed that he mentioned, for example, a couple of million unemployed in this country. I think he would admit that was a rather gross exaggeration. If an individual is unemployed, that is one too many. I am sure that is the way this government and all members of the House feel.
He talked about ratcheting down inflation as if it were a terrible thing. I am not sure I understand where he is coming from. What is inflation all about? Inflation is a killer. Inflation is the thing that says to people on fixed incomes like our seniors that next year they are not going to be able to pay for what they have.
By getting inflation under control and having price stability we provide the best basis for people to be able to plan their lives and to live in some comfort and with some harmony. I do not understand why my friend would take issue with that approach.
I think his question was also about the issue of globalization and whether or not Canada should respond to what is happening in the world. I do not understand where he is coming from. It seems to me we have Canadians telling us by their actions that we have to smarten up and sort out what is happening in the world.
When Canadians prefer to shop in other countries they are telling us that we are not competitive, even in our own markets. When we have Canadians saying they want to see growth and job opportunities we know we have to go beyond our own market as we have in the past. We have to be able to export.
Other countries of the world are catching up in terms of productivity and technology whether or not my hon. friend wants to acknowledge it. The bottom line is that the responsibility of the government is to Canadians. It must prepare the Canadian economy so we are in the best position, for the benefit of Canadians, to have

March 15, 1993
Supply
economic growth and development, price stability and good employment opportunities in the years ahead.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, at this point, our party would like to divide the following half hour into speeches of ten minutes each.

The issue before us because of this NDP resolution is in part the abrogation of the free trade agreement and the non-signing of the NAFTA. My friend from South Shore has lauded the positive benefits he says we have seen from free trade, but it is impossible to separate actual results under free trade from what occurred in the economy as a whole. Let us be intellectually honest.
If we look at the record over the past four years since free trade came in we find our unemployment is now at
10.8	per cent. In the United States it is at 7 per cent. Our manufacturing job losses in those four years now stand at 16 per cent. In the United States it has only been 6 per cent. Why have we been devastated so much more than the United States during that period of time?
We can look at an even more alarming statistic. Our ability to compete has been declining. We are now growing at about half the rate of that of our major competitors in the G-7. This is alarming in terms of our future ability to create the wealth we need in this country to sustain the high level of humane social programs which are a hallmark of the Canadian way of life.
Perhaps even more alarming when we look at the Tory record is that in 1984 Canada had a high-tech trade surplus of $1 billion. Today that high-tech trade surplus has become a deficit of $30 billion. Even though trade may have picked up a bit with the United States in recent years, we are losing in spades when it comes to the high-tech, value-added industries which will create the high paying jobs of the future we need if we are to compete with low $1.50 an hour Mexican labour.
What are the lessons we can take from our four years under free trade? My conclusion is that trade is not the real issue. Trade agreements such as the free trade agreement and the NAFTA are not the overriding economic issue we face. Even if we got rid of free trade we would still find ourselves having to compete as a
trading nation. As one whose GDP is 30 per cent more than even Japan's we are dependent on foreign trade. We still need ways in which to compete.
Perhaps we can learn from our four years under free trade. I would like to focus on seven lessons that we should have learned.
First, Canada can no longer depend on its abundant natural resources and the effortless economic superiority those have given us to sustain our high standard of living. We need the value-added, high-wage jobs.
Second, if we are going to enter into another free trade agreement surely we have learned that we need detailed impact assessments so that we can predict where the job losses are going to occur, as they inevitably will. We need adjustment programs to make sure that those workers who are affected adversely have jobs and are not doomed to perpetual unemployment.
The NDP would have us abolish these trade agreements or not enter into them. However, in its resolution, has it called for the adjustment programs that we need? Of course, it has not. It has totally overlooked it. Has it, in asking us to totally abolish these trade agreements, given us an impact analysis of how many job losses would occur because our access to foreign markets could be diminished? It has not taken that responsible step of forewarning us as to the consequences of its policy.
The third lesson I hope we have learned is that even though we have a free trade agreement, this does not guarantee secure access to the foreign market. We have learned that tariffs were not the real barrier. Issues such as anti-dumping, countervail and government procurement have been far greater barriers to Canadian access to the U.S. market.
The fourth lesson is that the unparalleled level of trade harassment by the Americans against Canadian producers is not ended. We are not going to have the so-called benefits that the member for South Shore talked about. These are the benefits of investment. No firm is going to invest in Canada be it a Canadian or a foreign firm. They will just not put their new money here to service the North American market if this unmitigated trade harassment can continue. Our producers can have the threat of being shut out of the American market through spurious actions such as we have seen with
March 15, 1993

respect to Honda, softwood, pork and now steel in a major way.
Has the government given us any hope that under the NAFTA it has found a way to end that trade harassment? As a matter of fact, no, it will not even talk about bringing in a subsidies code to deal with countervailing let alone some new measures and common laws to deal with the question of anti-dumping.
The fifth lesson I hope we have learned is that when we have a free trade agreement there is going to be an international rationalization of investment. We know this is inevitable. The problem is that this rationalization of industry has been mainly outside Canada. More than 50 per cent of our manufacturing sector is controlled by foreigners, mainly Americans. When there is a slight recession or an opportunity to consolidate plants, one is not going to consolidate the American operation and head office into the Canadian branch plant. The opposite occurs. This is going to be a structural problem that not only this government, but succeeding governments, are going to have to come to grips with.
Sixth, I hope we have learned that trade policy does not take place in an economic vacuum. It is one portion of our economic agenda but a very small one when looked at on the whole. For example, this government's high interest rate, high dollar and high tax policies over the past four years have done more to create barriers to Canadian producers than the removal of all the tariffs that have taken place under the free trade agreement. When the dollar goes up 27 per cent from a low to a high of 90 cents, that jump is a far greater barrier than any of the trade tariffs that were abolished.
Finally, the seventh lesson is for us to recognize that trade policy is only one aspect of an industrial policy. What we need is a comprehensive industrial policy that will deal with our ability to compete. We need to integrate fiscal and monetary policies so they work for Canadian producers. We need to get rid of the high levels of illiteracy and innumeracy that make our workers unfit for the plant. We must deal with the 38 per cent drop-out rate in high schools. We must deal with our
Supply
declining level of research and development that is less than half that of our competitors and is falling. We must deal with the Mexican challenge. Mexico now produces four times the number of scientists and engineers that Canada does.
If we are going to compete, then these are the real issues and this is why we need a comprehensive industrial policy. This is why trade is not the real issue. This is why the NDP has so far missed the mark in this resolution. There is no way that any intellectually honest or right-thinking person could ever support it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague, whom I respect a great deal under normal circumstances, suggest that what is lacking in the New Democratic Party resolution is a complete industrial policy.
I do not know whether this was noticed but one of the things that is being mentioned by almost all political commentators in this country is the total absence of any Liberal policy at all.
As a matter of fact, the closest the Liberals have come was the amendment introduced by the member for Etobicoke North about how he would have amended the resolution by dispensing with our condemnation of the free trade agreement and the NAFTA. Everything else would be left there.


