1993-04-22

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.
[Editor's Note: see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
86TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 86th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, concerning the list of members to compose the legislative committee on Bill C-117.
Pursuant to Standing Order 13(1), this report is deemed adopted when laid upon the table.
87TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I also
have the honour to present the 87th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, concerning the general list of members to serve on committees in the Departmental envelope.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.


[Stage Direction]
14TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) your committee has considered the examination of the uncensored version of the report of Mr. Gill Rhodes on the conditional release from the Edmonton institution of inmates Gerry Claude Crews and Albert Allan Foulston and other matters relating to conditional release, sentencing and dangerous offenders.
To ensure better protection for society the committee believes that conditional release should be granted only after the risks have been effectively assessed. Accordingly, in light of what it heard the committee has made recommendations aimed at improving the risk assessment process prior to release.
The committee's examination went beyond the original scope of its study by pointing out some of the structural, legislative and administrative shortcomings of the conditional release system.
As a result, there are a number of recommendations to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The committee is also calling for amendments to part 24 of the Criminal Code of Canada pertaining to dangerous offenders.
Finally the committee recommends further amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act

April 22, 1993
Routine Proceedings
that would allow for an independent review of the tenure of National Parole Board members.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests a comprehensive response to this report in 150 days.



ENVIRONMENT


Hon. David MacDonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today, Earth Day, to present in both official languages the seventh report of the Standing Committee on the Environment in relation to Canada's response to the conventions on biodiversity and climate change signed at the earth summit held in Rio June 3 to 14, 1992.
This report contains 23 recommendations ranging from the protection of endangered species, habitat, ecosystems and biodiversity in Canada to recommendations encouraging higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and a shift to alternate fuels.
The committee also examined the issue of Canada's international commitment to developing countries and recommended that Canada increase its official assistance to .7 per cent of the GNP by the year 2000.
The hearings of this study were critical and were held one week before the prompt ratification by Canada of these historic conventions.
Rio was not an end unto itself but rather a reaffirmation that if the planet is to survive, we must strive toward establishing a new global partnership. We can no longer live in isolation from one another.
May I say in tabling this report we welcome as well the historic actions taken by President Clinton yesterday in confirming that the U.S. will support the biodiversity convention and will set standards for the year 2000 in meeting the challenge of climate change.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



MISCELLANEOUS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 MEASURE TO ENACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State
(Agriculture)) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-125, an act to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in the Statutes of Canada, to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in those statutes and to repeal certain provisions of those statutes that have expired or lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Lewis (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



PATENT REVIVAL (SELEGILINE) ACT MEASURE TO ENACT

Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-421, an act to revive a patent relating to a pharmaceutical product.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Harry Chadwick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present my private member's bill, a bill to revive the patent for Eldepryl. This bill would revive the original Canadian patent for the drug Eldepryl which was introduced into Canada for the treatment of Parkinson's disease by the Canadian company Deprenyl Research Limited. The bill would revive the original Canadian patent for Eldepryl until June 5, 1996, thus providing protection similar to that now enjoyed by Eldepryl in the U.S.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Chadwick moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent for leave to introduce a private member's bill. I seek unanimous consent because the bill was just tabled yesterday. I have spoken to the House leaders and I
April 22, 1993

believe you will find there is unanimous consent for me to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.



CURRENCY ACT


Robert Phillip Kaplan: for leave to introduce Bill C-422, an act to amend the Currency Act (abolition of the cent).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to abolish the penny from legal tender. I think the move is justified by the fact that the penny now costs 1.25 cents to produce, by the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians have shown their feelings by not putting pennies back into circulation and accumulating them at home, and by the nuisance value and the delays in commerce that are created by calculation of small amounts of change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Kaplan moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, that the 87th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled earlier today, be concurred in.
Routine Proceedings


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the great city of Kamloops. They indicate their concern with the present NAFTA wording. It is not clear to them that water is an exempt category.
These petitioners ask the Government of Canada to ensure that water is exempt.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, I have about 10,000 signatures of petitioners from Calgary and the surrounding area in memory of all children that have suffered at the hands of others.
The petition states: "We have formed this petition to stress our belief that the penalties in respect to child molesters and child murderers are far too lenient in this country. We strongly request that this petition be heard as a people's vote to reinstate capital punishment for child murderers and to stiffen penalties for child molesters.
If we cannot protect our children from the people who commit these heinous crimes, then who will? Therefore your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against this type of offender".
As I said, I have altogether 250,000 signatures that I am going to introduce in the following days. I hope the Minister of Justice takes note of these petitions.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, today being Earth Day today I have the pleasure of tabling a very important petition signed by residents of British Columbia expressing concern about an emerging resource and environmental issue of water diversion and in particular proposals by multinational companies to divert the North Thompson River at Valemount, B.C. into Kinbasket Lake for eventual export to California.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from approximately 2,700 people collected mostly in two days of petition drives throughout my constituency against the North American free trade agreement.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 404 and 497.
In the view of those who signed the petition the North American free trade agreement has resulted in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada.
The petitioners also believe that the agreement will cause Canadians to lose more good jobs in the future. They believe further that the trade agreement, if implemented, will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future to assist Canadian industry, conserve Canadian natural resources and advance needed social programs.
Therefore they call on the House to reject the North American free trade agreement and recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova): With respect to the department of employment's training budget for 1992-93 in Nova Scotia, (a) how much was taken away and given to other provinces (b) how much was taken from each employment centre in Nova Scotia?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: (a) The Department of Employment and Immigration Canada in Nova Scotia participated in a general redistribution of unemployment insurance developmental uses funds. Nova Scotia contributed a little more than $1.5 million from its initial allocation of section 26.1 and section 25 funds, (b) It was necessary to adjust the Canada employment centres developmental uses budgets by the following amounts:
I might say that approximately 90 per cent of the people we asked to sign this petition indicated their willingness to do so.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a large number of people in Surrey and the surrounding municipality of Langley, B.C. and some of the other areas in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
The petitioners point out that the proposed North American free trade agreement will result in even greater trade concessions being demanded of Canada. They are particularly concerned that the new trade agreement will prevent the reintroduction of generic drugs into this country.
Therefore the petitioners call on the House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement and to recommend the government use the termination clause in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
Amherst	$ 103,200
Antigonish	86,900
Bridgewater	97,400
Digby	56,400
Halifax	356,900
Kentville	91,900
New Glasgow	113,700
Port Hawkesbury	107,200
Sydney	333,000
Truro	79,700
Windsor	54,200
Yarmouth	55,000
Total	$ 1,535,500


Mr. Bosley: With respect to the December 31, 1991 deadline for filing applications for the federal sales tax inventory, (a) how many businesses filed their rebate after the deadline (b) what would be the estimated cost to the treasury of retroactively extending the deadline to December 31, 1992 so that all cases of double taxation could be redressed?
April 22, 1993


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: For
the period of January 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993, at least 2,650 claims were filed outside the time limit and cancelled. Claims received after March 31, 1992 were returned to claimants with a letter explaining that their claims had been filed outside the time limit. The number of claims returned after March 31 is not recorded. Some registrants did not file a rebate claim because they knew they were outside the time limit. The number of potential claimants who did not file an application cannot be estimated.
Keeping in mind that claims received after March 31, 1992 were not recorded and that the number of potential claimants who did not file an application cannot be estimated, the cost of retroactively extending the deadline to December 31, 1992 cannot be fully estimated. However, for those claims that were data captured, the estimated cost would be at least $10 million.
Retroactively extending the deadline to December 31, 1992 would not redress any cases of double taxation because that date has already passed and potential claimants were not given the chance to file their claims.
In order to ensure that the public was made aware of the federal sales tax inventory rebate deadline, the department published and distributed GST Memorandum 900 "Federal Sales Ihx Inventory Rebates" to all GST registrants as part of its initial registration acknowledgement kit. In addition, more than 500,000 rebates forms, which also notated the deadline period for filing, were sent directly to those registrants who indicated on their registration application form that they had goods for resale. Throughout 1991 inventory rebate application forms were also available from all our Excise/GST offices as well as the accounting community.


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


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are fortunate the government House leader's parliamentary secretary is here. We all remember that during the second reading stage of the North American free trade agreement debate, the debate was limited to only four hours and 10 minutes and then closure was brought in. Could he confirm that this morning the committee studying the NAFTA agreement has agreed to also impose closure and to limit debate during the committee hearings.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party asked a question I cannot answer immediately. I will make enquiries and get back to him later today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there another supplementary question relative to the point of order?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Actually it is another related point of order, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary is absolutely correct. Since it is Thursday, at three o'clock the government House leader will have a chance to bring the House up to date on various affairs. Perhaps that would be the appropriate time to ask that question.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Steven W. Langdon: That this House condemns the government for policies which have decimated the economy forcing company closures resulting in job losses for Canadian workers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have moved this motion today because there is in this Chamber, especially among government members, an air of self-congratulation as they come close to presenting their budget this coming

April 22, 1993
Supply
Monday. They are telling themselves what a wonderful job they are doing and are trying to persuade the Canadian people that what Canada needs and wants is more of what it has had over the last eight and a half years. In my view there could be nothing further from the truth so far as the Canadian people are concerned.
They may hope to camouflage the Conservative record by choosing a new leader, but it will simply be camouflage; it will not indicate any significant difference in the direction, the values and the fundamental priorities of this government and this party.
What this this government is talking about as we come close to a budget in a month with 11 per cent of Canadians officially out of work is the overwhelming need, the incredible priority not of getting people back to work but of dealing with the deficit, as if somehow they could deal with the deficit without getting those people back to work.
It is simply impossible to make any kind of serious impact whatsoever on our deficit problems until the government starts to look at things the right way up instead of "bass ackwards" as it has done for the past eight and a half years. It has to realize the problem is that it has forced people out of work, that those people when they are out of work require income support which leads to an increase in the deficit. The answer has to be to get those people back to work so that we can deal with the deficit problem.
The official figures for unemployment grossly understate the problem. We have done some calculations on the 11 per cent official rate. Our calculations say this. If we take the participation rate which has marked the largest province over the recent period, the province of Ontario, within recent years it has been as high as 70.1 per cent. That gives us a measure of the number of people who want to work in this society.
If we apply the participation rate to the present levels of the potential labour force, we find that the unemployment rate is not 11 per cent, it is 17.1 per cent. That is a much more accurate measure of just how far below the expectations, the hopes, the goals of Canadians the government is falling.
In some provinces like Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, the levels are even more vicious. If we take this approach in Newfoundland, the rate of
unemployment would be close to 39 per cent. If we take the same approach to Nova Scotia it would be over 26 per cent. That is a much more accurate view of the gap between what people want, what people are anxious to be able to contribute in terms of employment and what the government has created as a potential for people in this country.
In the province of Quebec, if we took this participation rate of 70 per cent, the unemployment rate would be
22.5	per cent.

This is a very important statistic. By taking a more realistic approach, we get 22.5 per cent unemployed in the province of Quebec.

In Ontario, we would be looking at 14 per cent unemployed. In Manitoba the rate would be 13.4 per cent and in British Columbia 15.8 per cent. We are talking about a huge problem, a problem of which the government has simply no sense of its depth. It stands in self-congratulation day after day in this House of Commons saying: "Oh yes, these statistics are going well. Oh yes, the Royal Bank of Canada as it did last year says things are looking tremendous in Canada".
We ended up with the largest number of bankruptcies last year, after the Royal Bank said that things were going tremendously. I fear that the government looks at the world through rose-coloured glasses. It does not see the realities. For instance, it does not see the realities in my home constituency.
These are realities which mean that since 1990 just in my area of Windsor the following plants have closed: Allied Chemical in Amherstburg with 87 workers losing their jobs; A&P retail stores in Windsor, 184 workers; Bomar Coating; Brant Castings, another 114 workers; Chateau Park Retirement Enterprises, another 50 workers; Complax Corporation, 40 workers; Champion Spark Plug Co., 210 workers; Coulter Radiator; Elan Corporation in Chatham, 150 workers; Emrick Plastics; Hunt-Wesson in food processing, 57 workers; Industrial Part Coders Limited, 44 workers; Industrial Platers; International Playing Card Company of Windsor, 35 workers; International Robotics; Kelsey-Hayes, 455 workers who lost their jobs; Motor Wheel Corporation in Chatham, 250 workers; Nabisco Food Processing in Leamington, 87
April 22, 1993

workers; Newcor Canada Ltd. in Windsor, 66 workers; Reflex Corporation in Amherstburg, 90 workers; Seminole in Windsor, 35 workers; Sheller-Globe in Kingsville in Essex County, 419 workers; Standard Tbbe in Blenheim in Kent County, 140 workers; the Great Atlantic and Pacific Company, food industry, in Chatham, 63 workers; Tender Flesh Poultry Products in Chatham, 33 workers; Valenite-Modco, another 32 workers; Wean Canada, 145 workers; Wheels Corporation, 153 workers; Windsor Bumper, 338 workers; Windsor Ceramics, 78 workers; Windsor Machine, 13 workers. These are just the plants that have shut down completely.
I could list the lay-offs that have hit all sorts of other plants from Woodbridge Foam in Tilbury to Peerless Plastics, GM in Windsor itself, H.J. Heinz in Leamington, and General Chemical in Amherstburg. My community has been hammered, and it is not just my community. We find this same reality throughout southern Ontario.
Why has it taken place? Ask the workers at these plants and I do not think one would find anybody who will disagree that the fundamental reason this has occurred is the free trade deal with the United States. If we look at our over-all trade balance in goods and services with the United States, if we look at the four years before the free trade deal came into effect, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, in every single year Canada ran a surplus. In every single year since the free trade deal came into effect we have run a deficit, and a much larger deficit than any of those surpluses that were run in the previous period.
In 1989 the deficit was $2.4 billion. In 1990 the deficit was $2.7 billion. In 1991 the deficit was $4.8 billion. In 1992 the deficit was $2.6 billion. This is an average deficit of $3.1 billion, compared to a surplus in each of the four years before this trade deal came into effect. That is a very telling piece of reality.
We could talk about individual cases. We could talk about the case of Wyeth drug manufacturing in my community which has now announced a shutdown. We could talk about what I have here in my hands, a grant announcement from this government stating that it was giving a federal grant to a sister company of Wyeth to expand its production, a grant that led to a tremendous increase in the production capacity in this plant.
Supply
The final payment on that grant was made in March 1990. Three years later the sister plant in Windsor was shut down to shift production to this increased capacity. In other words, we had Wyeth workers paying through their taxes to eliminate their own jobs.
There is something gross and scandalous about that kind of waste and unfairness and the human tragedy that results as a consequence.
I could continue. I could talk about an announcement just last week by Inter-City Truck Lines which is shutting down. It is one of many truck companies we have lost in this country in recent years.
This particular one is a company that employs 500 workers. It will keep perhaps 75 to 80 that it will spin off to another company. The other 420 or 425 workers will be out on the streets trying to find a job in this harsh economic climate.
Before I finish I want to talk a little about the group of workers from St. Catharines who were here yesterday. They brought to the House of Commons something in the order of 15,000 signed postcards from across this country. The postcards indicated the concern of people for these jobs that are being lost.
These people asked the Prime Minister of this country to improve the Canadian content laws in the auto industry. Most important, they want him to work with the CAW, the union that represents these workers, to help prevent the closure of this excellent foundry in St. Catharines.
This is a foundry that is world class and highly efficient. It would not even be on the chopping block if not for the fact that GM is cutting back its activities all across North America, except in Mexico where it is expanding its activities. It had to take some of that burden and place it on Canada, even though the plants that were being hit in Canada were significantly more productive than the plants that could have been chosen in the United States.
I have 15,000 of these cards here. They show what the empty parking lots of the foundry will look like. They show the workers of Hamilton, St. Catharines and the

April 22, 1993
Supply
Niagara area marching behind a banner saying: "Fighting for a Working Future".
We talk in this country about how people do not want to work. They do want to work. They are willing to go out and fight as hard as they possibly can to get a fair shake, to be able to work in factories they have built up over the years.
These factories continue to make money but yet are being shut down. They are being shut down, frankly, with the blessings of this government instead of with the intervention of it to try to deal with the problem.
One of the other postcards that is included in this group of three they received from so many people in the area simply has a picture of a little girl saying: "My daddy wants his job".
That is what it comes down to, except it is not just her daddy but it is also her mommy. They are not just jobs for the moment, they are jobs for the future.
The minister of industry in this government met with people in St. Catharines and said that he would set up a meeting with the General Motors people in Detroit for the leaders of the fight-back group in St. Catharines. Yet he has refused to follow that up. He has refused to put into effect any of the promises he made to this group of workers.
This is not right. There are so many things we could be doing in this country. We could be intervening to provide some leadership, to try to keep plants that are making a contribution to companies and our country open. We could have new Canadian content regulations and regulations in other areas like the trucking industry that would give us hope for the future.
We could say to the governments of the United States and Mexico that we are not going to proceed with free trade with Mexico because that will make things worse for our country and our workers. We could say, as the Conference Board of Canada suggested today, let us have a community based development effort. Let us have a national investment fund which works through communities to help develop local community initiatives to keep plants like this foundry operating, to keep plants like Wyeth in Windsor operating, to see to it that
profitable companies are not simply permitted to desert our communities and leave our workers in the lurch.
We could do these things if we only had compassion from this government, if we only had a sense of caring, and a sense of believing that we can make a difference. We believe that Parliament can make a difference, that government can make a difference, but only if government is prepared to listen to people and make the needs and concerns of people central to the agenda of this place.
As a result of the fact that I think the needs and concerns of people need to be central to the agenda of this place I want to take these postcards to the Prime Minister's desk and leave them for him. He should see these postcards addressed to him and should recognize the 15,000 people in this country who are asking for his intervention to make things better for them and better for the people of Canada.


Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see why the hon. member who just started his speech put a bundle of so-called postcards on the Prime Minister's desk in his absence. The postcards should have been delivered to the Chair through the Clerk's office.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would appreciate if the table officers took the cards off the table.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, again I want to say that I appreciated many of the remarks of the member for Essex-Windsor who spoke just a few moments ago.
I am one who believes that government can make a difference, that government has a leadership role to play in the economy, and certainly a different kind of leadership role than the one provided by this government. I totally reject the trickle-down theory. The philosophy of this government when it comes to the economy is leave it to the private sector, leave it to the big boys, leave it to trickle down and somehow out of that a miracle will be performed and all the investment decisions will be right, all the job decisions will be right and everyone will prosper and benefit from that kind of loose economic philosophy. All we have to do is look around at the
April 22, 1993

carnage and the results of the past eight or nine years and we can say that that kind of economic policy does not work.
Not only does the government, in my opinion, have a responsibility to make a difference, but I also believe that people want to work. I do not think people in the main are laggards, lazy bums who want to avoid their responsibilities and avoid making their own way through life. They want a job. How many times have we heard accounts in the past few years about companies giving notice of a job vacancy, one job, two jobs, maybe three or four jobs and the applications for those jobs came pouring in by the hundreds?
In recent weeks a job vacancy was brought to my attention. It was not a job that paid a lot of money. In fact, it offered less than $30,000 a year and in these days $30,000 annual income is not a lot. It was unbelievable the number of job applications that poured into that office. That to me indicates that people really want to work. This notion that if people would just apply themselves and just get off their fannies and look for a job that those jobs will be there is not true. Sure, there are always a few in the economy who for some reason or other do not want to fend for themselves and who do not want to work, but I think that in the main those people are few and far between.
I thought maybe the speaker had left. I wanted to hear a little bit more from him with respect to his talk about the so-called participation rate because I believe too that the current unemployment figures are illusory. I do not believe that the unemployment rate is just 11 per cent or
11.5	per cent. I think that a lot of people have simply given up and they have left the job market. They have left the economy because they have looked and looked and they cannot find anything. I would like to hear a little bit more from the speaker on that, whether he finds evidence that a lot of workers have been out of the work force for many months, perhaps even a few years and they have just given up. They are no longer looking for a job and they are not counted in the unemployment figures.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, on the last question which was put by the member for Winnipeg St. James, there are statistics which are collected on discouraged workers. Those statistics have some problems associated with
Supply
them because in a sense they require people to do a kind of a psychoanalysis of themselves. I think the best approach, the most honest approach is to ask what do we know, what has been shown to us by the economic history of our country? Take a large province like the province of Ontario. We could take the province of Manitoba too but in some ways it is a little fairer to take the province of Ontario because it is a large and relatively diverse province.
We can ask ourselves what do we know from history, not from people being asked to analyse themselves, but what is the record as far as the percentage of people who want to participate in the labour force?
We can find that out by looking over recent years and discovering a level of participation which has been achieved. Within the last three or four years the level we have seen has been upward of 70 per cent in the province of Ontario.
The province of Ontario has a somewhat different structure of its economy from the provinces of Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.


John Harvard: Because of manufacturing.


Steven W. Langdon: Because it is a manufacturing area, because there is less primary production, but there still is a fair amount of primary production too in Ontario. You are getting a fairly balanced picture I think with that figure.
When you apply that figure and say okay that is a fair measure of what Canadians across the country would like to see as their level of participation in the labour force, you will also get a measure of the potential labour force we are really talking about in this country.
You measure the actual unemployment rate plus the difference that you get between the present participation rate and the 70 per cent participation rate. As I say you come up with extremely dramatic figures. It is a 17.1 per cent as an unemployment rate right across the country.
The point that is interesting is that it does not even take into account the number of people who are in part-time jobs who would like to be in full-time jobs. If you took those into account you would probably be looking at an unemployment rate of at least 20 per cent in this country and that is staggering. Across this country

April 22, 1993
Supply
we are failing to meet our potential by a 20 per cent level.
From a human point of view, as the Catholic bishops talked about it, that is appalling. Even from the point of view of a hard-headed economist, which I used to pretend to be, it is a gross waste of human resources to have that many people who want to work, especially at a time when you have underemployed capital equipment, not working.
We have a real problem in this economy and the problem is not the financial deficit. The problem is that we are not coming at all close to living up to our human potential or our economic potential.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's motion is one of those sweeping statements opposition members are so fond of making. With all due respect, I would like to suggest that opposition members take a good look at some of the very concrete efforts made by our government to get the Canadian economy on the right track.
The hon. member's motion gives the totally false impression that our government has been waiting around without doing a thing. Canadians know that is not the case. We are making very specific and concerted efforts to deal with Canada's economic problems and to encourage businesses to invest in this great country of ours.
Our government offers a number of programs that are starting to show good results. The situation cannot change overnight. There are no instant solutions, but we are making progress.
I realize that some people think economic growth depends on the government. However, the vast majority of Canadians realize that the true source of wealth and prosperity in this country lies in the determination of Canadians, of people confident in their ability to work hard and take the risks inherent in any business venture.
In other words, we cannot legislate prosperity. Prosperity is the result of market forces, and the private sector is in the best position to create it. That is the philosophy behind the agenda the government formulated when it came to power in 1984 and which it has been following ever since.
Since 1984 we have concentrated on implementing the fundamental changes that were necessary to build a more competitive, more market-oriented economy with less government intervention and a more effective and efficient economy that would stimulate investment and job creation.
We privatized more than 20 Crown corporations. This has helped reduce the number of federal employees by
90,000	since 1984.
We took steps to eliminate or restructure 46 federal agencies, boards and commissions.
We embarked on a wide-ranging regulatory review to eliminate all federal regulations that constituted undue barriers to private initiative or were no longer in the public interest. For instance, Agriculture Canada reviewed 58 sets of regulations. Fifteen were eliminated, in whole or in part, and four are being sunsetted and 38 will be modernized.
We are working on reducing overlap and duplication in federal departments and in areas shared with other levels of government.
We deregulated the financial services sector to promote competition and give financial institutions a chance to be more effective, both on Canadian and international markets.
We revamped Canada's bankruptcy laws to make them fairer and more equitable.
We improved and liberalized the investment climate in this country. For instance, we eliminated the Foreign Investment Review Agency and created Investment Canada, which has a far more concrete, positive and dynamic perspective, to attract investment to this country instead of thwarting them.
We deregulated the transportation and energy sectors which included eliminating the disastrous National Energy Program with its punitive taxes and rigid constraints on investment.
However, our efforts to create a climate conducive to private sector activity go far beyond tax reform and deregulation.
As far as inflation is concerned, we applied the basic economic principle that sustained economic growth goes hand in hand with price stability.
April 22, 1993

Inflation must be low, if we are to enjoy low interest rates. Lower capital costs stimulate investment by high-growth businesses, competitive businesses that create the jobs Canada needs.
We have taken vigorous steps by clearly setting publicly stated objectives and by applying a policy of wage restraint throughout the federal government in order to reduce inflation.
We have been successful. In 1992, inflation averaged
1.5	per cent, the lowest figure in 30 years. As a result we saw a spectacular drop in the bank rate which went down
8.5	points from its peak level in May 1990. Interest rates are now at their lowest levels in 20 years.
For a business that borrows $100,000 repayable over 10 years, this drop in interest rates will mean a savings of about $475 per month.
Consumers also benefit. Some mortgage rates are now as low as 5.75 per cent something we have not seen in 35
years.
I would also like to point out that the difference between the prime rate in Canada and the United States has fallen to 0.25 per cent, from 4.75 per cent in May 1990. The Bank of Canada rate has also fallen to 5.56 per cent, more than 3 per cent below its recent peak last November.
We have completed our efforts to make Canada a welcoming country for business people by reducing barriers to foreign trade, in particular by submitting to this House a bill to extend the benefits of free trade between Canada and the United States to the whole continent with NAFTA.
My colleagues on the other side of the House want to make all Canadians believe that the FIA is a failure. They would no doubt have them believe that the earth is flat. Let me remind them of some basic facts about the FTA.
These are actual facts and not myths that I will mention. Last year Canadian businesses sold a record $122.3 billion of goods to the United States. That was done by people, workers who have confidence in their abilities, optimists, builders. With them we will continue
Supply
to make our mark on the world market and will remain a very great country.
Our total merchandise exports rose to $157.5 billion, an increase of nearly 21 per cent since the agreement took effect. In 1991 the increase was 11 per cent, the largest annual growth since 1984. These results continued in January because we had a monthly trade surplus of $22.8 billion, the highest since 1985.
Our success should not make us rest on our laurels. Given the persistent weakness in the world economy, growth and job creation in Canada are not as strong as we would all like.
No company, no industry and no country can escape the challenges of the outside world. In no way can the government stifle the forces of change, as the hon. opposition member's party very soon realized when it took power in Ontario.
Everywhere, in Canada or abroad, businesses are going through a period of thorough change and restructuring.
For many companies and their employees, the process is painful. It has forced some companies to downsize and many others to slow down job creation since cost control is essential to greater competitiveness.
Nevertheless, the difficulties accompanying this process must not make us forget that the thorough changes that industry is undergoing today are nothing new for Canada. This is far from the first time that Canada must adjust to fundamental economic changes.
In the 1940s, agriculture provided one quarter of the jobs in Canada; now it is less than 4 per cent. However, we produce more and better food and commodities and all Canadians, including farmers, enjoy a much higher standard of living than their parents did. The same process is going on these days in manufacturing.
Therefore when we are faced with economic changes it is more important than ever to understand what they mean for Canada and what they do not mean. For example, the current decline in employment in manufacturing is not a symptom of fundamental decline in the economy. It does not mean that the FTA was a mistake either.

April 22, 1993
Supply
In fact, the proportion of jobs in manufacturing in Canada has been decreasing since the early 1950s. That did not prevent this sector from nearly tripling its production in the same period.
At the same time we have witnessed remarkable growth in high-technology industries and the service sector in Canada. These industries will be the base of the economy in the 21st century by selling their know-how right here and throughout the world. We can be winners in the new economy. We have tangible proof of that.
The electronics industry employs more people than the pulp and paper industry in Canada.
Today there are more jobs in communications and telecommunications in this country than in the oil and mining industries combined.
In Alberta more people are employed in financial services, including insurance and real estate, than in the oil and gas industry.
That is a fact. An economy is never static. Job content, job supply, corporate structure, types of business, sources of wealth, all these are constantly changing.
This means there is only one way to ensure financial success and it is only open to those countries which do what must be done to grasp new opportunities when they arise even, and especially, when hard choices have to be made.
One area where hard choices have to be made is the way taxpayers' money is spent, taking into account the need to invest in the future and at the same time control government spending.
With regard to investment, we are working toward building a better future for all Canadians by favouring investments capable of adding value to our natural resources and human resources as well. For instance, last year we changed the rules relating to R and D tax incentives to better reflect how businesses spend their money in that area. These changes will translate into an extra $250 million in assistance over five years. And we are currently contemplating other changes to provide another $400 million.
We also know that to make the most of our R and D efforts we must rely on an increasingly skilled labour force. To face this challenge we are increasing manpower adjustment and training assistance. During the next fiscal year we will spend $3.8 billion on that, over 65 per cent more than in 1990-91.
In addition, we have lowered the tax rate on manufacturing in Canada so that Canadian manufacturers can better compete with their American counterparts. We have implemented extensive measures to help the key small business sector.
However, such investments must not be made at the expense of increasing government deficits. Concern for the public debt at all levels has become a common theme with most of the people who were consulted throughout the country as part of the budget preparation process.
More and more Canadians understand how the money borrowed to cover deficits at all levels of government is now strongly pushing interest rates and taxes upward. People are realizing that we simply cannot let that get in the way of growth, investment and job creation.
To curb these pressures, our government has taken drastic measures: bringing the rate of spending growth below the rate of inflation; putting reasonable limits on the growth of federal transfers to the provinces; implementing the Spending Control Act which sets strict limits on the annual growth of most program expenditures; cutting by nearly 50 per cent the deficit as a percentage of the Canadian economy. Since 1984-85, we have reduced our program expenditures by $118 billion.
If it had not been for these measures, the deficit would now have reached $82.5 billion, two and a half times what it is.
In spite of these measures, compound interest on the national debt we inherited continues to put a strain on government finances. Added to this, the recent economic slump has dealt our finances quite a blow, especially on the revenue side.
That is why, in his economic statement back in December, the Minister of Finance announced a wide range of measures to further reduce federal expenditures by $8 billion during the current fiscal year and the next two.
For instance, there will be a two-year freeze on the salaries of cabinet ministers, members of Parliament and civil servants. Incidentally, this is the fifth time since
April 22, 1993

1985 that ministers and members of Parliament have had to accept salary restrictions or reductions.
The operating budgets of the departments have been reduced by 5 per cent, based on the levels anticipated for the next two years.
For National Defence alone, the salary freeze and the operating budget reduction will translate into savings of about $1.3 billion for taxpayers.
We have taken carefully targeted measures regarding the unemployment insurance program. Working Canadians cannot afford to subsidize those who quit their jobs without just cause.
Finally, we are reducing by 10 per cent federal grants and contributions.
Through these measures we do what is necessary to meet the challenge of public finances in Canada. We must not only live according to our means. We must also repair the damage done when we lived above our means.
Real, basic progress toward the solution of the problem posed by the national debt must be based on the two pillars which we want to strengthen in the budget to be tabled next Monday.
Economic growth and increased revenue will not be enough to solve the problem. Governments must control their expenditures.
We also need a consistent and co-ordinated action plan at the national level. We will not get anywhere if a level of government reduces its taxes while another level does the opposite.
The solution is simple. Growth, investment and longterm job creation depend on the ability to control deficits in the public sector. Our government intends to play the active role of national leader as regards budget co-ordination and economic co-operation. This includes eliminating the barriers to domestic trade, a necessary measure to strengthen our economic union and truly improve the well-being of Canadians.
I spoke today of the challenges which we must face in order to control the rapidly changing economy of the
Supply
21st centuiy. This economy can be compared to a new and promising country, in the sense that it offers vast possibilities to the pioneers who are ready to face the unknown in order to take advantage of all this untapped potential.
Canadians can take advantage of these possibilities and they will do it successfully by creating the new quality jobs that go along with the latter, provided we preserve and strenghten the foundations of a competitive and highly productive economy put in place by our government.
However, we will miss out on these possibilities and we will find ourselves facing even greater economic problems if we opt for the solutions put forward by the members of the opposition. These policies would lead us to greater debt and tax burden, while preventing us from doing trade with our main business partner. To implement such policies would be tantamount to returning to the past, ignoring the present, and giving up on the future.
This is not the road Canada must take. On the contrary, according to the OECD, the policies implemented by our government have put us on the right track to enjoying the strongest growth among the largest industrialized countries, this year as well as next year. Canadians deserve that and nothing less.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, today in Canada we face what I think are very desperate economic circumstances.
We have seen how Canada has been deindustrialized over the past four years. We have seen the loss of 319,000 manufacturing jobs or 15 per cent of all Canada's manufacturing jobs. Unless one is blind, one cannot attribute this entirely to global forces beyond our control. If that were the case, how would we explain that during the same period of time the United States lost only 7 per cent, not 15 per cent of its manufacturing jobs? In Ontario we have lost 185,000 manufacturing jobs or 18 per cent. In Quebec the figure is 115,000 or 19 per cent of its manufacturing jobs.

