1993-02-19

Hon. Pierre Cadieux (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and commence today's debate on Bill C-76, the 1992 budget implementation act.
In so doing I note that it is almost one year since that budget came down. As with all budgets, they are debated and approved in principle. The will of Parliament is indeed known following that approval, yet here we are, almost one year later, proceeding with the implementation of the legislative measures that flow from that budget.
It is a sad comment on Parliament and rather indeed more a comment on my hon. friends opposite than on the government that one year later we are still debating it. It is regrettable the government is obliged to use closure to vote through a fairly straightforward measure the fundamental principles of which were approved almost one year ago by this Parliament.
That seems to be what has happened here. It is a sad state and a sad comment on the state of parliamentary
democracy in this country that a government cannot proceed with fairly straightforward basic legislation without the imposition of time allocation and closure.
Nevertheless this government is determined to proceed with necessary restraint measures. It is determined to proceed with deficit control measures, and I might say that possibly, our hon. friends on the other side are finally getting the message.


Mr. Blenkarn:: No they are not.


Peter L. McCreath: I do not know. I have listened to their leaders. My hon. colleague for Mississauga South says that he does not think so.
I noticed as recently as yesterday that the leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada has now become a convert. She is for deficit control. We cannot necessarily make sense of it but we have certainly heard the recent pronouncements of the Leader of the Opposition with respect to deficit control.
I suppose at some point in the future we might even look forward to the day when my hon. friends opposite will not just talk about deficit control, they will actually walk into this place and support measures designed to achieve it. We will wait for that and some day we will see it.
I want to say two things in my remarks this morning if I may. As always, I will be very mindful of the clock, Madam Speaker. I will not abuse your patience. You have always been very indulgent of me in terms of the clock.
First I want to talk a little bit about the specifics of this piece of legislation. Then I want to talk about the subject of fiscal restraint and deficit control in general. Since my friends opposite have now become converts to this I would like to assist them in their learning curve of understanding the process by which this government has been making such significant progress over the course of the last eight and a half years.

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
Bill C-76, the budget implementation act, 1992 of course was in the budget. I might say it was a fiscally prudent, socially responsive and economically sound budget.
The budget contained measures to boost the competitiveness of Canadian firms and workers. It is interesting to note that it is having an effect. Canadian competitiveness is up 2 per cent in the past year compared to only a 1.2 per cent increase in our neighbours to the south.
Indeed the budget, the measures and actions of this government notwithstanding the gnashing of teeth from our friends on the other side would seem to be having a significant amount of progress.
As well, the budget brought forward further actions to reduce government expenditures in order that we could ultimately reduce taxes. I would remind all hon. members that last year's budget brought with it tax reduction.
When this government says it is going to bring tax reduction, it does. We had the proof of it in the 1992 budget. The Canadian public will experience that as they fill out their income tax forms this year. They will find that the bite is not great, but a little bit smaller which is at least an improvement over having taxes go up.
There were a number of tax relief measures provided in that budget for Canadian families and indeed for students and Canadians with disabilities. Measures were also part of the government's over-all strategy to promote economic recovery, strengthen Canada's international competitiveness and further control its expenditures.
Bill C-76 initially contained four elements. It contained references to the Small Businesses Loans Act, the Salaries Act, the Lobbyists Registration Act and the Canada Student Loans Act.
Since Bill C-76 was originally tabled, we have had the December economic statement which brought even more generous benefits and benefits that will be very positive incentives for small business in this country.
Due to the diligence of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, that legislation has been brought forward. On this one I must give credit where credit is due. I must compliment my hon. friends opposite for not having held up that bill with respect to the Small Businesses Loans Act. That act is very important to thousands and thousands of small businesses in Canada.
I would like to commend them for working with the government to move that legislation along. It is now at committee stage. We look forward to seeing that legislation back very soon to be passed. Then small businesses from coast to coast in Canada can benefit from that legislation.
That leaves the three remaining elements. The amendments to the Salaries Act reduced the salaries of the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers by 5 per cent effective April 1, 1992.1 will be interested to see if my hon. friends opposite will be supporting this bill.
To not support this bill would be a clear indication that they believe the salary reductions should not hit the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers. I assume if they vote against that it is their indication that they feel the Prime Minister and the ministers of this government are doing such an excellent job that they should not have their salaries reduced.
Unfortunately some of them might be beguiled into thinking it is because they hope to be sitting in the treasury benches some time before the next year or two or three should pass. I hate to break the news to them but I say they should look at their vote on this act more from the perspective of endorsing the excellent job being done by the incumbents on those benches right now.
Nevertheless this government believes in leading by example: do as I do, not as I say. That is why the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Forestry who I see here this morning and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans along with others who are here, lead by example. Restraint starts with restraining oneself. That is a very commendable decision and a commendable example taken by these measures.
The Minister of Finance in bringing forward his budget also indicated the government would strengthen its cost recovery performance. One area we believe should operate on a cost recovery basis of course is lobbyist registration. We know the Lobbyists Registration Act is of great interest to members of this House.
February 19, 1993

There indeed is to be a fee imposed on lobbyists to cover the cost of that process. User pay of course is a concept that has underlined many of the policies of this government. Many people come before members of Parliament requesting that more money be spent, but the fact of the matter is in order for government to spend money, somebody has to pay. I do not hear indications of support very often from my friends opposite or anywhere else that they favour tax increases.
If there is not a user pay concept where it makes sense such as in a case of lobbyists who are obviously in the business to make money, it is only appropriate that the cost of providing that service be raised. I should point out that as is the practice with this government there will be full consultation with the constituency affected by this decision before it is raised. Concern was raised at the committee looking at lobbyist registration.
Some people or groups, for example student organizations or poverty groups, might be penalized by this measure because they lack the financial means to pay the registration fee to register as lobbyists. Quite simply, these people are not required to register as lobbyists unless they are permanently employed and are employed as lobbyists, permanent representatives making continual representations over the years to the government. In other words, a professional lobbyist. There is a difference between advocacy and lobbying and that is recognized and of course it is the responsibility of the lobbyist to recognize it.
With regard to the Canada Student Loans Act the amendments in Bill C-76 deal essentially with three major items: removing the six-month, post-school, interest free period as of the 1993-1994 loan year; updating the alternative payment formula for provinces choosing to opt out of the program in the future, including an increase to the period of notice for such action; and making the administration of the program easier by allowing the minister to prescribe the forms to be used.
These measures will remove the interest subsidy during the six-month period after borrowers have completed their studies when they are generally in a position to assume responsibility for repayment. Aside from
Government Orders
self-enrichment, one of the reasons for further education is to provide and prepare oneself for employment in the work place. Notwithstanding the gnashing of teeth I hear day after day from some of my colleagues opposite, it is interesting to note that Canada in fact has the best record of job creation in the G-7. So this makes eminent sense.
I am dropping my paper here, Madam Speaker. I apologize for that.
In any event these measures will-


Mr. Boudria:: Can you not drop some more?


Peter L. McCreath: My hon. friend asked me to drop some more. There is so much wisdom here, I would not want to lose any of it because I know how much you are looking forward to hearing it all.
These measures will remove the interest subsidy during the six-month period after borrowers have completed their studies when they are generally in a position to assume responsibility for repayment. They will update an obsolete alternative payment formula to ensure that the cost of previously authorized loans in a province would be deducted from any future alternative payments. They will streamline the program as well.
It is interesting to note that since its inception in 1964 the Canada Student Loans Program has enabled more than 2.5 million students to pursue post-secondary studies thus contributing to the development of a well-educated and adaptable work force.
I bet a show of hands in this House would indicate that there are members present who over the years have benefited from that program.
Indeed an additional $100 million in Canada student loans was provided to needy students in 1991-92. This represents an increase of 16 per cent in assistance available under the program.
Notwithstanding the continued importance of the Canada Student Loans Program in maintaining an accessible post-secondary learning system, it is necessary to modernize the program to ensure its continued ability to provide assistance to needy students.