Sergio Marchi: It is not condemnation. You've got the wrong word.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Pardon?


Sergio Marchi: That's not so.


An hon. member:: Read the amendment.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is so. They are protesting as they usually do. I understand that it said that it should eliminate-


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Read it right.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: This is what I have. I stand corrected. It says they will eliminate that section of the North American free trade agreement and so on but leave in the jobs plan, an infrastructure program, a national child care program and all those things that constitute the core of

March 15, 1993
Supply
the New Democratic economic policy. That is what is there.
It would seem to me that with the hon. member having mentioned that the fiscal policy and the monetary policy have to be part of an industrial policy, then I think that most Canadians would be looking for something definitive and clear on the GST.
I would give it to the hon. member and his party that they are staying on that tack of wanting to renegotiate the free trade agreement. I want to know exactly what article in the free trade agreement the Liberals are referring to that permits renegotiation.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, Canada is just as free to renegotiate the free trade agreement as the NDP is to switch its policies.
Our position is very simple. We want to renegotiate this free trade agreement involving Mexico because we find it deficient. Unlike the government, we are not in favour of rushing in to pass this deal at a time when the United States has put it on hold. It is totally irresponsible.
Second, we have a number of problems with this deal the way it is. It does not give a detailed definition of subsidies. This government is waiting for pie in the sky and for the GATT to finally give us a subsidies code. In the absence of that, it will not come forward with a subsidies code which would end some of the trade harassment that we have experienced under the free trade agreement. We need that.
We need anti-dumping laws that will benefit our steel makers.
I would like to see provisions which would ensure for all time that the auto workers in that member's riding do not have to worry about the erosion of the auto pact because the seeds for erosion are in the NAFTA.
I would like to see a parallel agreement dealing with energy. Why should Mexicans not have the same treatment in terms of their energy and their self-sufficiency as Canadians?
There are many flaws in this agreement. We have not been satisfied that the trade harassment will end under the NAFTA. This is why we are not going to support it
the way it is and this is why we urge Her Majesty's government to press on and put the Canadian agenda forward. It is critical that we do so.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, in 10 minutes I would like to make a few comments about the political party advancing this motion and obviously make a few comments on the economic policy direction being pursued by the government.
First, one has to take a look at the NDP motion. One is struck by how convoluted this particular motion actually is. That one run-on paragraph it talks about concepts of full employment, abrogating the FTA and abrogating the NAFTA. Then it talks about something called the jobs plan which I am not sure is any different from the first concept of full employment. Then it talks about an infrastructure program. Just to make sure, it throws in a child-care package to really make the paragraph or the motion being debated before us very convoluted and abstract. It basically throws in the kitchen sink.
Canadians and certainly members of this House are looking for a very practical and realistic motion that we can discuss and debate intelligently and hopefully be understood by Canadians at large.
Second the motion is quite frankly irresponsible in that everyone understands, both inside this Chamber and outside this Chamber, what the real aspects of this particular motion are. Members of the NPD talk about the abrogation of the free trade agreement and the NAFTA because obviously they are not too concerned with the members on the other side. They are more concerned with the Liberal Party of Canada. They think that because we have opted for renegotiation that somehow we are vulnerable in the face of Canadians' dissatisfaction with the free trade agreement and the NAFTA.
Yet, when asked whether they want the status quo or whether they want abrogation or renegotiation, close to 70 per cent of Canadians in any opinion poll essentially agree with the position that we have adopted for some time now.
It is odd to hear the New Democratic Party coming from a viewpoint of indignation. We should cast our minds back some years to the 1988 campaign when the New Democratic Party and its leader in the first press conference of the campaign never mentioned the words 'free trade agreement'.
March 15, 1993