April 22, 1993
Supply
In Montreal's east end the unemployment rate now stands at 25 per cent. This is terrible. Everywhere else in Canada, the rate is 11 per cent.

One million five hundred and forty thousand Canadians are actively seeking work, but as the Catholic Conference of Bishops told us this is only the tip of the iceberg. Their estimate is that close to four million Canadians are now seeking full-time employment and cannot get it. This includes our official unemployment figures. It includes those who stopped looking for jobs because they just are not there and those part-time workers who seek full-time employment. This is indeed a desperate situation.
Why do we find ourselves in this position? We have seen a Conservative monetary policy which has emphasized controlling inflation at the expense of growth and jobs. We have seen a Tory fiscal policy over the past eight years with 33 tax increases, including the GST, making us a much higher tax jurisdiction than our major competitor, the United States. Yet, have they been able to bring the deficit under control? No. Our national debt is not the $165 billion that it was when they took office in 1984. It is now $450 billion, much of that now controlled by foreigners so that the interest payments made on our debt go out of Canada, that are reinvested abroad and produce no tax revenue, not even withholding tax revenue as it is paid to foreigners.
We have seen a trade policy brought in. Our party is not against liberalized trade. We know that it has benefits. We have always been the party of freer trade, but they gave us a trade deal without programs for adjusting to the new realities to help our workers compete. They have given us a trade program without definitions of subsidies or anti-dumping.
What happens? New investment to service the North American market has not come to Canada because Canadians are now facing unprecedented trade harassment. On the Honda issue alone there was no binding arbitration available. What manufacturers will want to establish themselves in Canada when even if we can win a trade dispute one or two years down the road through a binational panel they are still subject to that harassment of preliminary duties and everything else?
We have seen in the province of Ontario how its introduction of new labour legislation has created a chill on investment. We have also seen that because so much of Canadian manufacturing and production is controlled by foreigners that when there is a global downturn in the economy, Canada suffers more than others. Head offices abroad will close down Canadian branch plants before they will sacrifice workers in their home jurisdiction.
As Mickey Cohen, former deputy minister of finance said a short time ago in Toronto, we now face the incredible problem where we are a high wage nation but we could be doomed to being a high unemployment nation. This is one of the incredible challenges that we face. Not in the nine years of Tory management of our economy have we had the comprehensive view of Canada's role in a global economy and how we could maintain high wage, high value added jobs with a high level of employment as well. What is the legacy? Not only the deindustrialization and the high levels of permanent unemployment we face but also since 1989 Canada's ability to compete has fallen from fourth to eleventh place in the world.
Since 1984 when this government took office our trade surplus has gone from $19.8 billion down to $7.4 billion. In 1984 we had a $1 billion surplus in high tech trade; today we have a $30 billion deficit in high tech goods and services. What does this say to our young people who want to enter the Canadian work force? Why are we falling behind so quickly on a global basis?
Even worse perhaps is that our manufacturing productivity is now growing under Tory economic policies at only two-thirds the rate of that of our major competitors, the G-7 countries.
Is despair the only thing we can offer close to four million Canadians who want high paying permanent jobs and do not have them? I believe there are some solutions available to us. What we have to tackle immediately is investing in Canada's human resources. We have to deal with the 40 per cent of Canadians who today do not have either the literacy or the mathematical skills to deal with the requirements of modem jobs. We have to deal with an education system that is producing a 30 per cent high school drop-out rate and yet there are no skills training as an alternative for these young people. We have the Mexican challenge where our new potential trade part-
April 22, 1993

ner is graduating four times as many engineers and scientists as we are in Canada. We have the incredible problem where our level of research and development, 1.37 per cent of our gross domestic product, is less than half that of our major competitors. It is a level that is falling rather than rising.
These are areas where we need the long-term investments by the public and private sector working in close co-operation to recreate the human capital base which is so critical to giving us those high wage, high value added jobs in the future. This has not been done. This issue has not been taken on by our government.
In the short term there is still a great deal that we could be doing as federal politicians in Canada. First of all we have close to one million small businesses in Canada. If only half of those small businesses over the next two years could add one more employee we could get rid of 500,000 unemployed. We know that the biggest problem that these small businesses face is that many of them have not had access to the capital or the bridge financing or the financial means necessary to get through this made-in-Canada recession.
This is why the Liberal Party is proposing new means for helping these small businesses survive and expand.
Second, why is it that Canada exports so much of its raw natural resources, its primary resources, and buys back finished goods from our foreign competitors? This is why we propose the immediate establishment of a primary industry's enhancement council that will work with our primary industry manufacturers in food, forest, sea, mining, energy, whatever, to produce more value added goods here in Canada, more downstream goods. Add the value here. Do not give away our resources holus-bolus to our foreign competitors so they can create jobs with them.
This is why, in order to deal with the decline in our manufacturing productivity, we are calling for the establishment of a manufacturing productivity council which will use private sector consultants to go to our small and
Supply
medium size manufacturers to show them world class techniques for expanding their productivity and exports.
This is not a give-away program because the manufacturers will repay the government for these studies out of enhanced productivity, enhanced profits and enhanced exports. It would be a self-funding program with no bureaucracy because we are not going to use bureaucrats. We will be using the best private sector knowledge that is available.
This is why we have called on the government to work in close co-operation with the Canadian Manufacturers Association which has initiated a program for Canada called The ISO-9000 Series program. It is a program adopted throughout the European Community in order to bring up the quality standards of European manufacturers. Yet this government has refused to enter into a cooperative joint venture program with the CMA to bring these same quality standards to Canada.
The situation, if allowed to continue, is going to create more and more desperation. There is hope. There are things we can do. Let us adopt a comprehensive economic strategy so that our young people and our unemployed workers can wake up tomorrow with hope.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I was most disturbed with the hon. member's comments about a made-in- Canada recession. He knows, as I know and as Canadians and people around the world know that we are dealing with a global recession.
Last summer in May and June I had the privilege of having a student from the University of Michigan working in my office. I am going to have another one this summer. Last summer's student, Robert Tyson, went back to the States and last October wrote a letter to the Prime Minister and sent me a copy. In it he says:
I also believe that the criticism your government receives for the poor world economy is unfair. Over here things are just as bad. My own father is one of hundreds to lose his white collar job from a company that has not let workers go in living memory. This occurred despite his 20 years of seniority. My college friends and I have had difficulty finding summer jobs, succeeding only where friends or family members could pull strings for us.
It is humorous to come back to the United States and hear all of the same complaints about the North American free trade agreement but to hear them coming from Americans. I understand that Canadians are

April 22, 1993
Supply
afraid that their jobs will move south to America but Canadians should
know that Americans are just as afraid that their jobs will move north.
The hon. member should recognize that the United States has lost more than one million manufacturing jobs since January 1,1989. He should see Canadians as others see us.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am a little bit disappointed that the hon. member who in the past has had the courage to recognize the facts and speak them directly to his own government is using anecdotal evidence and not over-all facts and figures to deal with this issue.
If he is correct that Canada is just part of what is happening in the United States, why is it that Canada has lost 15 per cent of its manufacturing jobs over the last four years? The Americans have lost only 7 per cent.
Why is it that the level of unemployment in Canada is officially 11 per cent, probably double that unofficially, and in the United States it is only 7 per cent? Why is it that Canada went into this recession induced by our high interest rate, high dollar policy at least six months before the United States and is coming out of it after the United States?
This is not a normal function of what is happening in Canada in relation to world events. What has happened to us is a made-in-Canada recession, deliberately set by this government.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on this motion because I believe that the unemployment created by this government's policies is an issue that we should be discussing as the government is apparently unwilling to deal with the problem. It is a fact that this government's policies have led to plant shutdowns and unemployment. As my party's employment critic I receive newspaper clippings from the Department of Employment and Immigration. A large part of those clippings is stories about layoffs and slow-downs.
We are supposed to be in a recovery. However, someone should tell that to the 112 people laid off recently at Pacific Press in British Columbia, the 415 people who lost their jobs at the Northern Telecom plant in London, or the 2,500 GM workers who are going to be laid off when GM closes its Scarborough plant this spring.
The Conservative government may not like to hear it but Canada has lost 325,000 manufacturing jobs since 1989. We have had double digit unemployment for two consecutive years. The OECD, the Conference Board of Canada and many others are predicting that we will continue to have double digit unemployment through this year and into the next.
Let there be no mistake. We are facing an unemployment crisis in this country the likes of which we have never had to deal with in the past. Officially, there are presently 1.5 million Canadians who cannot find work, but that does not include the hundreds of thousands who have given up looking and have fallen out of the system.
Last year, for example, more than a million Canadians exhausted their UI benefits before they found work. That is a 41 per cent increase over the year before. Last week the Catholic bishops raised the alarm by claiming that the real jobless figure is 3.9 million. This, to me, is a tragedy. We have been urging this Conservative government to focus on putting Canadians back to work but I must say that our appeals have fallen on deaf ears.
The Conservatives are paralysed because the unemployment crisis is a direct result of their policies and in order to solve that crisis they would have to admit that they made a mistake and would have to change course. That is something that they are not willing to do.
What are some of the things the government has done that have led us to this unhealthy situation? First, there was the high interest rate and high dollar policy. This had a number of negative effects on our economy. A prolonged period of high interest rates made it very difficult for smaller companies to find financing and many of them were forced to give up. The combination of a high dollar and high interest rates alone had a disastrous effect on this economy.
The bankruptcy figures tell us a very sad story of this record. In 1992, 14,317 businesses declared bankruptcy
April 22, 1993

Supply
yet the government still talks about an economic recovery. In 1991 the number was 13,496. In all, over 200,000 businesses and individuals have followed a dead-end route to bankruptcy. It still talks about an economic recovery.
How many dreams have been lost in this country? How many lives have been ruined? How many jobs might have been created in the small business sector if this government had created the environment to bring prosperity to Canada? It has denied opportunity to the Canadian people and to Canadian business.
I know that in my riding and throughout Canada businesses have been treated harshly. I have met with people who are confused about what this government was doing. They felt that their entrepreneurial spirit had subsided. Now they are crushed. Hope and ambition have been replaced by despair and embarrassment.
Another policy mistake the Conservatives made was to enter into the free trade agreement without proper safeguards for Canadian interests. We have seen what happened with the absence of subsidies and dumping codes or the absence of adjustment programs. These people opposite are are the same people who said that jobs were going to be created and that prosperity was going to be part of the Canadian fabric. They said: "Yes, there will be some adjustment in our industrial sector but do not worry as we will have adjustment programs to ease the pain that Canadians would feel". Where are they? Where are those programs that have left 45 and 55-year old factory workers out in the cold? Where is the hope for our young people? Where are all those promises that have been made? They will have to live up to that record.
Canadians have been asked time and time again by this government to make sacrifices for the national debt, the economy and for our children and the future. We did. We paid higher taxes. We have fewer services but what kind of thanks did we get in return? We have a high national debt, record bankruptcies and over 400,000 young people unemployed. This is the thanks we got after we played its game and sacrificed our lives for this government.
Let me be very clear that we have honoured our part of the deal. We have said yes, we will accept the higher tax rates provided it can reduce the deficit. We will accept fewer services provided it can reduce the deficit and the national debt. We will pay the price provided it
can create the environment for small business to prosper.
What has it done for small business people throughout Canada? It has not gone to the banks and said: "You have not only an economic contract with this government, you are not only a financial institution, but you have a social obligation to bring about change in this country and to give the type of capital that small business people throughout Canada need in order to generate those jobs".
What have these people across the aisle done? They have been silent. They have been too busy playing up to the pressures of interest groups and have forgotten about the individual Canadian out there trying to make a serious go of it and provide a better future for their children and young people throughout Canada. That is what they have done. However, people have caught on that this government has been nothing but a government that responds only to interest group pressures.
It has not created an environment where small business can prosper. It has not given more hope to young people. It has not given hope to the single mother who is compelled to stand in front of the local food bank for a daily meal. It has divorced itself from the responsibility of government. It has abdicated its responsibility to bring about positive change.
The only thing we have to show in this House and across the country is the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. We have 30 per cent of our high school students dropping out and this government has been silent because that is the Conservative style. The Conservative style of governing is hands off: "Let the market forces dictate what happens and as far as we are concerned we can stand back and watch the people get hurt". That is what it has done and that is, I guess, what it is proud of because I have not seen anything coming from this government since I have been here that has given me, as a young Canadian and as a parent of two children, any hope for the future. That is the Conservative reality of Canada.
I have a very simple message here. If any members on the opposite side are listening, there are people hurting in this country that need your help. There are people out there who have lost hope. I think it is high time that something was done about it. We have paid our part of the deal. We have sacrificed long enough. We have co-operated. Now it is time. We want to see results and

April 22, 1993
Supply
we want to get Canadians back to work and hope back into Canadians' lives.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House recognizes the tension that my hon. friend feels in view of the very substantial nomination fight that is going on in the Liberal Party in his particular riding. I can understand why he would want to come here and make dying gasps and last-minute speeches in an effort to try to establish some credibility.
I think what the House should hear is some facts instead of histrionics and bombastic speeches and accusations without one shred of evidence that would stand up anywhere. I would suggest to my hon. friend that before he goes out on the campaign trail he must get some facts because that kind of stuff just will not last and take the strain of a campaign such as he is going to face and such as he is already showing the effects of.
I would like to ask my hon. friend this. If we are blaming free trade for everything, as my hon. friend is, how does he account for the fact that since the free trade agreement came into effect our merchandise exports to the United States rose to record levels in 1989 and 1990. They eased back to somewhat less than record levels in 1991 but in 1992 our merchandise exports to the United States were at or near record levels in every month of that year. In the first nine months of 1992 our merchandise trade surplus with the U.S. ran at an annual rate of over $16 billion. That is up 16.6 per cent over the same period in 1991.
My hon. friend will know if he is being honest with himself and with the House that every billion dollars in exports creates or maintains 15,000 jobs. Canada's exports to the United States increased by $31.3 billion in 1989-91 when compared with 1986-88.
I would think that my hon. friend would recognize that the whole world is going through some restructuring. One cannot blame our government for the recession in the United States or in Japan. These folks do nothing but blame. However, one day when it comes to election time they are going to be called on for some ideas of their own. To sit there and simply criticize the government is
not going to wash when they get out there in the real world. My hon. friend knows that.
Does my hon. friend not give some credence to the fact that things are changing? For example when General Motors shuts down the Lumina line in Oshawa in the fall of 1993 it will come back a year later having retooled and will produce the same number of cars with 1,400 less employees. That is a fact of life.
My hon. friend, in the histrionics and bombastics of his speech, does not want to acknowledge the facts of life that things are changing. We have to adapt and we have to enter into agreements like the free trade agreement and the NAFTA in order to put ourselves in a position to capitalize on those opportunities. That is what we have done.
I know it has caused a lot of grief in his party and that there are very severe differences between the hon. member for Etobicoke North and the U.S. hater from Winnipeg. I appreciate those differences. However, surely when one comes to the House of Commons and one tries to improve the country as a whole one has to deal with facts and not just the rhetoric that my hon. friend got away with for this length of time. It is not, however, going to wash in the next election campaign.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I like the soft approach and the soft voice of the minister because he really thinks it is going to be a soft sell. The reality is that the minister, when he goes campaigning, will have to answer to the promises that were made in 1984 and 1988.
Let us talk about reality. There are 1.5 million Canadians unemployed and 2.2 million Canadians who live on welfare. Is that something he is proud of? I certainly am not.
Is the minister happy with the fact that he has just sat there while there are small businesses even in his own riding that cannot access financing and he has not done a thing to help them?
The minister can talk all he wants but the reality and facts I have outlined in my speech are facts that he knows about. The government gets off on these great thoughts about how it is preparing the economy for prosperity. What prosperity? If one walks through any major urban

centre one sees people on the street, one sees people who do not have food in a country as rich as Canada.


Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity-Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to debate this motion which condemns the government for its policies that have created such disaster in Canada that so many plants, especially in southern Ontario, have been closed. Even the official unemployment rate is at a disastrous level. It is officially 11 per cent, more or less.
Unofficially, according to the Roman Catholic bishops, 3.9 million people are either unemployed, have given up working or have short-time jobs when they really need, want and have been looking for full-time jobs.
It has also been pointed out that compared to the participation rate of three years ago unemployment now would be 17 per cent for Canada, not just 11 per cent, if it were counted more accurately. That is because of full-time jobs that have been lost with no other jobs in their place.
It is the worst we have had in half a century especially considering that 10 years ago, when it was nearly as bad, only about one-third of the jobs were permanently lost and now at least two-thirds of the jobs are permanently lost.
I want to mention a little bit about the riding I represent of Trinity-Spadina. Within weeks of the free trade agreement coming into effect in the beginning of 1989 the Inglis plant, which employed 600 workers, announced that it was closing. For decades it had been making washing machines. Half the washing machines in the Canadian market came out of that plant. It had a good, trained and responsible work force.
Admittedly the company from the United States that then owned it had not updated the machinery but it was still producing for half of the Canadian market. The workers were laid off within the year with no possibility of any kind of replacement in that sort of washing machine employment for them.
I want to speak about the garment industry. It has been blasted by the free trade agreement. Employers and owners of businesses have told me that when they go to the bank to get a loan for an expansion or to get over a short difficult period, people who have been in the business for years, leaders in the market, and leaders in
Supply
style are told by the banks: Not for the garment industry. They know what the free trade agreement has done to the garment industry in Toronto.


Ms. Mitchell:: And B.C.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: And in British Columbia and I expect also in Winnipeg.
Many of these employers opposed the free trade agreement and explained to the government the damage it would cause. The government ignored them and now some of them have closed. Those that have not closed are mainly import houses importing from China and Taiwan which have cheap labour.
They are negotiating with Mexico which has cheaper labour than anyone in Asia. It has cheaper labour not only than Japan but than Korea, China, Singapore and so on. They are negotiating with Mexico. One of them has kept about 15 out of 100 employees. He laid off 85. He has 15 just to handle the warehousing and maybe some very short make-up orders.
The printing industry has also been hit, as has the data processing industry which is a very important service industry in downtown Toronto.
The government has simply ignored what is happening. It has done nothing to pick these people up. I want to quote the comments on this from the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Its base principle, as quoted from the gospels, is Jesus Christ saying:
Just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me.
In other words, its bottom-line approach for the economy is that it has to look after the poorest. If we look after the poorest, the rich will not suffer.
The bishops spell that out further in a statement well known as the preferential option for the poor. They say:
a) that the needs of the poor have priority over the wants of the rich; b) that the rights of workers are more important than the maximization of profits; and c) that the participation of marginalized groups takes precedence over the preservation of a system that excludes them.
In other words, they are saying that if we look after the poor the rest will do well enough. Particularly, we should look after the ones who are being excluded from the system, such as the women who have been forced out of

April 22, 1993
Supply
their factory jobs into home work jobs for what amounts to about $2 an hour.
Out of this $2 an hour these women must pay for their sewing machine, heat and light, and the rent of their home in which they do the work. They have to pay what the factory owner used to pay. On top of that it comes out of maybe $2 or $4 an hour when we add up the hours they work, sometimes illegally helped by their children. This is what has happened to some of the marginalized people in Trinity-Spadina, especially the immigrant women.
This is what is condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. It is not speaking only out of compassion. The Roman Catholic bishops are not just bleeding hearts. They are saying, as my colleague from Essex-Windsor said, that if two million, three million or four million Canadian workers are not allowed to work they still have to eat and their families still must have homes.
The country is losing money and going into deficit no matter how much this government may lower the taxes on the rich, no matter how much this government may rig its figures. It is the forced unemployment in this country that is causing disaster.
The Roman Catholic bishops point out on page 7:
Despite protests to the contrary, governments are simply waiting for a surge in Gross National Product to restore lost jobs and create new ones-this despite the evidence that new economic growth, as measured by GNP, will be only loosely related to job creation.
After saying that the market has failed the bishops say:
It is Pope John Paul's ardent hope that individuals and communities-including the poorest-will have the political power and will necessary for freely determining and shaping the framework within which the market works, so it can be in harmony with their own cultural and moral values, even at the international level.
The government has to reverse or be reversed.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker,
I think the remarks my colleague put on the record are tremendously important. They show the ethical and moral reasons that the North American free trade agreement must be defeated.
I would like to comment on his remarks in which he said that the free trade agreement has had a tremendous impact on many of the industries where women are working at very low wages, and more often than not they
are immigrant women. The situation he describes in Spadina is very similar to that in my own riding of Vancouver East where the free trade agreement has largely been responsible for the fact that fish processing plants have been closing. Some of them have moved south of the border. One of the Liberal members mentioned earlier how we must have value added to our products. The trade deal certainly has been prohibiting that in many industries. The export of raw logs is another one.
I agree with the hon. member completely that in the garment industry it is a particular tragedy. Not only do we have plants closing and jobs going and many of the plants leaving the country, but we have this move to home industries. They do not have the standards of work that women predominantly should have. They are really including the cost of all the overhead and having to pay it out of very minimum wages.
I would like him to comment further on that and to explain why the NAFTA agreement will add to this tragedy.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question because in 10 minutes it was not possible to put everything forward.
The free trade agreement which, as I said, was opposed by the leaders of the garment industry and the majority of the manufacturers in the garment industry in Toronto and I believe in the rest of Canada, has resulted in such changes in the import duties that foreign manufacturers and particularly American manufacturers are able to flood the Canadian market.
Along with the free trade agreement was the high interest rate policy chosen and enforced for two or three years by the government through the Bank of Canada, which is a creature of the government and the Parliament of Canada. The manufacturers told me they could not sell in the United States. Even though tariffs going into the United States were lowered, the difference in the Canadian dollar brought about by the enforced high interest rate meant that they were priced out of the American market. We were supposed to get access to it, but the two policies of this government, the free trade agreement and the high interest rates, blocked them.
April 22, 1993

Even though the interest rates have gone down, some of those manufacturers are not there. When we go down Spadina Avenue we see property for sale and for rent where there used to be hundreds and hundreds of people working in the factories.
The NAFTA will also hit the remaining industries because it will mean that we will be penalized for bringing in cloth, yarn or thread from outside North America. There are many varieties of good cloth to be had from Europe and from some parts of Asia, but the North American free trade agreement will penalize Canadian manufacturers by hindering their access to the American market if they use cloth not made in Canada, the United States or Mexico.
That particularly hits cotton. It is admitted we do not grow cotton in Canada. They do in Alabama, the southern states and Mexico. Canada will be penalized if we have to buy cotton from those places, manufacture it in Canada and try to sell it back into the American market which the government claims it opened for us. We will be penalized more if we try to buy it outside North America.
It is quite possible the whole garment industry in Canada may be doomed by the foolishness of the government.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I do not know if my colleague from Trinity-Spadina mentioned to you that we were going to split his time in two 10-minute portions. I would like to take my time now if I could.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is no problem. Questions and comments are now terminated.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity, short as it is, to say a few words today on the motion presented by my colleague from Essex-Windsor. His motion was essentially on the state of the economy on the eve of the budget, which will be presented by the Minister of Finance on Monday afternoon.
I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the general state of affairs of the economy in the country. I would also like to draw some conclusions and comment about the general national state and mention a
Supply
few situations that I think bear some relevance in my riding to the debate we are having today.
There is no question that the time is quickly coming for this government and all Canadians to take a strong look at the choices that are available to address the problems facing our economy. It is important to get the message across that there are choices. They may not be the choices this government has made nor the choices of other critics of this government, but there are real choices and real positive solutions to some of the problems we face in this country today.
I do not think anyone, particularly on the government side, should reject or hide from the fact that we are in a very difficult economic situation. Unemployment in March rose to 11 per cent from 10.8 per cent in the previous month.
Amazingly there are some 1.5 million people in Canada looking for work. Our unemployment rate last year was the highest of all the G-7 countries. My leader, the member for Yukon, has mentioned in her questions to the finance minister that in addition to the unemployed we have the problem of the underemployed. That is often not addressed or dealt with in this House and I think it is important that it be raised, as does the leader of the New Democratic Party.
We have also seen the explosion of the welfare rolls all across the country. The point made by our leader in the House has been in response to the government challenging the opposition to offer alternatives. When we have been presented with that challenge we have offered alternatives.
Alternatives were presented by our party in the extensive debate we had on the goods and services tax in this House. We were the only party to do that. We met that challenge and I suggest that we bested the government in terms of what we said could be done.
With regard to the welfare rolls, a question has been put to the finance minister and he has not answered it. He asked where the money will come from to do the wonderful things proposed by members of the opposition. We have told him where the money would come from but the question is rightfully put to the Minister of Finance: Where will he get the money to pay for the ever-increasing welfare rolls?

April 22, 1993
Supply
In Prince George, the major community in my riding, I took the time to look at this situation. If we are going to address these problems we have to know what we are dealing with. In Prince George alone there are some
5,000	people on social assistance. A number of those people are not able to work and will likely never work. In our country where we measure our value by how well we take care of those who are less well off-my colleague from Trinity-Spadina said that better than I did-we clearly have to continue to help those people.
Government has to initiate projects for training but the private sector also has a responsibility. It is not often mentioned in this House because our natural inclination as members of Parliament is to look at the role of government. There is a role and a responsibility for the private sector as well. On matters of research and development and innovation we have some winners in this country, but it is also clear that the private sector has failed Canada in a number of areas as well.
There are reasons for that, such as the branch plant economy we have in Canada and the seemingly endless reliance on being the hewers of wood and drawers of water. We must take advantage of existing legislation and programs to ensure that we do get an opportunity to add value to those wood products in particular-I am interested in that for my riding-and other similar areas. We do have some tools at hand that we can use.
I realize that I only have a few minutes left but one particular example sums this up. In my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley I have met with the workers at the Kelly Douglas & Co. warehouse and corresponded with the company owners. This warehouse has been in operation for many years in Prince George. It closed virtually overnight and some 65 people were laid off. A number of them had done nothing else in their lives. They had worked full time in that particular warehouse at good pay but now they were unemployed. The workers have said that the local management was treated as poorly as they had been treated. So what do we do? What does the union do? What does the company do?
This is the classic situation of a good leadership role being played by the union and a poorer role being played
by the company. There are also some serious questions about what to do in our economy.
In this particular case the union has taken a leadership role by working with its members who used to work at this warehouse. It contacted the Canada Employment Centre and is now working with these people-some have done no other work in their lives-to prepare them and help them look for other work. I visited the classroom where they are beii.g trained to prepare resumes and introduced to computers. One person said: "Well, this is fine. I appreciate being involved in this class, but why are the taxpayers paying for this?" I thought he had a good question there. He suggested that the employer should be paying more attention to these workers now that they have been laid off. The union is challenging what this particular company is doing as well through a grievance procedure.
This is the classic situation of the seemingly uncaring employer, but it is also a unique situation because the union has gone far beyond its traditional role and is working to serve its members. There is an increasing concentration of business in larger and larger centres where communities like the ones I represent have fewer and fewer services.
After raising those challenges from that very specific example I now come to some positive solutions and suggestions and, most important, some choices. I want to impress on anyone who is watching this debate, earnestly concerned about the state of our country's finances and eagerly waiting to see what the Finance Minister does with his budget on Monday, that there are some choices. The New Democrats and in particular our leader have made some effort to develop our strategy for a full employment economy. We have met the challenge of presenting alternatives. This is a reasonable plan. It has been given the rubber stamp of approval from independent financial consultants. It can be done. There is a different way of running the economy rather than this government's approach. There are positive solutions that give people meaningful jobs and the opportunity to present and participate in economic planning.
I encourage anyone who is interested in that debate to please write to us. We will send them a copy of it. Then they can certainly get a chance to see what the alternative is and what the challenges and choices are.
April 22, 1993


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a very important topic today, the economy. In my neck of the woods, forestry is a major part of the economy and we have been hit quite hard. I know the hon. member representing his party has the responsibility of following the forestry sector for his party. I know he is quite knowledgeable in that area.
I would like to mention to the House that in my area of Restigouche-Chaleur there is a mill in Atholville, New Brunswick that has been closed. We have another mill in Dalhousie that has been closed 50 per cent. Two of its four machines have been closed down. I have been quite concerned about the policies of this government with regard to high interest rates, the high dollar and its effect on industry and more specifically on the forestry industry. I have also been concerned about other policies.
I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment about the policies of this government with regard to the forestry industry.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member. We have sat on a number of committees and discussed the concerns of the forestry sector in the country.
He is quite right when he mentions a range of problems and issues facing the forestry sector. We know the challenges faced by all governments and in particular provincial governments that are faced with the day-today management of the allocation of the forest resource to companies. There is a clear challenge there on the question of set-asides and meeting the goals of the Brundtland commission for 12 per cent. That difficult challenge is particular to my own province of British Columbia and is a very important one. It is important to mention on this Earth Day that it is a very difficult time for most provincial governments.
With regard to the high dollar and in particular trade policy, I would just like to comment on two things. The general approach to the high interest rates and the high dollar has been very difficult and has hurt all components of our forestry sector, particularly as it relates to our exports to the United States.
Supply
Of course I must mention the softwood lumber tariff dispute that we have had with the United States. We anticipate a ruling next week from GATT that is discussing the whole subsidy question. This whole issue of the current tariff and what is to be expected is before a couple of panels now and is hanging over the forestry sector. The U.S. lumber lobby has already said that if it loses at any one of these panels it will be launching an extraordinary challenge to the decision, so the whole dispute over softwood lumber is nowhere near finished yet.
One of the problems in eastern Canada is the age of our mills and particularly a lot of the pulp mills. The owners are having difficulty making those very big money decisions about reinvestment into those mills. There is upgrading necessary to improve the water treatment systems of those mills. As one of the most important sectors in Canada there is a great deal more to do.
I am wondering, on the eve of the budget, if we are going to see a forestry minister continue in this House. There has been some debate in the government about doing away with the minister. It would be ironic since one of the first pieces of legislation my colleague and I worked on when we arrived in Parliament was the creation of that department. If one of the last actions of this government was to do away with that department in such an important sector I do not think most Canadians would appreciate it.


Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in today's debate concerning the state of the Canadian economy.
I would like to respond to a few of the comments made by previous speakers. I think we should not allow all of them to go unchallenged, especially when they may have left an inappropriate or incorrect impression.
It is fair to say that every member of this House would prefer an economy that was stronger with more employment, more jobs and higher incomes. Of course, that would benefit not just the people with those jobs, it would also benefit governments. It would benefit governments because people with jobs earn income and pay taxes. Fewer of them would be drawing on the govern-

April 22, 1993
Supply
merit's social programs, such as unemployment insurance or welfare. Governments would be receiving revenues. That would make life a lot easier for them in trying to control the deficit which all levels of government are now having a great amount of difficulty in doing. We would like to have the revenues from those higher taxes both from individuals and from corporations with profits.
It is fair to say that all of us would be interested in having a stronger economy. The real question is as to what degree can government action produce that stronger economy.
Unfortunately what has happened in the last few years is that we have become unable to be insulated from events in the rest of the world. It used to be, probably since the end of the Second World War until the mid-1970s, that as a country we were able to set ourselves aside and avoid a lot of the economic factors which had great influence, at many times negative, in other parts of the world. In part, that was because we had a lot of natural resources on which we could rely and we were able to determine our own force and set our own agenda. We had high income and high value from those resources. For example, that is why we were able to insulate ourselves in many ways from the oil price shock of the early 1970s. We did not have to endure what many European countries or Japan had to endure, for example the high prices of energy which harmed or had a great impact on their economies.
The fact of the matter is in today's world we no longer have that insulation. Today's world is a multinational trading world. Goods and services trade throughout the world. Modem communications and computers have meant that manufacturing jobs can be shifted to what used to be Third World countries. Those countries now compete with us for jobs that we used to consider as our own and natural to Canada. The fact is that we no longer have the luxury of saying that in Canada we will set our own course regardless of what the rest of the world does.
One of the comments made earlier in the debate concerned interest rates and the high dollar. One of the things that causes the dollar to be stronger or higher against other currencies is borrowing money in foreign currencies and bringing it to Canada. The prime borrowers in foreign currencies and foreign markets are governments or government agencies.
It is not the federal government that has resorted to that. It is provincial governments such as the Government of Ontario. The Government of Ontario, and add to that Ontario Hydro, its Crown-owned agency producing electric power in that province, is probably the most substantive borrower of funds outside of Canada. The current NDP government is continuing the practice that was established by other governments at an even higher rate than ever before. When those governments borrow in foreign currencies, naturally those currencies are converted into Canadian currency when they are going to pay for goods and services in Canada. That increases the value of our dollar which is something that has been complained about by the opposition.
When governments borrow money either domestically or from foreigners, that borrowing puts pressure on the amount of capital available for investment and for other purposes which raises interest rates. When we have complaints from the opposition members about the level of interest rates or about the level of the dollar, I encourage them to look at what is behind these figures and what is causing it. To the extent that government is responsible, it is government spending and government deficits. The people of Canada have become increasingly concerned about those deficits. I think and I hope that in his budget next week the Minister of Finance will present once again an updated and credible plan to deal with that.
Earlier a member of the Liberal Party suggested that we have paid for many of these difficulties and we are continuing to pay. Unfortunately, that is true. Unfortunately over a period of time, for 10 or 15 years, as governments, and I will restrict this to the federal government for the moment, we increased our expenditures at 10 per cent to 15 per cent per year for 15 years. That went on until about 1984. It built a debt in this country of something in the order of $200 billion. For the period of 1975 to 1985 the debt increased 10 times what it had been.
April 22, 1993

Since then the current government has tried to control that spending. We have kept spending below the rate of inflation, in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent to 4 per cent per year average over that time. We have tried to control the deficit. There have been increases in taxes, there is no question about that. In spite of that, the interest on the debt that was there in 1984 has continued to accumulate and that has brought the current debt in this period to approximately $400 billion. It has almost doubled. That has happened simply because we have seen interest on that existing debt.
It is a rule of thumb when investment counsellors are talking to people, counselling them on saving money and saving for their future that if money is put away, if money is invested and saved today, that roughly in seven years that money will double. Unfortunately from the other point of view, if there is a debt today which is not paid, in seven years that debt will be approximately double. That is what has happened over the last period of time. It is not because this current government has gone on a spending spree and spent more money.
We have found ways to provide the programs we felt most necessary through restructuring and eliminating some of the programs and some of the spending that we felt we could do without. On every single occasion we did that, we were opposed by the opposition parties.
I can mention one example. We started with a post office that had a deficit of $600 million a year. It was costing Canadian taxpayers $600 million a year. That post office is currently either making a small profit or breaking even. We have turned it around from a loss of $600 million a year to roughly a break-even or small profit situation. Why has that happened? It has happened for a couple reasons. It has happened because in that business we have adopted new technology, new methods of service to people. We have changed the strategy and the focus and we have brought it into the modem age.
Unfortunately in Canada some people seem to suggest that we can continue to maintain industries in the face of international competition, in the face of changing technologies and in the face of new products and services that have come to replace some of the ways we used to do things. We cannot remain locked in the past. I think everyone understands that. I think even everyone who
Supply
worked in the factories that were talked about earlier where those factories have for one reason or another closed would agree that in part it is because we have not found new technology or invested in new technology in those areas to make ourselves competitive with the rest of the world. As I said earlier, we no longer have the luxury of being non-competitive.
We had some good comments earlier by the hon. member for Willowdale when he talked about the need for investment in technology and for investment in research and development. There is no question about that. We all understand that. The question is that in order to make that, we have to free up that investment for research and development, for investment in new technology that will make our workers and business more productive. We must not crowd that investment out by continuing to increase government spending and government borrowing on current consumption. That is very difficult because we have a lot of demand for the services of government.
We can see the difficulty in provincial governments. There were comments a moment ago from members of the New Democratic Party. However we have a New Democratic government in Ontario. Ontario is 43 per cent of the Canadian economy. If the methods being suggested here today by the New Democratic Party were successful and worked, it should have the strongest economy. We should have a booming economy right now.
We know that the Rae government tried those in the first two years it was in office. It was a disaster and it has admitted now that it was on the wrong course. The treasurer, Mr. Laughren, and the premier, Mr. Rae, have been saying in recent days that they are going to have to change course, adopt a different fiscal plan, reduce their spending and reduce their deficit because they can no longer continue on the path on which they have put themselves.
They have recognized it. The NDP have recognized the folly of the kind of thinking they continue to perpetuate in this House. They have recognized it in Ontario because they ran up against the wall. They ran up against people saying: "No, we are not going to lend more money. If you want to borrow you are going to have

April 22, 1993
Supply
to pay either excessive interest rates or we are not going to lend it to you at all". That reality has brought the fact home to the NDP government in Ontario that it is going to have to adopt a different strategy. What strategy is it adopting? It is adopting a strategy that this government has been conducting for several years.
One can say that we are not particularly happy with the level of unemployment or the state of the economy. I can say that I am not happy. But the question we have to ask is: If we had not adopted the policies that we have been pursuing over the last few years, where would we be?
For example, there was talk earlier about trade. Trade is the life-blood of this country. We depend on trade for about one-third of our income. We have to do everything we can to remain competitive so that we can continue to trade in the world and compete against goods and services from the rest of the world and increase our exports.
In 1992 exports reached a record high level of $157 billion. That was 11 per cent above 1991. Exports to the United States reached a record high level of $122 billion. That was $19 billion more than in 1988. That is under the free trade agreement. Under the free trade agreement we have increased exports by $20 billion, about 20 per cent since 1988, to the United States. There has been an increase of 10 per cent from 1991 in the over-all exports to the world. Our exports to Japan for example increased from 1984 to 1992 by over 40 per cent, to a record level of $16 billion. Why is that? It is because we have been pursuing trade opportunities such as the free trade agreement. It is also because we have been removing impediments regarding Canadian businesses and their ability to trade.
Someone mentioned the GST briefly in this debate. That was one of the most difficult policies for this government and for members like myself who supported that policy to go out into the country, to tell people, to explain to people why we had to make this change. We told people why we had to eliminate a federal sales tax that was hidden and buried in the cost of our products, that was crippling our manufacturers' ability to produce products and trade in the world or to compete against imports. We told them why we had to eliminate that tax and instead replace it with a new tax called the GST. We had the courage to do that.
We heard earlier about the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. Somehow it was suggested that we are not supporting some initiative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. There was no stronger supporter of the GST than the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We supported that, we eliminated the federal sales tax, we put in a new tax called the GST and this was very difficult politically. No one knows better than I.
I had town hall meetings in my riding. Many, many people came to those meetings. In many cases they were very angry people. They were opposed to the government doing this. They argued instead that we should be cutting government spending by that amount.
However, cutting spending by that amount would have required us to be cutting payments for example to senior citizens and others. We said no, we will have to replace this tax with another tax called the GST and we did it. We did it in spite of that political difficulty because we had the courage to do it.
What has happened? Our exporters have become more competitive. We see that in the numbers we are showing.
People talked about high interest rates. High interest rates are driven by inflation and government spending. We have been keeping government spending under control, not as well as we would have liked, but that has not been the problem.
It is revenue that has fallen short because of the weakness in the domestic and world economies. The Canadian economy has not been as strong as we would have hoped. Therefore government revenues are approximately $10 billion a year less than what we were expecting. This has put enormous pressure on us.
However, the policies we have pursued, such as the elimination of the federal sales tax to replace it with the GST and the introduction of the free trade agreements and others, have put us in a position where currently we are one of the stronger economies in the world. We should recognize that.
It is not a situation where we are totally insulated or when we can simply say that in Canada we will have our economy and we will ignore what is going on in the rest of the world.
April 22, 1993

In terms of the G-7 nations, Canada is expected to lead the world. The OECD says that among its larger members Canada has made the greatest progress in recent years in reducing its structural deficit.
Without the government's actions to control its spending, the deficit would have reached $82 billion by 1991-92, which is close to two and one half times the actual level. The debt would have reached $645 billion.
In spite of the fact that we have not made the progress that we would have liked, certainly that I would have liked, we have made some of the greatest progress in recent years in the OECD, the 24 industrial nations of the world.
In terms of the future world economy, the OECD forecast in its most recent global outlook that Canada will be the leader among the world's seven largest economies in 1993-94.
If all our policies were wrong and if all the things that we did in the last seven or eight years were incorrect, why would our competitors, the OECD and our Canadian forecasters such as the Royal Bank last week and the C.D. Howe Institute and others be saying that Canada is now expected to be one of the world's leading economies in the next few years?
The reason for that is because we had the courage to do the things that needed to be done. Everybody understood that these things were difficult. Everybody understood that it is difficult for a government to say no, we are not going to continue to spend money like $600 million a year subsidizing the post office or $600 million a year subsidizing VIA Rail when nobody takes that service.
We made those difficult decisions. They were decisions at the time that were difficult for me because I had to defend them among my constituents. Having made them, we have now reached a point where we have the lowest inflation in 30 years.
Inflation is virtually non-existent. We have the lowest interest rates seen in probably 30 years. We have interest rates and mortgage rates that have been unheard of. One can get a mortgage now for under 6 per cent. One has to go back to 1962 to find a time when one could get a mortgage for under 6 per cent.
These are the policies that were long-term policies. They were policies that put in place an environment and a structure in Canada through which we could look to
Supply
long-term growth. They are not policies where we simply borrow more money and spend it today.
Yes, we might be able to borrow some money and spend it. It might create a few jobs. However, tomorrow when we try to pay that money back, just like we have the problem now in paying for the borrowing we already made, we will have a weakened economy. It weakens our ability as a government to respond to problems.
I will end now. I look forward to the questions that may come to me. I think we have put in place the policies that will secure our future. What we need now is to continue them and not to change them.


Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the mental gymnastics of the member opposite and the suggestion that perhaps what the rest of the country is witnessing is a misperception of some great economic strategy that is being actually foisted upon us for our benefit.
There was the question of the benefit that Canadians are receiving for some of the very courageous decisions that the government made over the course of the last nine years. I wonder if this would include the fact that the government has had the temerity to visit upon us over the course of the last two years the following number of bankruptcies: 11,180 in 1990, 12,952 in 1991 and 13,851 in 1992. This is all for a relative value of $2.8 billion, $4.9 billion and $5.5 billion. This is a real good economic strategy.
He said: "We had to make some real tough decisions in terms of taxation. We brought in taxation because we wanted to decrease the deficit and reduce the debt". However, he acknowledged that the debt has gone up to in excess of $400 billion, over 100 per cent since the Tories took office. The deficit has not been measurably decreased even though personal income taxes have gone up by over 74 per cent over the course of the last eight years.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Except for the rich.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: That is right. Except for those who can afford to pay it.
He has also ignored the fact that part of the economic package has seen for example that the trade balance in this country upon which a great portion of our wealth depends has gone from a positive value of $19.8 billion

April 22, 1993
Supply
in 1984 when these great sages of economic planning came in to a bare $9.4 billion last year.
When we take a look at the current account balance the difference is much more seriously negative. In fact the current account balance went from a positive value of $3,457 billion in 1984 to a net deficit of $28,563 billion last year.
I want to know what the courageous decisions actually are that this government made. The hon. member talks about the GST but that did not require great courage. It required great stupidity. This is only if we believe the figures that the government gives us. It will have to require a great leap of faith on our part, given the record. If we take a look at the figures the government gives us on the GST it says we had a net return of roughly $.5 billion last year. That compares with the $18.5 billion MST that it was getting before the GST was brought in.
The other figures that the government gave us is that it collected $30 billion and gave back roughly $14.5 billion. Of that $30 billion, $9 billion was collected on imports. There is an increase of over 100 per cent in the GST or sales tax revenue on imports and $20 billion on domestic items with over half of it given back in rebates and refunds.
What it tells us is that either the government does not have a grasp of the impact of its taxation and it has driven the economy underground or it has taxed the economy into non-existence, as witnessed by the large rate of bankruptcies and the volume in both numbers and dollars of the value of those bankruptcies.
Because we are all reasonable men and women in this House, could we please, through you, Mr. Speaker, get an explanation from the member opposite of where this courage is to be manifested and where the benefits of that courage can be seen for those of us Canadians who witnessed a 75 per cent increase in income taxes and a whole array of other tax increases? My colleagues tell me that there were in excess of 35 tax increases during its administration. Would he be so good as to explain to those of us who are paying for the tune just what kind of music we should be listening to?


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we have a member from the Liberal Party speaking about taxes and spending when in fact he suggested that we have a debt that is now approximately twice what it was eight years ago. I acknowledged that earlier. The fact of the matter is that in the previous eight years the Liberal government took the debt and increased it by 10 times. Not only that, let us take a look at where that debt was in 1984. All of the debt that has accumulated since that time is interest on that debt that we inherited.
Over the period of time between then and now we have successfully run this government in the black. We have also been able to pay some money toward that debt that we inherited. We are now in a position, having established a government that runs in the black, to say: "Can we attack that debt and that deficit". This is because, as we know, the longer it goes unpaid, the more the interest accumulates and the bigger the amount we have to pay. That is what we are talking about doing and that is what the Minister of Finance will talk about doing in his budget next week. I think all Canadians recognize that.
I think all Canadians recognize that we can no longer continue on the path that we were put on by the Liberal government. They recognize that we have turned that around. They recognize that we are paying our way as we go now and that we have to now attack the debt that they left us before it accumulates even more interest, which accumulates every single day.
That member should be apologizing for putting this country in that position. It has taken us this long and all this pain and difficulty to get back to a point now where we find ourselves among the countries, as was just mentioned earlier, that can look forward to the highest growth, the strongest economy and the most employment growth among the G-7 countries.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member during his remarks and I noticed that at one point he attributed the problems of Canadian exports to the fact that some of our industries have been allowed to fall behind in the development of their productivity.
Had the member been here earlier perhaps he would have heard my colleague, the hon. member for Essex- Windsor, point out that the GM foundry plant in
April 22, 1993

St. Catharines is rated the most efficient foundry plant on the continent and that its wage level is $9 an hour below the equivalent foundry plant wage levels in the United States.
How can the member account for the shutting down now by GM of that foundry plant on the basis of a lack of efficiency and how can he argue that it is not on the basis of the free trade agreement?


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess to not being particularly familiar with the foundry plant in St. Catharines. However, I would say that if it is as efficient as the member suggests, if it is as competitive as the member suggests then I am sure that there is somebody out there who would be more than interested in acquiring this plant and operating it because it sounds to me like it would be very profitable.
It is very unusual for companies or owners of plants to close them down when they are profitable. I would like to hear from the member, if he has an opportunity to tell me, if this is a profitable plant. If it is then I can probably find a buyer.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intent to share my time today with one of my colleagues. We rise to speak on this opposition motion that this House condemn the government for policies that have decimated the economy and forced company closures, resulting in job losses for Canadian workers. I want to stress the decimation that has occurred in our resource sector in related industries under this administration.
Canada has been identified by the United Nations as the best country in the world in which to live and yet in the last nine years under this administration we have seen our national debt increase to more than $450 billion. Our current account deficit at the end of the last fiscal year was $28.5 billion and the budget deficit is out of control. Unemployment is at an all-time high with 1.5 million Canadians unemployed.
What is even more serious as far as I am concerned is that our resources are being depleted by interests outside Canada. If we were in any other business these depleted inventories would have to be deducted from the value of the business or company. This government gives no such accounting of the depletion of Canada's re-
Supply
sources and I suggest such an accounting is urgently required as we note what is happening here in Canada.
This government is more interested in its image in other countries than it is in the well-being of the Canadian people and the Canadian economy. As we examine the resource industry in Canada, we are blessed with tremendous resources but we note that the Atlantic fisheries industry has been decimated due to overfishing by foreign interests. Only after the stocks have been depleted by the factory trawler ships has the government decided to take a hard line and force realistic cutbacks. In the meantime, thousands upon thousands of Canadians have been forced out of the industry and are now on unemployment and social assistance.
We have witnessed the hardships in the forestry industry that is only now beginning to recover. Harvesting methods such as clear-cutting are environmental disasters but are practised in the name of efficiency.
The Canadian food industry is being traded away by an uncaring government and its incompetent negotiators who have utterly failed to realize the impact across rural Canada. This impact has created untold hardships on thousands of Canadian producers in the agricultural industry in the towns and villages across this nation who provide the services to the primary producers.
I submit to this House of Commons, to this highest court of the land that we as Canadians must establish rules to control our resources, the processing of these resources and the environment. Otherwise this plundering by the transnational companies that have no loyalties to this nation will destroy our resource base, our industry and our standard of living that has been the envy of other nations. We as Canadians must put a stop to this madness immediately. We must put an end to the current trend of governing by corporate decision and above all we must take back control of this country. In the next six months Canadians will have the opportunity to make that decision and I am confident they will respond with the future of Canada first and foremost in their minds.
Let me just put on the record again in this House the number of food processing plants that have been closed or forced out of business since January 1989 when the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement came into effect. There have been 107 plant closings or major lay-offs. This government is obviously going to force the NAFTA legislation through the House, regardless of the lack of support by the Canadian people and regardless of

April 22, 1993
Supply
whether or not it is going to pass the United States Congress. This government is going to sacrifice our Canadian workers, our environmental standards, our food quality and our resources in return for access to a foreign market for telecommunications, banking and financial institutions.
Let me give just a few of the facts and figures on the increases of vegetable imports into Canada between 1990 and 1992. Canned tomatoes increased by 85 per cent; tomato paste, 33 per cent; canned tomatoes, 191 per cent; canned peas, 250 per cent; baby carrots, 2,400 per cent; carrots and peas mixed, 2,900 per cent; canned beets, 87 per cent and tomato sauces, 873 per cent, an increase from 3,515 tonnes to 30,699 tonnes. The trade tribunal did not see any damage to our economy. This is nonsense. One company that discontinued canning tomatoes, peas and pumpkins is now importing large quantities of canned products from the U.S. and only the labelling is done in Canada. This company will be importing up to 92,000 cartons of processed pumpkin alone by the end of June 1993.
All these vegetables were previously grown in Canada and provided income for Canadian farmers, service industries and workers. Now they are being grown in another country where input costs and wages are lower.
We appear to have lost a market for our Canadian corn to be processed into breakfast foods. We have seen the meat packing plants, the flour mills and the pickle plants close. The list goes on and on.
We are told we must be globally competitive but as I have previously stated in this House, the global competition is a few huge transnational corporations whose loyalties are bottom line profits to uncaring shareholders in other countries.
Let me put on the record the devastation that has occurred. I want to cite an example from a news article written by Hugh Zimmer of Otterville, Ontario, a recognized writer and researcher. He points out that everyone ignores the Mexican labour issue. The regulations are ignored. The underground economy is estimated at 25 per cent of the labour force. The plan is
similar to cheaper Portugal being used to lure jobs away from areas of Europe with higher wages.
How can any government in Canada with any conscience be part of such an arrangement that will undermine our structures and our standard of living, unless it is acting on behalf of these corporations that have no loyalties to this nation?
Mexican labour rates decreased dramatically from 1979 to 1989. We know their environmental standards do not measure up to ours. We know their food processing standards do not measure up to ours. The use of pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals used in food production and processing is not as stringent as in Canada. My research shows that of 48 chemicals used in food production and processing in Mexico, 12 are banned in Canada.
Before going into a trade agreement with any nation or nations, these nations should either measure up to our standards or, under article III of the GAIT, their products should not be allowed access to our markets. To do otherwise is a betrayal of trust to Canadian businesses, Canadian workers and Canadian consumers whose health could well be impacted on by these lower standards.
Canadian agriculture and food production simply cannot survive with such declining returns and the increased input costs we have in Canada versus those of other nations.
As food production and processing on this planet falls under the control of fewer and fewer corporations, we see the government members acting like a herd of lemmings heading for self-destruction. They lack the courage and backbone to place Canadian interests first.
Our workers are responsible, our environmental standards are reasonable, but they are being sacrificed in the name of global competitiveness based on lower standards in other countries.
I ask the Minister of Finance when he presents his budget next Monday to include measures to ensure that Canada's resource industries will be put back under the control of Canadian interests. Measures must be taken to ensure the long-term prosperity of this nation and put a stop to the plundering that will eventually destroy Canada.
April 22, 1993

I want to put on record one of the things I recently saw. In Benchmark, Ontario a cash crop farm with 80 per cent equity and a net cash income of $47,000 in 1987, government payments of $25,251 over the next five years, decreased by 30 per cent. Expenses increased by $12,000. In 1987 returns from the operation exceeded operating expenses by $22,000. In 1992 this situation reversed and operating expenses exceeded market returns by $8,000.
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. The same situation exists in Saskatchewan and other provinces across Canada. I submit that we as Canadians have to take control of our economy, our natural resources and our food processing. We must maintain our health and environmental standards and, above all, the standards that apply to our workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired but we will still have five minutes questions or comments when we come back on debate.
It being one o'clock p.m. I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is leaving fishermen in Nova Scotia on the hook. For literally months the minister has been promising there would be a federal compensation package to support communities in eastern Nova Scotia devastated by the quota cuts.
It is now April 22 and there still has been no announcement. A task force from the Nova Scotia provincial government proposed a plan to the minister well over a month ago.
Perhaps the real reason behind this inordinate delay is so the government can announce this package in the midst of the provincial election to help the rapidly fading
government of Don Cameron and the provincial Conservative Party.
I wish to inform this House that if the minister and the federal Conservative Party are using Nova Scotia fishermen as election bait they will not get their votes. Stop the politics, stop this cynical manoeuvring and start helping those people who need the government's help the most and who need it now.


FORESTRY INDUSTRY
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, Canada's forestry industry is on the rebound. In the first nine months of 1992 pulp production was up 20 per cent and lumber production was up by 13 per cent. With the recent surge in lumber prices, 1993 promises to be a good year.
I would like to congratulate forestry companies in Alberta for investing approximately $2.7 billion and creating 1,700 jobs in this sector of our economy this year.
This industry is poised for growth. This growth is targeted to foreign markets. This government is committed to promoting access for Canadian products into foreign markets through the free trade agreement, the GATT and the NAFTA.


NAMIBIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, Oxfam Canada has been advised that the Canadian International Development Agency has arbitrarily decided not to participate in phase two of the Canada-Na-mibia co-operation agreement. CIDA worked with Oxfam Canada to design this five-year Century Focus project which was to spend about $7 million in Namibia, 10 per cent from Oxfam and 90 per cent from CIDA. The CIDA contribution represented Canada's bilateral aid to the newest member of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Namibia is a success story and a point of hope on the African continent. The cuts in foreign aid are unacceptable everywhere, but where a country has finally been nurtured from oppression to democracy Canada is doubly wrong for so quickly abandoning this fledgling nation.

April 22, 1993
The preoccupation with eastern Europe will be a tragedy if it means that we desert or even betray our earlier commitments. I call on the government to reverse this decision or at least wait until the first phase can be evaluated.


PARKINSON AWARENESS MONTH
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, April has been declared Parkinson Awareness Month. Parkinson's disease is the second largest neurodegenerative disease in Canada. One person in 200 over the age of 40 and one person in 100 over the age of 55 may develop this chemical disorder of the brain. Since 1965 the Parkinson Foundation of Canada has been striving to help people with Parkinson's disease. It raises funds for research, provides information and counselling services to patients, their families and caregivers, and raises public awareness through various activities.
Activities for Parkinson Awareness Month will vary from chapter to chapter. One beautiful symbol of the struggle against Parkinson's disease is the red and white Dr. James Parkinson tulip named for the physician who first described the symptoms of this disease.
Please join with me in wishing the Parkinson Foundation of Canada and its many volunteers a very successful Parkinson Awareness Month.


EARTH DAY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate Earth Day with tree planting and environmental events across the country. As individuals and as a country we must take responsibility for leaving future generations a healthy planet.
Many Canadians take actions to protect the environment but expect governments at all levels to do what citizens alone cannot do. For instance, we have to work to eliminate pollution and prevent toxic chemicals from entering the air, soil, rivers and lakes. We have to stop overfishing and protect the ocean habitat. We have to harvest our forests carefully and conserve old growth forests. We need legislation to protect endangered plants and animals. We need to use energy more efficiently and produce a national plan to prevent global warming. We should help the poor in securing adequate nourishment, shelter and health standards.
In other words, we have a lot to do and so little time. Let us make every day Earth Day.


EUROPEAN BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged at the fact that their hard-earned tax dollars are being purposely squandered by the president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Mr. Jacques Attali.
His personal Napoleonic pipe-dream of Taj Mahal-like grandeur for EBRD headquarters fundamentally mocks the good intentions and compassion with which Canadians contributed.
The purpose of this bank was to use the vast majority of its funds for the creation and development of private sector businesses and market economies in the former Communist regimes.
I, and I am sure Canadians everywhere, applaud the efforts of our representative at the bank, Mr. Donald McCutchan. Mr. McCutchan, courageously, was the only bank board member to vote no to this breach of trust.
I call upon this government, despite today's apology by Mr. Attali, to strengthen its determination to rectify this mess and get on with the rebuilding of eastern Europe.