Government Orders
The amendments proposed in Bill C-76 should therefore be viewed in the context of other measures currently being undertaken by the government to strengthen and improve the Canada Student Loans Program.
The February 1992 budget signalled the government's intention to reform the program and this was reiterated in the December economic statement. The government undertook to initiate negotiations with lenders on a new financing structure for the program. The objective is to reduce the high default costs and improve the over-all efficiency of the program. Lender risk sharing, a new rate structure and administrative streamlining are among the anticipated outcomes of the new financing arrangements.
In addition, by reducing default costs and improving program efficiency, it will be possible to enhance assistance for needy students. Specifically, financial restructuring is expected to provide the scope to eliminate the 3 per cent guarantee fee on new loans and to increase aid to needy students, once again showing that this government listens. When that 3 per cent fee was introduced it was criticized roundly by my friends opposite. I am sure they will stand in their places today and commend the government for having heard what they and others have said in responding in this way.
I would like to emphasize that under the new financing arrangements the government will continue to ensure that needy students have access to financial assistance so they can pursue post-secondary studies. This was the purpose for which the program was created and will remain so under the new arrangements. The legislative amendments required to establish the new financing arrangements are expected to be introduced shortly.
I want to talk about some concerns that were raised in committee about the Canada Student Loans Program. In particular, members were concerned about two related issues; the rising student debt loads and increased bankruptcies.
With respect to the rising debt load of students, while the debt load of final year students has risen over the past five years, less than 5 per cent of Canada's student loan recipients had debts of over $15,000. About 85 per cent of the borrowers have less than $10,000 in loans. Those with higher debts are university students with the best prospects for high employment rates and incomes.
In fact, most of the borrowers who default have loans of less than $15,000. Having said that, let me assure the House that the Secretary of State's officials will continue to follow the situation closely.
A related concern is the higher bankruptcy rate associated with higher student debt load. There has been a substantial increase in bankruptcies involving student loans, but for the most part this is the result of the weak economy over the past two years, with which we are all familiar. As well, with increasing numbers of mature students receiving loans, we are starting to see greater numbers of bankruptcies in which student loans are a relatively small portion of the debt.
The Canada Student Loans Program has served the countiy well during its 28 years. It has provided $7.6 billion worth of assistance to over 2.5 million Canadians, allowing them to pursue their studies at thousands of designated institutions. However, the government has recognized the need to modernize the program, to improve its effectiveness in providing learning opportunities. It is clear that the proposals for the program's modernization will ensure that it better serves the needs of present and future generations of students. Canada as a whole will benefit.
I want to speak briefly about the business of debt and debt reduction in general, because that is what this legislation is all about. It is about debt reduction and deficit reduction.
Federal debt piled up rapidly in comparison to the gross domestic product in the mid-seventies and the early eighties as structural imbalances developed between expenditures and revenues. I think it is important to understand this.
I noticed in following the debates that earlier this week the Minister of Finance made the comment that this government, in eight and a half years in office, has not added a single, not one penny-I believe he said a red penny, I have never seen a red penny-but not a penny to the national debt. It is true. On the other hand, the finance critic for the Liberal Party said: "But the debt has doubled since the Tories have been in power".
A reasonable Canadian might ask: who is telling the truth? It is very simple. They are both telling the truth. I think it is important that this business of debt be explained so that people can understand it. There are
February 19, 1993

three concepts: the concept of debt, the concept of deficit and the concept of surplus.
A deficit quite simply is spending more money than you are taking in. For example, when this government came into office in September 1984 it inherited a situation where the previous government was spending $1.33 for every dollar it was taking in. That 33 cents is a deficit.
A surplus is if you are spending less than you are taking in, which is what this government is doing today. In fact in the most recent year, notwithstanding the recession, the government saved Canadian taxpayers over $6 billion in spending on programs, $6 billion less than it was taking in. That is what a surplus is.
If you take the 33 cents more that was being spent than the dollar that was being taken in, once spent, it accumulates and is called debt. Debt is an accumulated thing.
If you have a credit card, it is great, you do not have to worry about what you are spending. If I want to spend money I spend until my pocket is empty, but if I have a credit card I can keep spending. I do not have any money any more.
By spending monthly more than I take in, I start accumulating a debt. Eventually I have to pay that debt off but there is a problem because as long as that debt is there it accrues interest.
We put money in the bank but we expect the bank to pay us interest on the money because what we put in the bank is a loan to the bank. The same thing applies in reverse. If I am borrowing money by using a credit card, the bank expects me to pay interest on it. The same thing applies to government.
It is interesting to note that when this government came into power in September 1984 the previous government of the day-that $1.33 I spoke of a minute ago-was running a deficit of $16 billion a year on its expenditures. Meanwhile that had accumulated a debt of $206 billion.
On the day this government came into office there was a deficit on actually running the government of $16 billion more than was being taken in. There was a $206 billion debt already accumulated on which in that year alone the interest payments were $22 billion.
Government Orders
Guess what? You have to add the $16 billion operating deficit, together with the $22 billion of debt that was accumulated in that year, and that is why when this government came into office there was a $38 billion deficit on the over-all accounts of the government.
What has the government done? The government had a different approach. It believed a business cannot be run that way and government is a business. It believed that debt had to be brought into line. The government has gradually brought that situation into line by reducing expenditures.
It is interesting to note that since it came into office, the government has reduced expenditures, compared with what its predecessor was doing, by an accumulative total of $118 billion. That is equivalent to all the money that was spent running the government this year.
The first year the government managed to cut spending down by $4.8 billion, then $7.9 billion, $9.4 billion, $11.3 billion, $14.2 billion, $20.2 billion, $23.3 billion and this most recent fiscal year, it reduced spending from what it would have been on the Liberal track of $26.9 billion. That is pretty significant.
What would have happened if the deficit control measures of this government had not been brought into line? Where would we be today? The $38.5 billion deficit which was the legacy of that Liberal government, without the restraint measures that this government had brought in, today would be, imagine this, $82.5 billion. The deficit would be $82.5 billion today. I do not even know if there is a computer that could add up what the debt would be in that circumstance. Of course the government has been bringing that deficit down. It is very difficult to bring it all down in one snap move. It takes time to bring it down. This government gradually reduced that debt through deficit reduction programs.
The $206 billion legacy, Mr. Trudeau's legacy to Canadians, with compound interest of $237 billion added to it would have totalled $443 billion. That is what the debt would be if we compounded Mr. Trudeau's legacy to Canadians. By operating since 1987 in the black, by operating with a surplus, the government has prevented the growth of that debt to the point that it is more in the vicinity of $420 billion today. It is still an outrageous sum.

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
It will take generations to pay off, but at least it is now under control.
I hear a lot of scoffing from the other side about what I am saying even though they know every word of it is true. The government has brought in many measures to control the debt. It is interesting to note that every one of these measures has been opposed by the newest disciples of debt reduction: our friends opposite both in the Liberal Party and in the New Democratic Party who are now converts to deficit control. We brought in measures to reduce the rate of growth of transfers to the provinces. They say: "Oh, shameful". They call that off-loading. The provinces spend money and the federal government is supposed to subsidize them whether or not it is out of control.
When we brought in Bill C-32, the Canada Assistance Plan Act, and BUI C-60, Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements, members on the other side were opposed. The government has brought in measures to streamline the operations of government. There have been six pieces of legislation since I have been here: the Budget Implementation Act, 1991; the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act; the Spending Control Act; the dissolutions act; and the Government expenditure restraint act, 1990. Indeed we have the Budget Implementation Act before committee right now, BUI C-93. Every one of those was opposed by those people over there. We try to streamline government because we believe that leaner government can be as efficient as fatter government sometimes. Yet they oppose it.
We have privatized Crown corporations. There is a belief on the other side that whenever something is created in the way of a government body or agency it is supposed to be there forever. We believe that an agency, a council, a board, a commission or a department is created because there is a need for it. Once the need has been fulfUIed we do not keep that bureaucracy and keep paying for it. If there is a better way to do it, if we can amalgamate, streamline and provide as efficient or maybe even a more efficient service to the public, then we do so. If the problem can be handled in the private sector our phUosophy is that the government should get out of it altogether.
We have privatized a number of Crown corporations and every one was opposed by my friends on the other side. We brought in measures to restrain the salaries of
public officials from the Prime Minister on down, as I said earlier and as is in this piece of legislation: the public service employment act, pension benefits act, budget implementation act and the government restraint act. Every one of these was opposed across the aisle.
We have restrained grants and contributions. We have reduced budgets by 10 per cent across the board. It is painful. Nobody likes to have their budget cut back. Frequently I have said, as have my colleagues, that when witnesses have appeared before us in committee they have said: "Don't cut this program; this program is important". Every program is important in the eyes of somebody. So to come before government and say "gore somebody else's ox, don't gore mine", just does not work.
Fair, responsible and competent government is government that tries to live within the means available to it. That means having the courage and the integrity, I might say, to bring together restraint when restraint is necessary.
What has been the results? The results are impressive. Everybody knows that we have been through a serious recession throughout the world for the last couple of years. It has hurt a lot of people. It has hurt people in this country. It has hurt people in my South Shore riding. It has hurt people all over the world.
My friends opposite would like to take a simplistic approach, assume the ignorance of the public and blame it all on the free trade agreement, the GST or something like that. However, if we look at the performance of our country compared to other countries during this difficult time, we find that the record is pretty impressive.
If we remove the inflationary effect and look at program expenditure growth in Canada, the record between 1984 and 1990 was .1 of a per cent while in every other G-7 country it was higher: 1.8 per cent in the U.S.,
2.5	per cent in the U.K., right up to 4 per cent in Italy.
As I mentioned earlier, productivity is going up in Canada. In 1992 it was up by 2 per cent compared to 1.2 per cent in the United States. That is not a bad record.
Turning to job creation in Canada, we hear moaning and groaning about the free trade agreement and how we should all be afraid of the Mexicans because the NAFTA is coming. Let us take a look at the record. Canada has the best job creation record in the G-7:12.9 per cent compared with 11.3 per cent in the U.S., 10.5
February 19, 1993