We all know the New Democratic Party did a basic rethinking of where it went wrong. Most of its partisan supporters were quite upset that rather than attacking the free trade agreement as we did in the 1988 campaign, it simply attacked our leader and our party.
The free trade agreement as is and the NAFTA legislation as is are obviously unworkable and are not in the best interests of our country. In fact, the trade minister said as much in that he is not pursuing the leadership of his party. That is because he will be seen as the father of the free trade agreement and the father of the GST. Therefore, he is admitting that he will be unsuccessful, largely because of that record which would be the ball and chain not only for his potential candidacy but also for the other candidates of his party.
While those agreements are wrong, it is equally wrong to say that the only solution to those trade agreements is not to have an agreement, that the only reaction to Hawed pieces of legislation is to simply rip them up and pretend they do not exist any more.
One has to be responsible. We have had a free trade agreement in operation whether we like it or not. Thousands and thousands of individual decisions have been made by Canadian businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals. It would be completely asinine that the first reaction of an NDP government, which will never see the light of day, but notwithstanding that the first action would be to simply rip it up. You would probably be making losers out of winners, and the losers are still looking for some answers.
It is the same thing with the NAFTA. Therefore, a better solution rather than simply turfing out both those agreements would be to take a look at where those agreements are flawed. Take a look at defining what a subsidy means. Address the question of dumping. Look at the structure of our Canadian plants and businesses and infrastructure. Let us see where the losses and the wins are coming from and try to right the wrongs. Try to go back with the Americans and the Mexicans and take a second look at the situation, just as the Clinton administration is approaching it with the side agreements.
To simply say: "Elect us and we will rip things up" or "elect us and you will not see the GST, but do not ask us where we are going to get the $15 to $18 billion" seems a bit too trite, even for the New Democratic Party. Yet it
Supply
persists. It throws this resolution on the floor thinking that somehow it is going to trap someone along the way. However, the real object of the exercise should not be to play those cheap partisan political games on the backs of those Canadians and industry. It should be to begin to look at these two agreements and seek the changes and modifications needed to ensure that those agreements are better.
Whether we like it or not, the Americans are our best trading partner and vice versa. Whether we like it or not, countries like Argentina are taking a look at the NAFTA. Members of our party not too long ago met with Argentina's minister of industry, Mr. Cavallo. He is a very impressive individual and is the author of the Argentine economic miracle. He mentioned to us that his country is seriously looking at a future round of the NAFTA. I suppose there is nothing wrong with that, as long as Canada is protected, as long as we are defending number one in that legislation. Then we are being responsible.
That is why'we take a different position from not only the substance of the NAFTA but also the process. It seems to be absolutely unconscionable that we are going to be considering enabling legislation on the NAFTA when the main one of the three partners in this so-called agreement has put its own position on hold vis-a-vis the NAFTA until the Mexicans begin to whistle their tune.
We ought to take a page from that strategy and say that we are not prepared to enter into an agreement unless and until we are satisfied that it works for the benefit of Canadians too. That is very different from saying that we are going to put the blinkers on and there will be no trade agreement. It does not matter if it is the lifeblood of an economy, the heck with it.
Do you know what? That is what Bob Rae did. He put an agenda and a platform together that sounded very good. It appealed to the traditional supporters of the New Democratic Party because they figured that the NDP would not have a chance to ever be government. However, the most surprised person in Ontario on election night was Bob Rae. All of a sudden he became the premier, but he had an unworkable, unrealistic platform. In the end the platform was abandoned. The New Democratic Party has alienated its own constituency. At the same time it has alienated just about everyone

March 15, 1993
Supply
else. Who is it left with? What mess is Ontario in today?
Opposition parties should not be blinded by partisanship and the automatic gut reaction of always saying no to something the other guys do or wish to do. Is it not more responsible to be realistic and honest with decision making that affects not only members and political parties in this Chamber but workers and families and businesses across the country?
That is why rather than being irresponsible the New Democratic Party ought to be concentrating on the economic approach of this government and the alternatives now that it is into a leadership campaign or so-called coronation campaign. It should be revisiting the last eight or nine years and putting pressure on the government to come up with answers. This is rather than hearing the minister of trade at the Toronto economic summit call for the very purposes of trying to get Toronto moving again. It was a litany of all the great things that this government has done for Torontonians, as if Toronto has no problems.
Our friends in the NDP to our left missed the opportunity. Rather than trying to put this government on the spot, they have irresponsibly tried to hit someone along the way with a motion that really does not say very much. Quite frankly, it is convoluted and a waste of time.


Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau -La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker,
I think that my colleagues from the NDP have clearly shown in their motion that they have gone too far. Too much is too much! The only thing they forgot to include was the promise that we would all go to heaven when we die.
I think that everyone who followed the debate on the free trade agreement realizes, as I am sure my colleague would agree, that the whole world was moving toward free trade. That is obvious, because we live in a world where free trade is the way to prosperity. But after signing this agreement with the United States the government opposite neglected some things. Even the Canadian Manufacturers, Association says that there should have been a transition period to analyze the potential consequences of this agreement. We know that we could have helped some very specialized industries in
our country if the United States did not respect the spirit of this agreement.
So I ask my colleague if we had a transition period and programs to support industries by helping them during this period, which could have been five years, does he not believe that we would have been better able to benefit from this agreement if we had foreseen the dangers that such a treaty with the United States might contain?


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very important point which I had failed to mention in my limited time in which to address the subject. That is the whole question of adjustment programs.
Again I ask the House and particularly members of the governing party to think back to that 1988 campaign. The Prime Minister in a fit of tremendous rhetoric promised the greatest transitional adjustment programs in the western hemisphere, not only ever seen in Canada or in North America, but the greatest number and most effective adjustment programs in the western hemisphere.
That was the election where there was third party advertising and large corporations wrote all their employees. The threat was on that if you did not sign on your job would be in jeopardy. The free trade agreement would lead to thousands of jobs. However, just in case you as a worker or a company were affected the Prime Minister promised the greatest adjustment programs ever seen in the western hemisphere.
It would be fair to say that a good number of Canadians believed the Prime Minister and believed and trusted the government. This is notwithstanding the fact that if one looks at the total number of people voting for our party and the New Democratic Party then obviously more people were against the free trade agreement than there were in favour. However, there are many Canadians who essentially trusted and put their faith in the words spoken by the Prime Minister. Those same workers today are without jobs and have no transition programs and no adjustment assistance.
March 15, 1993