ARMENIA
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 24, the entire world will remember the first holocaust of the 20th century.
Armenian Canadians will be on Parliament Hill at 12.30 p.m. to pray and remind humanity of the horror of those years of suffering.
My colleague and friend, the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre, along with many other members of Parliament, will give our fellow citizens the assurance of
April 22, 1993

our active commitment to have this event proclaimed by Canada and to take up this issue to the UN.
Sunday evening, in Montreal, I will be present at one of the Armenian churches Sourp Hagop, and I invite all my colleagues to attend.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago in the Warsaw ghetto courageous Jewish resistance fighters were in their third day of a desperate 27-day battle against overwhelming Nazi forces.
This weekend I will join my community in commemorating the 78th anniversary of the Armenian genocide which was the model for the Nazi holocaust.
Don Valley North is home to many people who have experienced racist and/or religious violence. There are also many people who have risked their lives in wars combating these evils which humiliate, hurt and destroy so many innocent people.
Canadians must remember and our children must be taught these horrendous lessons of the past. We must resolve to continue to fight for human rights and freedom from discrimination in Canada and around the world.


DE LA SALLE HIGH SCHOOL
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Today, Mr. Speaker, hundreds of young students and their parents are here on Parliament Hill to protest the unfair budget cuts the Ontario New Democratic government is imposing on De La Salle High School.
At stake is the unique program offered at the De La Salle Centre for artistic excellence; this program is the only one of its kind in Ontario to serve the numerous artistic needs of our French-speaking youth.
It is imperative that the people should let the New Democratic Premier of Ontario know how crucial it is to restore the level of financing so that our young people
can mature and develop their talents to join the ranks of the Canadian arts community.
There are 17 English schools in Ontario offering similar arts programs to serve the needs of the majority. Just one school in the whole province of Ontario to serve half a million young French-speaking Ontarians, is that too much to ask?
I invite all French-speaking Canadians and their friends to write to the Ontario premier telling him that francophones in his province are asking no more but no less than what the majority enjoys.


EARTH DAY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, today is Earth Day. On this occasion, I am proud to say that, in its various policies and programs, Canada has made every effort possible to live up to the commitments made by our Prime Minister at the Earth Summit in Rio.
Our country has taken part in several international initiatives designed to preserve our natural environment.
For example, CIDA manages Canada's contribution to the launching of the experimental stage of the Global Environment Facility and has established a very innovative program designed to assist Canadian companies in making their most advanced environmental technology available to developing countries.
As agreed at that Summit, CIDA is playing a leadership role in the preparations for an international convention on desertification.
In closing, I would like to invite all Canadian men and women to ponder upon those questions and ask themselves what contribution they can make to the preservation of our planet.


FISHERIES
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on March 19 I rose in this House and asked how this Conservative government could allow mass reclassification of senior bureaucrats while refusing the legitimate

April 22, 1993
reclassification of fisheries officers and marine surveyors.
The labour minister assured me that the President of the Treasury Board would respond to me as soon as he came back to the House. That was a month ago and there has not been a word.
In the meantime the government's classification grievance committee has ruled that the reclassification of fisheries assistant deputy supervisors is less important than that of a government interior designer because the designer's decisions affect the projected image of Canada as well as the resources of the department.
Do fisheries assistant deputy supervisors, and in fact marine surveyors, not affect the projected image of Canada as well as the resources of the department? What about the safety hazards they face?
This is not about reclassification. This is about paying off senior bureaucrats with wage increases at a time of across the board wage freezes, and this government's total unwillingness to provide legitimate reclassification of fisheries officers and marine surveyors.


ARMENIA
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons today to remember the Armenian genocide that began on April 24, 1915.
I know that my colleagues in the House agree on the importance of remembering this day and mourning the loss of 1.5 million people who were killed in this horrific massacre. We must not lose sight of the impact this tremendous loss of life has had on the Armenian people. They were the daughters and sons, mothers and fathers, and wives and husbands of a nation of Armenian people who perished in this brutal extermination.
The tragedy is that Canada and most countries in the world have not officially recognized the 1915 massacre as a genocide.


NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, almost half of all Canadians volunteer their time and energy to a worthy cause at some point in their lives.
National Volunteer Week reminds us that these individuals make a vital contribution to our families and communities. It also provides an opportunity to recognize the efforts of special organizations, many of which would cease to exist without the commitment of their volunteers.
Calgary has been called the most active volunteer city in Canada. As the member representing Calgary North I can testify to the fact that our city is second to none in this regard.
The Family Life Education Council, Kids First, the YWCA, the Schizophrenia Association of Alberta and the many community organizations in Calgary are only a few that come to mind when I think of community builders which rely on volunteers. These organizations know first hand that volunteers represent the heart and soul of their operation. They also know there is no limit to what people can accomplish when they work together toward a common goal.
I would like to express sincere thanks to those individuals and organizations who contribute daily to our families and our communities. Their efforts make a world of difference.
I challenge everyone to get involved with the revitalization of our community as volunteers.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, last December GATT ruled that the United States had the right to use special procedures to launch a countervail action against Canada's softwood lumber exports.
GATT also ruled that the $15 million in bonds that were collected by the U.S. government should be returned to Canadian companies.
The GATT subsidies committee meets next week to deal with this ongoing dispute and the government
April 22, 1993

should be monitoring this matter closely for the many communities across the country that depend on the forest industry.
The minister said he would be aggressive with the Americans to get our money back. The minister should tell the House how much money the Americans have returned to us.
In other words, we want our money back. Rather than kowtowing to the U.S. all the time this government should be prepared to defend Canadian exports and Canadian jobs.


ORDER OF CANADA
Mr. Murray Cardiff (Huron-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Canadian Seed Growers' Association are pleased to recognize the appointment of two outstanding seed growers to the Order of Canada.
They are Mr. Leonard Haney of Picture Butte, Alberta and Mr. Harvey Gjesdal of Birch Hills, Saskatchewan. Both gentlemen are credited with recognized excellence in their respective fields of production, pedigreed seed.
These two gentlemen have given a lifetime of performance to the seed industry of Canada and to agriculture in Canada. They have helped producers across this nation, received achievements for producing top of the line quality products of grains and oilseeds and have enabled Canada to be in a position to better serve the world by feeding the world and to take our proper place.
I ask the House to congratulate these two accomplished agriculture producers.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, two consecutive Secretaries of State have failed to bring forward a student loans program that is revitalized and responds to the needs of Canadian students.
Here is what has to be done if they have been listening to Canadians. Remove the 3 per cent tax on student
Oral Questions
loans and cut the additional six months' interest. Involve students in the student loan criteria if it must be given to the banks. Have flexible loans that respond to part-time students and variable workloads and increase the criteria for loans. They have not been changed since 1984.
If those in government want more help, I am willing to give it to them.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
Last night we learned of yet another Somalia shooting, allegedly at the hands of Canadian soldiers, bringing the number of such incidents to four.
Each time information on these incidents has come from tips by reporters, anonymous phone calls or a letter from a soldier to his wife. Each time there has been a hurried-up investigation immediately afterward. Never have we had an honest, forthright, effective response from the Minister of National Defence.
When will this government acknowledge that the minister of defence is simply not fulfilling her responsibilities to her department or to the Canadian people? Will the Acting Prime Minister ensure there will be an open and complete account of these serious problems affecting our peacekeeping troops in Somalia and the reputation of Canada abroad?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the accusation that these incidents have not been reported simply is not true.
For example, the March 4 incident, which was the subject of some discussion here, the officers in charge on March 5, the day after, telephoned Canadian Press, Standard Broadcast News, CBC Newsworld and CBC Radio. It was widely reported in Canada.
Regarding the incident of March 16, a press release was issued in Mogadishu. It was not covered but there was no attempt to cover it up. The other two incidents were both reported in the media.

April 22, 1993
Oral Questions
In each situation an investigation was commenced. Two of the incidents were considered sufficiently serious that investigation teams were sent from DND to Somalia to investigate directly.
The minister of defence is in the legal system of DND and in fact has duties not dissimilar to those of a judge. Therefore she is limited in what she can say with respect to details of the cases.
I am sure the hon. member would appreciate that in the interests of justice, fairness and proper procedure in this matter, it would be most inappropriate for anyone in authority to give extensive details of the investigation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister knows that in one case notice was given by posting a notice on the board. The other was simply a verbal account. In two cases there was no record of any press release being distributed.
In the CTV report last night the defence department admitted that investigations were under way in only two of the cases. It does not add up in anybody's estimation to a full, open and proper account. The consequences are serious. The defence chief of staff said in an interview in Maclean's'.
The Somali incidents may well be symptomatic of a breakdown of
our discipline and our leadership.
My serious question is this. Does the government, the Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister not think it is about time that we had a minister of defence in place who has the capacity, the interest and the time to deal with the serious problems affecting us in Somalia, to come to grips with the breakdown of discipline and leadership, in other words, to show there is some responsibility being shown at the top of the department of defence?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong again in saying that only two of the incidents were investigated. That is not true. They were investigated. The investigations were initiated or started on site in all cases. In two of the cases it was found unnecessary to proceed further and in the other two cases it was found necessary to proceed further. That is exactly what is happening. That is what should properly happen in any circumstances.
The hon. member seems to have some doubts about the validity of the legal system within the Armed Forces and as a result of expressions of those doubts by himself and other members there have been some concerns raised. To allay those concerns the Judge Advocate General's department will be having a press availability session this afternoon to describe to all interested people exactly how the legal system works within the Armed Forces.
I am sure any fair-minded person will reach the conclusion that things are proceeding properly in a fair manner.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is not up to judges and lawyers to do so, but to the Minister of National Defence.
I must say how very concerned I am about the precarious situation of our troops in Bosnia and in Somalia. They are asked to disarm civilians, without having the mandate to protect these same people. According to Colonel Michael Dewar of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, Canadians do not have the necessary equipment to protect themselves.
Neither the Secretary of State for External Affairs nor the Minister of National Defence have reported these serious events to the House.
Will the government, the Prime Minister, ask that a complete report on the situation of our troops in Bosnia and in Somalia be tabled in the House? Will he see that we have a parliamentary debate on the peacekeeping role of Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the hon. member has reached the conclusion that Canadian forces do not have the ability to protect themselves. They do indeed but perhaps not from the kind of innuendo the hon. member is putting forward in the House. But to protect themselves physically no military force has more experience, expertise or more respect from the rest of the world than the Canadian Armed Forces in terms of peacekeeping.
I want to remind the hon. member that what the Canadian Armed Forces are doing in Somalia is saving lives. Armed warlords were killing each other and
April 22, 1993

Oral Questions
depriving starving Somalis of food that was being made available by international relief efforts.
As a result of the activities of the Canadian Armed Forces and other armed forces under UN auspices hundreds, if not thousands, of Somali lives have been saved. He should remember that as the main purpose and that is what happened.
It does not mean that improper incidents by Canadian military personnel are to be ignored. They are not being ignored. The allegations are being investigated in a proper fashion. I wish the hon. member would allow those investigations to proceed in that manner.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. You heard the answer from his colleague. He did not answer the critic of the Official Opposition.
In the midst of the escalating crisis in Srebrenica, 150 Canadian soldiers have put their lives on the line in the name of UN peacekeeping. All Canadians, especially the family members of our Canadian forces, are fed up with the government's indecision and the mixed messages being sent to the UN high command.
The safety of our troops is at stake. The government must declare whether peacekeeping forces will defend themselves only or will they extend protection to the inhabitants of Srebrenica?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, their role under UN command is to try to bring about a disengagement of the forces as a result of the Muslim forces having acknowledged their defeat. They have been carrying that out admirably and in the process I think helping the situation.
Under the rules of engagement should they be attacked, they have the right to defend themselves. They are not there to engage in military action with the forces. They are there under UN command to effect the disengagement of the forces and they have been doing that very well.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. Why are we asking for additional forces? Why are we
saying we will provide protection to the inhabitants? With what equipment?
It is very clear we need a full debate in the House on this whole issue.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it is plain to Canadians that the current minister of defence is preoccupied, at least in her own mind, with a more important battle on another front, the fight for the leadership of her party.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Shields:: If we had the helicopters there would be more protection.


Jesse Philip Flis: The Tories hoot and howl, but the safety of our troops comes first to the opposition. Considering the future reputation of Canada as a peacekeeping nation, would the Acting Prime Minister give a message from this House to the Prime Minister to discharge the present minister of her responsibilities and appoint a new minister who has more time and commitment to this important role in a time of world crisis?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member is worried about the effectiveness and safety of Canadian forces. I hope he will convey that to his colleagues and perhaps they will re-examine their new-found position on the EH-101 helicopters.
As for the question of a debate in the House we would welcome a debate. I suggest the hon. member talk to his House leader about scheduling an opposition day at the first opportunity. It is available to him and we would welcome that opportunity.
The Canadian forces, by all accounts that I have heard or read, are conducting themselves admirably in Yugoslavia, contributing to the saving of lives. They have been getting the wounded and the weak out of Srebrenica and continue to perform in a fashion we have become accustomed to from the Canadian Armed Forces.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and is a straightforward one I think.
When will the Minister of National Defence come before Parliament and the people of Canada and account for how she has conducted her responsibilities as

April 22, 1993
Oral Questions
Minister of National Defence in respect of the operations of our forces in Somalia?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the minister of defence has indicated, under the National Defence Act the minister has certain responsibilities that are similar to those of a judge in terms of the legal system. That precludes or circumvents or puts bounds around the kinds of things that can be said.
She has publicly asked that the Department of National Defence issue as much information as possible as soon as it becomes available in respect of these incidents in Somalia without prejudicing the case.
In order to give the hon. member and anybody else some comfort in the military's criminal investigations and the procedures and so on, as I indicated earlier there will be a briefing by the Judge Advocate General's office this afternoon for members and the media. Elopefully it will aid the member understand that the Minister of National Defence has been acting properly and in a responsible manner, given her responsibilities.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not need to lecture the House on the responsibilities of the Minister of National Defence. They are very clear.
We accept the minister has responsibilities in respect of the prosecution, but she also has responsibilities for the reputation of Canadian peacekeepers, how they are carrying out their responsibilities, what instructions she gave when she learned about these incidents, what she learned and what actions she took in her responsibilities for the troops in Somalia.
Will the Minister of National Defence come before this House tomorrow and make a comprehensive statement, within the bounds that she is limited, on how she has conducted her responsibilities, or will the minister recommend to the Prime Minister that she resign and be replaced?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, given the hon. member's questioning, it is touching to hear his concern about the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces.
I would ask the hon. member to attend the briefing this afternoon, or read the National Defence Act if he chooses, and determine for himself the roles and responsibility of the Minister of National Defence in respect of these particular incidents. Then I would ask him after that in all intellectual honesty to examine what the Minister of National Defence has been saying and doing, and if he is a fair man he will reach the conclusion that she has been acting properly.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the government and the Minister of National Defence are hiding behind her responsibilities.

By her silence the minister of National Defence undermines the reputation of our Canadian forces who do a great job. Could someone tell us when the Minister of National Defence intends to make a statement so we can finally get to the bottom of this?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as I answered earlier, and I realize that was after the member had written out his question, the Minister of National Defence said yesterday that she has instructed the department to make all details available as soon as they are required but in a manner of course not to prejudice the case.
The hon. member is saying he respects the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces but on the other hand has been using every opportunity possible to suggest that somehow they have been improper in their activities, that the proper procedures are not being followed, and that somehow people who may have been guilty of crimes are not being investigated.
He suggests that there is a cover-up. He has not a smidgen of evidence for any of those allegations. I would suggest that if he is concerned about the reputation he should stop making these allegations which have no basis.
April 22, 1993


THE BUDGET
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, Mr. Marcel Cote, the Chair of the Progressive Conservative platform committee, was saying that the budget will contain very painful cuts.
Can the minister confirm that in preparing his budget he took into account the fact that substantial cuts in government spending, if not matched by a parallel lowering of interest rates, will reactivate a major recession and create a crippling deflation?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to wait until Monday and then he can draw his own conclusions.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have waited a long time to find out if this government understands the linkage between fiscal policy and monetary policy.
For years now we on this side of the House have called for a real agenda for change. All this government has given us is a series of stop-gap budgets, not one of which has addressed Canada's real needs.
The chair of the Progressive Conservative platform committee says that next Monday's budget is simply more of the same. He says: "Within a month and a half the budget", Mr. Mazankowski's budget, "will be totally forgotten".
If that is what Mr. Cote says, what is the government going to say to the International Monetary Fund?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cote was not involved in the drafting and the putting together of the budget.
If the hon. member wants to know where we stand in terms of how to best achieve low interest rates, it is through the containing of inflation and fiscal consolidation.
Oral Questions


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Kim does not like her officials; Don does not like his president.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Both those policy pillars are certainly not in accord with the Liberal Party because its policy is to tax, spend and borrow. We have had far too much of that.


EUROPEAN BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Today in London, England, Mr. Jacques Attali, president of the European development bank, held a press conference in which he apologized for the extravagant expenditure on the bank's headquarters. He also said that only yesterday he received another telephone call from the Prime Minister of Canada expressing his support.
I ask the Minister of Finance: How can the Prime Minister of Canada express his support for expenditure in only two years on the bank's headquarters which is more than twice what was spent on loans to struggling European countries? How can the Prime Minister appear to condone what to Canadians looks like the misuse of their hard-earned tax dollars, money his Conservative government committed to this bank?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is really interesting how the opposition tries to distort the facts.
Yesterday it was accusing the Prime Minister of withdrawing the Canadian director on the advice of the president of the EBRD. In that same press conference today he was asked the question directly by Madeleine Drohan of The Globe and Mail, and I quote: "There have been some reports that you asked for the Canadian director to be taken back. I am wondering if that is the case and what the reason was for it". The president: "It was not asked for". As a matter of fact he goes on to say that the directors who have served have served very well.
Why would the hon. member take issue with the position of the federal government which really is the same policy we apply back home? The director who has

April 22, 1993
Oral Questions
discharged his responsibilities in an exemplary fashion was merely carrying out the directives and the policy of the Government of Canada, period.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the Prime Minister, speaking in this House about Jacques Attali, said:
No, we didn't bring him over on a Canadian forces jet-wrong again.
Also yesterday in a Toronto newspaper, The Globe and Mail, it was reported and I quote:
Mark Entwhistle, the Prime Minister's press spokesman, confirmed yesterday that Mr. Attali was flown to Ottawa from New York on March 5 aboard a Canadian Forces Challenger jet for a working luncheon.
I ask the Minister of Finance to explain this discrepancy. I ask him to explain why the Prime Minister denied something that actually happened. Why are he and the Conservative government so embarrassed and defensive about this matter?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that transportation was provided from New York. That is fully consistent with an international protocol that exists with all the G-7 countries. That is extended to the international financial institutions as well.
This is not something extraordinary. We extend this courtesy to people like Mr. Gorbachev and other foreign dignitaries who have difficulty in arranging their commercial transportation.


HEALTH CARE
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of health. I would like to say that we on this side of the House have greatly appreciated his contribution to public life.
In his remarks this week the minister said that he will continue to speak out in defence of universality in the Canadian health care system.
I want to ask the minister for his reaction to the increasing number of plans for private medical clinics for the wealthy, including one in Calgary which will also take public money for the selling of private beds in public
hospitals and for the increased privatization of provincial health plans.
What actions is the minister of health prepared to take if the planned Calgary private MRI clinic goes ahead?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there are rules within the health care system in Canada which indicate that all administration of hospitals funded at the federal level with the provinces have to be public management.
If there is anything wrong with what is done in any part of the country dealing with the health care system, including what my hon. colleague referred to, it will be investigated by the department. If there is any problem we will see to it with the province involved. In this case the hon. member is talking about Alberta. We will wait for the province of Alberta to ensure that what is done is according to the rules of the health care system in Canada.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The minister's answers always overlook that the real reason private medicine is growing in this country is the five-year federal freeze on health funding. The federal government's cash contributions to medicare this year increased by $3.3 million or only 12 cents per Canadian.
Will the minister agree that the five-year freeze has not encouraged medicare innovation but instead has encouraged medical privatization and the development of a two-tiered U.S.-style health care system?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if the member would have listened to what I said in my first answer he would not have had to ask the second question.
He knows very well what I said. I said that within the rules of the health care system the federal level supports what is public management. I did not talk about the private health care system.
Once again talking about the money, he should know that the three provinces in which his party is represented have said for the last two or three years that there was enough money in the system. It is not a question of money; it is a question of management.
April 22, 1993

Oral Questions
Once again, if he had listened to what I said the first Canada and Canadian Airlines, announced recently that time he would not have asked the second question. they would reduce their capacity by 11 per cent. This is a
step in the right direction, a direction which should bring both companies back to a profit level which should benefit all Canadians.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, in its ruling earlier today on the Gemini case the competition tribunal decided that the order sought by the director of investigations and research was beyond its jurisdiction; but the tribunal did say, and I quote: "If Canadian fails or is forced to merge with Air Canada competition will likely be substantially lessened".
What contingency plans does the Minister of Transport have to ensure a competitive, Canadian controlled airline industry providing safe and accessible service to Canadians?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, the decision rendered this morning by the competition tribunal is an important step in a due process that is ongoing.
The transaction between PWA and AMR is also being examined by the National Transportation Agency. PWA has already indicated that it will appeal this morning's ruling. I think it would be improper for me to comment on other aspects of this matter before this is settled.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, despite over a year of warnings this minister has done little more than issue idle threats about overcapacity in the airline industry, threatened to bring back some kind of recalibrated regulation and then backed off doing that, and provided under the table assistance to certain carriers by not requiring them to pay transportation fees and charges. During all that time he has never yet come forward to indicate whether his policy for Canada is to have one airline or to have two airlines competing.
When is this minister going to take responsibility for this portfolio and tell Canadians what he sees for the future of Canadian aviation?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not it is as a result of the Minister of Transport's interventions, but I think Canadians should know that our two major airlines, Air


VIOLENCE
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister will know that Canada has now become the second-most violent country in the western industrial world, second only to the United States. The minister will also know that an all-party committee of the House has described that one of the causes of this is the decline of social policies, in other words the very policy of the government.
Will the minister now admit to the House that increased crime, increased violence in homes and on our streets, is a direct result of the cutbacks in government programs and social policy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, Mr. Speaker.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer was short and so have been the solutions of this government to the problems facing this country.
My supplementary is for the same minister. Criminal activities among Canadian youth are on the rise, caused in large part by the helplessness among those in large cities who are looking for jobs, looking for training, looking for any opportunities. Instead of opportunities all this government offers is cutbacks, cutbacks in jobs, cutbacks in training, cutbacks in support for students.
How can this government pretend it is interested in the safety of our children when it gives them absolutely nothing to do and nothing to hope for?

April 22, 1993
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, again there is I am sure not a deliberate, but a misleading attempt to distort the facts.
The fact of the matter is that the total federal social expenditures between 1984-85 and 1991-92 have increased by some $36 billion, from $57.3 billion to $92.7 billion. That is an increase of $35.6 billion or 7.1 per cent on an annualized basis. That is far more than the over-all program expenditures by the Government of Canada and far more than the rate of inflation.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The only thing we can safely say about the decision by the competition tribunal this morning is that the uncertainty facing both Air Canada and Canadian will continue into the near future.
What action is the minister prepared to take now to ensure there is a Canadian airline company around when the results of that appeal are heard?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we will let the process go through. One aspect of it is the question of the Gemini system. The other aspect is the question of de facto control. This is being examined by the NTA. We are monitoring this very extensively and I think matters are progressing satisfactorily.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
The minister cannot stop the appeal. We know that. The minister cannot stop the NTA process. We know that. What we want to know is whether the minister is going to take other action to ensure that those two airline companies will survive. It does not do us any good to wait until the appeal is heard if there is only one airline left by that time.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I have already mentioned several times that when both companies appeared before the National Transportation Agency they indicated that they knew how to become profitable again by reducing their capacity.
I am quite certain that the hon. member is aware that both companies recently announced that they were going to reduce their capacity by 12 per cent. It is not quite enough but it is a major step in the right direction to become profitable again for the benefit of all Canadians.


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
This minister is undoubtedly aware that American Airlines has offered to purchase a third of Canadian's shares. The minister must have realized that for all intents and purposes, it meant a take-over by the American carrier, the air transportation world giant. The net result of this deal will be to jeopardize Air Canada and to eventually push this company under the control of another American giant.
I ask the minister to tell the House what he intends to do to prevent such a disaster.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member has kept himself informed but for the last month, the National Transportation Agency has been reviewing this particular situation.
This country is managed by rules according to which, in case of a transfer of shares between two companies, the National Transportation Agency, which is an independent agency, must review the terms of the proposed agreement and decide whether or not they fall within the scope of the legislation.
The National Transportation Agency will hand down its ruling by May 28 and any speculation in this matter is pure fantasy.


Lucien Bouchard: In other words, Mr. Speaker, everyone is responsible except the minister in charge. Instead of playing the same old tune with his wishy-washy answers, the minister should remember that the fate of the Canadian airline industry is being decided.
Does he not realize that the only responsible and reasonable solution to this problem is through the merger of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada? Does he not agree that this is the only way to save the 6,000 Air Canada jobs in the Montreal region?
April 22, 1993



I ask the minister to tell the House what measures he will take to force a merger of Canadian and Air Canada in order to provide Canada with at least one healthy national airline.


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I will answer in one language only because with simultaneous translation the answer will be the same in both languages. I hope that from now on the comments the member makes in his riding will be different from what he said recently on that subject.
With regard to the matter before the National Transportation Agency of Canada, I think the honourable member, who is a lawyer, should know that everything is proceeding as it should and that we have laws in this country we must live by. The National Transportation Agency of Canada will decide if the proposed transaction is in accordance with the legislation. By the way, I think the question was even more trivial than any reply I could give.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
As he knows, we are just emerging from a brutal three-year period of world-wide economic problems. The fundamentals are now in place for growth and expansion here in Canada. Inflation is low; interest rates are attractively low.
However many small and medium-sized businesses in my riding cannot obtain loans from our major banks. How can the government convince the banks to be more reasonable in their credit-granting practices?
It seems to me that the banks have become part of the problem of this recovery instead of being part of the solution.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, indeed that is a good question.
Oral Questions
The government has certainly been trying to address that and to do whatever it can to stimulate the small business sector, to take a number of initiatives to make credit available to the whole ambit of the small business sector in a more effective way. To that end, government has brought in changes to the Small Businesses Loans Act which have increased the over-all borrowing to $250,000. There have been a number of important measures that will improve access and the utilization of the Small Businesses Loans Act.
It has prompted a very positive response from the Royal Bank of Canada and other banks. I want to make particular note of the fact that the Bank of Nova Scotia and one or two other banks have indicated that under this new proposal they will be prepared to loan money to small businesses under the Small Businesses Loans Act at the prime rate of interest, which is 6 per cent. That is a very good indication of the banks' willingness to co-operate with the small business sector. I applaud them for their efforts.


EXTERNAL AID
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put my question to the Minister for External Relations. It concerns development assistance cuts.
Yesterday the minister stated that her treacherous application of a regional strategy, Africa 21, was not influenced by the leaked department of external affairs document which proposed linking aid to Canadian trade priorities. If this was not the motive for the minister's cuts in Africa, why did the minister choose to abandon or level disproportionate cuts to many of the poorest emerging democracies in Africa, our stated first priority?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to repeat here in this House that we have not abandoned Africa, quite the contrary. As part of the practice that I had to implement, we considered very seriously the consensus and the best way to deliver programs to continue providing social, cultural, political and economic aid to all countries in Africa, Asia and the Americas. We therefore had to take the regional base into account, on which there was a social consensus. Based on these decisions and these consultations which

April 22, 1993
Oral Questions
preceded Africa 21, we took the measures announced in our economic statement of December 2, 1992.
I want to tell this House again that we will always have available to the countries of Africa, wherever and whatever they are, the funds needed for humanitarian aid, emergency relief, food, and of course we must do business with the African countries, which can also deal with Canada.


Christine Susan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the same minister. This government has abandoned the poorest countries in Africa. Token programs will not replace the lost support for long-term development projects. The president of the World Bank reminds us that not helping the poorer countries carries negative consequences for all.
Why does the minister not reverse her many appalling budget cut decisions in Africa until a full public review of development assistance policy can be made?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the world political context has evolved and the needs have changed. We must adapt our procedures and program delivery to new requirements. Even the United Nations Secretary-General agrees that the best way to help the poorest African country is through regional development and that is what we are working on. I repeat, we have not turned our back on Africa. We are simply applying our programs differently.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance why as a result of the government's new immigration law proclaimed on February 1 the department is not renewing the work permits of thousands of refugees who had jobs, satisfied employers and were supporting themselves. The minister of immigration and his officials promised in
committee on February 17 and March 24 that this would be corrected, yet two months later nothing has been done.
Why is the government throwing these people on to the welfare rolls when the minister has said he wants to cut the deficit?


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, as my hon. colleague knows the minister of immigration is away on government business. I will take notice of the question and I am sure he will get back to the hon. member as soon as he returns.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, every day we learn of refugees who are losing their jobs because their permits are not being renewed.

In the debate on Bill C-86, we alerted the government to this result and we even proposed amendments, but the government did not listen. I now ask the government to proclaim regulations to ensure that all refugees' work permits will be extended until their final hearing.

Why sap the welfare system when refugees want to work and they have jobs?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, since my hon. colleague's supplementary question called for regulations, I will of course transmit this request to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It concerns reports that the government is failing to collect millions of dollars in GST from American magazines, thus putting Canadian magazines at a disadvantage.
April 22, 1993

Is the minister prepared to deal with this problem in some way, or is he prepared to choose an alternative strategy and that is to get rid of the GST, the tax on reading material altogether, so that this discrepancy would disappear? If he is not prepared to do that, what is he prepared to do to make sure these American magazines are paying the GST?


John Harvard: Axe the tax.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, we did axe the tax. We axed the federal manufacturers' sales tax, making Canada more competitive.
The hon. member should know that the large American and indeed foreign publications are GST registrants. They pay and collect the GST in Canada. Publications such as Newsweek, Esquire and others all pay and collect the tax. The majority of other publications that come into this country have sales of less than $30,000 and as such are on a level playing field with Canadian publications with sales of $30,000 or less and do not have to register or collect the tax.