per cent in Japan, all the way down to 3.6 per cent in France. Our situation is not bad at all.
What is the alternative? We will have an election this year. Canadians are mad at governments. Generally speaking if governments take tough, responsible decisions they become unpopular. There is nothing that focuses the mind like the issuance of a writ, as I have heard the Prime Minister say on a number of occasions.
The minute that writ drops it is no longer: "How do you feel about the government", but "who do you want to trust the future of your country to? Who do you feel has the competence to handle what is going on?" There is no doubt in my mind about which way Canadians will go when the election comes. They are going to pick a Prime Minister and a government that have laid it on the line and have said: "These are the realities. We need the courage to face them". They are not going to pick an alternative.
We know where the New Democratic Party is coming from. It has presented its economic plan. We have seen its economic approach have an absolutely devastating effect on the province of Ontario in the last couple of years. We are also beginning to see the impact in places like British Columbia.
I noticed the Leader of the New Democratic Party yesterday came out with her economic policy document: A Strategy for Full Employment. I reviewed this document last night and I found it interesting that she said her strategy for new employment will eventually lead to
1.601.000	new jobs by 1998. That is in her plan. Her plan will involve spending more money.
It says in the document that the objective of the NDP is to contain the deficit over the next parliamentary term but not to reduce it. It is planning to increase taxes and increase spending. As a result the bottom line is looser money and fiscal policy, and a significantly higher tax burden on Canadians is projected, all to create
1.601.0000	new jobs, full employment by 1998.
Yet, if we look at the analysis of the Conference Board of Canada just following the same track we have been following, the one that has been opposed so thoroughly by the New Democratic Party, and getting the deficit under control, what will be the result? We must remem-
Govemment Orders
ber that NDP figure of 1,601,000 new jobs. The Conference Board says the government's approach will result in: 1,651,000 jobs or 50,000 more new jobs. This means there will be 50,000 more jobs plus deficit and debt control as well, as opposed to allowing it to mushroom.
I do not think anybody will be fooled by the recent conversion of the New Democratic Party to deficit control. It would have been better to have stayed on the track it was on. At least it was given points for integrity even if its policies were not taken seriously by anybody with a bit of an understanding of economics.
Then we come to our friends across the aisle, the government in waiting, as they see themselves. When the election comes the Canadian people are going to have to look at the Leader of the Opposition and at the Prime Minister. The Liberals think that the Prime Minister has been unpopular and Canadians say they do not like him. Canadians may not like the Prime Minister, I do not know why because I think he is a great guy, but that is fine, they do not have to like somebody to recognize his or her competence. Deep down Canadians know that this Prime Minister has the courage to provide leadership for this country, as he has done for eight and a half years.
When Canadians look across the aisle they say: "Where do the Liberals stand?" Where did they stand when the United Nations and Canada went to war? Where have they stood when they say they want to get the deficit under control? Where have they stood on every single measure that has been brought before this House to control expenditures and reduce the deficit in this country? They have stood against those measures. We can look at the list of items that have been brought forward for expenditures with no indication whatsoever of where the money would come from.
Finally, we see the new economics of the Leader of the Opposition and his party with his recent statement that he is going to abolish the GST. That is $15 billion. He is going to abolish it and only if Canadians elect him will they get to find out where the money is going to come from.

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
Do not take it from me. Some might not consider me an objective observer of this. Listen to what The Ottawa Sun has to say about Liberal Party economic policy. I quote from the Ottawa Sun on February 4 of this month: "Jean Chretien has come up with his own Liberal brand of voodoo economics by promising taxpayers that a future Liberal government would wave a magic wand and make the nasty old GST disappear. The Liberals would actually replace the unpopular tax with a brand new business transfer tax of their own, a sort of GST, Grit sneaky tax. This scam is little more than a hidden tax intended to fool taxpayers". That really sums it up, does it not?
Here is another one. This is a good one from Claire Hoy in The Sudbury Star: "To find a replacement', Mr. Chretien said, 'you have to know what you have to replace. We have to know the figures and we are not privy to that information'. That is a lie. Mr. Chretien knows exactly how much money the government collects from the GST. It is no secret. The government puts out quarterly economic statements which even he can read".
I do not think there is any question. I can go on at great length, and I know the House would really like me to go on for quite a bit longer but I must give others an opportunity to participate in this debate.
Just as there is no doubt that Bill C-76 is going to pass the House today because it is the right direction and the right move for Canada, when Liberal economics and NDP funny money ideas are put before the Canadian people there is no doubt where Canadians will put their X. When Canadians have a chance to look at what is offered by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, by the Leader of the Liberal Party or by the Prime Minister, who has served this country so well for eight and a half years, there is no doubt what their vote will be. Their vote will be with me and this government to see that the progress that has been made for the last eight and a half years continues.
My friends opposite might as well vote for the reduction in those ministerial salary raises today because it is not going to hurt them one iota as they will not have the privilege of enjoying them.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, never has so much nonsense been stated in so little time from the member across-


Some hon. members:: And so enthusiastically.


Don Boudria: -and so enthusiastically, and I am not going to comment on the physical properties of the member across, as he just did.
The long and the short of it is that little that we have heard today is factually correct.
First, let us talk about Bill C-76. As of last count, that is what we were supposed to be debating in any case. The member across told us that this House had not been fast enough to react and to adopt this measure.
I say to the member across that I make no apologies for the fact that I have no intention to pass the bill. The bill should be defeated and not passed. In any case, the allegation, along with several others, is factually incorrect.
First, the member said the government invoked this particular provision last February and that members should be ashamed for delaying the bill this long.
Maybe he is right in terms of shame. The shame belongs to the government House leader across the way. If this bill was so urgent last February, why did the government only introduce the bill in the House on May 1, 1992? It blames the opposition because it failed to introduce its own bill.
Second, in the unlikely event that I have not convinced the hon. members yet, does the House know when the government decided to debate the bill? It was on November 16, for the first time. This is a bill that was supposed to be urgent, according the member across the way.
After debating it for a whole three hours that day the government decided to invoke closure after another three hours. It blames the opposition for that. Then the government forgot about the bill altogether, completely, and it was put on hold. On February 5, after one day of debate in committee, it invoked closure at committee and returned it to the House.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We did not invoke closure.


Don Boudria: The hon. member across does not know how to invoke closure in committee. I remember when he was the chairman of the committee on the GST. Surely he remembers how he did it.
On February 12 the bill was debated another day in the House of Commons and the government moved closure again. This is where we are. All of this would be silly
February 19, 1993

even if the bill was good, but the bill is bad. Therefore the member across has no case at all.
The hon. member talked a little bit about economics. I do not know in what subject the hon. member majored but it was probably not economics. He explained deficit reduction this way. He said: "When the Liberals left power the deficit was high and we have reduced it since". The deficit was $34 billion that year and it went from $34 billion to $35 billion. According to the hon. member across the way that is a reduction.
Every year in every budget the government has announced a deficit reduction but it is still at $34 billion. How does that constitute a reduction? That is the deficit.
Let us go to the national debt, which is the accumulation of all deficits for previous years. The member says that his party, his government has not increased the national debt. Who did it then? Was it the provincial New Democrats in Ontario?


Mr. Mifflin:: They are trying.


Don Boudria: They are trying. Is it the devil that made him do it? The national debt went from $168 billion in 1984 to $450 billion this year.


Fred J. Mifflin: It went there all by itself.


Don Boudria: It went there all by itself. It is not the fault of the member across the way. Bill C-76 is one of those so-called deficit reduction bills.
I want to deal with specific clauses of the bill. What does this bill do? It does two main things. First, it imposes registration fees on lobbyists. Second, it imposes fees on student loans. I want to address these two issues in sequence.
First, on the lobbyists registration issue, it is true that some lobbyists are rich. It is true that some of the activities of lobbyists have led us all to question what they are doing. There is a committee report dealing with that right now. It is also true that there is such a thing as a tier II lobbyist. They are advocacy groups, groups of farmers, groups representing public health organizations and so on. They are also registered as lobbyists. They are called tier II lobbyists in our system.
Government Orders
I know something about the act having assisted in the drafting of the report in 1987, the bill in 1988 and the review of it right now.
They are composed of a whole variety of groups. Whether they are rich or poor no one should ever have to pay for the privilege of seeing an MP. That is wrong. It is morally wrong.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, our manual that dictates to us how this Parliament should operate, talks about this. It has been the authority for hundreds and hundreds of years. Let me quote from Erskine May's 20th edition.
It refers to the right to petition the Crown and Parliament. In other words, it talks about the right to make representation for what one wants, regardless of whether the group making that representation is a rich lobbyist like GCI or an organization like that, the Federation of Agriculture in my riding, or any other group.
It says:
The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution. It has been uninterruptedly exercised from very early times, and has had a profound effect in determining the main forms of parliamentary procedure.
It goes on to say:
The rights of petitioners and the power of the House to deal with petitions were expressed in two resolutions of the Commons in 1669.
For 324 years people have had the right to make representation to those who they elect. It does not matter whether the fee is $1 or $1,000, no one should have to pay a fee to see me, the Prime Minister, the member across the way or anyone else. That is wrong.
Those who are advocating this say: "So what, the lobbyists are rich". Maybe some of them are. That is not the point. The point is that this institution exists for everyone and everyone should have the right to make representation to his or her member of Parliament.
I am not the only one who feels that way. The member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore agrees with me on that point. He has spoken eloquently on this issue both in the House of Commons and in committee, and he is a Conservative member.