My hon. colleague obviously draws the point that if the government had kept its word not only would there be fewer cynics across this country as they look at this Chamber and government, but more Canadians would be working today. We would have a nation more confident in itself in pursuing international trade agreements.
In any agreement there is going to be a shortfall. In any agreement there is going to be an adjustment. Therefore if the population, the labour pool and workers know there is a commitment to keeping those jobs then that nation will be more competent and confident in pursuing and supporting a government that seeks greater trade opportunities as a measure of increased prosperity.
However the country cannot be confident when it has had a major promise, commitment and plan during the 1988 campaign which was basically a referendum on the free trade agreement, which was not kept. Canadians were led down the garden path. That is why in large measure Canadians en masse are rejecting the NAFTA. That is why when this government asks Canadians a second time to trust it, regardless of who the leader is, the resounding answer of Canadians will be no.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to look at this motion first of all from the point of view of its over-all scope and then concentrate for a few minutes on the trade agreements.
First of all, my hon. friends opposite know that about 20 years ago I wrote a book on the role of the opposition. I hope they have read it. This book concerned the study of parliamentary democracies and what opposition parties do, what is their function and what is their role. This book was extremely well received by everybody who read it. I distilled three roles for the opposition and all thought these were the roles of the opposition.
Professor Hockin's rite: The first one is to check the government against dishonest action or unconstitutional action. That is the role of all oppositions. I think it is an honourable role and oppositions should do that.
The second role is to prod the government into doing things. In other words, through the constituencies you represent, if you think the government is not doing a job of speaking to them or helping them you should prod the government.
Supply
However, the third role of the opposition is to get ready through programs of its own in opposition to govern.
Look at this motion. There is no evidence here whatsoever of constructive thought about the third role of the opposition, which is to prepare to be an alternative government. That is because what is being asked for is all negative. That we must endorse a strategy of abrogating the free trade agreement is just a negative role. That is ripping it up. Not implementing the NAFTA is a negative role. Including actions such as a jobs plan is not a policy but just an expression of sentiment. One says: "I have got a jobs plan". The next question is: "What is it? What is the content of it?" We do not know.
As for an infrastructure program, everybody has an infrastructure program. We have an infrastructure program. We believe in strategic investments in infrastructures such as science and technology. Certain kinds of things can be done with the Trans-Canada Highway and so on. What kind of infrastructure program is being spoken of?
Finally, there is a national child care program in order to ensure job creation. This is a child care program, not to look after children I guess, but to ensure jobs for people. What we have here is an example of an opposition party not fulfilling the third and most important role, which is to ready itself with alternative proposals.
I have seen the NDP document. I have to give the NDP some credit because there are parts of that document that are not included in this motion that are a constructive attempt to come to terms with alternative policies.
This motion does not do it, but some of its program does.
The Liberal party has yet to tell us what it would do as an alternative government. It has more or less positioned itself as being against everything and for almost nothing. I remember it was the famous Liberal Whig politician, George Tierney, in Great Britain in the 19th century who said that the duty of an opposition was simply to oppose everything and propose nothing and throw out the government.

March 15, 1993
Supply
This is not constructive. The people of Canada do not want an opposition acting that way. They want an opposition to have alternatives and ideas. This is missing in this motion and it is also what is missing so often from our hon. friends opposite.
This government has done a lot of substantive things. Even if the opposition does not agree with these things, I would like to see it put forward alternatives that were just as constructive as what we have done. Instead we just get: "Do not do that, do not do that and do not do that". There are never any constructive alternatives.
Look at what we have done in terms of fisheries. We have the minister of fisheries sitting here. No government has been more generous with the fishery or more willing to make tough decisions with the fishery than this government. We have the Minister of Finance just a couple of seats down. Canadians have the lowest interest rates and the lowest inflation in decades. We have a growth that is the fastest-or close to the fastest-growing economy in the industrialized world. All of this has been created by this government through its policies.
We know about deregulation. It is complained about in the opposition motion. In fact, deregulation has liberated various parts of the Canadian economy and made it more competitive. Downsizing the Public Service has helped in a way because we have been able to remove from the public payroll over 90,000 Canadians. A number of them are now working in the private sector or working in privatized Crown corporations. All of these were constructive things that this government did. What is the opposition's alternative? We never hear it.
When I look at the future economy for Canada, the high-tech reality that is facing us, this government is doing a whole host of things through IRAP, the TOP program, the technology assessment programs and through a host of technology diffusion strategies that we have been announcing. We will be announcing more in the future in order to make this country of ours more high-tech and more technologically comfortable. Those are programs that this government has put forward which are moving well.
We have also done a series of things on the framework side in terms of tax reform and a new, liberalized trade environment. We have created over 1,600 small businesses through our aboriginal programs that members
from both sides of the House support. We have aboriginals now who are much more entrepreneurial and who want to create their own businesses. This government put that program in place. It gets little credit for it but this government has done that.
I want to thank members of all sides of the House for the Small Businesses Loans Act which passed in this House two weeks ago.
This bill will be very important for businesses in this country, especially small and medium-sized businesses. This will increase the guarantee to 90 per cent. Therefore the financial institution is only exposed for 10 per cent of the risk. We have increased the commission a bit so the financial institutions will use it. We have also limited the personal guarantee that the financial institutions can ask for when they give this loan.
This is dramatic. According to the banks we are going to have close to one billion dollars worth of lending done because of this act that only costs us $30 or $40 million to accomplish. We have provisioned $30 or $40 million in the budget in the Small Businesses Loans Act. It is going to lever about a billion dollars worth of activity. That is remarkable.
It is a little different from the NDP government in Ontario that is spending $1 billion to create 10,000 jobs directly. In fact, what we are doing is spending $40 million to create one billion dollars worth of activity through the financial institutions.
I think that is a better way to go. I think that is a more prudent use of the taxpayers' money.
We have no reflection from the opposition of how it would do any of these things better. That is the role of the opposition. It is to be constructive and have some constructive proposals of its own.
As for the trade agreement, I have my views on the NAFTA that are maybe a little different than those of some other members of the House because I come from southern Ontario and I have seen the companies that want to take advantage of the NAFTA.
I want to speak to that just for a minute. Three years ago I met with a group of Canadian exporters who had the following complaints about exporting to Mexico. It was quite a meeting. I will never forget that afternoon.