THE BUDGET
Al Johnson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
This morning we heard the opposition bleating for more spending and fewer cuts. Today in the Financial Post an article summarizes a report in which the Business Council on National Issues warns that Canada is facing a debt crisis. The council strongly argues that there is an urgent need for Ottawa and the provinces to cut their combined deficits from $60 billion to $40 billion per year. Canada's future depends on it.
In the forthcoming budget does the minister intend to take action which is firm and effective enough to achieve this absolutely essential objective and to what extent will he involve the provinces?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question because it highlights the number one concern facing Canadians from coast to coast and that is the acknowledgement and recognition that we have a national debt problem composed of a debt at the federal level and the provincial level. They clearly want govem-
Business of the House
ments to work together to address this very pressing issue.
To the extent that we can provide leadership at the federal level, we will be trying to establish a process which will allow the federal government and the provinces to co-ordinate a fiscal and economic plan to lead us out of the difficulties faced by the growing deficit.
I hope the budget I bring down on Monday will go some distance in dealing with the very serious question my hon. friend raises. I appreciate the fact that he too is very concerned. I hope he can get some concern generated by the Liberals and New Democrats as well.


POINT OF ORDER
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a very brief point of order.
During Question Period my colleague from Windsor West alleged that the Prime Minister spoke to President Attali yesterday. That allegation is absolutely false, untrue, unfounded.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: That is a bogus point of order, as I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister knows.
Mr. Speaker, my business question is for the government House leader and concerns the House business for tomorrow.
If the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to engage in debate on whether the Prime Minister was correctly quoted or whether he was just careless with the truth, I would be happy to accommodate him at any time.
Could the minister indicate the business for tomorrow? Since the budget has been announced for Monday of next week, which was subsequent to our meeting of House leaders last Tbesday, I would ask the government House leader what he will be proceeding with on Monday and if he could give us the line-up for the rest of the week.

April 22, 1993
Business of the House


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, yes. Tomorrow we will debate Bill C-93, the government organizations act at third reading. This afternoon will be the first of eight allotted days during this supply period. Tomorrow will be the government organizations bill.
On Monday, prior to the budget address by the Minister of Finance at 4.30 p.m., there is a number of pieces of legislation we would like to deal with: Bill C-109, the bill dealing with privacy provisions for cellular phone use; Bill S-17, the intellectual property act; Bill C-72, the environmental round table act; Bill C-107, explosives act; and, Bill C-90, the sentencing act.
I recognize that on a number of those there is a great deal of consensus and hopefully we can deal with them. I also recognize that not all of those might be in that category.
We will begin the budget debate on Tuesday and I expect to continue it on Wednesday. I will be in discussions with House leaders opposite on the business for the rest of the week and indeed for the rest of the month.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the government House leader that although we have co-operated extensively in the past in facilitating legislation in this House, I do not believe for a moment that all of the legislation which he read for Monday could ever be completed in a full day. I wonder if I can get the priority of the bills that he has in mind and the order in which they will be introduced. He has read a number of bills. Will he be starting with Bill C-109 or will it be S-17? I think the House would like to know.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my intention is to start with Bill C-109 and then proceed to S-17. If through our discussions there would be some reason to change that order I would certainly entertain such a possibility.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the government House leader. The first question is on behalf of my leader.
Would the government House leader give us some indication on the status of the Yukon land claims act? I know we have been looking at that for some time. I think
that would be helpful, particularly for the Yukon Territory-


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure. Is that the one that is currently before committee or that is still to be introduced? It has passed? I am not sure what the problem is in that regard but I will certainly look into it and get back to the hon. member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in terms of that progress, perhaps I could ask my hon. friend, not necessarily through the House but just on a personal basis, to inform me of what the status is.
I also want to take this opportunity to ask one other question. The NAFTA legislation, when it went to committee for the first time today, the first order of business was to introduce a form of closure. That in itself is disappointing.
When the NAFTA legislation returns to the House of Commons and considering that we had less than five hours' debate at second reading, the important stage of principle, would he at least give us the assurance that the government will not use closure or time allocation at report stage or third reading just so we can have some cover that there will be adequate debate?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what happened at committee, which is what I would like to see happen more frequently-in the House it does happen from time to time-is that the committee agreed to a reasonable and rational approach to the hearing of witnesses and clause by clause study. It put forward a complete program. All the committee members indicated that they would be willing to put in the hours and the time for the next few weeks to get it done. I think that is highly appropriate.
Certainly there are provisions under Standing Order 78(1) and (2) that allow us to get together as House leaders and agree on a reasonable amount of time in respect of report stage and third reading. I am also more than willing to sit down with opposition House leaders and discuss such an agreement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this puts us into a very delicate and almost impossible situation because the New Democratic Party opposes this legislation completely and totally. Therefore when the government House leader asks us to co-operate or to facilitate with legislation I
April 22, 1993

just have to tell him that there is no way on God's earth we can ever do that.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I understand. I was not suggesting the New Democratic Party should bring itself to vote for the legislation. I understand they are philosophically unable to do that or because Bob White told them not to. I do not know what it is, but surely there is a difference between saying once you are opposed to something you must talk about it to infinity to express that opposition.
After a reasonable period of debate and discussion-I do not think the hon. member is going to be able to change our minds, and I doubt if we will be able to change his mind-one has to ask what value there is to prolonged, unlimited debate since the outcome will not change.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Kamloops but briefly. It is getting very much into a debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make two points to my hon. friend. Considering that the government only permitted less than five hours of debate at the important second reading stage-we can call it all sorts of names-we say that this is completely unacceptable in a democratic society.
I want to say to my hon. friend that yes, we do wish to debate this. Yes, we do want to see it handled appropriately. I must say that not because of any individual or any particular group that we as a political party feel that this legislation is not in the best interests of our country and the future generations of Canadians. We oppose it for that reason and not for any other reason. For my friend to ask me to co-operate I have to say it is just not possible on this particular piece of legislation.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand as well as, I think, any member of the House that there is a strong difference of opinion about the legislation. However, I think we have had enough of an exchange on it. I am going now to the next member seeking the floor.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, regarding Bills C-107, C-92 an C-90 slated for Monday,
Business of the House
the hon. minister said that there was agreement or that some kind of cooperation or consensus was possible among the opposition parties.
I would like to remind the minister that we have not had any information. When, as was the case yesterday, we are informed before the vote, we are quite willing to co-operate with the House to make sure that there is only one vote, as yesterday. We are ready to co-operate but we would like to be informed regarding those three bills which are very important to us. We would like to co-operate with the government but it could at least have the decency to keep us informed just like the other parties.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to address a question to the House leader regarding Bill C-7.
I am sure the House leader is aware that Bill C-7 which deals with the status of the artist received Royal Assent June 23, 1992 but it has not been proclaimed.
Can the House leader inform us of the governments intentions and when this legislation will be proclaimed?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I cannot immediately. Having passed it we are interested in having it put into effect. I presume that the administrative arrangements associated with it have not yet been put in place but I will have to check into that and get back to the hon. member.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Two days ago division No. 458 was held on Bill C-62. The hon. member for Saint-Hubert raised a question of privilege on the way it was tallied. She clearly explained, after the Acting Speaker had spoken, how the votes of some members of the House had been misinterpreted.
After reviewing the case and the circumstances surrounding the vote, I am indeed of the opinion that a mistake took place in the House. Consequently, following the request by the member for Saint-Hubert-

April 22, 1993
Supply

I can announce that I will as Speaker issue a corrigendum and the record will clearly correct the situation to effect the way members did wish to vote on that vote. It is an error. It was not intentional and I hope that satisfies hon. members.


Louis Plamondon: I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois members, for taking the time to listen to our grievances and above all, for correcting the ruling made at the time by the Acting Speaker. I thank you for your co-operation.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you on behalf of the House. As a servant of the people and of this House you have upheld in an exemplary manner the true principles of democracy in this place.

I would like to congratulate the member for Saint-Hubert.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member as well as the member for Richelieu.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Langdon (p.).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: When the House rose the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex had concluded his remarks. We will now proceed with the five-minute period of questions or comments.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, this morning the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, who formerly was minister of
Agriculture under the Liberal government, made an extraordinary speech because he has a great heart and cares about his country, especially about agriculture in Canada.
I can tell you that I have often read his writings and they are always very informative on issues which are often complex. The hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex frequently tells us how, since 1984, the programs of the Conservative government have destroyed agriculture in Canada and have very often hurt producers and food processors.

I would greatly appreciate it if the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex would give his thoughts and feelings on food production and processing in Canada, where it comes from and where it is going.


Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question.
First, I should reiterate the fact that Canadian food production and processing have the highest quality standards of any country in the world.
However I am growing increasingly alarmed at hearing the government say that we have to be more globally competitive. The government has not told us what that competition is.
I have a publication here called Viewpoint by Ernst and Young. It points out that in Europe the top 10 food manufacturers account for 60 per cent of the turnover among the top 40 companies.
We think this is a high level of concentration. In Canada the top five food distributors control 80 per cent and that is almost a monopolistic situation. In fact in some parts of the country one would have to term it that.
If we have to be globally competitive we cannot ignore the fact that there are some huge transnational corporations that control huge sectors of the U.S. agriculture industry in both production and processing.
One firm controls 25 per cent of chicken production and processing. Two firms control a huge volume of the beef processing. Between those two firms they slaughter
43,000	head of cattle a day. One of those firms has now bought a huge plant in Saltillo, Mexico.
April 22, 1993

How do we as Canadians compete against that type of thing? We do not have those volumes. On top of that, those huge firms have now been using a streamlined inspection system, or SIS, in terms of food quality. It simply means that it hires its own inspectors.
Last January a large number of children in Washington State became very ill. They were violently ill. In fact three of them died from food poisoning from eating contaminated hamburgers. Several more have permanent kidney damage. Some children in Abbotsford and Chilliwack had the same problems. I submit that this was a disaster waiting to happen. I talked about the quality standards prior to this in the House of Commons.
I maintain that our Canadian systems are the best in the world. We have to maintain those systems. We have to maintain the production systems across Canada that have been the best in the world and that have supplied Canadian consumers with high quality food at very reasonable prices. We can never afford, as Canadians, to let other corporations take control of our food supply.
As another member from eastern Ontario has pointed out on many occasions, food production and processing in Canada must be made a national security item.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased to be able to stand up in this House today to debate what I consider an important motion, which is the devastating effects of this government's policies on jobs for Canadians.
While I recognize that there is a tremendous crushing and debilitating effect on those who have lost jobs directly, it goes beyond that. I want to talk about those spin-offs. Let us look at the situation to make sure that we are talking from the same sheet.
Since 1989, in the manufacturing sector alone, between 300,000 and 400,000 jobs have been lost. That is roughly 15 per cent. In the U.S. it has been 7 per cent. While the government argues about a world-wide recession, the U.S. has fared much better than Canada.
Let us look at some facts on the economy. The net public debt at the end of 1991-92 was $422.8 billion. That is much more than double the debt that the government
Supply
inherited in 1984. The federal deficit for 1991-92 was $34.6 billion. We see over the years that the deficit has exceeded $30 billion virtually all the time. The proposed deficit for 1992-93 was $34.4 billion. The deficit for the first 10 months of the fiscal year 1992-93 was $31.2 billion. The unemployment rate in March 1993 was 11 per cent. The number of Canadians unemployed was in excess of 1.5 million Canadians. The number of Canadians on welfare was in excess of 2.7 million. I have not talked about the food banks which will nourish well over two million Canadians this year.
Here are some other negative changes that have occurred. In 1988 there were 789,000 families experiencing unemployment. In 1992 it is 1.132 million. The unemployment rate in 1988 was 7.5 per cent. That is the average. In 1992 it was 11.5 per cent, which again is an average. What a deterioration. Youth unemployment is particularly close to my heart. In November 1988 it was 11.8 per cent. In February 1993 it was 16.7 per cent. The number of youths who have never worked was 350,000 on average in 1989. In 1991 it climbed to 412,000. In 1992 it was 475,000 and we expect it to be even higher in 1993.
Ask Canadians about their expectations for the future. We did ask this in 1988: Do you think the country and the economy will be stronger and will you be better off or worse off? In 1989, when we got the results, 28 per cent said that we would be better off. In 1992 it had gone down to 16 per cent. Those who said that we would be worse off were 41 per cent in 1989 and in 1992 it was 54 per cent.
I could give some more statistics but I think that I have made the point. The situation has deteriorated by virtually every single economic indicator that we use.
People will say: "You are a member of the opposition so obviously you are going to make statements like that". I want to draw the attention of the House to an article in The Gazette on April 16, 1993. The headline reads: "A national disaster, The real unemployment poll, A staggering 3.9 million people is a gaping wound in Canadian society, Catholic bishops say". What have been some of the headlines across the country? "Japanese owner shuts Trenton plant, Stamping plant to close in June, 91 to lose jobs".

April 22, 1993
Supply
In another article it says: "Auto plant closing to cost 200 jobs". In yet another one there is a map of southern Ontario and metro Toronto with all of the factories and commercial enterprises that have closed. There are many dots. "Job loss data points to manufacturing decline". It goes on to point out how serious it is.
Other articles say: "Where the jobs are disappearing, Job drain at critical mass to union: Hawker Siddeley taking Surrey plant south, Battered Cornwall loses 360 more jobs, 150 will lose jobs in a few months when Gatineau acoustic panel plant shuts, Penetang seat belt plant to move 194 jobs to Mexico, Aerospace plant closes, Auto parts plant closing: 115 jobs vanish". It goes on and on and on.
My province of Manitoba has not, in fact, been spared the devastation of the government's economic policies because it has on virtually every single indicator of poverty, the highest score in Canada. With youth poverty it is the worst record in Canada.
As I travel in my riding and as I travel through Winnipeg I see scores of plants and businesses that have closed and it looks like a devastated area.
As I indicated initially, it is extremely sad that those people have lost jobs because it impacts not only upon them but upon other members of the family and their immediate entourage in the community. It creates stress and a feeling of not being empowered to do anything about it.
There is something else that is often forgotten. Those job losses also assist other sectors. There is an important spin-off.
Let me give a number of critical examples from my riding, which is not unlike many others in Canada. In my riding there is the St. Boniface General Hospital, I'Hopi-tal General de St. Boniface. There are many, many job losses as a result of these closings, of this bankruptcy and of this economic situation that is not only recessionary but even worse. There is also those billions of dollars that have not been transferred over to the provinces.
I have in my own riding the College universitaire de St. Boniface that is the only French language university in western Canada. It too has been affected as have the other universities and the community colleges because of
the reduction in the transfer to provinces for education, training and retraining. It has been affected seriously. There are losses of jobs in those sectors. Community colleges are particularly hard hit. There are people lined up who cannot get the training that they require in order to dig themselves out of this hole called poverty.
There is simply not enough training. There are bankruptcies and closures everywhere. There are delays for new start ups. There are well-qualified and highly motivated people, sometimes with double degrees and sometimes journeymen and joumeywomen, who have excellent working records but cannot find jobs.
Let me give a few examples. There is a woman who is a new Canadian who had been a teacher and civil servant in her country. She is willing to take any job in order to help her family. She will have two daughters who will be going to university to be able to benefit from that which we have benefited in the past. Try as she might there is no work.
There is a person who because of health reasons needed to take early retirement but whose spouse developed difficult medical problems and needed some additional attention. He wants to supplement his income with a little extra work. He is well qualified and highly motivated. There is nothing there.
A married young man below the age of 30 is willing to undertake any job. There is nothing.
I could go on and on.

I believe I have nevertheless demonstrated that the policies of this government regarding job creation have failed and I would be pleased to answer any question from my government colleagues about my speeches or any other subject.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague from St. Boniface. I used to live in the suburb of Norwood in St. Boniface and I know of St. Boniface hospital.
I know from my friends still in Winnipeg that district in Manitoba has been very hard hit, as he has said. In fact I felt much closer to what he was saying because there are so many stories like that about southern Ontario. He has
April 22, 1993

made a very clear case that the present economy is not working and a change of course is needed.
On that basis I would like to ask the hon. member a two-part question. What does he feel will be the effect on the economy of southern Manitoba of the North American free trade agreement if it is adopted and brought into force? On the basis of whatever answer he gives to that first question, what is his party's intention regarding the North American free trade agreement?


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. How I wish he were still a resident of my riding of St. Boniface. In spite of his political preference I am sure he would probably support me during the next election.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: I hope you would support me.


Ron J. Duhamel: Of course I would. A gentleman like you, why would I not?
With respect to the very serious question of what my party's position is with respect to NAFTA, we have put it out time and time again. I feel very comfortable with that position. We have indicated that we cannot support NAFTA the way it is. We need a common set of trade rules. We need to ensure that environmental and labour standards are respected. We need to have security over energy and water.
Those are some of the issues that my leader has spoken about and that he is concerned about. He would make sure those were corrected and rectified before signing such an agreement. He has also said that this is a wonderful opportunity to correct the deficiencies of the Canada-U.S. trade agreement and I applaud him for having done that. By the way, he has also said that if we could not get those kinds of agreements we would abrogate.
There are those who would abrogate first but they would still have to negotiate. They have not proven their case that if they were to abrogate and then negotiate they would come up with a better package than we would if we were to sit down at the table and negotiate.
I feel very comfortable with our position. I think it is a responsible one. I am concerned as are many Canadians that if this is to go through the way it is, the kind of devastation I have described today will continue and it
Supply
must stop. It must absolutely stop. The country cannot take any more of it.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, would not the hon. member have considered it useful if the bill had been defeated in the vote on second reading? Almost half of the members of the hon. member's caucus were absent for the vote. Those who were present voted against the bill on second reading but of course it was not enough to defeat second reading.
Can the hon. member comment on why almost half of his caucus chose to be absent so that while their votes of those present were recorded against it, the caucus as a whole allowed the second reading to go through by having nearly half the members absent and therefore not voting?


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I know that I voted against it. I do not know whether it was half or almost half and I hesitate to speak for those who were absent. I think they can do that for themselves. I am sure there was no machiavellian plan, not that my colleague has suggested that, to try to help the government get it through. I assure the hon. member that is not true. They were solidly behind the leader and his policy. We do not want this bill to go through as it is. We need a standard code of trading rules. We need improved security with respect to labour and environmental standards and the points I have made. I assure my hon. colleague there is no hesitation on our part. Our position is clear. It is there. It will be followed and it will be respected.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, here we go again. Another simplistic motion condemning this government's economic policies. It is so easy for the opposition to produce motions without taking the time to really analyse the government's economic record. In fact, there is now a wave of optimism among Canadians about our economic recovery. And what do we get from members opposite? Another dose of pessimism and negative commentary. The usual unrelenting, repetitive and inaccurate criticism of the government's economic policies.

April 22, 1993
Supply
If my hon. colleagues do not know the facts, I will be glad to explain what those facts are. Only last week the Conference Board of Canada, an independent agency, predicted that economic growth will be even stronger than expected. Exports are up and inflation is very low. In fact we have the lowest inflation rate of any industrialized country. Interest rates are low and stable. The Canadian dollar is strong, and employment opportunities are improving. I know the unemployment rate is high. In any case one unemployed worker in this country will always be one too many. However, does the opposition realize that while the unemployment rate is high, there is optimism generated by our economic recovery among Canadians who are starting to look for work again?
Our government is willing to listen to constructive criticism that is documented and based on fact, not to negative criticism and unfounded accusations based on rumour.
Consider economic growth. Among the G-7 countries, Canada is outranked only by the United States on standard of living per capita, based on the gross domestic product. In recent years, strong economic growth has helped us close part of the gap that separates us from our prosperous neighbour to the south. Investment as a percentage of GDP is at its highest level in 25 years. On this point we outrank the United States and Germany. Manpower productivity is increasing while our production costs have gone down considerably. In addition substantial gains in productivity have enhanced Canada's competitive position on international markets.
The opposition referred to job losses, but do they realize that in the past few years, Canada created more jobs than any other G-7 country? Other countries envy our ability to create jobs. Although opposition members take the negative view, as usual, our government is committed to implementing positive policies that will guarantee sustainable growth.
And here is what we are already doing with that in mind: we are giving small businesses a 10 per cent tax credit for all machinery and equipment they will purchase this year. Furthermore, most businesses hiring new workers this year will not be subject to increases in
unemployment insurance premiums. I may remind the House that the opposition voted against these measures.
The government has extended the Small Business Financing Program for two years. This program allows companies to refinance loans at less than market rates.
We simplified the rules so as to encourage more investment in small business with RRSPs. We also raised the ceiling on loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act to $250,000.
Our government is not unaware that research and development is also essential to lasting economic growth. That is why we increased tax incentives for companies doing research and development by $230 million in the past five years. We have also set aside a $400 million reserve to overcome tax barriers to the technological development and the growth of business.
Our approach is as logical as can be. We ask Canadians to show self-discipline and to make short-term sacrifices so that our country can reap long-term benefits.
The only way to get rich quick is to win the lottery. Our government will not endanger Canadians' future economic well-being by unearthing the temporary one-shot job creation projects of the 1970s that went nowhere and cost them so dearly. We remember the old ideas of our Liberal friends. Like old ghosts from the past these Liberal candidates resurface, like the leader of the Liberal Party, a man of the past who, by the way, was a member of the House of Commons when John F. Kennedy was President of the United States. These people would take us back to the old recipes of bygone days, recipes which in the 1970s did not solve any problem, but indebted us, and we are still paying for them. They are just solutions from the past.
Our government has not continued on that dead-end path to put Canadians back to work. We want workers to attain a good standard of living and contribute to Canada's economic prosperity.
For this we have adopted a constructive approach that will produce lasting results in the long run. The opposition motions criticizing our government suggest that we should act as if our heavy debt burden did not exist. They are always trying to ignore it and asking us to act as
April 22, 1993

though there was no debt. All they want to do is spend and spend and spend. They love to spend other people's money.
That means living beyond our means and placing an undue financial burden in a completely irresponsible way on the shoulders of those who will come after us-our children and grandchildren. The government will not take that path. The Canadian people have given us the fundamental responsibility to act in the interest of the economy and we intend to live up to it.
Canada's greatest resource is its people and its workers. That is why our programs count on working people. They show the confidence we have in their initiative, our confidence in the imagination, determination and dynamism of the workers of this country.
As the amendments we made to the unemployment insurance plan show, we are convinced that Canadian workers can succeed. We can no longer spare those who do not act responsibly enough to keep their jobs, simply because they do not want to work. We appeal to their deep sense of self-esteem and we ask them to contribute to the economic recovery.
We must emphasize training. We absolutely must prepare Canadian workers so that they can take their place in the world economy which is moving ahead rapidly and is based on knowledge and high technology. Every day, workers tell our employment counsellors that they want training. Training is almost everybody's top priority. They do not want to be subsidized by collecting unemployment insurance. They want to have a reasonable chance to get better jobs. They want training.
To meet this demand during the fiscal year which just ended, we spent $3.5 billion to enable 685,300 Canadian workers to participate in government programs relating to the labour market.
During this new fiscal year, we will spend about $3.8 billion on programs and services related to the labour market. I think that even my hon. colleagues will agree that this is a significant increase, compared to the $2.1 billion spent in 1985-86. Of the $3.8 billion, $2.21 billion will be spent on specific training and adjustment initiatives for UI claimants in the context of the so-called developmental uses. This amount is the largest ever spent on developmental uses in the UI account. It is 13 per cent more than last year and almost four and one
Supply
half times more than the $500 million budgeted in 1990. What is so terrible is the fact that the opposition voted against these excellent initiatives.
We are talking not only about expenditures but also about investment. I wonder if my hon. colleagues understand that. The economic downturn is an integral part of global restructuring; it is useless to attempt to put the blame on the government and its actions. If my colleagues from the opposition displayed a little bit of intellectual honesty, they would clearly tell the population that a large part of our present problems are due to a restructuring of the world economy.
The government is not sitting idle, waiting to see what will happen. In spite of all the negative and senseless objections made by the opposition, we take positive measures to help workers face the competition more easily once the economic recovery is definitely under way.
This year one million UI claimants should get some occupational training while receiving benefits. This is how we invest these $2.1 billion. I challenge my hon. colleagues to propose a better way to invest in Canada's future.
Occupational training is certainly the top priority for workers who have had many productive years and who suddenly find themselves unemployed because of this industrial restructuring at the international level. This is the reality and when we talk to workers, they recognize that reality.
Workers who have been laid off and who have worked uninterruptedly for at least five consecutive years have a well established work ethic. They know what they want. They want training and professional development in order to rejoin the labour force. And the government fully intends to provide them with this training.
Our government will spend $300 million to help put these people back to work as soon as possible. To this end we will create partnerships with business communities and organizations. We are in the process of setting up local adjustment committees to meet the particular needs of the clientele. These initiatives are taken to improve our economy.
I also wonder if my hon. colleagues know that our work sharing program enables us to use the UI fund so as to avoid lay-offs. In periods of work slowdowns, employers can keep workers who agree to work a shorter week and who are eligible for UI benefits for the down days.

April 22, 1993
Supply
These are among the other initiatives taken by our government.
Experience has taught us that the government must allow the private sector to have direct input regarding the use of federal resources to solve problems related to the labour market. These employers are important stakeholders. We have also learned that the private sector must spend more time, make more efforts and use more resources, so that we have skilled workers who are able to face the competition.
The government helps to achieve these objectives by gathering together business people and other stakeholders in powerful and effective sector groups.
Working together with the business community and other stakeholders, we have already set up 17 sectoral councils to help promote continuing training. But that is a fact that the opposition forgets to mention, does not remember and fails to recognize. We are now improving this positive approach through a five-year plan, the sectoral partnerships initiative in which we are investing $352 million. This program, which has recently received an extra $250 million in funding, will enable Canadian business to face the human resources challenges confronting it and to do so within the scope of the program. It is essential, for one thing, to establish clearly what skills workers will need to enable Canada to remain competitive in the future. This is a major aspect of our strategy that the opposition has deliberately omitted.
With this in view, the number of sectorial councils will be increased by 38, to a total of 55. These councils will look into human resource development, a challenge now facing Canadian business. The sectoral partnerships initiative is based on the premise that the private sector is responsible for training workers on the job. However, we lag far behind our global competitors when it comes to manpower development. That is why our government will once again act responsibly and provide leadership on this issue.
Under this new program, tax incentives for training programs in industry can be created and even more workers can be trained under cost-sharing agreements signed with the government's partners. The sectoral
councils will also develop new and improved occupational standards to increase performance and job opportunities for 3.5 million Canadian workers.
I would like to point out that the new program will not be implemented at the expense of short-term job creation programs as the government intends it as a long-term job creation plan. However, our immediate concern should be, and is indeed, putting Canadians back to work.
The sectoral partnership initiative flows from the many priorities set by business. The sector studies we have undertaken were widely applauded, apart from the opposition. That is how we know that there is strong support for new partnerships between government and business.
The emphasis should be on establishing partnerships. Neither the government nor the opposition can claim to be able to solve the problem on their own. We need partners. We need to create partnerships, to work together with business, labour, educational and training institutions as well as community organizations. Indeed, partnerships have always been important and, now that the economic recovery is under way, it is more important than ever for all Canadians to be involved in such partnerships. That is obvious. If all Canadians join forces our country can remain prosperous.
I urge my colleagues opposite to set aside their negative rhetoric and to join all Canadians in living up to the United Nations report which says that the best quality of life in the world is found in this great country of ours. Try as they may on the opposition side to blame all this country's problems on the alleged bad policies of this government, the fact remains that every time we have introduced measures to control and cut our expenditures to bring the deficit under control, every time we introduced measures to promote better training for Canadian workers, every time we took initiatives such as those under the Patent Act, what did the opposition do? It voted against. They have condemned our measures, often at the expense of the people of Canada and their well-being.
As usual, this motion is pointless. It is totally partisan rhetoric from the opposition.
April 22, 1993

I call upon all hon. members of this House to reject and vote against this motion which, in itself, is sheer negativism at a time when our economy needs to perform better and better.
I once again urge all my hon. colleagues to reject such a pointless motion, which is of no use to the Canadian.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, toward the end of his speech, the hon. member talked about the rhetoric of the opposition. In fact, throughout his speech, he accused the opposition of making negative comments about the government.
I would like to remind the hon. member that last week, while the House was not sitting, two important reports were released and they did not come from the opposition. In its report, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops made alarming statements about the economic, financial and social situation of Canada.
Then Statistics Canada showed us the real picture which was especially revealing for us in Montreal. For two years now we have been asking the government to tell us how it will revitalize our area. I hope I will have enough time to go through some statistics since the questions and comments period is quite limited.
I would like to refer my hon. colleague to an article by Paul Durivage published in La Presse on March 9. The three sources I just mentioned have nothing to do with the opposition. I am referring to one journalist, the Catholic Bishops of Montreal, and Statistics Canada which is a government agency.
I have a copy of Paul Durivage's article which appeared in the March 9 issue of La Presse and I quote:
According to Mr. Jacques Pelletier, senior market analyst for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, since 1990 there are 4 per cent fewer jobs in the area.
The retail market is flat. Last December, of all the metropolitan areas, it was still in Montreal department stores that sales were the slowest.
As for home building, last year was the worst on record since 1982 in Metropolitan Montreal.
The slump in the building industry is closely connected to a high vacancy rate which has been consistently increasing since 1986 to reach 7.5 per cent today. For the last thirty years, there have never been so many empty dwellings in the Montreal area.
Supply
Many office spaces are also vacant. In the hotel industry, the
Association des hotels du Grand Montreal, which keeps track of the
number of beds occupied in the 45 biggest hotels of the city, sees no
visible sign of recovery.
These are telling signs. I have a few very interesting graphs under the caption "A city for rent". Unemployment rate, the curve is going up; housing starts, decreasing; office space vacancy rate, on the rise; hotel occupancy rate, decreasing; retail sales, decreasing; inflation rate, decreasing.
This is this government's track record. So, instead of blaming the opposition for reminding the government every day of the misery that prevails elsewhere, the government had better deal with the real problems people face instead of creating systems which, in the long and the short run, will only benefit its friends.
Instead of blaming others, this government, which was elected in 1984 on the promise of jobs, jobs, jobs, should explain why after nine years we have the kind of numbers which were released by Statistics Canada. Do you know that in Canada we have 1,537,000 unemployed workers and 2,700,000 Canadians on welfare? We have close to four million Canadians who, one way or another, have no job and live below the poverty level, thanks to our Tory government.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Madam Speaker, understandably the hon. member for Saint-Leonard who represents a Montreal area riding shows a great deal of interest for Montreal, but I find it unbelievable that he should try to blame the conditions he described on the policies of our government.
Everyone knows we are just coming out of a recession which has been very hard, not only on Canada, but also on many other countries throughout the world. Clearly, the recession has had an impact, but to say that during that period of recession and global restructuring the government did nothing to help the situation is morally dishonest.
The hon. member talks about all the jobs lost in the Montreal area. Twice in this House we had legislation which benefited greatly the Montreal area. There was the bill on patented medicines which has brought millions of dollars of investment to the Montreal area and has resulted in more than 8,000 new jobs being created.