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
There are several others who agree on that point. Any student of parliamentary procedure would understand that. If this debate was even entertained in the British House of Commons it would be thrown out as being unconstitutional. The member across the way is treating this as a joke but it is not.
On the other point if I may-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: How about Bill C-76?


Don Boudria: That is Bill C-76. Perhaps the member across should read it.
We are talking about the imposition of fees on people for the privilege of addressing their grievances to Parliament. That is covered in Bill C-76. Perhaps the member across has not read it. That is okay. He can. He can familiarize himself with the topic and then he will know that is exactly what this bill does.
The other part of the bill concerns having fees applied to student loans. There are a number of young people who work in this Chamber for us. They are our pages. Perhaps some of them have had to borrow funds in order to obtain an education. There is nothing wrong with that.
It is always better when we do not have to borrow because we do not have to pay it back. However for those who do, why should they have a 3 per cent tax on the privilege of borrowing the funds?
If a financial institution charged a tax for the privilege of borrowing from it we as a House of Commons would outlaw it. We would call it usury. We would call it all kinds of things. We would probably invent a new article for the Criminal Code to deal with it.
No private institution would dare do that. There would be so much bad press and so much bad coverage that it would not do it.
What will a 3 per cent tax up front on student loans do?
I will have to grant this to the member across the way: He is going to obtain $23.4 million with this measure. He is going to obtain $23.4 million from the young people of Canada who are trying to obtain a post-secondary education to hopefully make a better life for themselves, reduce the incidence of unemployment and obtain technical skills. This is how we reward them, with $23.4 million worth of fees added on to their costs.
If that is not bad enough, let me talk about the other clause of the bill. In fact, $35 million will also be yielded by the provision whereby students will no longer have six months after finishing school to pay the money back. They finish school in April or May, depending on whether they are going to a community college or a university. When they leave that school with everyone else, with the summer rush, with people scrambling all over to find a job, they are in competition with everyone else and are unlikely to get a job until September when all the others go back to school and they can finally position themselves. The months that were interest-free, to allow a student when he or she gets out of school to find a job, have been removed. Now they start paying interest right away.
The member for Mississauga South says that is right. I do not know if he means that is what is contained in the bill or if he means that he approves of it. I really hope it is not the latter. I hope that he as a free-thinking member, as he is known to be, will understand that is wrong.
My colleagues and I will not stand idly by. We will not give our consent to this bill. We are going to continue to oppose it because we feel it is wrong, on both counts I raised earlier. The member across can say that we should vote for the bill. It is all wrong but there is a clause in it to reduce the Prime Minister's salary and because there is a clause in it to reduce the salary of someone who is not even competent to do his job we should approve the bill. The rationale for that is a little hard to swallow.
If the Prime Minister does not feel that he is worth his pay that is his problem. Most Canadians would agree that he is not worth what we pay him and the same goes for his ministers. If they were judged on performance their salaries would not be too big.
Let us leave that aside for the moment because they are not going to be there very much longer anyway. They are in the fifth year of their four-year mandate. Sooner or later the Prime Minister and his government will have to muster the necessary intestinal fortitude to call the election. When the government does call the election the Canadian public will judge it. They will make the judgment so that it will not be a 5 per cent pay cut that the Prime Minister will get but a 100 per cent pay cut when he is turfed out of office by the Canadian public.
February 19, 1993


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
[Stage Direction]
That is what they are going to do with him and his colleagues across the way.
My colleague from St. Boniface has spoken eloquently on this issue of student loans, as he speaks eloquently on a number of issues. My colleague from St. Boniface issued a press release on February 18 pleading with the government. This hon. gentleman is an educator. He is a tenured professor at a university and a professor emeritus, and knows this issue better than many other hon. members. He knows the damage this is causing.
I cannot understand this. We have a government across the way that has embarked on a program-and I know because I participated in the process in my own riding-called the stay in school initiative to try to convince our young people not to drop out and stay in school. It is a program to convince them that there is a better future for them. What kind of conflicting message are we sending to young people when on one hand we are telling them not to quit school and on the other hand we are imposing user fees on them if they stay in school and are removing the provisions to help them stay in school?
What kind of a message is that? It is a stupid message, that is what it is, and it is wrong. I know they have a majority government today. When the time comes consideration of this bill will end. On Monday there will be a vote on it because the government has invoked closure.
I say to the members across the way: "Never mind the nonsense; vote against this bill. It does not defeat the government. That is not true. That is hog-wash. Even if it is a so-called budget bill, it does not defeat the government. It defeats the bill". It would be a heck of a slap on the face of the Minister of Finance but it should still be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may want to continue once we resume Government Orders later today.
It being eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, over one year ago the government recognized Croatia as an independent state, but the government has yet to initiate diplomatic relations despite the fact that the government maintains a consulate in Zagreb.
The House will know that the consulate in Zagreb is a consulate to the embassy in Belgrade and a virtual state of war exists between Croatia and Serbia.
I call upon the minister of external relations to immediately open diplomatic relations with Croatia, to make our consulate in Zagreb an embassy, and to quit the pretence that Zagreb is really a consulate for our embassy that deals with the Republic of Yugoslavia which for all intents and purposes no longer exists.


VICTIMS OF CRIME
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, late last year the RCMP Public Complaints Commission issued a report recommending among other matters that the Commissioner of the RCMP apologize to Kitty Nowdluk-Reynolds.
Kitty, Canadians will recall, is the young Inuk woman who was victimized twice in 1990. She suffered a vicious sexual assault and was then subjected to horribly insensitive and inhumane treatment by the Canadian justice system.
In January the commissioner apologized to Kitty for the inconsiderate and unacceptable behaviour of certain members of the RCMP. He expressed regret over their unprofessionalism and their failure to respect the basic tenets of human kindness. I thank the commissioner for his apology, but there are many other recommendations in the commission's report that need to be acted upon in order to improve the criminal justice system.
For Kitty's sake and for the sake of all victims I urge the government to implement these recommendations which deal with the special needs of persons who are victims of crime. Kitty's ordeal must never again be repeated.

February 19, 1993


UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I want to say a word this morning about the issue of world population and the failure of the UNCED meeting in Rio last June to address the appropriate issues there.
On December 30, 1992 Anita Gordon, media advisor to Maurice Strong, Secretary-General at the UNCED meeting in Rio who by the way is a Canadian, and co-author of the book It's a Matter of Human Survival, in discussing the failure of the earth summit at UNCED and referring to Agenda 21, the agenda for that meeting, said:
In fact, if you examine Agenda 21 carefully, you'll see that what it does is talk about our symptoms. It does not talk about our basic problem'. It talks about water quality. It talks about deforestation. It talks about loss of species. It does not deal with the fundamental problem, the thing that is sort of setting everything on fire on this planet, and that's the human species.
It does not talk about how we ourselves are expanding on the planet. It doesn't talk about overpopulation and it doesn't- certainly not -talk about overconsumption, which is the problem in the West. And, because it doesn't deal with those two basic fundamental things, it really does not attack the root of the problem.
What we need is more foreign aid directed toward education and health care.


ARMENIA
Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, yesterday, Thursday, February 18, together with several colleagues, I had the honour to meet Mr. Varaztad Avoyan, member and General Secretary of the Armenian Parliament. Mr. Speaker Fraser even introduced him to the House. Later that day, he met some of those responsible for external affairs in my party to inform them of the terribly difficult situation in Armenia.
Without partisanship, we strongly hope that the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada will urge that this issue be put on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council. We ask that Canada raise the question of access for humanitarian shipments with our
NATO ally, Turkey, and that initiatives be taken with the Russian Republic to consider with them an airlift to help these desperate people.
Madam Speaker, the situation is serious and I hope that hon. members of this House as well as the distinguished representatives of the national press will inform the Canadian people about the gravity of the situation.


SOCIALISM
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Madam Speaker, over the past few years we have watched socialist governments around the world flounder, fail and fall as the people living under these antiquated regimes struggle to survive. All these are the results of decades of socialist ideology.
However, here in Canada we were treated by the federal NDP leader to a litany of socialist ideas outlined in yet another five-year plan for economic ruin.
In Canada we watch the NDP Ontario government and the NDP B.C. government struggling to keep their heads above water by blaming their mismanagement on the federal government, but the simple truth is that socialism does not work. Do not take my word for it; check the annals of history where there is ample proof.