There were about 30 people there that all tried to export to Mexico. Here were their complaints.
First, Mexican tariffs were above 20 per cent. We cannot export with tariffs at that level. Second, if there were no tariffs, there were quotas. In other words, one can only export a certain amount. There was a quota stopping them. We wanted to get into services with our engineers and consultants and so on. No, one had to have Mexican professional accreditation or one could not sell into Mexico.
We took a look at the rules of origin. In other words, we tried to find out where goods are made so we could add tariff classifications to them. The rules of origin were murky and very hard to read. Customs administration was a disaster. They could charge all sorts of fees for handling goods as they went into Mexico. We had almost outright prohibitions against a number of our exports or quotas: telecommunications, grain, fish, metals and machinery. We had little or no opportunity to get any government procurement orders from the Mexican government.
That was the situation three years ago. It was a thicket of problems. There were so many problems that the embassy told me then that they had little more than 200 Canadian business visits in 1989 even to look at the Mexican market because it was so darned difficult to get into that market.
These were the problems for us to get into Mexico, but what were we doing for the Mexicans three years ago? They had virtually open sesame to the Canadian market. In the middle seventies the Trudeau government agreed to pretty well get rid of all tariffs against developing countries, including Mexico. It gave Mexico most-favoured nation status. We have lowered all our barriers. We took all the snow out of the driveway so they could drive their trucks right into the Canadian market three years ago. Now, 80 per cent of our trade with Mexico has no tariffs at all. They can export into this country with no prohibitions at all. We have no quotas. The 10 to 12 per cent of products coming into Canada from Mexico that do run into tariffs are at very low rates.
What is the NAFTA then? The NAFTA is the best possible arrangement for Canada because finally we are going to get the kind of access to Mexico it has had for years to Canada. Frankly, it is almost a one-way negoti-
Supply
ation. We are getting rid of their barriers which are many. We already got rid of ours decades ago. So why would one not negotiate access to Mexico when one has already given them total access to one's own market?
I have never been able to understand why the newspapers are even interested in this NAFTA thing. It is such a one-way deal for Canada. It is a winner and it improves the free trade agreement. There were a few wrinkles in the free trade agreement that we wanted to improve and it improves them as well.
When we look at the NAFTA and when we look at the FTA it is a one-way victory for Canada. There is no doubt about it. It also keeps in place something else which I have always thought historically has been very important for Canada. Canada is one-tenth the size of the United States in terms of economy and population.
Whenever we had a dispute with the United States in the past we would have to spend millions of dollars with a whole bunch of Washington lawyers to see if we could even get a hearing. Usually it just wore us out. It would take years and years to get anywhere and millions of dollars in legal fees and we usually lost.
What does the free trade agreement do about all that? It puts an adjudication panel in place: one Canadian, one American and a neutral chairman. Within 315 days they have to make up their minds. They have to decide who is right and who is wrong. Not only that, but we have been winning. We have won the last four or five. The last time I saw a score-card we had 11 victories and 9 defeats.
Why is this important? As I have told the House before, I will never forget a meeting I had a couple of years ago with the Japanese minister of trade. He said: "Can you explain this free trade agreement you have with the United States and this dispute mechanism that you have? How does it work?" I explained it to him just like I have just explained it to the House.
He said: "Just a minute. Canada is one-tenth the size of the United States and you're saying that when you have a dispute with it, it has given you equality". I said: "Yes". He said: "Good Lord, why does it do that when it is 10 times bigger?" I said: "That is what we negotiated". He said: "Boy, that's a pretty good deal. I would like to get that for Japan with the United States".

March 15, 1993
Supply
That is what we have negotiated. We have negotiated equality with the United States whenever there is a dispute with that country. Nothing could be a greater affirmation of our sovereignty, nothing could give us more equal footing with the Americans than what we have done there.
People say that under the free trade agreement there has been job loss in Canada. We know what the Minister of Finance has said and we know what the economists are saying. It is quite true that we cannot trace everything to the free trade agreement, job losses or job creations. It is true that $18 billion worth of exports more are going into the United States this year than went into the United States the year before the trade agreement.
It is also true that there has been a complete change in investment. I want to tell the hon. member from Windsor that tomorrow I am going to go to the opening of the new Chrysler plant, a $600 million plant, in Windsor. There will be a $2 billion expansion to the Ford plant in Oakville. There has been a tremendous expansion of Freightliner in St. Thomas. All of these things have been happening.
The hon. member for Windsor West just sat down. He knows about the $600 million expansion at Chrysler tomorrow. This is all good news. It is there in large part because of the confidence people have in the Canadian economy. We only buy 9 per cent of the big three automobiles but we produce 18 per cent of them in Canada because we are so efficient and competitive.
What we now have is a free trade agreement that protects our sovereignty and strengthens us. With the NAFTA agreement, which the opposition wants us to abrogate or be against, we further consolidate what we captured in the free trade agreement and we finally get access to the Mexican market, which we have never had before.


Raymond John Funk: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the hon. member had to say, particularly to the fact that he mentioned his book in his opening remarks.
I happen to have read that book and understood from that book that the member had a much firmer grasp at that time of the political realities of the country than he seems to have today, at least if we take his rosy-glow approach to the trade deal as an indication of his current thinking.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that in opposition his party advocated that universality of social programs, for example, was a sacred trust. I would also like to remind him that before the last election, although his party was in government, his party said that it would introduce the best adjustment programs known to the civilized world if there were negative consequences from the trade deal.
In his academic analysis of opposition parties over the years, when has an opposition party come forward with a more complete description of a proposed economic agenda than the New Democratic Party. When has it been more fully costed? When was it submitted to a widely respected independent agency to have the results verified by somebody outside the political process?
The hon. member made reference to the CAEDS program, the aboriginal economic development program of which I and others in my party have been supportive. Why did he countenance in the last few years the fact that CEIC has withdrawn 25 per cent of its commitment to the program, that in the last budget the Indian affairs department withdrew 31 per cent of its commitment to the program, and that his own department withdrew 10 per cent of its program?
Is the member satisfied with the predictions of independent analysts and his own government figures indicating that this will be a jobless recovery, that for the next five years we can anticipate the same level of unemployment? If not, what proposals does he have to increase the level of employment among Canadians?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's intervention. I take his points seriously.
On the first question of being a party which has put together alternative policies, my complaint was that the motion itself was not constructive. He is quite right though. I have to give the NDP credit. It at least looked at policy and produced a booklet three or four weeks ago that was an attempt to give its point of view.
It was costed, so-called, by Mr. McCracken and the Informetrica people. The Minister of State for Finance made very clear in the House today the problems, the way he looked at it. The way it was costed assumed certain things that were just not valid, especially the impact of what would happen to the Canadian investment climate if we abrogated the free trade agreement
March 15, 1993