April 22, 1993
Supply
What did opposition members do for the Montreal area? They voted against that bill and their colleagues in the other place filibustered.
And now they want to advise us on how to create jobs in that area, when we know how well the Liberal government did. At the time they closed all the oil refineries in Montreal. Come on, be serious. The problem in Montreal goes back to the Liberals. When they were in office they never bothered renewing the economic structures.
The hon. member raised the issue earlier of the escalating reduction of housing starts. He was giving a lot of statistics, but he should have mentioned the record level of exports to the United States which is responsible for a lot of jobs; the latest statistics which show an increase in consumption in Quebec and Canada; the establishment of employment centres this last few months; the lowering of interest rates which stimulates construction; more affordable mortgage rates; and growth rates which should be among the highest in the country this year.
We have every reason to have confidence in the future of the country, to have confidence in the policies of the government. We know that the hon. member and his colleagues do not like the fact that we can now see the light at the end of the tunnel, that things are looking up. Obviously, in the context of forthcoming elections this is not good news for the hon. member.
He can say anything he likes in this House. He will not change the fact that we are coming out of the recession and that economic recovery is in progress. All economic indicators are positive. We are on the right track. The people in his riding, like the rest of the Canadian people, have confidence in the future, confidence in their ability, and are determined to recover the jobs lost and to reduce unemployment.
We are on the right track and we certainly do not need any lecture on how the federal government, our government, should commit itself to the economic recovery of Montreal, especially given the track record of the Liberal government in that area.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, today the hon. member for Essex-Windsor has put forward the following motion:
That this House condemns the government for policies that have
decimated the economy forcing company closures resulting in job
losses for Canadian workers.
I want to say right away that I support this motion without hesitation because every statistic under the sun shows that Canadians are worse off economically since the Tories took office.
The previous speaker may criticize the opposition but the facts are there and opposition members are not alone in condemning the government for its economic policies. Last week the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops asked the government to act. The bishops begged the Conservative government to do something about the high unemployment rate in this country. They said that the economic policies of the past decade had put an undue burden on the workers in this country.
According to the bishops, Canada is experiencing a social crisis that is unprecendented, with one-quarter of its labour force shut out of the labour market. If the government finds it hard to believe opposition members or Canada's bishops, let us take a look at the figures published by the government's own agency, Statistics Canada.
If it compares today's figures with 1988, the government will see the economic situation in this country has worsened. In 1988 there were 789,000 Canadian families with one member unemployed. In 1992 there were 1,132,000, an increase of over 43 per cent. In 1988 the unemployment rate was 7.5 per cent. In 1992 it was 11.5 per cent. Today more than 1.5 million Canadians are unemployed. In November 1988 the youth unemployment rate in this country was 11.8 per cent. Today it is up to 16.7 per cent.
The situation is just as depressing in Quebec's main urban centres. Between March 1992 and March 1993, the unemployment rate went up in Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal, where more than 225,000 people get unemployment insurance benefits.
Consider the number of jobs lost since January 1989 in the manufacturing sector. Canada has lost 319,000 jobs in this sector. The hon. member told us that exports had gone up. That is all very well, but according to Statistics Canada, since 1989 we lost 319,000 jobs in the manufac-
April 22, 1993

turing sector, a sector that is vital to our economy. This means 15 per cent of all the jobs in this sector.
In Quebec 115,000 jobs were lost in the manufacturing sector during the same period. This represents a loss of 19 per cent in a sector that is extremely important to the economy of Quebec and the Montreal region. Meanwhile, in the United States only 7 per cent of the jobs in this sector disappeared.
These are Statistics Canada figures, not mine. The hon. member said earlier that we had just come out of a recession that was caused by the international economic situation. It may have been caused by the international economic situation but why did our neighbour to the south lose only 7 per cent of its jobs, while we lost 19 per cent and Canada as a whole 18 per cent? If we are supposed to blame these changes on the international economic situation, why is Canada being penalized more than other countries? I think the conclusion is obvious and that, as the motion says, the Conservative government's unsound economic policies are to blame.
Job losses and high unemployment rates result in pauperizing the population. Montreal is a case in point. Last week one of the headlines read "Montreal: Poverty Capital". That is where we are after nine years.
Figures released last week by Statistics Canada showed that Montreal has set a new record for poverty. In 1990, 22 per cent of the population was living below the poverty line.
Last November in Montreal, food banks distributed
800,000	pounds of food, or nearly 20 tons per day. As a matter of fact, the amount of food distributed by Mois-son Montreal, the only food bank in the city, is ten times greater today than it was in 1985.
In 1990 in the whole province there were 269,000 families and 403,000 individuals living below the poverty line for a total of 1,200,000 people.
That is the true portrait of a decade of unhealthy economic policies and mismanagement by the Conservatives.
It is easy to blame the opposition, to say that the opposition voted against this measure or that measure. We voted with the government on measures we thought
Supply
made sense, but we voted against any economic measure that put the country in an impossible situation.


Mr. Moore:: C-91 for Montreal.


Alfonso Gagliano: For Montreal. I can see I just woke up the hon. member opposite.
The figures are there. For two years I have been asking the government to do something for Montreal. What has it done? Nothing. What has it done for Montreal, the poverty capital! We used to have this advertising slogan in Montreal: A city with pride. Today, it is a city with unemployment. This is where the Tories got us. They just keep blaming that on the opposition. I could go on at length, but I will remain brief because I want to share my time with my colleagues.
What are the Tories' economic policies? The free trade agreement with the United States. Now they want to force on us a trade agreement with Mexico. During the 1988 elections, they promised to continue to negotiate after the elections for a new definition of subsidies. They are now proposing another agreement with Mexico. But what was to be defined under the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement has not even been defined yet.
Just think of the 37 tax increases, the GST and the absurd monetary policy. Just think of the exaggerated war the government waged on inflation. They waged such a war that now the whole economy is on its knees. Earlier the hon. member talked about the economic policies the government had put in place to help small businesses, to help them take off, thanks to low interest rates. Yes, they are low, but try to borrow from a bank. During the adjournment, I talked with bankers in my riding who told me they had so much money they did not know what to do with it. I told them to lend it to people. There are businesses with projects that want to take off. Why do you not lend them money? The situation is so precarious that they do not want to take chances. What is the use of low interest rates, of policies to encourage businesses to get loans from the bank when the over-all economic situation is so bad that banks will not give these loans?
Let us think about the cuts to the unemployment insurance system. As we are going through one of the worst crises in our history, instead of fighting unemployment, what is the government doing? It is attacking the unemployed, those who are not responsible. They are the victims, not the people responsible for the crisis.

April 22, 1993
Supply
That is what the government is doing, attacking the unemployed.
After nine years in office, after 37 tax increases, after the GST, when the national debt has almost tripled and the annual deficit is the same as it was in 1984, the government finally finds out that it has to address the deficit and the financial crisis. But when we said "stop spending, cut the $5.8 billion helicopter project, lead the way", it said "no, this is sacred; we will not touch that."
During the leadership race, for example, where do you think the candidates will want to make cuts to reduce the deficit? Once again on the backs of the unemployed, the sick, those who live in poverty. Again they will cut social programs. I will never forget this old man who once told me: "Remember every time we have a Conservative government, destitution prevails". Tory times are bad times. The Conservative government proved it once again and still does today. However, I hope-and I really should not say I hope, because I lost all hope in this government-but on Monday, we will finally have the budget and we will be waiting to see what will happen. As I was saying I lost hope. On Monday the Conservative government will probably make cuts to give us the impression that it wants to reduce the deficit but again, it will be the poor and those who earn the least who will foot the bill.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up, so I thank you.


Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, in my own constituency of Stormont-Dundas, the city of Cornwall provides a tangible example of the negative impact the government's economic policies have had on our communities across Canada. The unemployment rate in Cornwall now exceeds 20 per cent.
In the last two years more than 20 plants have closed and more than 2,500 jobs, manufacturing jobs-in other words, good jobs here at home-have disappeared. Yes, I will hear a question after a few comments.
In Cornwall, as in several other communities in eastern Ontario, the number of welfare recipients is rising at an unprecedented rate because of the many plants closing and jobs lost.

Many of the plant closures can be directly attributed to the previous high dollar and high interest rate policy of this Conservative government. The Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement also took its toll on the local economy and the lingering recession accounted for the rest.
In addition, the fallout from the NAFTA deal is already having a damaging impact on plants in Canada. Many plants are being forced to implement restructuring measures regardless of the cost to their employees in order to remain competitive.
The current dispute at the Nestle plant in Chesterville is a prime example in my riding of what is happening in Canada today. More and more businesses are taking steps to reduce worker benefits in order to retain domestic and export markets. Workers are being told they must give up previously hard-won labour benefits or face the loss of their jobs.
There is no level playing-field in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA provides no relief from the inequality of the FTA. The free trade deal has failed to provide Canadian companies with unrestricted access to U.S. markets and has certainly failed to deliver the jobs, jobs, jobs which the government promised Canadians it would.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague for Saint-Leo-nard if he thinks that this Conservative government, which apparently wants to reduce the deficit at any cost, understands that its economic policies have created an unacceptable human deficit-I repeat, an unacceptable human deficit.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question because he brings into the debate a very important element which is often overlooked. We often talk about figures, percentages and amounts, but not the human deficit. We often forget that behind all these figures and this system human beings are affected.
Today when we talk about the unemployment rate we can say in an abstract sense, that it is around 13 or 14 per cent. But the reality is that more than 1.5 million people are unemployed, not to mention the 2.3 million Cana-
April 22, 1993

dians who are on welfare, giving us a total of close to four million Canadians. Thus, there are four million people in an unacceptable situation, people who do not work and who either get unemployment benefits or welfare payments. Who pays for that? Whether it is the federal, the provincial or the municipal level of government is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that human beings who want to work and enjoy a better standard of living are stuck with economic measures such as free trade and the GST.
Let us admit it. When I was sitting on the finance committee which examined the GST for months, all the officials from the Department of Finance, the civil servants, the government members and the minister himself, everybody told us that the GST would create an underground economy.
The underground economy was where the GST would come out and we would have prosperity. But we created a monster. Now we have an underground economy so big that no one can even account for it. It affects people, human beings. We forget that and the government forgets that. The government talks all the time about the deficit but forgets about the human deficit. I have no more hope or belief for this government.


An hon. member:: Did you have some before?


Alfonso Gagliano: It is gone, finished. On Monday do you think the government is going to think about the human deficit before the dollar deficit?


An hon. member:: Never.


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, today we are debating the NDP opposition motion:
That this House condemns the government for policies which have
decimated the economy forcing company closures resulting in job
losses for Canadian workers.
It is not difficult to agree with this motion but I would like to suggest that the motion is too narrow. We have to be concerned about more than company closures in this country and the very serious impact that has had on Canadians.
Supply
I have listened to some of my colleagues across the floor. I heard them talk about recovery, the optimistic mood and so on. They are speaking of a country I do not recognize. I wonder how many members on the government side are seriously going into their constituency offices and dealing personally with those Canadians who are unemployed and find themselves in impossible situations today.
My staff in my offices and I find the situation in the constituency very depressing. It is very difficult day after day to address and listen to the problems of people who find themselves in these impossible situations.
The government policies which started off in 1989 with high interest rates following the free trade agreement are deplorable. High interest rates were supposed to be addressing the inflation rate in this country but ended up creating costs of servicing our debt which sky-rocketed. In fact, in trying to deal with servicing the debt, it caused our deficits to rise.
These high interest rates caused incredible problems for companies, small and medium sized business, the backbone of our nation's economy, and for individuals as well. We have seen unprecedented high bankruptcies occur in this country. The bankruptcies of small and medium sized businesses and personal bankruptcies are as much responsible for job losses as are any of the large company closures.
However we have not seen the end of this recession. Day after day we hear of more lay-offs and of government cutbacks in programs, cutbacks which cause more job losses. We heard recently of CN cutting back on many jobs. Ontario Hydro is cutting back on many jobs. The Ontario government is possibly coming out with more cutbacks to public service jobs. The list just goes on and on.
It has not stopped at all in my riding of Northumberland. We have been impacted by the loss of jobs in larger companies that have either moved south or have closed their doors completely not to move anywhere. We have had the loss of thousands of jobs in Northumberland because of the consequences of the recession we have been undergoing. We have also had and continue to have daily many small and medium sized businesses close in my riding.
We really find it mocking to listen to the unemployment statistics for my riding. Those who are working in social services and in the unemployment insurance

April 22, 1993
Supply
offices know the rates are much higher than statistics would say. For example, the statistics say that in my area unemployment is slightly more than 11 per cent. We do not even pay much attention to those figures any more because we know they are so inaccurate. We really do not know how they derive those figures.
It is interesting that one municipality next door to mine decided to do its own census because it was so concerned about the inaccuracy of the statistics. In doing that census that municipality, which I consider to be representative of the 16 municipalities in my whole riding, found it was not 11 per cent unemployment but a 14.6 per cent unemployment rate. What is more, over 6 per cent additional people said they were underemployed. They were not earning enough through parttime jobs or whatever to maintain a minimum lifestyle for themselves.
Food banks, the largest growing economy in this country, are not serving the needs of desperate people. A single father was in my office on Friday. He is trying to support his 17-year old son and has been supporting him since birth. He was asking me: "How can I live on $750 a month?" He can get no more assistance from the social services programs and the food banks are not going to help him. This is what we are talking about when we say the situation in this country is absolutely unacceptable. It is a disaster. People's needs have to be responded to and the government's current economic policies have not helped but have hindered the process.
I am convinced that if we dwell upon the financial debt and deficit and not the human deficit as my colleague was saying before, which to my mind is as serious if not more serious in the long term for the success of our country, if we do not pay attention to that then Canada will very quickly become a Third World country.
Having spent many years in the Third World I see many similarities now. I see people being supported in unemployment programs and so on. People are so frustrated. They are told they cannot take a course to improve themselves because that would take them away from looking for a job, jobs that do not exist.
Today in my office I heard of a woman who has been on unemployment insurance for four months. She has been called back by her employer to work again but it will probably only be for a few weeks. She is going to lose her position in training. Having spent four months at taxpayers' expense to sit in a training position learning something she was eager to learn, she now has to give that up and go back maybe for a couple of weeks to a job from which she will again be laid off. Then she will not be eligible for full unemployment insurance because of the way the economy is. So much of the inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the system must be addressed.
Others have pointed out that we have lost 319,000 manufacturing jobs and that is critical. That is 15 per cent of the total manufacturing jobs in this country and 18 per cent of the total manufacturing jobs in Ontario. We can talk about this recession and this difficulty as being part of a global picture, a global recession. But how is it that Ontario loses 18 per cent of its manufacturing jobs and the U.S. has only lost 7 per cent? There are inequalities. There have to be Canadian reasons for the Canadian economy doing worse than other G-7 members. The government's policies have not been helpful.
We heard last month in this recovery which is occurring in the midst of a recovering economy that consumer spending is down, that consumer confidence is down, that it is still poor. People in my riding are terrified. Unemployed people are desperate. They do not know what they are going to do tomorrow. Those who have jobs are terrified. They are reading articles such as the one appearing in today's paper by the Business Council on National Issues that the country faces a debt crisis. We are all extremely concerned about what is happening. I would say it is the very policies this government has been following over the last years that have been spiralling us down into a greater and greater crisis.
Talking about the economic recovery on the basis of increased exports from Canada to the United States and a trade surplus is not symptomatic of recovery in this country. We cannot depend upon one statistic like that to suggest that our country is out of recession. A recovery with no jobs is not a recovery.
I go on to quote what the bishops are saying, that 3.9 million people in this country are in search of decent jobs. This country needs value added jobs. Much more attention must be paid to the human needs, the trade needs, the job markets in this country. People have to be
April 22, 1993

trained for existing jobs. All levels of government have to work with management and labour to find out what those jobs ought to be. Where is Canada's place and what are its strengths in a global economy? Train people for those specific jobs. Unless we do that we are not going to recover.
Some of the lost jobs have been recovered through the creation of other kinds of jobs, but if you look at the jobs that have been created they are terrible. They are the very lowest paying, low-skilled service jobs. Flipping hamburgers in McDonald's is an example. Those jobs do not bring dignity to people. They are not jobs that are really taking advantage of the education and training the people in Canada have had. People are frustrated with those kinds of jobs.
This government in its policies must put people first. It must have policies that reflect this priority. Instead, we have a government that depends on trade first, debt and deficit adjustment first and big business first. This is not good enough for Canadians and it is not appropriate and right for the future of this country.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. It is distressing she would leave on the record that indeed the free trade agreement has resulted in only creating jobs flipping hamburgers when she admitted in her speech that trade with the United States has improved.
She also mentioned OECD forecasts. The OECD has forecast that Canada will have the fastest rate of growth in the G-7 in both 1993 and 1994.1 just want to put some of these numbers on the record because I know the member will be taking notes. The OECD is forecasting for 1993 that Canada's growth will be greater than 3 per cent, whereas in the U.S. it will be just over 2 per cent, in Japan just over 2 per cent, in Germany just over 1 per cent, in France just over 1 per cent, in Italy less than 1 per cent, and in the U.K. just over 1 per cent. In 1994 it is suggesting that Canada's growth rate will be over 4 per cent, whereas in the United States it will be 3 per cent, Japan 3 per cent, Germany 3 per cent, France 3 per cent and in the U.K. just over 3 per cent.
Supply
These are numbers from the OECD. I was wondering why the member, in her speech, would suggest these numbers are not correct when the OECD itself has indicated that Canada will indeed have the fastest growth in the next two years.


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to respond to these remarks.
First of all I did not say that the free trade agreement was creating low-paying, low-skilled service jobs. It is a fact, and I did not relate it to the free trade agreement at all, that this country has lost hundreds of thousands of highly paid manufacturing jobs.
It is also a fact that some manufacturers in this country, particularly small and medium-sized companies, have been able to successfully negotiate their way into the North American market with the free trade agreement in place. But it is also a fact that thousands and thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost as a result of the free trade agreement. This is something my colleague raised, not I.
What I was saying was that we have lost value added types of highly skilled manufacturing jobs and we have not had the equivalent or better jobs to replace those lost jobs. Instead we have replaced them with low-paying service jobs.
On his point about the OECD and its prospects for Canada having a 3 per cent growth rate in the coming years, et cetera, we have many other forecasts. We have the IMF report of yesterday.
What I am saying is that recovery without jobs in this country can never be considered to be recovery because Canada must put people first. Statistics that say we are earning more money as a country because of our export trade with the U.S. is not satisfactory. The gap between the rich and the poor in Canada is widening on a day-by-day basis and it is totally unacceptable. This government will learn that very soon in this year's upcoming election.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and her very clear criticism of the effects of the free trade agreement.
I know that on March 31 she along with many of us, with her caucus, voted against second reading of the North American free trade agreement. I would like to

April 22, 1993
Supply
ask her two questions. Does she believe it would have been better if at second reading the North American free trade agreement, or the bill implementing it, had been defeated? If she feels it would not have been better, if it is satisfactory that it was accepted, then why did she vote against it?
If she feels it would have been better if it had been defeated does she regret the absence of her 37 colleagues who, if they were present and voting, would have enabled its defeat?


Christine Susan Stewart: Madam Speaker, I am also very happy to answer that question.
Yes, it would have been veiy good for this country if the North American free trade agreement had been defeated at second reading because second reading does say that in principle we are in agreement with or opposed to a certain piece of legislation.
This party believes that until there are agreed upon parallel agreements we should not be proceeding with a North American free trade agreement because there is a lot at stake for our country in that whole process.
I regret that because of the urgency of the work my colleagues had in their constituencies there could not have been more of us present in the House to vote upon that particular piece of legislation at second reading. There will be other opportunities and the member can be sure that we will express our point of view at every possible opportunity.
I would also like to say it is interesting that yesterday when we had the opportunity in the standing committee to challenge the Minister for International Trade only one of the NDP members was present at the committee meeting and the NDP's critics for trade and external affairs were not present.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, one would think in this House there was no recognition that we live in a world of change, unremitting and massive change. This change has been brought to this world of production and distribution by computerization, by satellites, by the transmission of data, equipment and knowledge, by robotization in plants and equipment in factories and so on. These things so dramatically change the way we do things that they have distorted and upset the entire production system of the world.
There are countries growing in this world. South China, for example, had a growth rate of 12 per cent last year. Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore and Korea all have veiy substantial growth rates. However they are new countries and do not have the old infrastructure. They are building a new structure and therefore can show new growth.
We have a situation in which we must massively change our structures, and in changing our structures we have massive dislocation. That is the kind of thing that is taking place in all of Europe and all of North America. All of the developed parts of the world are subject to this massive change.
It is strange to me, and it must be strange to those people watching, that the parties on the other side of this House do not recognize that. There is a great loss of jobs in the manufacturing field, but production in manufacturing is up 7 per cent. We produce a lot more goods with a lot fewer people. That is the nature of globalization. That is the nature of what is happening today.
We have to live in today's world, not yesterday's world. Yesterday's world is one in which we tried to be a little self-sufficient in Canada. We had trade barriers, high tariffs that prevented foreigners from bringing goods into the country. Then we could develop a plant here and a plant there which were only designed to produce a whole host of products for the Canadian market, and only the Canadian market. Today those plants are so inefficient in terms of industrial production on a world basis that our tariff rates would have to be well over 100 per cent across the board with massive restrictions everywhere if we wanted to retain much of the industry we used to have.
Our industries now must radically change. Our offices must radically change. Our whole system must radically change in order to exist or our standard of living will completely and totally disappear. This government has attacked change. It has attacked the problem. It has gone after the problem. It is not content to take the old system, the old rules, the old ideas and keep them. We have gone after change. We have gone after it deliberately, directly, and with foresight in order to build a new and better economy.
We have a sound money policy. We have beaten down inflation to its lowest rate in 30 years. Prices do not rise unrealistically any more. Our inflation rate in Canada is
April 22, 1993

the lowest of the OECD countries. That took some doing. That put some blood on the floor. However our inflation rate is down so that our money is sound money.
Why do people buy our bonds? Not because they like the looks of us. They buy them because our money is sound money. It will buy today and tomorrow the same amount of goods and services, and that is the kind of thing people want when they lend money to a country or invest in a country. A sound money policy is essential for Canada.
We have developed a fair tax policy. We have done everything conceivable in the last eight and a half years to change the Income Tkx Act to get away from all the hidden little wrinkles that were in it to let the rich make more, to let the fast operators make more. We have done that deliberately, capably, and competently. Our Income Tax Act is probably fairer today than at any time in our history.
I am not saying that taxes are ever fair. Taxes are never fair to the beholder. Somebody looks at someone else and says: "They have more than I have. Perhaps they should pay more tax than I should". Our tax system today is fairer than ever before.
A corporate tax system has to be not just fair but competitive. My friends in the New Democratic Party would like to put greater burdens on the corporate tax system. They forget that we are in a world of competition, that companies earn their profits where they pay the least amount of tax. If we make our taxes higher than in countries that are our trading partners then, guess what? The profit will not be made here. It will be made somewhere else and transfer pricing provides no possibility of ever following it through. We could never with all the accountants in the country follow through all of the possibilities of transfer pricing.
In the last budget we made our corporate tax for manufacturers on average 2 per cent less than the manufacturing corporate tax rate in the United States. That is a very substantial advantage to those who would set up plants and businesses in Canada.
We have in this country, and have had for a long time, a sales tax system. Lots of people object to sales taxes, to commodity taxes. Before this Parliament began we had a sales tax system which put a 13.5 per cent tax on people
Supply
who manufactured in the country. That tax gave an advantage to foreigners who brought goods into the country because they only paid tax at their plant gate and the cost of bringing goods here was not included in their tax base. Therefore we changed that commodity tax system to the goods and services tax.
That tax may have some problems with it. It may need some ironing out. It may need some work and massaging. A bill was passed by this House just recently to do that. Bit by bit we will have that tax system working very smoothly.
However that tax system is the fairest form of commodity tax system that the world knows. Indeed, 45 other countries in the world have that tax system.
To say that this is the wrong system, that a VAT tax system is not a good system, is to say that everybody else in the world is stupid and we know better than they do. That is the attitude of the New Democrats and the Liberals because they have not thought it through. They criticize us but they do not think it through.
In this great world of change we also must make sure that we try to train and retrain people for jobs, that we give people adjustment programs. This year we are spending $4 billion on retraining and training people on a national basis. That is infinitely more than was ever spent before, massively more. We have changed the system to try to train and retrain people, to try to get people to adapt to new circumstances, to new job opportunities, to new careers. We are all going to have to adapt to new ways of doing things.
In government we have adapted to new ways of doing things. Changes have taken place in employment and immigration in terms of how one files an immigration form. Those ways are very much changed. They are very much changed to take advantage of the systems that are now available. They are very much changed in the way the post office operates to deliver mail. These are changes that must take place. These changes will continue to take place. They must continue to take place.
We have to be internationally competitive. We cannot continue to do things in the old way because the old way is not good enough. The old way will give us a very poor standard of living. Our standard of living will drop and

April 22, 1993
Supply
drop if we continue with the old ways. We cannot carry on with old ways in a world of change.
We have done a great deal to promote science and technology. In a world of change we have to be brighter and we have to be ahead of other people. From 1984 to 1993 we have increased by 44 per cent direct government spending on science and technology, in grants and so on. Today we spend $200 million a year just on small businesses to allow them special credits in terms of their science and technology development. We have developed a series of centres of excellence across Canada in which we try to bring in scientists and engineers to work on new and important manufacturing and technological development.
Just recently in this House we passed Bill C-91 which gave further patent protection on intellectual property. That bill has been criticized but I have recently attended two major plant openings with major investment in my city of Mississauga. Yesterday Astra Pharma opened a facility and announced another $200 million in further investment in plant, laboratories, and assistance to people in universities to develop new pharmaceutical products. That company is manufacturing painkilling products today for export to the world. It has a world mandate.
With the huge investments in this kind of work, these are not small companies. These are companies that produce high quality jobs for people with doctorate or masters degrees. These are people we need to create a better society. This is not about flipping hamburgers. This is about building Canada. This is about building a better future for all of us. It is a question of the science and technology work we have been doing.
We have a special program for students. The scholarship arrangement qualifies 3,300 young people in our high schools across Canada every year for scholarships at universities. These scholarships are for $3,000 for a four year course at university in science and technology. The students have to be bright to get them but there are 3,300. That is a lot of assistance to young people who are going to help build our nation.
We recognize that if we are going to have jobs we have to assist small business. This House just recently passed a very major change to the Small Businesses Loans Act,
increasing the limit of that loan to $250,000, making it possible for the money in the loan to indirectly be worked into working capital credit because it does not require a 100 per cent guarantee. It does not require that the proprietor put his house on the line, his blood on the line. He only has to guarantee 25 per cent of the loan.
Tell me where you can get a bank loan and only sign for 25 per cent of the capital. They only have to guarantee 25 per cent of it. Banks have come forward and said they are going to put that money up but not at 1.75 per cent over prime as they are entitled to under the act. The Bank of Nova Scotia has come forward and said it likes the statute so much it is going to lend the money at prime. The Bank of Montreal is matching it.
Members talk about not doing things but that is pretty important work. We have a 10 per cent tax credit for small business if they buy manufacturing equipment. That comes right off their tax. In effect, with a tax credit of 10 per cent and a small business tax rate of 12 per cent, small businessmen pay precious little corporate tax if they spend their profits in buying equipment. That is assistance that makes our small businesses work effectively.
In order to encourage businesses to hire people a UI holiday was provided for small businesses that pay less than $30,000 a year in UI premiums. A small business with five, six or ten employees which does not have to pay $30,000 in UI can hire people and not make any UI contribution for this year.


Mr. Milliken:: That is after you have raised the rate 35 per cent.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says we have raised the rate. We did not raise the rate. We reduced the benefit a bit but we did not raise the rate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You raised the rates twice in one year.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We kept the rates where they had been and they would have gone up if we followed the bill the way you wanted us to do.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Get the facts.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They want us to ensure the country does not work the way it can work best. This Parliament has had one situation after another where the opposition has ganged up to try to prevent things happening to make the country work better.
April 22, 1993

We have been working very diligently to trim government costs. We have privatized 23 Crown corporations, wound up 14 Crown corporations, wound up and consolidated 40 agencies and activities of the government in boards and other things. Most important, we have pushed and pushed to blast our way to the markets of the world. With the free trade agreement, our sales to the United States last year were $122.3 billion. That left us a very substantial surplus with that country.
More important, we are currently entering into agreements under the North American free trade agreement to tie in Mexico. We are exploring agreements to tie in Chile and Argentina. Right now the Minister for International Trade is on his way to Argentina again to explore more deals and more potential trade. By the way, he has taken the critic for the Liberal Party with him. Maybe together they can get the trade deal organized.
If we are going to be successful, this country that is expert at a limited number of things has to sell that expertise where it can. We have to be able to sell it everywhere in the world. We can and we will.
Last, may I point to the fact that our financial industries have been revamped so that our banks, trust companies and insurance companies will even more be able to compete in the international financial world.


Nelson Andrew Riis: In the Bahamas.