PENNY PROJECT
Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, what do you do with a million pennies? Well, just ask Ernie Penny. He is chairman of the Penny Project, a fund-raiser launched by the Foundation for Centre in the Park. The objective is to help raise some of the $262,000 which represents the foundation's share of the cost of expanding and renovating the Moose Jaw library and art museum.
Ten thousand dollars worth of copper is ambitious but in a vault in downtown Moose Jaw, I might add a vault with a strong floor, the pennies continue to mount.
Ernie Penny, A1 McEwan and all the others associated with the foundation are to be congratulated for coming up with this marvellous idea, an idea which has received
February 19, 1993

national attention including a feature on CBC's What on Earth.
We have even managed to bring them some pennies from Ottawa. Now Ernie Penny and his committee should be especially proud of this accomplishment. Since I have arrived on the Hill there have been all kinds of groups that have been unable to get even one red cent out of Ottawa. The foundation however has managed to get a whole jar full.


CANADA POST
Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, is there no limit to the ingenuity of Canada Post to find ways to infuriate the Canadian public and to induce phone calls to the offices of members of Parliament?
Canada Post says that if a letter is delivered to you in error it is now your responsibility to place it in a new envelope, readdress it, put a new stamp on it and put it back in the mail.
It is nonsense. It is an outrage with which Canadians will simply not put up, nor should they. This measure will not result in Canada Post getting its revenues in order. It will simply result in a lot of mail being thrown out that should be delivered.
I call on Canada Post to immediately remove this silly directive.


TAXATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment over the government decision to launch a study on how best to collect tax on prepaid funeral trust funds.
By imposing yet another tax this government has shown its lack of compassion to the seniors of Canada. As it is, people must pay the GST on all funeral costs including headstones and caskets. Surely prearranged funeral costs should be spared from any unfair taxation.
People who prepay for funerals want the peace of mind that goes along with it. By taxing these trust
deposits there is no incentive for persons to prearrange their funerals.
The government has unfairly taxed everything from books to women's hygiene products and now it is attempting to tax prearranged funerals.
I call on the government to stop its attack on our seniors who built this country. Surely our seniors have earned the right to peace of mind.


Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I was disappointed to learn the other day that the parliamentary committee studying the North American free trade agreement has decided to cancel a hearing in Saskatchewan.
I have a letter from Mr. Paul Brassard, co-ordinator of the Rural Life Ministry. He wrote:
The tour to Saskatchewan has been cancelled. We were missed in
April and now again. What is happening to our democratic process?
We are a part of Canada and insist that we be heard on NAFTA.
Those are the facts from Paul Brassard, co-ordinator of the Rural Life Ministry, a highly respected group in Saskatchewan.
They have the right to be heard. The people of Saskatchewan have the right to be heard on NAFTA. I insist that a parliamentary committee go to our province and let the people speak. I am not sure what the government is afraid of or what the opposition is afraid of, but these people have the right to speak.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, yesterday at the National Arts Centre in Ottawa a large map of Canada was raised containing more than 200,000 signatures in support of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Report entitled The Ties that Bind.
The raising of that banner marks the beginning of an aggressive campaign by Canada's cultural community to raise the priority for arts and cultural activities in the context of the forthcoming federal budget.

While that is a reasonable objective, I think the higher goal is to reach out to individual Canadians at all levels across the country in a campaign to create cultural awareness and to ignite the spirit of appreciation for and participation in cultural activities.
It is with the people of our nation that the priority for culture must first be elevated if it is ultimately to be reflected in government policies and budgets. That mission is one which has long been pursued by the Canadian Conference of the Arts. It is fitting that its launch of The Ties that Bind project yesterday will hopefully prove the catalyst to such a national cultural campaign on a continuing and lasting basis.
The arts and cultural activities in Canada deserve a higher priority both among the people of Canada and with their governments.


SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my utter disdain for the Prime Minister's cruel defence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his remarks concerning sexual harassment. The Prime Minister has only added to the agony of women who live daily with the contemptible behaviour the Prime Minister has condoned by failing to demand an apology from his minister.
Let me make it perfectly clear. Sexual harassment is not a laughing matter, ever. Sexual harassment destroys people, destroys families, poisons the work environment and keeps women subservient and stigmatized. Sexual harassment is not a compliment. It is not something with which one is favoured. It is humiliating, degrading, terrifying and soul destroying.
A few dozen or a few hundred appointments do nothing to help thousands of women who are being emotionally and economically destroyed by the obscenity of harassment. It is now the Prime Minister who owes Canadian women an apology.


ABORIGINAL FISHING STRATEGY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, the British
Columbia fishing industry is facing another tense summer over the aboriginal fishing strategy. In order to maintain any conservation measures and to prevent serious confrontation between whites and natives certain things must occur.
First, there must be consultation with all parties involved: the processors, the sports and commercial fishermen, the natives, the province and the federal government. This consultation process is being initiated by the minister this week in Vancouver.
Second, there must be strict enforcement of all regulations on whites and natives alike.
Third, there must be a clear definition of the wording of the Sparrow decision.
Fourth, every effort must be made to maintain the high quality of B.C. salmon and to make conservation a priority.
Most important of all is a positive and co-operative attitude by all parties to maintain and enhance this valuable industry to the province of British Columbia and Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, on March 31, 1991, 500 workers lost their jobs when Abitibi's Thunder Bay mill was permanently closed. A year later 245 workers at Domtar's Red Rock mill lost their jobs when that mill reduced its operation. During the last two years hundreds more at Abitibi's provincial paper mill and other mills in Thunder Bay and area have lost their jobs as a result of downsizing.
The list goes on, with 200 workers at Canadian Pacific Forest Products now in danger of seeing their craft mill in Thunder Bay closing and yet another 100 workers at Provincial Papers as they continue to restructure.
Under the existing Unemployment Insurance Act anyone who loses his or her job and gets severance pay has to wait until the severance has run out before collecting unemployment insurance. Under that same act workers who in these cases have paid into unemployment insurance for decades are cut off from UIC after a total of two years from the date of lay-off.
In some cases family supporters who have paid into UIC for all of their work lives and who have never drawn pogey will not get one cent from this government.
February 19, 1993

I call on the government to act immediately to ensure that workers get the full UIC benefits they have paid for.


WORLD VISION FAMINE
Mr. Barry Moore (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Madam Speaker, for the last 15 years World Vision Canada has encouraged teenagers from across the country to abstain from eating solid food for 30 hours in an effort to raise awareness of the issues of Third World hunger.
If we take just a moment to think of our friends from the Third World it will incite us to make that little effort which can contribute to better living for those less fortunate people. We as Canadians can do something about it. Participating in this 30-hour famine will give us a great experience of sharing.
In my riding students from the St-Alphonsus School in Chapeau and students from the Cite etudiante in Man-iwaki and elsewhere are participating in this 30-hour famine. I wish to congratulate the students and their teachers.
I urge all Canadians across Canada to take part in this worth-while effort to raise awareness of Third World hunger and to show that we care. We can only hope that our contribution can make for a brighter future for those less fortunate.
Thank you students on behalf of those who will benefit from your efforts this weekend.


CANADIAN FORCES RESERVES
Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I rise to record my concern and the concern of the Official Opposition over the charges made by the Auditor General on the Canadian Forces Reserves in his report last November.
The Auditor General stated that the reserve system as it is presently constituted provides only limited military capability. He also pointed out that the Department of National Defence needs to devise policies that will ensure a reliable format of reservists for training and in emergencies.
With the stated defence policy of a total force concept since 1987, the Canadian Forces Reserves are an essen-
Oral Questions
tial component of the armed services. They are increasingly forming more and more of our peacekeeping forces serving in areas of increasing risk. They presently form 10 per cent of all peacekeeping forces but will constitute over 50 per cent of the relief battalion designated for peacekeeping operations this spring.
I call on the government to address this serious finding, either to deny it or confirm it and to explain the government's plans for its immediate correction.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport.
The government has no policy on seating capacity in the airline industry. On the eve of a Toronto economic summit the government announces runway expansion, but admits it has no financing. It claims it will create
6,000	jobs and revises that within 10 minutes to 2,000 jobs. The government has no position to resolve the problems at Nationair. The government may or may not encourage airline mergers. What we have here are farcical, piecemeal steps, secret meetings and joke announcements.
Meanwhile airline workers do not know whether or not they are going to have jobs, consumers are in a quandary and the government is paralyzed. Why has the government allowed the situation in the airline industry to be reduced to such a shambles?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, the government has a policy in the airline industry and that policy has been working. However, the policy is a continuation of the policy of deregulation that was suggested by the Liberal Minister of Transport.
There is a problem with airlines all over the world. They all are at present and have been for a year or two suffering from severe losses. This is true of Canadian airlines. It is true of American airlines. It is true of European airlines. It is true of far eastern airlines. It is a problem that the airlines have to solve. They are in the