or if we did away with the GST. What Informetrica did not look at was that there would be some sort of shock about that which would affect investment in Canada. Therefore the assumptions about investments were far too rosy. We are just two economists talking. That is my problem with the Informetrica review. It overlooked those important realities.
Something else is that one can be an agnostic about free trade and agnostic about the GST. In other words, one is either for it or against it. Even if one is agnostic one has to admit that if a government actually did away with those two things there would be reverberations immediately in international financial markets which could plunge the country into a tremendous recession. That is what the plan completely overlooked. I do not fault the NDP for trying to come up with policies but that is my big problem with what it has done.
On the CAEDS program-and I am kind of fortunate because a lot a ministers have to stand and talk about how they had to freeze this and freeze that-the two things that have been indulged most by the government have been aboriginal spending and science and technology spending. I am responsible for both the CAEDS program and science and technology. There is never enough for hon. members opposite, I understand, but the CAEDS program was very generously increased, and it was made permanent.
The cutback the member talked about was through CEIC. It was not for the CAEDS program but for a different program. It was an economic development program. It is not the program that really creates small businesses on and off reserves, which is my program and which has not been cut back. There is a lot of pressure on that program because we have so many applications. We have three great boards that give me a lot of good advice, aboriginal people who give us great advice on how to create small and medium-sized businesses. They really decide who gets funded. It is not me.
We have three times the applications, as we sit here, as we had five years ago, even in the middle of a recession. That program has been generously funded. I am proud that our government has done that. I will always be proud the aboriginal people have been looked after as
Supply
generously as possible by our government, even in the midst of this recession.
I think it is acknowledged by the CAEDS board that we have done that. The CAEDS board would like twice as much money because they are so many applications, but we have funded this program generously, if not more generously than any other program the federal government delivers.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, the minister makes some astute observations and he is absolutely right. The NDP motion we are debating today is negative, unqualifying and unconstructive but most obviously uncompromising. Says the self-professed professor: "What are missing are the alternatives".
I give the minister opposite the opportunity to possibly correct the record because alternatives have been put to the government. I dare say that on almost every bill brought before this House, like the GST, the FTA, the immigration and the UI bills, the opposition has proposed alternatives. It has proposed credible suggestions which seek to improve any one of the bills aforementioned. They are called amendments.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: The hon. member for Burlington sits there and squawks and grunts, but the reality is that the alternatives are put there in the form of amendments. They are the suggestions of the opposition to facilitate a bill that in our opinion make a better piece of legislation.
To no one's surprise what happens to the majority of these amendments, the constructive useful suggestions put forward on any government bill, is that they are defeated. They are voted down by the government time after time. I have sat here for over four and a half years and have witnessed this each time an amendment was brought forward.
That is what a suggested alternative is. It is called an amendment to the bill. Anyone can pick up a copy of Hansard or can call or write their MPs to ask for any copy of Hansard over the last four and a half years. We will get copies for them and they will see that suggestions have been put forward. However members of the government, in particular the member for Burlington and the professor himself, have stood and said no to the suggestions

March 15, 1993
Supply
because they do not fit their market driven agenda, which is not the problem.
I want to ask a question of the hon. minister. We have another amendment to a suggestion being put forward by the NDP today. It is a constructive amendment. If there are flaws in the NAFTA, which we and the majority of Canadians believe there are, why not sit down and renegotiate them? If we cannot do that as they profess, can we bring forward the parallel agreements on the environment in order to correct the agreement-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In fairness I have to give the floor to the hon. minister.


Thomas Hockin: The question is: Why could this government not countenance some improvements through amendments to the NAFTA? That is the question. I gather the improvements would be a subsidies code, improved environmental standards and improved labour standards.
We are the government. We are the party to this negotiation that suggested 14 months ago both environmental improvements and labour code improvements. Finally the United States is looking at them. We have been out front. We do not need their amendments to have us do it; we suggested those changes 14 months ago.
On the subsidies code we have said we have a beautiful solution to that. It is the GATT subsidies code. Rather than rewrite the GATT we will just take the GATT subsidies code and use it. In fact I gather the negotiators are looking at that. What we did 14 months ago was exactly what the hon. member for Hamilton West is asking us to do. Why amend a piece of legislation when we are already doing what he is asking us to do?
The other more profound point he was making was a good point. He said: "We amend legislation. Therefore we are being constructive". He wants to go through life amending here and there great pieces of architecture.
Where is his great piece of architecture? All he wants to do is add a little garage here or a small door there. That is what he wants to do. They are small amendments. That is his view of governing. We produce the architect. We build the building. We have the original
and comprehensive thoughts. What is missing from the opposition, especially in the Liberal Party, is any sense of architecture on what to do beyond adding some minor amendments.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when I first looked at the NDP motion we are debating today I thought that it might be possible to find a number of things in it with which many members of this House and many Canadians could agree. For example, the motion starts by saying that this House recognizes that the government's economic recovery plan has been a failure.
I think most Canadians would agree with that because we have just started to come out of what has been three years of the most severe recession this country has faced in modem times, a recession which the Prime Minister boasted was deliberately induced by Conservative government policy.
Even though we are starting to come out of this Conservative induced recession, this movement toward the light of economic recovery is slow, anguished and painful because we still have 1.5 million people out of work. It is not clear when most of them are going to find jobs. In fact there are all too many among our unemployed who have little prospect because of Conservative government policy of ever finding jobs. We are faced with an unparalleled disruption of our industrial base in this country as a result of the hammering of misguided Conservative policies. Therefore it would be very easy to agree that this motion makes a good point, a point that has already been made over and over by Liberals, that this government's economic recovery plan has been a failure.
Also it would be easy at first glance to be able to agree with what this NDP motion says to the effect that there has to be a comprehensive economic recovery program which includes such things as a strategy for full employment, a jobs plan, an infrastructure program and a national child care program. These are all things which, well before this motion was put down on the agenda of this House, Liberals have been calling for, working for and pushing for in spite of the blindness and deafness of
March 15, 1993