Iain Francis Angus: Cayman Islands. Do they pay?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We think of services as not being profitable. At least one-third of the business of Canadian banks is in foreign markets making money for Canada and bringing back the head office jobs that keep young people employed, give us opportunities and make jobs. Fifty-five per cent of the activity of Canadian life insurance companies is in foreign markets. The head office work for those companies, the policy designed for those companies, is done in Canada and employs Canadians.
We are criticized by people who say we have not done anything. We are in a world of rough change. We have competed better than anyone else in this world of change. Our growth rates are awful but compared to our colleagues in other countries they are superb.
Supply
We brought down the deficit as a percentage of the economy. Our interest rates are down very dramatically again, another 10 basis points this week. Our tax system is fair and more competitive. Our trade agreements give us key access to new export markets. Our labour productivity is growing strongly. We are on the verge of a new beginning. I am proud to say this government has done its best to cope with change.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. Solicitor General.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, in order not to interfere with Private Member's Business I would like to present a motion. I think you will find consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 45(6), any recorded division
on Bill C-93 requested on Friday, April 23,1993 shall stand deferred
until Thesday, April 17, 1993 at 6 p.m.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Etouse has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend from Mississauga and while I like him personally, I do not agree with anything he says. I want to make a short statement and I have a question for him.
The other day somebody was describing the government's approach to the economy. He said: "When a family finds itself in a serious debt situation because of accumulated debts the way to respond to that debt is not to resign from your employment and go on UIC". Somehow I think that symbolizes the approach of this government. It feels that by putting more people out of work by causing more small businesses to go bankrupt, somehow this is going to help the economy. This is a puzzling approach. Nevertheless it is where my friend and I disagree.
My question is this. The other day a young woman from Kamloops who is in grade 10 asked me this question. She is a very serious young student and has studied the free trade agreement. Kate Thrley is her name.

April 22, 1993
Supply
She told me she did not understand why the government was going ahead with the NAFTA legislation. I replied that I did not either. She said: "Imagine, Mr. Riis, if you won $10 million in the lottery today. You want to start a new factory or plant and are going to invest your money with the idea of making a profit in the years ahead. You have four choices. You can pay your employees $18 an hour as we do in some of our manufacturing plants in Canada. You can go to the northern part of the United States to the rust belt area and pay $12 an hour for the same level of expertise. You can go to Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee and west Texas and pay $6.50 for the same level of expertise. Now, under NAFTA, you can go to Mexico and pay 60 cents an hour for that same expertise".


John F. Brewin: It is five cents in the Dominican Republic.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Or five cents an hour in the Dominican Republic as my friend indicates. This of course is the next extension of the NAFTA agreement.
The student said: "Mr. Riis, unless you are crazy, if you are interested in maximizing your profits and have a choice of paying $18 an hour, $12 an hour, $6 an hour or 60 cents an hour where would you locate your plant?"
I responded that it seemed obvious to me that I would be encouraged to locate it in Mexico. Of course that is the motivation behind at least 2,000 corporate decisions to move and open plants in the Maquiladora zone in northern Mexico and employ 500,000 people there. Salaries average about 60 cents an hour.
As Ross Perot said, as soon as the North American free trade agreement is signed by Mexico, the United States and Canada, we are going to hear this massive flushing sound as the jobs are flushed from Canada and the United States into Mexico. This young woman called Kate Tbrley said that she believed in Ross Perot's view of the issue.
I want to ask my hon. friend from Mississauga this. If he was going to open that plant and he had the choice of paying employees in Canada $18 an hour or paying employees with the same level of expertise and training 60 cents an hour in Maquiladora zones in northern Mexico, where would he locate his plant being the entrepreneurial person that he is?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I want to give my friend a little lesson.
I was at the opening of a further extension of a plant by Astra pharmaceuticals in my riding yesterday. I had a chat with the CEO of that company whose head office is in Sweden.
It also has an office in Mexico. The company puts pills together in Mexico but it does not make any chemicals there because it cannot find any trained labour. It cannot find the equipment.
It has to put the stuff for the pills into a pill making machine that pumps the pills out in Mexico. All the stuff that makes the pills possible is manufactured in Canada or Sweden. It is not manufactured in Mexico and probably never will be.
Fie said: "What we are is a highly competent technical business. Therefore we have to have the best expertise possible. There is no way that you could possibly operate our business in a place where you did not have a level of competence that would make it possible".
I want to say to my friend, if you have a job that can be done by any jerk who has no education and pay him $18 an hour in this competitive world then you have a problem. If you have a job that must be done by someone who has confidence, who can understand a computer and run robotics, who can handle things effectively and efficiently you had better hire the best highly trained labour you possibly can.
Labour is not the cost in these things. In good, well-organized plants, labour represents about 10 per cent of the cost at the most. You can get your labour for 50 cents a day in south China or Bangladesh. Mexico is expensive. It costs about $2.33 an hour. Mexico is a high labour place in comparison to the Bangladeshes of this world, if one wants really cheap labour then one goes to a place where one can get really cheap labour. However, Mexico is not that kind of place. Mexico is a place where labour costs are expensive if one has to have any degree of technical capacity. The other facilities that go along are continuously more expensive.
We have a company in my constituency called Sissons that currently is in the business of building auto parts.
April 22, 1993


Nelson Andrew Riis: At $2 an hour?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I want to tell Nelson this. We have a policy in this government with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development where he will sponsor someone to open a plant in an Indian reserve and he will actually pay all the labour costs. It will not cost you a nickel. However, I do not see people flooding Indian reserves to open plants.
The reason is this. One must open a plant where one has competent people and competent equipment and competent facilities. One may get all worked up about some poor Mexican who needs a job-he probably does-but remember that the jobs we have to have in this country are jobs that are not untrained jobs. They are jobs for people who are competent and capable. We have to build a market for our competent and capable and highly expert material.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are you saying Mexicans are not competent? Where have you been in Mexico, Tijuana? They have universities in Mexico.


Eugène Bellemare: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a few short questions of the member for Mississauga South who is the self-appointed expert in Canadian economics 101. At a given point the member, among all the other points he was making about the Conservative economic program since 1984, took pains to explain that the GST was a great tax.
I have a few short questions for him as a member of the public accounts committee. He has referred to other countries that do have a GST but only at one level while we have it at multiple levels. If the GST is such a good tax then could he explain to me why the old tax, which was not a good tax and that needed improvement, needed 1,500 people to collect while we now have at Revenue Canada 5,600 people collecting the new tax. Will he explain that?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize. I will allow the hon. member to answer that one question. There are only 45 seconds left in the 10-minute period of question and comment.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I do not for
one moment say that the way the GST is presently operating and running is nearly as smooth or effective or competent as it should be. That is going to take some time for our people in the Department of National
Supply
Revenue to organize. There is no question about it. A tax system that taxes every trade transaction in the whole production system requires more people to follow it up than a tax system that taxes only once at the manufacturer's level. However, the fact is that that type of tax system is fairer and more organized to the benefit of the country than any other system. The VAT system we have is a system that is a transferable tax like all other VAT systems but it takes the tax off of our manufacturers and allows us to export our goods to foreigners without the imposition of our commodity tax. No other system of tax allows that.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to participate in this debate on a motion put forward by my colleague:
That this House condemn the government for policies which have decimated the economy forcing company closures resulting in job losses for Canadian workers.
I want to talk about the experience of northwestern Ontario over the last number of years where we have seen community after community decimated by the economic realities in part caused by the federal government.
Let me first start with the community of Atikokan which is a remarkable community in my riding that in 1979-80 saw 1,100 highly paid mining jobs disappear when the two iron ore mines closed.
Following that closure, the community struggled. Prior to the closure, the community worked with an adjustment committee to begin the process of looking for new opportunities. Some were forthcoming and some came and went.
We got to the point a little over two years ago where the community had rebounded. We had two wood-based companies. Proboard Ltd. was a manufacturer of a type of particle board panelling. There was also the Atikokan Forest Products Division at Sapawe down the road about 30 miles. It was a sawmill.
One will remember that around that time the policy of the federal government was to impose a 15 per cent tax on Canadian exporters of softwood lumber. At the same time our dollar was high in relation to the American dollar. Let us remember that the vast majority of our trade always has been and probably always will be with our neighbour to the south. Irrespective of the free trade agreement or the North American free trade agreement,

April 22, 1993
Supply
that is where the big market is and that is where we need to go to sell a lot of our goods and services.
Two years and a couple of months ago the unemployment rate in the community of Atikokan was 80 per cent. Why? Because of softwood lumber, high interest rates and the high dollar. Both mills were shut down.
The community pulled together. Management, unions, the municipality, the school board, the social service agencies and everybody got together along with their provincial and federal members of Parliament.
Howard Hampton, the provincial member for the Rainy River riding, then the Attorney General for the province of Ontario and a New Democrat, went to bat provincially. I, on the other hand, got in touch with senior ministers in the Conservative cabinet here in Ottawa who have responsibility for economic matters, employment matters or what have you.
I can say very accurately that the only help that the people of Atikokan got was from the NDP government of Ontario. Those two mills exist today because of the assistance they were given. It was not any giveaway or corporate welfare but innovative financial help that allowed those two facilities to exist today.
One of them still has a rocky road ahead of it. It is up and down in terms of the operation but it is still there. Atikokan Forest Products Division is expanding because of the turnaround in softwood lumber since the 15 per cent tax was dropped.
One of the key elements in both those situations was that the unions and the companies and the Ontario government worked in partnership to develop a plan of action. That would not have happened under a Liberal or a Conservative government in Ontario.
Let me go to the other end of my riding that is the community of Thunder Bay itself. Actually parts of it are in Thunder Bay and outside my riding. We have another situation where one pulp and paper mill shut its doors and the process of stripping the equipment was begun. That is Abitibi's Thunder Bay mill. We had a second mill in crisis. The community was in danger of losing yet another mill.
I want to talk about the workers in Thunder Bay who made some tough decisions. Perhaps if the Liberals would listen to me as opposed to wondering about the members in the House we might be able to get on with things.
The situation that exists in Thunder Bay at the paper mill was that Abitibi basically said: "We cannot afford to keep this mill any more. We are going to sell this mill and if we do not get a buyer we are going to close it". This is again a case where a community pulled together. The employees of the mill, both the management employees and the various unions that represent the workers, got together with the province of Ontario.
Through long, hard bargaining they first worked out an agreement between the management employees and the union employees to decide: "Yes, we want to buy the mill. We the people of the community and we the workers want to buy that mill". Whether it was management workers or union workers, they wanted to buy the mill. The province of Ontario came with them and said that it would assist them. It said: "We will provide you with a combination of loans and loan guarantees to allow you to take this step".
It was not easy for the workers. They knew that even if they did this some of their colleagues would not be there working beside them because they would have to reduce the numbers. As a community we lost because of that. They also recognized that they would have to compress their wages and in fact take some cuts but they were prepared to live with that.
However, this is again an example of where groups worked together: the workers, both management and union; the unions; the province; and Abitibi-Price which agreed to sell the mill to the employees. This mill is the first ever, 100 per cent employee owned pulp and paper mill in Canada. Any of the other mills are a combination of employee ownership with somebody else. It is a success story in the sense that they work together.
There are three similarities to these two projects. First, it would have been impossible without the province of Ontario and the assistance that it provided these groups. Second, it would have been impossible without the co-operation of all the players. Third, in neither of
April 22, 1993

these projects did the federal government lift one finger to assist these plants in northwestern Ontario to survive.
We tried employment and immigration and FEDNOR. They wrote nice letters long after the fact but that is all they did in response to the needs of the community.
The crisis is not over. Just a couple of weeks ago Canadian Pacific Forest Products announced that it was shutting down one of its kraft mills in Thunder Bay. Up our way it is not like GM closing a particular plant when we talk about plant closures. This is because in a large number of cases it carves off a chunk of the mill. It is really two, three or four mills in one. It closes one of those mills but the other ones keep operating. It is not the same as a whole factory having the doors locked.
It is another 350 jobs. That actually brings it up to, in terms of the number of jobs lost in and around the community of Thunder Bay in the pulp and paper sector alone, about 1,500 or 1,600 in the last two years. On top of that, the grain industry and the transportation industry have been decimated because of the shift of grain to the west coast. We used to handle 60 to 70 per cent of the export grain. We are now down to around 30 per cent.
Can-Car, which in a year or so will be doing great thanks to the Government of Ontario for ensuring that the TTC allocated its contracts to an Ontario plant rather than letting them go offshore, will have between 800 and 1,000 people working there for the next 10 years.
It is crisis after crisis and the federal government has done nothing to effect a positive change in northwestern Ontario. Even though for years it has recognized the inequities in the Western Grain Transportation Act it has refused to eliminate the distortions that make it cheaper to send grain to the west coast. We would rather leave it to the marketplace. Let the market decide which way the grain should go. We would be quite prepared to accept that. The federal government has done nothing to assist the people of Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario.
I think it is appropriate to quote from an opinion piece called "Viewpoint" which appeared in the Thunder Bay Chronicle-JournallTimes-News on Saturday, April 17. This is another part of the element and it fits into the debate we have been having about the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American free trade
Supply
agreement between Canada, U.S., and Mexico in terms of decision making. For years most of our employment in northwestern Ontario was locally owned. In fact, Abitibi Provincial is now coming back under local ownership because the employees decided to buy it, but the rest of our major employers are controlled elsewhere.
The grain companies are based in western Canada, those that are part of the pools, or in the case of Cargill elsewhere in the world. Can-Car is owned by Bombardier based out of Montreal.


An hon. member:: Soon to go to Mexico.


Iain Francis Angus: Hopefully it is not going to Mexico. It cannot seem to get contracts in Mexico even though it has a plant there. The control is elsewhere. Abitibi is controlled out of another part of Canada. Canadian Pacific Forest Products is also controlled out of Montreal. It does not matter where it is, it is the fact that the control is not local.
Let me read the article written by Robert Zobatar who is a forest industry worker. It is entitled "A blue collar insider's view of wood woes. Companies are placing undue blame on unions". He says:
For the past 23 years I have earned my living in the pulp and paper industry. I have worked at Abitibi's pulp mills and the woodlands operations of Abitibi, Canadian Pacific Forest Products (CPFP) and Buchanan Forest Products. I have met and gotten to know hundreds of workers, some unionized and some not, young people and old people. I have experienced first hand the attitudes and work ethic of these people from days gone by to the present. I can safely say that the workers and the unions are not the unyielding, radical, unwashed masses that big companies such as CPFP try to make us out to be.
In their most recent press releases, CPFP suggests that next to economic and market conditions, the closure of the softwood pulp mill is the result of the union's unwillingness to accept proposals for modified work practices. Poppycock. In the real world, you don't receive something for nothing. CPFP may be selling softwood pulp for less than it costs to produce it, and suffering a loss, but the fact remains they are not giving it away for free. They are still receiving something for their product. By the same token, unions and workers are not about to give away concessions and receive nothing in return, i.e. job security.
Behind the scenes, officials of these big companies suggest to the workers that we can't see the big picture, we don't understand things, and we are ruining the companies. Well, most of us stayed in school long enough to learn to read. We are quite aware of the ever-expanding global economy, the world economic crunch, the information era, and the need for change. We are also very much aware of such things as corporate raiding, buy-outs, cover-ups, profit margins, bottom lines, and shareholders-in general greed. If workers really are narrow-minded, then companies such as CPFP are doubly so. They can't see past profit and loss and shareholders. When the more community-involved Great Lakes Forest Products sold out to

April 22, 1993
Supply
CPFP, such things as the human factor and community spirit began diminishing and are now on the verge of extinction.
Economic conditions aside, why is the company in such dire straits anyhow? They were equal partners in negotiating the existing union contracts, and didn't sign those contracts thinking they couldn't afford them. Could there have been some poor management decisions, a lack of foresight on mechanization, poorly done studies on some of the new technology they so heavily invested in? Heaven forbid, they should admit to such mistakes.
I have seen this company spend many millions of dollars on every new piece of forestry equipment that came along (machines that can cost a $ 1 /4 million or more) only to discover a few years later that it is obsolete, doesn't perform to expectations, or destroys the regenerative environment.
I have seen many seasoned bush workers offer advice on how to try and make something work, only to be shunned by a young pup foreman fresh out of forestry school whose only concern was to assert his authority over the worker.
When CPFP sold their stud lumber mill last year, I watched as almost to the day that the last piece of equipment was being removed from that mill, Hurricane Andrew struck in the U.S., and the price of lumber skyrocketed. Who did they sell that equipment to? Their arch rival, Buchanan Forest Products, who are now making windfall profits with it.
What did they do with the proceeds of the sale of equipment from the wafer board plant and the stud mill? They received large amounts of grant money to build those plants and also modernize the Dryden and Thunder Bay pulp mills as well. Remember all those headlines in the 70s when things were going well? Have we ever seen headlines about returning money to the government when they sell this equipment, or about helping laid-off workers? No! I suspect that such money will be squandered on the next bit of flash in the pan technology that comes along.
I can only hope that while this company is looking so closely at what the unions can do for it, it is also looking closely at what it can do for itself. I know that with the impending expiration of mill and woodlands contracts, the unions, in view of recent events, are seriously considering the way of the future. Time will tell what comes of it all. Perhaps if we had all paid more heed to Alvin Toffler in 1975 when he published his book The Third Wave, we would have been better prepared for the mess we are all in today.
There is no question that the economy in northwestern Ontario is hurting. It is not just the visible mill jobs. It is not just the visible jobs in the elevators. It is not just the visible jobs at Port Arthur shipyard, which is being drastically downsized as a result of the policies of the federal government to get us out of the shipbuilding and ship repair industry as a nation. There are also hundreds
of spin-off jobs that existed because of those main jobs being in place.
There are also smaller companies that are not as visible, that are off the main track, that have gone away, that will not come back, and that cannot come back because the product they produced is now being produced much cheaper elsewhere, whether in the southern United States or in Mexico even today let alone when the North American free trade agreement comes into effect.
We have to do better than just look after those workers who have lost their jobs by providing them with training. I recognize that there will be restructuring. A society that does not change is a dead society, no question about that. It is how we do it. It is what things we put in place to protect the people, to protect the industries where necessary. We have to keep in mind that these are all people, they have families, they have children, they contribute to the community, they are members of our church or our service club, they are everybody and we all have a responsibility.
We cannot just leave things to the marketplace to decide. There needs to be a role for governments to ensure the orderly progression of whatever restructuring is necessary in society.
I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this debate today. I just wish the government were really listening.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan. This is clearly a world of change and he will realize that when he travels, if he does, to the southern United States. Where they used to have cotton fields they now have forests of pine that grow to pulpwood size in less than 25 years and are harvested by automatic machinery so that the lumber or wood is never touched by human hands. Of course we in northern Ontario have the same type of machinery but we do not have quite the same easy access to the wood supply that technology has given them. Our paper, while it is first class, is in very tough competition with other paper sources in the world and other wood products in the world.
April 22, 1993

I was wondering if in the restructuring of companies in his area whether he has a place that takes advantage of the changes we have made in the Income Tax Act that enable people to invest up to 10 per cent in the ownership of a company by using their private RRSPs. That means that they can in effect invest in their own company without paying income tax on the investment. In his area had he been promoting that rather beneficial arrangement for the assistance of people in developing small businesses and small business ownership and family business and for making capital available for people to build their own job opportunities?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Mississauga South for his question.
I will respond in two ways. I would be very nervous about encouraging anybody to put at risk money which is designed to ensure that they have an appropriate income at the time they reach their retirement age. By diverting even a part of their RRSPs in a venture is not something I would go out and campaign for. It is obviously something that each individual would have to look at in terms of their own financial circumstances.
I can say we are very frustrated about the work being done by my colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie, in trying to convince the federal government to match what Ontario has done. This was in terms of allowing individuals who purchased shares of their companies to consider them as tax deductions. It is much like what was tried for Algoma Steel. My understanding is that it cannot be done and the government has refused to bring that forward.
Here is the other point. I discovered this after a colleague of mine was given notice that the job he had for 17 years is gone. He works in one of the grain related industries. The dilemma he now faces is he knows he is going to get severance pay and quite a decent package. He also knows that under the UI Act passed by this Parliament and moved by the Conservatives that that severance pay will be treated as earnings for a prescribed period of time. He had wanted to take that money and invest it in a small business that would provide him with employment. He is in his 50s. We all know the reality of workers at that age. They are not as employable as workers at age 45, 30 or 25 because of the length of time
Supply
the employers see they will get back from their investment. He recognizes that but he is caught between a rock and a hard place.
He knows that if he takes that $20,000 and puts it into a small business he will have no income because he will be ineligible for unemployment insurance because the assumption is that the money will be used to replace unemployment insurance for up to 52 weeks. It is a real dilemma and it has been created by this government. Even though I know that was not the intention, it has actually worked against what the member has been suggesting, which is getting more people to invest in small business in those kinds of ways.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech. I wish the hon. member for Mississauga South had been a little more pointed in his question. I will try to make the point perhaps a little clearer.
The hon. member knows from the speeches we have heard today the employment loss in Ontario has been the gravest of all the provinces at 18 per cent or 185,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector.
I think he must recognize the gravity of that problem. I am sure he also recognizes that these jobs are not coming back. As he knows, Ontario is saddled with an NDP government which is driving investment out of the province.
We know that the economies in British Columbia-


An hon. member:: They are driving us crazy.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I was not going to go that far. He knows that jobs are being created in British Columbia and Alberta at the present time because those governments are much more enlightened. One of them is an NDP government I admit. It is more enlightened than the Ontario government, which seems to be unusually doctrinaire in its approach to social problems in our province.
I know he is a friend of the premier. There is a colleague of the premier in this House. I have suggested that the premier receive tutelage at the knees of some of the hon. members here. I would not want to suggest that the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan had been here long enough to tutor the premier of Ontario.

April 22, 1993
Supply
Certainly the premier would have benefited from his advice.
I wonder if he would agree with me that the appropriate advice for the premier is to get out of office. He is driving investment out of Ontario. He is stopping job creation in Ontario. In fact, if we had any other government in Ontario today, Ontario would be out of the recession.
I think the hon. member for Mississauga South will agree with that statement. If that is so, would he not agree with me that the best advice he could give the premier of Ontario is to call an election and put the people of our province out of their misery by allowing them to get rid of the government that is keeping them in the misery that the Tories helped create?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands would raise the question in that sort of tone.


An hon. member:: Direct way.


Iain Francis Angus: Direct way. I do not agree with him at all. Let me make it very clear. I am quite supportive of Bob Rae and the Ontario cabinet and caucus.


John Harvard: That's dangerous, Iain.


Iain Francis Angus: I will tell you why. First of all, when the hon. member's party was turfed out of office, it was spending like drunken sailors at a time when the economy was booming. It should have been putting money away. That is why, when the books were opened, we saw the billions of dollars that Ontario was in the hole. When David Peterson went around to people during the election saying: "We have money in the bank, folks," that money in the bank disappeared pretty quickly.
The second point I want to make-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Spending like Bobbie Rae.


Iain Francis Angus: One of the things the Ontario government did after coming into office was recognize the impact the recession was going to have.
It used public tax dollars to protect existing jobs and slow down the outflow of jobs. It also used public money to invest in new projects, the anti-recession program. I can tell the member that created a lot of jobs throughout Ontario. I know that in northwestern Ontario it helped a lot of communities.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Six hundred jobs.


Iain Francis Angus: No. I do not know the number but at the very least 600 jobs were created in Thunder Bay.
The member is wrong. The member should stop listening to the stuff that is coming out of Queen's Park from his provincial colleagues and start looking at the figures. He should look beyond the rhetoric to find out the kind of good work the Ontario government has done.
Quite frankly if there had not been an NDP government in Ontario we would not have had the assistance to Algoma Steel in Sault Ste. Marie. We would not have had the package for Kapuskasing and we certainly would not have had the help that we got in Sapawe and Atikokan. Provincial Papers would be closed today and not owned by its employees.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak this afternoon to an opposition motion to the effect that the federal government, my government, has done very little for the economy and that it sat idly by, to use the words of my colleague from the New Democratic Party, without any attempt at strengthening the economy.
I think this is a totally gratuitous, ludicrous and unfounded statement. All in all I would say it could be described as a typical NDP statement. Let me explain. History shows, and we have the figures to prove it, that when we came to power in 1984, we inherited an extremely high deficit. At that time the Prime Minister of Canada stated that one of his government's priorities would be to bring down that deficit, to help small businesses get back on their feet, and to get rid of any overlapping that existed, which would make it possible for Canadians to thrive in their country and abroad.
What did we do? First we tackled the deficit which was out of control; the government had been spending more than it was taking in and the debt was increasing dramatically. During the last few years we went from an operating deficit to an operating surplus. Except for the debt, one could say that our government, under the responsible leadership of our Prime Minister, has
April 22, 1993

succeeded in radically containing the operating deficits and replacing them with operating surpluses. Unfortunately, my opposition colleagues, the Liberals in particular, are reluctant to admit that our government's policies have produced very positive results.
Since 1984 both the Liberal and the NDP opposition have questioned the various programs and bills, even the various budgets tabled by our both past and present Ministers of Finance. Each time they called it a catastrophe. Each time a new budget was tabled in the House, they said it was worthless because Toiy budgets mean economic chaos for Canadians. Businesses will go bankrupt or will be shut down and jobs will be lost.
But when we look at what has happened since 1984 and we study figures carefully, we realize that we have helped the business sector more than before. How can we do that? Of course, the government is not going to set up businesses. I see my Liberal colleague nodding in disagreement but if he looked closely at what has happened and considered where investments were, he would see the tax breaks and the interest rate cutbacks companies have benefited from. In 1984 for a businessman who wanted to start a company, the commercial rate under a Liberal government was 12 per cent. Now, in spite of the criticism from the Liberal opposition, the commercial rate is 5.35 per cent. You can play politics. You can say whatever you want. One thing is for sure, if you have the choice of paying a 12 per cent interest rate on a million dollar loan or 5.35 per cent, any Canadian in his right mind, maybe with the exception of a Liberal, will choose to pay 5.35 per cent. That is how the federal government, the Prime Minister and our Ministers of Finance, have wanted to operate since 1984.
On one hand they tell us: You're helping companies at the expense of workers. But without companies, there are no workers. It is an equation which is fairly simple and so logical that it should not even be questioned.
On the other hand we were told: Now we have the companies but no workers who are experienced. So we should give them some training because whether we like it or not, we are open to global competition and to foreign markets. Canada is an exporting country and it needs some foreign market. The opposition told us no,
Supply
that we must stay home. They were against the free trade agreement with the United States. Now they are fighting against the agreement with Unites States and Mexico. They forget to mention one thing to Canadians and again it is very important and has no political colour: Our trade surplus with the United States was $17.5 billion last year which means hundreds and thousands of jobs in our country.
This means that jobs were saved, jobs that brought tax revenue to the government and gave our small business people in each of our municipalities and our respective ridings a living because people were able to buy and to pay. Our workers' income had an added value that was extremely important because the inflation rate last year was 1.5 per cent compared to the average of 8.8 per cent under the last Liberal government.
Figures do not lie; the figures show that the Conservative government of Prime Minister Mulroney with its finance ministers and various ministers with economic portfolios has taken concrete action to give Canadians better opportunities in the world economy.
The Conservative government is not the one saying that Canada will have the highest growth rate next year; it is the OECD, all industrialized countries that say Canada is doing well and working to overcome its financial problems created by a previous government.
We see what that does, the massive intervention of a government trying to create a parallel economy, a fictitious economy. Remember, and who does not remember-I see my colleague from Mississauga South and I am sure that in his riding he had problems in 1984 and before-when ordinary people wanted to borrow to buy a house. Interest rates were around 20 per cent; today you can get a mortgage at 9 or 10 per cent or so. This means taxpayers save 10 per cent in interest. The 10 per cent saved on a mortgage loan can be used for consumer goods. Consumer goods mean production, which means job creation, business and available capital.
I do not think that Canadians are not intelligent. On the contrary, they have been able to set themselves up in business in recent years not only in their respective provinces but also internationally. Looking at companies

April 22, 1993
Supply
like SNC Lavalin and Bombardier, which are leaders in our economy, we can say one thing: We need foreign trade in order to survive.
Not just foreign trade comes into it because as we go down to more concrete levels in our local economy we realize that our government has done a lot since 1984. Of course we have not solved everything but we have done an awful lot to revive the economy. For example, take the number of unemployed workers in 1984. When something did not work the Liberal government created a Crown corporation and all sorts of programs but in fact these were not necessarily long-term paying jobs.
I am looking at the statistics here, because we are often criticized for losing hundreds of thousands of jobs while the Conservative government did nothing. For example, in April 1992, 12,173,000 people were employed and in 1993 there were 12,376,000, an increase of
203,000	in a year. That is not so bad for a government which they say is doing nothing for the economy.
Nearly 163,000 full-time jobs were created in a year. In every Question Period, we hear the opposition say: "It is disastrous. Companies have closed down and jobs have been lost because of free trade with the Americans or free trade with Mexico." It is getting very hard to answer the opposition because when we talk to them individually, most of the sensible members in the Liberal Party tell us that, yes, a free trade agreement with the United States is essential and vital. Every one of them tells us that markets are going global and that we cannot live in isolation. Of course for partisan political reasons they can say that they want to renegotiate the agreement, reopen it and impose Canada's position.
They do not know what renegotiation means. Furthermore, I would point out to everyone listening to us that under the last Liberal government, relations with the Americans were extremely strained. We lost hundreds, even thousands of jobs because of that.
One of the daily tasks of our Prime Minister was to rebuild the confidence of the Americans in our country, to reopen markets which had been lost by the Liberal government, to try to allow Canadian businesses to
export and create jobs for Canadians. That is what we did and we can see the results today.
When we do business with our main partner, the United States, we no longer need to refer disagreements to the GATT where decisions can take three, four or even five years. We have a settlement mechanism within the free trade agreement and this has proven to be most helpful for Canadians. Look at our pork producers, for instance, and we are now working on the softwood lumber case.
I heard NDP members say that we did not do anything for the forest industry, for the pulp and paper industry. They know very well that we are going through a market restructuring and that Canada is no longer alone on international markets. Competition is fierce.
That is why, accompanied the Minister of Forestry, who is now in Europe defending the sound management of our forests accompanied by the Minister for International Trade and with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who more than tripled and even quadrupled the budget for labour training, we are giving ourselves development tools that are very interesting.
As evidence of what I am saying, only two weeks ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration was in my riding. He announced financial assistance of $300,000 to a co-operative of forest workers who bought a business, a sawmill, at a cost of $1,500,000. They will maintain 70 jobs and open new markets.
Do you know what is interesting, Madam Speaker? A part of their new market is directed toward American markets and will reach European markets. Contrary to some prophets of doom on the Liberal side, but particularly on the NDP side, they are not scared of markets, of competition. They mostly trust their ability as workers to have in their community a profitable industry with quality products.
These are ordinary people who did that and they did it with pleasure. They did it because it was an economic challenge to keep their region strong, to allow some people to get back into business and to allow others to start new businesses.
Very shortly yet another announcement will be made in my constituency concerning an investment of $400,000 going to a sawmill, for a total of $2,800,000. A dry kiln will be built. Why a dry kiln? Because we are exporting a
April 22, 1993

lot of lumber. This particular sawmill exports a lot of its lumber, not to the Canadian market, but to foreign markets, to the United States and Europe. We have high quality phytosanitary measures and our businesses are adapting to new market conditions.
Unlike the opposition parties, the companies do not rest on their laurels and say: "Boy, everything is wrong. It is even worse than before. Nothing has changed". Quite the opposite. They seek new business opportunities because they know that in order to succeed they need to be productive and to compete not only with other Canadian or Quebec businesses but also with every international company in their industry. That is the key to success and what we have been successfully promoting since 1984.
I see my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe is here. Even if it is wrong we often say our friends from the Bloc Quebecois, our friends from the Liberal Party, our friends from the NDP. I call them friends because they are members of Parliament, but besides being parliamentarians we have nothing in common.
The hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe told me he worked hard to help, for example Domtar in Windsor which got a $40 million investment; in Disraeli $200,000 was given to a company; the RCM received $1 million through the disadvantaged areas assistance program. The same thing was done in our part of the country. The federal government negotiated Canada-Quebec and Canada-Ontario agreements. In the end, federal-provincial agreements were reached in every major economic sector.
.(1755)
We have done a lot, and we did it not just by excessively increasing government expenditures. We did it within our ability to pay, within our ability to do things without borrowing from our children's future and the future of all Canadians. Above all, we did it jointly with all the provinces and with each and every one of our partners.
I do not understand why the NDP refused to support the free trade agreement which was extremely important for Quebec and the other provinces which export to the United States. Neither do I understand why the NDP and the Liberals refused to support drug bills which were extremely important in terms of research and develop-
Supply
ment, in terms of highly skilled jobs and in terms of specialized jobs.
Similarly, I cannot see why our colleagues from the NDP and the Liberal Party voted against the unemployment insurance reform bill which allowed the Minister of Employment and Immigration to take sums of money and use them for training instead of simply encouraging workers to look for a job.
These last few years, they have refused to co-operate to stimulate the Canadian economy. They have refused to do so because in their view, it does not matter if you spend too much, it does not matter if you spend more than your operating budget since it is only somebody else's money anyway.
Today for example, when we look at our public finances, we are happy and proud to be able to say that revenues are now higher than expenditures. That is what a responsible government is all about. That is why the Richmond-Wolfe, Champlain and Mississauga ridings, and even ridings of members of the opposition, can obtain real economic action which benefit the workers and the businesses and bring in revenues.
I almost forgot; now that I see him, I remember my colleague, the member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle whose efforts were focused on forestry. He worked extremely hard to push forward at least three forestry projects with federal investments in sawmills totaling over $4 million. That amount of $4 million will generate $16 million in investments will create 350 direct jobs in Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle and who knows how many indirect jobs. We did that although the opposition, Liberals and New Democrats alike, would want the Canadian people to believe that we did nothing. Those are real achievements rather than just empty rhetoric as they often indulge in.
The opposition claims that the members on this side are silent; they are not silent. They are working to solve issues and economic problems in their respective constituencies. We can enumerate every one of them as well as the businesses which have been helped. We can even name the workers who have been helped and the programs which were implemented. Finally, we can say that in spite of the unpopular policies implemented by our government since 1984 there is hope in the eyes of Canadians. They know that we are a responsible government which makes difficult decisions and that we will be re-elected.