February 19, 1993
Oral Questions
private sector and they have to do their best to solve their own problems.
With respect to the situation in Canada, the government has been working with Canadian Airlines, as one of our two major national airlines, to see how it can be assisted in overcoming its present crisis. As well, Nation-air has been having discussions with the Minister of Transport for some time because of its financial problems.
We will continue to deal with carriers on an individual basis, depending upon their circumstances.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I wish to ask the
same minister a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. We have a Minister of Transport but no one has any idea of what he does. We have a Minister of State for Transport but no one has any idea of what she does.
It is wonderful that these ministers have their nice limousine and access to government jets, but airline workers fear for their jobs and the public is afraid of losing service.
Does the government understand that its inability to solve the airlines' problems threatens the industry and undermines public confidence even more?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I will ignore the silly cheap shots in those remarks and just deal with the substance of the question, if one could exaggerate a bit and say there was some substance to the question.
Mr. Hollis Harris of Air Canada put the situation quite succinctly a few days ago when he said that airline management has to accept that they made many mistakes themselves and it is not all someone else's fault. That is the situation exactly.
Airlines that are in difficulty have to hold themselves responsible for their difficulties if they over-expanded or made other mistakes in their operations. In the meantime it is not the fault of the government, but we are attempting to assist them anyway because we believe it is
in the national interest to have two competing national airlines if that can be achieved.
As to the rest of the hon. member's remarks it is better not to respond and the way I feel about it today, I am not going to bother to respond.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question is for a minister who knows something about this issue. I would like to direct my question to the minister of state for small businesses who announced yesterday the policy of his government that there was going to be an expansion at Pearson International Airport.
One minute the minister announced the expansion was going to create 6,000 jobs and about 10 minutes later he admitted that it would in fact create 2,000. He also stated that he did not know where the money was going to be coming from.
Could the minister clarify who is going to pay for this half a billion dollar expansion? Will it create 6,000 jobs,
2,000	jobs or in fact no jobs because it will never happen?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the hon. member agrees with expansion at Pearson. She does not say that she has a position on this.
What was announced yesterday is an acceptance of the panel report. We are going to go ahead with immediate construction of the north-south runway and indicated that the east-west runways will be done as well. The three runways will create 6,000 direct jobs. We made it very clear. The first one is 2,000 jobs but when the other two come on it will be 6,000 jobs.
More important, by giving this indication yesterday, people can plan. Industries can be attracted to the Pearson airport. Airlines can count on runways and an operation which will be efficient and on time.
What we were doing with that announcement was putting in place a framework for a strong Pearson. It is one of the biggest airports in all of North America. It is very important both to the Canadian economy and to our international competitiveness.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport.
February 19, 1993

Yesterday in the committee the chairman of PWA Corporation, the parent of Canadian Airlines, said that the Minister of Transport must provide leadership in restoring order to the airline industry which is continuing to bleed due to excess capacity in that industry.
Failure to act is going to lead to the destruction of one or both of our national carriers while losses are continuing at a daily rate. When is this government going to stop issuing idle threats and take concrete actions to deal with the problems in this vital industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, if there is overcapacity in the Canadian airline industry and it is agreed on all sides that there is, the overcapacity was not caused by the Minister of Transport or the Government of Canada. We did not put a gun to anyone's head in the airline industry telling them to go out and purchase more aircraft or to acquire more equipment. These decisions were made by those individual airlines.
Now it ill behooves them to say that the problem they have caused should now be entirely resolved and all the problems overcome by the leadership of the government. The government provided a regulatory framework within which they should operate. If they have not operated successfully, they should examine the mote in their own eye.


RAILWAY INDUSTRY
John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, the government has to play the hand it has been dealt, if it does not want to deal with the problems that are there, that are real and that are costing Canadians their jobs, why does it not get out of the way and let somebody else have a go at it?
It is not just the airlines. The Minister of Transport has been sitting on a report from the Rivard commission since the end of January that is telling him that the same problem is created for the railways.
Is this government going to sit back and let the railways go out of business the same way it has been
Oral Questions
sitting back and letting the airlines suffer? Does it have a transportation policy?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the railways have a problem now caused by differences in the economy, in geography and in the way goods are carried. It is caused by billions of dollars in public funds going into roads so that their competition in the trucking industry has put them in a very difficult position, and so on. That is the reason for the problems of the rail industry.
With respect to the question of overcapacity, what does the hon. member want? He talks about jobs. Does he want us to order the airlines to let thousands of people go to meet his demands that the overcapacity be reduced? Why does he not adopt a policy of some specificity and tell us whose jobs are to go and how they are to go? Just whose capacity does he want reduced?


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the leader of the New Democratic Party released an economic paper outlining specific proposals for an alternative to the government's policies. The fact is the New Democratic Party was prepared to put it in writing while the Liberals are still hiding on all the major issues in this country.
Yesterday in response to the document produced by our party, the government House leader said that he was opposed to our position of abrogating NAFTA and the free trade agreement. We still do not know where the Liberals are.
When the government House leader made that statement was he aware that another 250 jobs were lost in Oshawa in the radiator plant as a direct result of that continuing free trade agreement?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Madam
Speaker, I am in the process of reading the NDP economic plan.


An hon. member:: It is good bedtime reading. It would put you to sleep.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is not going too badly. I am getting there.

February 19, 1993
Oral Questions
I have to say, with due respect for the leader of the NDP and my friend who just spoke, that while there is lots in there that I as a Progressive Conservative would disagree with, I commend the leader of the NDP for having the courage and the principle to bring forward a plan as opposed to the Liberals who indulge in shell games, hypocrisy and evasion of responsibility.
It happened that unfortunately the leader of the NDP brought out recommendations for example with regard to the cancellation of NAFTA on the very same day that Canadian exports jumped to $157 billion, the highest in history. Our merchandise trade balance with the United States reached $17.7 billion and trade exports to the United States are $20 billion higher today than when the free trade agreement was signed.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, that is cold comfort for the 250 people who have lost their jobs in Oshawa. It is cold comfort for the two million people who line up every week in this country at food banks and the 1.5 million people who have been unemployed since this government was elected and continued that chronic unemployment.
I do not expect specious answers from the Prime Minister. We do not know whether or not he is keeping his job. That is not what Canadians are concerned about. What we want to know is how can we get Canadians back to work when our jobs are going to the United States and will go to Mexico if we continue these foolish trade policies.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend asks a very key question: how do we keep and build very good jobs? The answer has to be with an economy with low inflation.
Inflation is now at 1.5 per cent, which is the lowest in 30 years in Canada. I suspect it has a lot to do with low interest rates which in 1992 averaged their lowest in 20 years.
More important than that, it has to do with increased productivity, which is up by 2.6 per cent, and the lowering of unit costs compared with the United States. In the first three quarters of 1992, our unit costs were down 6.6 per cent, which means that this combination of activity indicates very clearly that Canada has become strongly
more competitive, therefore in a position to sell more abroad and create value-added jobs at home.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I do not suppose there is too much time in Question Period to get into debate. However, I want to make one point before I ask my question.
The unit costs have dropped simply because there has been a transfer of manufacturing tax off the corporate structure and on to the backs of the Canadian people through the GST. That is why the unit costs have dropped and that is where the Canadians are paying the subsidy.
There is 11 per cent unemployment in this country. In some regions it is up to 16 per cent. Does the Prime Minister think it is good enough for the Canadian people to hear nothing from the Liberals and sophistry from the government as they attempt to plan their lives in the face of all of these promises and still have no results?
What can he possibly say in terms of specific answers for jobs for Canadians now, not pie in the sky?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, on behalf of those indulging in sophistry, I cannot speak for the phoneys but I will speak for the sophists today.
To answer my hon. friend, there were some 57,000 new jobs created in December; some 45,000 new jobs created in January and it is forecast that approximately 350,000 new jobs will be created this year.
According to the OECD, employment growth for Canada in 1993-94 will be the highest of the OECD and the G-7 countries. Employment will be strong and durable, providing we keep inflation low, our unit costs low and we continue to strengthen our productivity and trade into new markets being opened by the free trade agreement and by NAFTA. That is the way jobs are created in Canada.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, his minister of employment delivered what can be described as a disgraceful speech before the Empire Club in Toronto where he attacked once again