the Conservatives when it comes to responding constructively to the Liberal point of view on these matters.
The infrastructure program, for example, is something we began pushing for back in 1988, building on the very good work of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities.
However, I regret to say that when I and others examine this resolution more closely we see problems with it. These problems have lead our party to propose an amendment. If this amendment were to be adopted by this House then I would say that the resolution, as amended, would be acceptable not only to Liberals but I think to most Canadians.
Our amendment focuses on two particular problems. One is that the resolution calls for simply abrogating the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American free trade agreement.
This resolution overlooks the fact that surveys have shown, including one survey carried out by supporters of the NDP, that most Canadians want the government to renegotiate these agreements. Only if it is not possible to renegotiate to bring about a better deal for Canadians, one which answers the concerns about the problems we outlined all too often which are connected with these deals, only then we say should the tool of abrogation be undertaken on behalf of Canadians by their government.
This resolution does not respond to the views of Canadians in this regard. In fact the resolution shows no recognition of the common sense of a policy which, as the Liberal amendment points out, should be one based on renegotiating these trade agreements rather than simply rushing to abrogate or cancel them.
This is a common sense approach because it makes use of the unparalleled opportunity for getting better deals for Canadians in their trading relationships with the United States, and also with Mexico, created by the election of the Clinton government in the United States.
That government sees flaws in these arrangements similar to the ones that we have outlined. Liberals have
Supply
expressed concern about the lack of labour standards in the proposed North American free trade agreement.
They have expressed concerns about the lack of environmental standards. They have also had particular concerns about the lack of a subsidy code and the lack of measures to deal with the exposure of Canadians to anti-dumping and countervail law from the United States.
The Liberals have also expressed concerns that the Mexicans are left under the proposed NAFTA deal with more sovereignty over their energy resources than Canadians have under the free trade agreement and would have under the NAFTA.
With the Clinton administration ready to negotiate what it calls parallel or side agreements, a door has opened to make major improvements to correct flaws which have been all too evident in the existing Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and which have been carried forward in the North American free trade agreement. Yet the Conservative government has said that one of the reasons to adopt the NAFTA is because it corrects the flaws in the free trade agreement.
It is interesting that is a justification given by the Conservative government for the NAFTA because originally the Conservatives said that the free trade agreement was perfection in itself and was the best agreement between two countries that we have ever seen.
Now they come along and say they want us to agree with this NAFTA proposal because they finally woke up to the fact that the free trade agreement is full of flaws and errors which this NAFTA will correct.
We should recognize that the same gang that brought us the flawed free trade agreement with the United States is now trying to sell us the North American free trade agreement to replace it. If they were able to make a botch of the original agreement there is no reason that one should assume that they are doing anything better with the NAFTA.
Our trading relationship with the United States is crucial for this country. It is our best customer and we are its best customer. Yes, we need to expand our trade with the rest of the world but we have to recognize the importance to this country, now and in the future, of our trading relationship with the United States.

March 15, 1993
Supply
It is simply common sense not to rush to break apart what has been done unless we first try to use this opportunity I have mentioned to negotiate a better deal and correct the flaws and difficulties which many feel have brought about lost jobs, closed factories and diminished sovereignty for this country. The Clinton administration gives us this opportunity.
In today's Windsor Star there is a cartoon of President Clinton saying: "Folks ask me what NAFTA stands for". Then the cartoon shows President Clinton saying: "I tell them it stands for Not Altogether Finalized Trade Agreement".
This cartoon has an essential truth to it. Since the agreement has not been submitted to the U.S. Congress it is not undergoing the fast-track debating process. President Clinton has made it clear he will not submit the legislation for it to the Congress unless and until satisfactory collateral or side agreements have been negotiated.
By simply moving to abrogate the existing free trade agreement with the United States, flawed as it is, and the proposed North American free trade agreement we will be passing up an opportunity to get a good deal on trade with the United States and Mexico for Canadians.
As I have said, if the NDP will accept our amendment and therefore recognize this point then its motion could well have some basis for support.
However, I want to say quickly that there is another flaw and that is that there is nothing in the NDP motion about having a national recovery program in a context or a framework of fiscal responsibility. We know only too well how the Conservative government, after nine years, has created a tremendous problem in allowing our national debt to more than double to more than $430 billion and has also not improved, but actually allowed to become worse, our annual deficit problem.
Yes, we want to see a program of economic growth as a way to create jobs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his speech time has now expired. It was 10 minutes because he split with another member of his party.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would want to add a word, given his knowledge in these matters, about the rapid increase in foreign indebtedness that this government
has permitted to take place. It subjects Canadian government to the review and surveillance of foreign institutions and foreign governments, which renders us vulnerable in a way we have not been before.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, until this government took office we never had the exposure that we now have to the views and pressures of foreign investors with respect to the government's borrowing activities. Only since this government took office have we seen this burgeoning of our debt not in the form of money owed by Canadians to themselves, but owed outside this country.
This is a problem that we have to be aware of and which also leads me to return to the point I was making before about the need to have an economic recovery program in a context of fiscal responsibility.
The NDP in its program announced a few weeks ago went through the motions of recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility but I noticed that in its motion today there is not a word about fiscal responsibility. It is like what it said before about it never took place. Therefore I submit that unless that omission is corrected by adopting the Liberal amendment the NDP motion, in spite of the good intentions that may be connected with it, does have a serious flaw which prevents it from being supported by members of this House.
I thank my hon. friend for mentioning the foreign debt problem. It is ironic that the Conservative government, like the Republican government of Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush in the United States, came into office saying that its priority was to deal with the public debt and the annual deficit. Yes, they dealt with them all right, both in the United States and Canada. They allowed the problem to reach astronomical levels of concern and certainly this will be something that a new Liberal government will have to deal with as part of putting into effect a program of serious economic growth and job creation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short.
If the hon. gentleman was so concerned about the government's deficits and the debt why was it that he permitted himself to be a member of a government that from 1968 took Canada from a position in which we had surpluses every year to a position in which in the last year of the hon. gentleman's government there was a deficit of $38 billion and the government operated without any
March 15, 1993