April 22, 1993
Private Members' Business
If I were a Liberal I would be getting concerned because the polls show that it is indeed the case. If I were a New Democrat I would not worry however, because their popularity is high before an election, but they always fall back where they belong come election time. I would worry if I belonged to the Bloc Quebecois, because they are the ones who will most likely disappear.
In the last nine years the government formed by the Progressive Conservative Party was able to give a new life to the Canadian economy. It was able to do so not only by putting money into our businesses, but by cleaning up our institutions and by managing in such a way that would make any Canadian venture a profitable one. Indeed, it is hard not to follow the example of the federal government because our revenues are higher than our expenditures and it is the net profit which benefits Canadians as a whole.
This is why I am proud to belong to a party which believes that the economy is not built by "program creators" as the Liberals did, but through joint action and harmonization by the economic sector, the workers and the governments. This is what puts our country among the ones which will experience the highest growth rate in the coming year.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.

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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Brian L. Gardiner: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should hold full public hearings before a final decision is made on the status of VIA Rail's remote routes.
He said: I am pleased to rise in debate today on an important issue to the people of Prince George-Bulk-ley Valley and northern British Columbia. The issue is the future of VIA Rail's Skeena service that runs from Prince Rupert to Prince George and through the Robson Valley on to Jasper.
The focus of the debate is my private member's motion that calls for the government to hold public hearings before deciding on the future of VIA's remote services which includes the Skeena. Before giving some background to the motion I want to say-I think I have checked the record-that this is the first time that Parliament has debated VIA's remote services to this extent, I want to thank the members who are here tonight to participate in this debate for that involvement.
Members will remember the announcement by the government in October 1989 to cut VIA services across the country by 50 per cent. Many services were eliminated completely and others were cut back. Perhaps the most notorious cut by the government was the decision to drop the fabled train called the Canadian that provided service on the Canadian Pacific route, often referred to as the southern route. This was a classic train noted all over the world and this government cancelled it. One will remember that we were to get a private service in its place. That is something yet to happen.
The government then allowed VIA to continue its northern route that was cut back to three times a week in either direction. Work has been done to improve this service and I will comment on that a little later on.
At the same time as these changes were made the government announced that eight so-called remote services operated by VIA would be reviewed by the government. I quote from the minister's release of the day: "The government will be reviewing the transportation needs of the truly isolated communities along these remote routes to determine whether more cost-effective means of access could be introduced". The future of these services was left in the hands of the Minister of Transport.
The remote services were The Pas to Lynn Lake, Wabowden to Churchill, Winnipeg to Churchill, Sudbury to White River, Senneterre to Cochrane, Montreal to
April 22, 1993

Senneterre, Montreal to Jonquiere and, of course, the Skeena.
I would like to focus my comments on the Skeena and then make some reference to general comments on the remote service. The Skeena operates between Prince Rupert, Prince George and Jasper three times a week. In the past, some time ago, it was daily and at one time served Edmonton. Conventional equipment is used and it passes some of the best scenery available for rail passengers in Canada, or in the world for that matter. The trip has been written up by foreign writers as one of VIA's best kept secrets. It even hosted CBC's Midday program at one time.
I have travelled on the train quite often and am always impressed by the trip, the terrific staff and the opportunity to see my riding and the rest of northern B.C. from a different perspective. The staff on the train have always been very helpful and are always willing to pass on their views about the need to keep the service and how to improve it. They are very dedicated to good passenger rail service.
Statistics released at the time of the cuts to VIA pointed to an expensive run but also one that, when running on a half decent schedule, generated enough traffic to be in the top third of all VIA trains and also the top of all of the remote services.
However the cuts to VIA affected the service's awareness to people. The current schedule of 3 a.m. departures from Prince George-some would question whether Prince George is on a remote service-did not make it popular with travellers. Connections in Jasper to the Transcontinental service are non-existent and are not an encouragement to travel to points east or to return from the east by train. The three days a week service is not frequent enough to give travellers the automatic knowledge of when the train will be coming or going.
All that combined with a telephone service that is not always easy to use has led to a decrease in traffic although there are still times when the train is very busy.
Following the government's decision to study the remote services I continued to impress upon the government the need to make a positive decision on VIA Rail. I kept the pressure on three different transport ministers
Private Members' Business
to make a final decision that recognized the need to keep the Skeena running. At times the government was confused about the direction to take. Letters often contradicted public statements and the decision-making process seemed to drag on, perhaps deliberately.
For example while the decision to review the service was made in October 1989, as of July 1992 the minister was still saying that a decision had not yet been made. In fact a letter which I have just recently received from the minister says that cabinet still has not had time to actually review the file, but more on that in a moment.
In order to consult with local residents along the line I along with the member for Skeena hosted a public meeting in Smithers, B.C. on September 30. We heard comments from tourist operators, local governments, chambers of commerce and people who work on the railroad itself. They all spoke about the need to keep the service, to improve the schedule and to develop a comprehensive marketing campaign. A clear consensus emerged that we had to keep the pressure on the government to make a positive decision.
Also, with the hon. member for Skeena I want to extend our thanks to our party's transport critic, the hon. member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan. He has been outspoken on the questions of VIA Rail and the disaster we now have in the country and with all the troubles in the airline industry.
Last July there was some success when the Minister of Transport visited Prince George. I issued a challenge to him to keep the service going. The minister responded by saying as reported in the Prince George Citizen on July 25, 1992: "As far as the Skeena is concerned it is still a decision of CN Rail and the Government of Canada to keep the Skeena running". He went on to say: "I am committed to see it continued".
I praised the minister and the government for this decision and was hopeful that it would be finalized and plans for the service could be developed to improve its viability and attractiveness to the travelling public. Since then we have had some good news and maybe some not so good news.
Correspondence as recent as a letter dated February 11, 1993 from the Minister of Transport would seem to indicate there is still some confusion on the part of the government as to the future of these remote services. I quote from the letter: "Although the review process for

April 22, 1993
Private Members' Business
the VTA Rail remote services is complete, cabinet has not yet had an opportunity to consider the remote services file. As I mentioned in my previous correspondence"-I might add many previous letters-"I am confident that a decision will be made as soon as possible. Thank you again for writing".
First of all I think it would be opportune and helpful to the members of this House, certainly those members who represent constituencies where there are remote services, if the minister would release that report and make it available to us. I think that would go some distance in aiding all of us who are obviously communicating with our constituents, local governments and chambers of commerce on the importance of these services.
Let us settle the confusion first. In the February 11 letter the minister continues to go on about how this file is still being studied. Three transport ministers have been doing that since October 1989.
I want to make it very clear the Minister of Transport made a public commitment to the people of northern B.C. that the Skeena was to be continued and I hold this government to that promise. The minister cannot say one thing in Prince George and another here in Ottawa. The Skeena is here to stay.
More recently VIA Rail has announced consultations regarding changes to the Skeena. This is a bit of the good news. What is being proposed for the Skeena is a daylight service with trains running from Prince Rupert to Prince George three times a week during the day and a similar service from Prince George to Jasper also during the day.
The focus will be on the tourist potential of the train and it is very clear that Prince George, the city, and its hospitality industry will be the biggest benefactors of this change. All of the communities from the Robson Valley, McBride, to Burns Lake and Houston will also benefit from the increased travel.
The travel will be at more reasonable times. It will now be possible for people from McBride as I mentioned to go to Prince George during normal hours. It will also be
possible to head west from Prince George to Bums Lake or Houston at a more reasonable departure time.
Assuming no major problems with this proposal, VIA intends to upgrade meal service on the train, add a coach, and have at least one day of good connections in Jasper to the Canadian where there are currently no convenient connections.
I should note as well that for residents of the Prince George area of northern B.C. the quickest way to travel for example to Vancouver is actually on the British Columbia Railway. This new schedule should make connections much easier with the BCR for those passengers wanting to travel by train to Vancouver.
Perhaps the most important part of the consultations from VIA Rail are VIA's plans to launch a major marketing of the service in Japan, Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. This may be the first real promotion of the run in some time. We need the kind of promotion of the Skeena like VIA currently does of its service in central Canada.
If we had the full colour ads and the television advertising that most of us see in Ottawa and in central Canada for which VIA is perfectly in its right to do and I encourage VIA to do that, but we ask for a little fairness. If we had even a portion of that advertising and promotion revenue for Skeena clearly more people would be aware of the service. It always grates me to see the extensive advertising conducted here when there is nothing to promote the Skeena.
Even VIA's ads to promote special rates on the Canadian in western Canada do not include tickets on the Skeena. The changes VIA Rail is proposing would take effect with the April 1994 schedule. VTA says it needs time to prepare the service and to market the trip overseas.
I have already had calls to my office. Of course many people, encouraged by these hopeful changes thought they were going to happen immediately. After explaining to them that VIA feels it needs the time to change the schedule, people were comforted by that and were pleased to hear that maybe for the first time in a long time something is actually going to be done to improve and work on the service on the Skeena.
I was pleased that the president of VIA Rail, Mr. Lawless, took the time to greet the member for Skeena
April 22, 1993

and me on the change and to hear our suggestions and comments about the direction to take. It is a step in the right direction and I hope ensures the Skeena's continued operation.
There is one caution though. It was expressed to me by some residents in the community as to whether the service's new orientation would be able to attract the necessary traffic in the winter months. In other words, in improving the service to serve the expected heavier tourist use which we support, we must not forget about the regular users of the route and the system. One proposal was made to me that if there were heavier tourist potential and use in the summer it might revert to a slightly different or tailored service in the winter months..
It is my view that even more can be done. This government has to definitively state that remote services are not going to be cut. As I said earlier, the Minister of Transport has made a commitment to northern British Columbia and Prince George, but when one looks at the writing, he is less supportive here in Ottawa and he cannot have it both ways.
It is my view as well that the government must introduce a VIA Rail act so that the corporation can continue to operate on a more independent basis and not always rely on the blessing of the government of the day.
With regard to the Skeena, I also see a need to look at daily service as we once had and for an extension to Edmonton which VIA Rail was open to if the traffic should warrant it. We have seen what the improved service on the Canadian has done for the traffic on that run.
The upgrading and improvement of that particular service has attracted the ridership. People who are taking that train have been prepared to pay the price for it as well, which tells me and I hope will tell this House that when an effort is put into upgrading and improving the service people will take the train. The schedule must be convenient and there must be a marketing plan to back it up.
My motion calls on the government to hold public hearings before a decision on the remote services is made. There have been some consultations in northern B.C. with VIA Rail, the tourist operators and others
Private Members' Business
about the proposed changes to the Skeena. Those kinds of hearings have to be more extensive, in particular to the other runs in this country where the discussions are ongoing.
The first step would be for the minister to release that report. His report to cabinet should be made public so that we have the benefit of the research and knowledge of his department and the time it has put into it. Then we could circulate the report and discuss it with the communities, the chambers of commerce, the local governments, the people working on the railroad itself. We could see the direction in which the government wants to proceed and the public could have an opportunity to have their say.
The public did not have their say when the Draconian cuts were made to Via Rail in October 1989.1 think that is only fair particularly to those communities where in some cases the train is the only transportation service available. At the very least, the people in those communities should be given the opportunity to have their say.
I have fought long and hard to keep the Skeena operating and to improve its service. There is still more that can be done but to date, we have a commitment to keep it going. I am going to keep up the good fight for the people of my riding to see that this service continues.


Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's arguments in favour of public hearings.
However, I am afraid I must disagree and I intend to provide a number of statistics to show that hearings would not contribute any information that is not already available.
I wish to respond today to the hon. member's motion requesting that public hearings be held before a final decision is made on the status of VIA's remote routs. As you will recall, these services were not affected by the government's decision in 1989 to restructure the VIA Rail network.
Rather, the remote services were to become the subject of a study to determine if more cost effective options existed for providing service to truly isolated communities.
Before addressing my hon. colleague's motion, I think it might be useful if I were to elaborate somewhat on the

April 22, 1993
Private Members' Business
characteristics of the remote services, so that people will know just what it is we are talking about today.
As part of its network, VIA operates eight remote services. These eight routes operate over 3,100 miles of CN and CP railway lines in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia.
The eight remote routes operate between the following points, which may interest our listeners: Montreal-Jonquiere;	Montreal-Senneterre;
Senneterre-Cochrane; Sudbury-White River; Winni-peg-Churchill; The Pas-Lynn Lake; and Jasper-Prince Rupert.
Generally speaking, VIA operates three return trips a week over each route. The only exceptions are along the Senneterre-Cochrane route where VIA operates only one round trip per week between Taschereau, Quebec and Cochrane, Ontario, and the Wabowden-Churchill route which sees one round trip per week.
The Wabowden-Churchill service, however, follows the same route as the Winnipeg-Churchill train, which runs three return trips a week.
The Wabowden-Churchill and The Pas-Lynn Lake services operate as mixed trains. A mixed train consists of a freight train which operates on a fixed schedule to which one or more passenger cars are attached. All the other remote services operate only as passenger trains. Coach and checked baggage service are provided on all the trains.
Sleeper and meal facilities are provided on the Montreal-Senneterre, Winnipeg-Churchill and Jasper-Prince Rupert trains which operate on overnight schedules.
Studies have shown that of the 394 points located in the remote areas served by the trains-and here are some statistics that are real eye-openers-only 45 have year-round populations with a total of 7,844 residents. Many of these 45 points are the homes of native people. So you get the picture. Of 394 points, only 45 have year-round populations, and most of those 45 points are the homes of native people.
The most recent statistics available indicate that the number of residents living at remote points on a year-round basis was 2,457 on the Montreal-Senneterre
route, 10 on the Senneterre-Cochrane route, 326 on the Sudbury-White River route, 3,002 on the Winnipeg-Churchill and Wabowden routes, 1,793 on The Pas-Lynn Lake route and 141 along the Jasper-Prince Rupert route. There are no individuals living on a year-round basis at any of the remote points identified as stops along the Montreal-Jonquiere route.
People may wonder, then, what these routes are used for. These trains are used for a variety of purposes. Certainly they provide those people who do live year-round at remote points-and there are very few, as I said earlier-with access to regional service centres for medical, shopping, educational and business opportunities.
Many of the remaining points are used on a seasonal basis. They are used for recreational purposes to access cottages and commercial lodges and camps located at remote points. Others travel into the area for hunting, boating or other recreational wilderness pursuits. Such remote service contributes to the economic activity in the area by promoting access to camps, lodges and tour operators located in remote wilderness areas.
Some individuals travel to remote points to earn their livelihoods in such areas of activity as trapping, fishing, prospecting and forestry.
That is why the trains provide a limited freight service. And that is why the statistics on service frequency, routes and population density are so important. The trains provide a limited-that is the operative word-freight service, carrying foodstuffs, essential supplies and mail to remote communities.
In 1992 approximately 42 per cent of the passengers using the remote services were destined to points which are solely served by VIA. The remaining passengers were travelling to points which are accessible by year-round highways and in some cases are also accessible by bus or air transport.
The number of travellers going to or from remote points varies considerably by service. In 1992, the percentage of passengers travelling to or from a remote point varied from 80 per cent for The Pas-Lynn Lake to 7 per cent for Jasper-Prince Rupert. In the case of the Montreal-Jonquiere service which has no permanent year-round population at any remote point, these travel-
April 22, 1993

lers are going to seasonal camps and cottages located at remote points.
In 1992 almost 108,000 passengers travelled on these services yielding an average of 42 passengers per trip operated. The level of demand, however, varied greatly. The Winnipeg to Churchill route, which at almost 1,100 miles is the longest remote service, carried an average of 101 passengers per trip. In contrast, the Senneterre-Cochrane service carried only eight passengers per trip.
Between 1988 and 1992 the ridership on these services declined by 28 per cent. These declines can be attributed to the construction of roads into the remote areas, declining populations at remote points, closure of lumber camps, and regrettably the downturn in the tourism sector which has been felt in many regions over the past several years. As well, many passengers who used the remote services to travel to points which do have other means of access appear to have shifted to alternate means such as car, bus or air to make their trips.
No one can deny that the remote services represent a complex situation. They are strung out across the northern regions of our vast country, in areas with a small and declining population. However, the cost of providing this service is accelerating. In 1992, the subsidy per passenger amounted to $250. In other words we are subsidizing a very small percentage of the travelling public. You must realize that common sense dictates we review the entire situation.
I agree that the government must look at the provision of services to remote communities in all these regions, but we must reduce costs. As a government, we are responsible for managing the resources and finances of this country. That is why I do not think it would be useful to conduct public hearings. The government must therefore take the lead and make decisions on the basis of the situation and the figures before us today and I must say we have enough information to do so.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to address this private member's bill which I believe can be supported. Let me explain why.
Private Members' Business
To have full public hearings before a final decision regarding VIA Rail's remote routes is taken seems to me to be rather wise.

We could have public hearings which would last a long time, cost a lot of money, and so on, but we could also have shorter public hearings to try and confirm some statistics as my colleague was saying a moment ago. It all depends on the scope of the hearings. As far as I am concerned, I would prefer public hearings, to be absolutely sure. My friend said that situations vaiy a great deal. There are remote communities where the only access is by rail while others, although small and isolated, are better linked with the rest of the world. As far as I am concerned I would say that we should consult without taking months to do so and spending millions of dollars.
Clearly I support this motion, but I support it in a positive way since I would like public hearings to ascertain that the data we have are accurate.

As I indicated, we must make sure we see each unique situation as it is. I support a policy for the whole of Canada that looks at the smaller, isolated, very often northern communities. I think it is important that we do not simply look at one part of the nation but we do so within the whole.
I want to focus on the line to Churchill and the port of Churchill this evening. Obviously those are in my province and are particularly important to me and my province.
Some will know that I and my party colleagues sat down together and put out what we called an agenda for jobs and growth. We believe that an aggressive economic policy is the key to the creation of jobs. This is very relevant. I want my colleagues to know that I am not playing any games. We addressed a number of factors: the cultural industries, the production of ethanol which might be good for the west, a new core area agreement for the city of Winnipeg, and prairie and western integration programs because we think that we can do more things co-operatively. We looked at Winnipeg International Airport and what might be done to enhance jobs but we also looked at the port of Churchill.

April 22, 1993
Private Members' Business
I want to focus my comments on the port of Churchill. The port of Churchill has been one of the victims of the nine years of Tory economic policy. Where the Tories see this as a lost cause, and I do not say that unkindly, we see it rather as an opportunity to be seized. Obviously there is an ideological difference.
Our intent with Churchill is anchored in a very straightforward set of facts. Prairie grain producers have the opportunity to export their product through a port situated closer to their farms, closer to major export markets, which is simply less costly than the St. Lawrence seaway or the west coast. Those are facts and that is part of our statement. Churchill makes economic sense for prairie farmers and Manitoba.
I want to quote this document. This is a fact that not a lot of people know about.
For example, Churchill is approximately 1,270km from Prince Albert. But Montreal is more than 3,500km away via Thunder Bay and the Seaway. Murmansk, Russia is an important destination for Canadian grain exports. It is more than 800km closer to Churchill than to Montreal. The simple fact is that the Port of Churchill can save prairie farmers on transport costs compared to Thunder Bay and the St. Lawrence.
I continue to quote from this document.
Using Churchill is also sound environmental policy. Shorter distances mean less consumption of fossil fuels. A thriving Port and maintenance of the rail line could pave the way for economic diversification in Churchill.
fThis is extremely important.
Port facilities and a rail link make it a leading world contender as a spaceport satellite launching centre. New opportunities in Northern tourism also depend heavily on the continuation of the rail link.
It is not only for the grain. There are other possibilities, for example tourism. Again to quote from this particular report:
Yet the rail link and all its spin-off benefits depend on grain exports through the Port of Churchill. The Port requires 600,000 tonnes per year to break even.
This is a fact.
However, in the last several years it has seen less than 300,000 tonnes.
Therefore, it has been losing money.
The Port could easily handle 1,000,000 tonnes per year without difficulty and without expensive upgrading of either the rail link or the Port facility itself.
We believe that.
Exciting opportunities are within reach for Churchill. For example talks are under way on barter arrangements with Russia which would see Canadian grain exports paid for with phosphate rock. Churchill could be the linchpin in substantial two-way trade flows between the prairies and the new democracies of Europe.
I complete this quote by saying that my colleagues and I want to press any new government for the export of one million tonnes of grain through the port of Churchill each year.
While I have deliberately focused my remarks on the port of Churchill, I think we have to do an in-depth analysis on the others as well. While I suspect my colleague's statistics, and they were impressive, are really quite accurate, it is particularly important to ensure that we look at each unique situation. Without exaggerating costs, because I am sensitive to those as well, particularly in today's economy, it would be foolhardy not to have public hearings so that we can make sure that whatever decisions are taken are sound for the people in those various communities.
I could not agree more. I do not want public hearings for the sake of it, but I would like to try and establish what the best solution is for each remote community concerned.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support my colleague's motion which the House should adopt, requiring public hearings before any decision is made on the remote services of VIA Rail.
Let me begin by asking, where is the report? When the then Minister of Transport announced in succession the elimination of 50 per cent of VIA Rail services in the fall of 1989 and the Prime Minister announced the creation of the royal commission on passenger transportation at the same time, the minister also said, and my colleague read a quote from the press release, that they would do a study of the remote routes to look at alternate ways of providing services. There are a number of Canadians who can only leave their communities by rail. There is no road, there is no air service, and in some cases there is no water service, certainly not of the commercial variety. They are captive.

Private Members' Business
I know for a fact, and it is in the public record, that the Department of Transport finished the report quite some time ago. I believe it was almost eight or nine months ago when I heard it was completed and they were just waiting for time on the cabinet agenda.
While we are all happy they are continuing the remote services, there is a level of uncertainty out there. I challenge the government today. I hope the next government member that stands in his or her place to speak on this motion will tell the House why it is the Minister of Transport cannot get time at the cabinet table to talk about alternatives for the remote rail services.
Is it because cabinet members already know what is in it? Do they know that the price tag for providing alternate services, either road or air, is too expensive? Conversely do they know that the price tag for relocating those 7,844 permanent residents along those eight lines is also excessive? Or maybe whatever is in that report is as bad as the original decision was and the government does not want to add any more nails to its coffin as it goes into the federal election.
I encourage the government member to report to the House. I encourage the Minister of Transport to report to the House and tell us what is happening with that.
I mentioned uncertainty. The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley has done an incredible amount of work keeping the issue of the Skeena alive in his area to the point where the Minister of Transport, I assume at the beck of the government member for that area, told chamber of commerce members, as reported in the Prince George Citizen on July 25, 1992:
Corbeil told Chamber members at Friday's luncheon his commitment to maintain VIA Rail's Skeena service through Prince George is firm.
"As far as the Skeena is concerned, it's still a decision of CN Rail and the Government of Canada to keep it running," he said. "My colleague, Frank Oberle, said the line would go only over his dead body.
"I wouldn't want to be responsible for him shooting himself," Corbeil added, eliciting laughter. 'And so I'm committed to see it (Skeena) continued."
Yet we hear that they are still studying it, that they do not have the report to cabinet and that cabinet has not made a decision. There is that uncertainty.
There is also uncertainty every place east of Winnipeg. Independent of what the government is doing-in fact the government has said that it will not intervene in any way-CN and CP are working together to roll up as many tracks as they can. CN has already applied to sell its line from Truro to Sydney, Nova Scotia. CP has applied to abandon its line from Sherbrooke, Quebec, to Saint John, New Brunswick, a line which contains VIA Rail services that I used not too long ago. They are combining operations in the Ottawa Valley which will have an effect on VIA Rail services. They are looking at consolidation of operations east of Winnipeg.
When the government member spoke he forgot one of the remote lines, one of the protected lines. It is the line that goes from Capreol to Winnipeg. It is the line that the Transcontinental is on. The reason the Transcontinental goes on the northern line where there are fewer people as opposed to the southern line where there are hundreds of thousands of people, a line that goes through the north shore of Lake Superior, the city of Thunder Bay, Dryden and Kenora to Winnipeg, is that the northern line is a protected line. There are communities along there that have no alternative services. VIA decided to forgo the revenue it would get on the southern line, and a lot of people used that train on the southern line, because it had to keep services on the northern line.
In my discussions with Mr. Lawless he indicated that if we were to relocate the current three times a week service that runs on the CN northern line to the CP line to the south along the north shore of Lake Superior, that in itself would not cost much more than it does today in terms of operation costs or level of subsidy. To provide a local service much like we have in some of the other remote lines would cost a subsidy of about $12 million or $13 million per year. I do not know whether that takes into consideration the increased revenue on the southern line that would offset some of that, but that is part of the reality.
CN and CP are looking at consolidating their operations from Winnipeg through Thunder Bay on to Ca-

April 22, 1993

Private Members' Business
preol and Sudbury. If the two railways decide to do as indicated in a report done for the National Transportation Review Commission and the northern CN line which is currently the home of the Transcontinental VIA service is abandoned, that passenger service will be relocated to the southern line.
What happens to those people who live along that northern line whose only way out today is by rail? I grant that there are not hundreds of thousands of them. I take the member at his word that there are roughly 7,800 to 7,900 permanent residents. There are also a lot of working class folks who have what we may call cottages in other parts of Canada but we call camps up our way. They are not elaborate. They are not insulated. There is no electricity. Basically there are walls, a roof, a floor, some windows, a door and some bunk-beds. It is the kind of recreation a lot of working people in the cities of Winnipeg, Thunder Bay and Sudbury can afford.
There is also a lot of industry along those lines, industry such as the tourism outfitters that rely on that remote service to stimulate the economy of this nation. They attract people from the United States, Europe and Asia into those camps. They need the rails to get there. It may not show up on VIA's books but it certainly shows up on our balance of payments and it certainly shows up in the taxation applied both federally and provincially to tourist outfitters and the people who work for them. The member suggests we should have public hearings before any changes are made. I would like to remind the House the last time the only public hearings were by the
transport committee after the decision was made, trying to derail it. It had no luck.
I took the matter to the Federal Court of Appeal twice and lost both times. In fact, I am still paying some of the bills. That was the only public review.
At the very least if services are going to be eliminated or replaced, there should be public hearings. There should be environmental assessments. It may be doing more damage to punch a road through the natural environment than to continue the rail services. I could go on and on.
I would encourage the House to support my colleague's motion because there is a lot of great rail service out there. I rode the E & N last week. I took it to Nanaimo and met my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowi-chan to talk about the rail issues that affect his community. It is a great service. It is like a remote service even though it is not remote. We need those kinds of services in this country.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 6.46 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 23, 1993