operating surplus at all. The government had an operating deficit of, and I do not have the exact amount here, something in the order of $17 billion. That left Canada in such a bad deficit and debt position that we have had to struggle ever since to get it back on track. We now have an operating surplus. We have had an operating surplus in the government's accounts every year. We are making a contribution toward the interest costs. When the hon. gentleman was last in government in 1984 no contribution was made toward the payment of interest but there was a deficit in addition to the interest payments.
Will the hon. gentleman explain to the House, has he had a conversion on the path to wherever he is heading? If there is a conversion, what is his hon. leader going to do about the fact that he is going to abolish the GST? He does not want to bother the Canadian people by telling them how the $17 billion of lost revenue is going to be replaced plus the contribution of $2 billion or $3 billion we are now paying to the sales tax credit. Would the hon. gentleman explain a couple of these prickly little matters for us so that we will understand what might happen if his party ever sneaks back into power in this country again?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when my party goes back into power it will not sneak in. It will march in probably with a strong majority because the Canadian people will have compared not only past Liberal governments but also the Liberal program with the nine years of this Conservative government. They will agree with us that this government will have been found, and has already been found, sorely wanting whether it comes to job creation, tax policy, or deficit policy.
My hon. friend has tried to pretend that paying interest by government is not an expenditure. That is absolute nonsense. Paying interest is an expenditure as much as any other kind of expenditure. For this minister and his government to say that if it was not for our interest payments we would not have this huge accumulated public debt is absolute nonsense. Just as it would be nonsense for an individual to tell his or her bank manager that if they did not have to pay interest on their
Supply
mortgage they would be solvent. That is ridiculous and the hon. minister knows it.
With respect to the GST we have been right up front with Canadians from the beginning saying that it is a bad tax. We agree with Canadians on this. But the revenue involved has to be replaced. The manufacturers' sales tax created revenue which the government said it was going to replace with the GST, a tax which it said was going to be revenue neutral and not one that would do anything else for the government's accounts.
I know the government does not want to account to Canadians for what it has been doing or not doing over the past almost nine years. It is trying to pretend that those years did not happen and other people have to explain what they are going to do instead.
Liberals are not going to let the government get away with this, nor will Canadians. It will be held to account. The result will be, as I said, a Liberal government marching into office with a majority, heads held high, proudly committed to rebuilding this country after nine years of Conservative destruction.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my colleague from Windsor West I am reminded of the discussion he related to me some time ago. He had had a discussion with Senator Croll. I guess it was during his first campaign and he was getting some counsel and advice from Senator Croll as to what he would do when he was asked why people should vote Liberal. Senator Croll told my colleague from Windsor West that when talking to people in his community to remind them that when they vote Liberal they are voting for more jobs.
Looking at the record when the Liberals were in power over the years it is an indisputable fact that when people vote Liberal they are in fact voting for more jobs. That will be the central focus of our campaign in the next three or four months.
I want to get back to this NDP resolution. There are some aspects of this NDP resolution that I agree with. I naturally agree with the fact that the goods and services tax has been a disaster, as well as all the off-loading onto the provinces in terms of transfer payments that this

March 15, 1993
Supply
government has done, especially in a province like mine with the cap on CAP.
It has been an incredibly difficult situation. A province which has traditionally been counted on to pull us through difficult periods like this has had the doublebarrelled effect of not only being hit by the cap on the CAP but also having an NDP provincial government which just does not know how to deal with reality at all.
In the final sentence of this opposition motion the NDP say it is going to have a plan that will ensure job creation and prosperity for Canadians. As I listened to the members of the New Democratic Party today, I could not believe how little focus there was on the role that small business would play in creating those jobs.
The fact of the matter is that the greatest hope for new job creation in this country lies with the small business community. Most of our larger corporations are downsizing. They are restructuring and they are all laying off. Any new jobs that have been created, as well as 80 per cent of the jobs that are in existence today, are created through the small business sector. I could not help but notice the fact that the NDP just does not understand that is where the real emphasis should be in terms of any kind of an economic recovery plan.
We in the Liberal Party have strong views. We have taken a very strong position traditionally in our support for small and medium-sized business. Three weeks ago when the government put forward its Small Businesses Loans Act we stood up in this House and supported that bill going through the House in record-breaking time. The government made a commitment on that day that it would promote the Small Businesses Loans Act, that it would make sure that all the financial institutions and all of the small businesses in the country knew about that specific plan.
It is a good piece of legislation. I give the Minister of Finance credit for the idea that the government back small businesses loans to the tune of 90 per cent on loans up to $250,000 for businesses with sales of $5 million or less. This government does not even know how to take advantage of a good idea. It just sits over there and does not act on this particular idea.
The government sees that must be the area that needs support and enhancement. Three weeks after debating it in this House, it has not done a thing in terms of making the public aware. Some will say it has not had Royal Assent. I have seen dozens of initiatives in this House where the government has spent taxpayers' money promoting initiatives on second reading. Why will it not do that when it comes to small business?
When you have an initiative like that and you miss the opportunity, it makes me very suspicious of the real intent of that particular piece of legislation. Perhaps it was meant to be a bit of packaging in a budget. When it comes to having the actual law tested, it is not working.
I am disturbed about this. In the last two weeks in my own community, and I have heard from other communities across the country, people are going into their banks and they are not having any luck in getting any support from the Small Businesses Loans Act. I said three weeks ago that I am going to be on this issue until the government does something about it. I cannot for the life of me figure it out.
Going back to the NDP resolution, we have listened to New Democrats speak here today. Where is the thrust in their plan for small business? I will tell you.
They could not even come up with a thrust for small business. In the province of Ontario just six months ago, against the wishes of 95 per cent of the small business community, they introduced Bill 40 which practically crushed the spirit of most small businessmen in the province of Ontario. There is a little bit of a contradiction. In other words, in the province of Ontario they bring in their Bill 40 which works against the spirit of small business. They are being consistent today by not really living up to a concrete thrust.
Let me go back to the actual words in this legislation where they talk about abrogating the Canada-U.S. free trade deal. Where are we coming from? When you have a trading relationship of almost $240 billion would you not give the trading partner some benefit of the doubt that you had enough intelligence and enough give and take in your negotiations that some of the things that were meaningful for us as a country might be sold or might be implemented in terms of their attitude?
March 15, 1993

It is just like writing off the Americans as if they do not care, that they are closed-minded. It would be totally irresponsible for us with a deal which since it was signed has involved almost $500 billion in trade. Do you just want to walk away from it without saying let us get down to the table here and talk about the aspects of this deal which are not working for Canadians?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply, pursuant to Standing Order 81(14).
The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the amendment 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.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
MacLellan	Nowlan
Shields	Winegard
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the main motion. 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:



[Stage Direction]
Nowlan
Winegard
[Stage Direction]
MacLellan
Shields
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost.
March 15, 1993

Government Orders


CANADA POST CORPORATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed i'rom Thursday, March 11, 1993, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-73, an Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-73, an Act to amend the Canada Post Coqioration Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare
motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6.31 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 16, 1993