February 19, 1993

the unemployed and the unemployment insurance system. He said that Canada's social system is like a net that catches fish. Hardly a proper reference to the many thousands of Canadian men and women who are out of work.
In the short time the Prime Minister has left, could he not find himself a minister of employment and immigration who would put his or her energies to putting people back to work and creating training opportunities rather than undermining the unemployment insurance system which is a basic fundamental element of the labour market in this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, the unemployment insurance system is precisely that: provided that its objectives are not distorted from providing for insurance against unemployment to insurance for just about anybody who chooses to leave his or her job for no reason or no provocation.
The ultimate original objectives were sound. Around 1971-72 the pattern began which has transformed unemployment insurance from something quite divergent from its original objectives.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration knows all about it. He comes from northern New Brunswick, and he is very sensitive to the questions raised by my hon. friend. He is aware of the value of these social programs to people because they impact so heavily on northern New Brunswick.
As a Canadian and as a minister, he is also aware of the greater damage that occurs when the fiscal strength of the country is drained away by abuses that should not be inflicted on ordinary Canadian taxpayers. He is in the process of trying to clean some of these up and he had hoped to count on the support of my hon. friend. Perhaps that will still be forthcoming.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise this question with the Prime Minister. He talks about distortions in the system. What is a more damaging distortion of the system than the fact that at present there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have already exhausted their benefits and have had to go on the welfare rolls?
Oral Questions
In my own city of Winnipeg the rolls have increased by 400 per cent over the last couple of years simply because the unemployment system under this government has been undermined and has deteriorated.
Does the government know and understand that there is a very specific problem of people who want to work, who do not have benefits any longer, whose jobs are not there because the government policies have trapped them into an unemployment ghetto? When will we have a minister of employment who will begin to seriously address that issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting, apart from the criticism, to hear from a Liberal about a given plan. What are his ideas, apart from the criticism?
We have already indicated that the programs we have are good. They can be amended, they can be strengthened, consistent with the need to strengthen the fiscal framework of Canada.
My hon. friend may have noticed that in the speech by President Clinton the other night, one of the points he mentioned was that if he did not get a deficit reduction program in place of the nature he indicated, some $400 or $500 billion over the next five or six years, he was horrified by the thought that 20 cents of every tax dollar in the United States would go to service the debt. He said: "We must stop this. This would debilitate the economy of the United States if ever we got into the position of paying 20 cents on the dollar."
The day I became Prime Minister I inherited a situation where 32 cents of every dollar went to service the debt. In 1984, for every dollar of tax revenue brought in, we were spending $1.33 in services. It was an unacceptable situation. Whether my hon. friend was in government or in opposition or on the street, he knows full well that he cannot maintain this partisanship in respect of the fiscal needs of Canada.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

February 19, 1993
Oral Questions
Yesterday in Toronto the Minister of Employment and Immigration continued his vicious attack on the victims of unemployment instead of addressing the causes of unemployment.
In view of the unprecedented levels of high unemployment in certain regions of this country, and I name Cape Breton which has an unemployment rate of 26.4 per cent, I want to ask the Prime Minister how will these changes, these new measures assist the unemployed find meaningful work?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, my friend refers to the unprecedented levels of high unemployment in Canada. I think the numbers, which were indeed too high at 11 per cent last month, were 11.7 per cent under the Liberal government when they turned it over to us in 1984.
The member ought to be more selective in his use of the word unprecedented, as unemployment was substantially higher. Parenthetically it was also higher, with inflation running at 12.9 per cent and interest rates running at 22.75 per cent. All of this has been corrected as well in the structural changes we have brought about.
How are jobs created? They are created by stopping the crowding out of the private sector in regard to interest rates, in regard to public borrowing, by strengthening our inflation rate and by strengthening the fiscal capacity of this nation to generate new economic wealth, which only comes about in one way, and that is by creating real productivity gains. Anything else is a myth. This country will prosper with new wealth only if we enhance our productivity.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Prime Minister.
On Wednesday and Thursday of this week we listened attentively to the Deputy Prime Minister actually brag about his economic policy and how some day, some magical day in the future it will be much better.
If the Prime Minister is so confident, so reassured and so certain of his economic policy, why does he not put them to the real test and ask the Canadian people to make a judgment on this tired, old, incompetent government? Will the Prime Minister do that, go to the Governor General?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, if he is talking about somebody being tired, I feel as young as a spring flower. I feel young and frisky, certainly compared to some people I know.
I have already told my hon. friend that the NDP and the Conservatives are ready to have an election any time, but we cannot have one until the leader of the Liberal Party fulfils his obligations and tells Canada where he stands on the GST. This is the important thing. Where does he stand on free trade?
I will conclude simply. I hate to do this on a Friday, but the last time I heard the member for Winnipeg say: "Call an election and give us a chance" was in 1988.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance claimed the Conference Board of Canada saw great job gains from the present government's policies. This month the Conference Board testified to the finance committee that its forecasts on present government policies showed 9.3 per cent still jobless four years from now. The Conference Board said it is "a pretty bleak picture".
Why is the government supporting economic policies that have these bleak results for jobs? Will it not look seriously and in a non-partisan way at the NDP jobs plan which would mean only 7.5 per cent unemployed in four years' time, lower taxes for 80 per cent of Canadians and a lower deficit?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Madam Speaker, I find it interesting where the hon. member gets his figures and facts from.
The Conference Board, in its report, said that in five years' time 1,651,000 new jobs would be created. That is over a five-year period. I have read the NDP-


Mac Harb: Propaganda.


John Horton McDermid: My Liberal friend says propaganda. Actually Grimm could not write a better fairy tale than this, I will tell you that. It is unbelievable.
February 19, 1993

In any event, under the NDP's make-work projects and the plans that it has brought forward, it is forecasting just 1,600,000 jobs which is less than what the Conference Board said.
If the Conference Board says that will bring our unemployment rate down to 9 per cent and the NDP are saying the unemployment rate will come to 7.5 per cent and you are relying on the Conference Board's figures, then you had better adjust this report that was released yesterday because obviously it is wrong.


Steven W. Langdon: Madam Speaker, the minister is comparing different things. What he should do is look at the unemployment rate projected just this month, as I say, by the Conference Board in its presentations to the finance committee of the House of Commons in which it predicted, and I quote exactly from it: "in four years' time the unemployment rate in this country will be 9.3 per cent". This is direct from Mr. Frank, the chief economist to the Conference Board.
The projection that the New Democratic Party has in its jobs plan is 7.5 per cent, significantly lower.
Why is the government prepared to accept this kind of bleak picture for jobs in this country? Why is it not prepared to give up its Count Dracula school of economics and get with it in the 1990s?


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, first of all I must say to the hon. member that we will go to the four year period if he wants. He is saying that the NDP will have the unemployment rate down to 7.5 per cent in four years if we follow religiously its economic plan. The Conference Board, which he quotes, says it will be around 9.3 per cent in four years time. The Conference Board in that same report says that under the current economic policies of the government, in four years time 1,375,000 new jobs will be created. Under the NDP plan there will be 25,000 jobs less.
The hon. member had better sit down and take another look at this report which, by the way, is so badly flawed that it is really hardly worth reading. I would suggest-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We will continue.
Oral Questions


SHAMATTAWA, MANITOBA
Mrs. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The community of Shamattawa in northern Manitoba has been plagued by a high degree of violence related to gasoline sniffing. In this case it has an incidence of 80 per cent gasoline sniffing. Alcohol and drug abuse are major problems. Children are suffering because they do not have adequate heating and safe drinking water due to a lack of electrical service.
A cost-sharing project between Manitoba Hydro and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was to have financed the desperately needed hydro land line to Shamattawa.
Why has the Minister reneged on his part of the bargain and why has he withdrawn his support and commitment to this project?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I cannot comment specifically on the case of the project that my hon. friend raises, but I commit to her that I will provide her with a proper response.
The member raises another point that I think is very important and this is the question of the very serious issue across this country, but particularly in Manitoba, that is being faced by aboriginal children and families.
Since August of last year the department of Indian affairs has worked with a number of groups to deal with specific problems. Since September of last year the province of Manitoba with the department of Indian affairs and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs has set up a task force to look at all Indian child and family agencies in that province. I think that working partnership with all of the parties is going to be important to all of the aboriginal peoples in Manitoba and I hope the results can be an example to the rest of us across the country.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. Having said that they have set up a task force does not address the issue that the Minister of Indian Affairs and

Oral Questions
Northern Development is being pressured to cut $40 million from his budget by the Minister of Finance.
Having said that, how can the department begin to assume that it can assist First Nations when it is proposing to cut the aboriginal economic development program funding by 28.8 per cent, which constitutes a $20 million cut and which in turn will cost the already economically depressed and job-starved communities 8,700 jobs?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I think my friend is referring at least partly to an article in yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press. Suffice it to say that even the Winnipeg Free Press sometimes has to deal in speculation. Not until the estimates are down are we going to be fully aware of what is rumour and what is fact.
I think it is important to recognize that the people of Canada through the Government of Canada have made a strong commitment to aboriginal people, not the least of which is a financial commitment to aboriginal people, not only in DIAND, health and welfare, CMHC, environment for the green plan, but in a number of other departments to ensure that the partnership the aboriginal people want to build to guarantee their participation in their future is reinforced in everything that this government does.


SERIAL KILLER BOARD GAME
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will know of the existence of a product known as the Serial Killer board game, the object of which is to play the killing of children as a form of entertainment.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if he is willing to do everything in his power and to give his own personal commitment to do whatever it takes to stop the importation into Canada of the offensive product known as the Serial Killer board game.
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): Madam Speaker, we are aware of that particular issue. I want to thank my hon. colleague for providing us with a copy of the petition and also this press release on the issue.
I am informed that the Minister of Justice has already given instructions to his department to look into the situation immediately and to make recommendations on how to resolve that particular issue.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for answering my question. The Prime Minister will be interested to know that I have here today a petition with 14,222 signatures. This petition was signed largely thanks to one of my constituents, Lena Cleroux, who is here in Ottawa today.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister for his personal commitment that he will use the provisions of the Customs Act to prohibit immediately the importation of a game which, I think he will agree, is extremely repugnant to Canadians.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I am told that the Minister of National Revenue has used this method. However, we must check the situation again with the Department of Justice to make sure that we can intervene in other ways as well and that all possible steps are taken to deal with this situation.


ABORIGINAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, in response to the government's December 2 restraints imposed by the Minister of Finance, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development seems to be unilaterally attempting to apply the bulk of the budget cutbacks to the aboriginal economic development program.
The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations has written to the Prime Minister and has analysed the effects of a proposed 28 per cent cut saying that the impact would devastate the emerging First Nations'
February 19, 1993

economies, create bankruptcies in the Indian commercial and industrial field and result in the countless loss of existing and future communities and membership.
Is the government prepared to exempt the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's economic development work from the over-all cutbacks that have been imposed to ensure that the commitments that have been made will be honoured and the bands' efforts toward self-determination and economic selfsufficiency are enhanced?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I was delighted to note earlier this week that even the New Democratic Party recognized that deficit reduction was the responsibility of all Canadians.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shares in that responsibility as a department of government. Certainly that department, like every other, will have to go through a process that deals with its contribution to the over-all deficit reduction.
Certain programs in DIAND have already been exempted. I use the example of aboriginal housing. I can assure the hon. member that the minister and the government will review the expenditure reductions in light of being fair, making appropriate decisions and taking into account the success of CAEDS and other programs like that to enhance aboriginal investment and non-aboriginal investment in aboriginal communities.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I hope that the parliamentary secretary to the minister will have a look at the FSIN letter to the Prime Minister in which Chief Rowland Crow talks about the acknowledgement of this being the most disadvantaged and deprived group in the country and economic development being one of the most significant aspects of their future.
I want to also ask the government if under the circumstances it can do something that should not cost the government an extra penny, but gives aboriginal people through economic development a leg up. The Americans have a set-aside program for aboriginal procurements.
Oral Questions
Is the government prepared to put legislation in place to allow procurement from aboriginal bands and specific purchases from aboriginal bands?


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam
Speaker, I just want to comment briefly, although I am sure that my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services is better able to respond to the specifics, on two things.
I think we have learned a lot in the last little while, that more money is not necessarily the answer to all our problems, but spending it better. That is the message I get from aboriginal communities as well as Canadians generally.
Second, I would say that the suggestion my colleague makes, if not specifically able to be carried out, is the type of creative approach this government has taken in the past in co-operation with aboriginal peoples and others to make sure that the best possible advantage is taken of things like government purchasing or the construction of communities and homes.


GILL-NETTING
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. This is a sort of seasonal question, but nonetheless a serious one.
As the minister knows, the practice of gill-netting is very destructive as a method of harvesting Atlantic salmon. There is a broad consensus among most angling interests that it is a practice that should be banned in the interests of conservation.
Will the minister consider banning gill-netting in 1993 and will he and his department enforce that ban once it is established?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a great interest in the Atlantic salmon fishery as he well might, knowing personally the tremendous qualities of that splendid beast. I am very pleased to attempt to answer his question. He is also a great advocate of conservation in the salmon fishing industry.

Oral Questions
As the hon. member knows, we had to manage the fishery under the Sparrow decision in a way that does not infringe upon food fishing activities, including fishing by aboriginals using their preferred means, unless there is a justification and conservation concerns to prevent that.
Last summer we negotiated agreements with a number of Indian bands in New Brunswick to have them voluntarily desist from the use of gill-nets. By the end of the season there was a marked decrease in the use of gill-nets. They opted into trap nets, guardian and habitat restoration programs. We are hoping to do more of that during this coming season and to reduce the problem of gill-net fishing.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has long predicated its harvesting regulations on the Sparrow case as a legal benchmark. Yet, gill-netting is a very destructive method.
Will the Department of Fisheries and Oceans consider challenging the Sparrow case in the interests of conservation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the solution lies in good fisheries management. It does not lie in challenging the Sparrow decision, but trying to ensure that the aboriginal fisheries strategy which provides for conservation and, we think, the needs of aboriginal peoples to try to see that strategy goes into full force and effect and is accepted by everyone in the fishing industry. That is what we are working to do. It is by agreement that you can achieve real progress, not necessarily by threats of enforcement and hundreds of thousands of cases that go to the courts.
We are proceeding in a way which we hope will get everyone's support.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Canadian farmers are being thrown off the land in record numbers while a fund set up by the Farm Credit
Corporation to help restructure them and keep them on the land is not being used. In fact, only 20 per cent of those who apply nationally and 14 per cent in Ontario have access to this fund.
Why are 80 per cent of farmers in Canada who apply denied access to this fund which is there to keep them on the land?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take this question. That fund has been working for a number of years and working well for fanners. It has assisted many farmers to remain on the land and coming back to a competitive position.
The hon. member may think that we are not supporting them, but we have been supporting them and will continue to do so in the future.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I think the numbers really speak for themselves. In fact, there has been an over 300 per cent increase in the number of farms acquired by the Farm Credit Corporation over the last five years and a 1,700 per cent increase in the value of that land. In fact my office, as have many member's offices, has been deluged by many farmers who are both being denied access to this fund and whose farms are being undervalued by the policy of the Farm Credit Corporation.
What hope can this minister give the thousands of farmers who are losing their farms that they will be able to stay on the land? Will the minister instruct the Farm Credit Corporation to open up this fund to farmers to keep them on the land?


Murray Cardiff: Madam Speaker, the fund has worked. The Farm Debt Review Board, an independent review board, goes out and meets with farmers and makes a recommendation to the Farm Credit Corporation. That has worked well and will continue to work that way.
Funding is one part that will keep farmers on the land but there is more to it than it. Agriculture has to be economic in Canada and the GATT agreements will be part of that. We will continue to work with farmers to provide them with a future through the safety net programs and various other programs we have brought
February 19, 1993

forward for the last number of years. We will continue to work with the agriculture programs that we have.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Transport.
The cornerstone of the government's aviation policy has been no regulation, leave it to the marketplace. Yet we hear that Nationair is coming cap in hand to the Government of Canada asking for financial assistance.
If the government wants to be consistent in its policy, will it say no to any kind of bailout for Nationair, particularly because it has thumbed its nose at the Minister of Transport who has asked for capacity reduction in the industry?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, Nationair has had some conversations with the Minister of Transport. I believe it is requesting some kind of financial assistance. Whether or not that could be agreed to or if it was agreed to, what conditions might be laid down is yet to be determined. The Minister of Transport has not reported to the government yet or recommended a course of action.
With respect to thumbing their noses at the government, it is hard to find anyone in Canada who has not.


PROPERTY TAXES
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, several Montreal area ministers and hon. members received a letter from the city of Montreal asking that the federal government fulfil its undertaking not to destabilize municipal budgets through changes to grants in lieu of taxes.
Why is the government refusing to put an end to this freeze? It could keep the promise it made to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in 1986. Why is it
Routine Proceedings
refusing, and why is it continuing to penalize an area where there are more than 225,000 unemployed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Madam Speaker, I believe the minister responsible for housing answered that question the day before yesterday and intends to provide further details next week.
I thought the hon. member from Montreal had risen to congratulate the government for bringing about the $400 or $500 million dollar investment in northern Montreal, which should create thousands of jobs in tourism. I thought the hon. member would point out this piece of good news for the Montreal area. He therefore has a further opportunity to congratulate the government and Canada on this great success.


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Angus Ross Reid: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
My friend from the Western Arctic asked a question earlier concerning the specific case of the Shamattawa to which I was not able to respond. I want to give her an answer in respect to the concern she has expressed.
The question of the joint funding of the hydro line has been a subject of discussion. Unfortunately those discussions have not gone terribly well. However I did want to reassure my friend that the Government of Canada has not reneged on its commitment to jointly fund that line.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present a petition under Standing Order 36.

Routine Proceedings
The petitioners say that culture reflects our country's values. Cultural activities are the means by which those values are nurtured and expressed. The petitioners ask that the Parliament of Canada adopt the recommendations of the standing committee report entitled The Ties that Bind and in particular that Parliament elevate the priority of cultural activities in the over-all context of its future budget considerations to ensure that further reductions in such funding will not occur.
I have an official document duly signed by 26 citizens of Canada. It is accompanied by a scroll I was presented with yesterday which is signed by several thousand citizens of Canada.
On the wall of the National Arts Centre is the continuation of this scroll in the form of the map of Canada. It contains more than a quarter million signatures. I appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to table a petition signed by 14,222 Canadians asking that the Government of Canada and this House ban the importation into this country of the Serial Killer board game.

Madam Speaker, as you know, the Serial Killer board-game proposes to entertain people by simulating the killing of children. The pieces used in the game represent dead babies. The game is packaged in a body bag. It is sick in the extreme, and we certainly don't need that kind of product in this country.
Madam Speaker, with your permission, I would like to take this opportunity to thank one of my constituents who helped me circulate the petition: Lena Cleroux, who is in Ottawa today.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of my constituents from the Western Arctic on the issue of child poverty.
The poverty of Canadian children will yield ever increasing costs in the administration of health care, justice and social welfare and inhibits learning and
preparation for employment constituting a cost for future national productivity.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by many hundreds of people from British Columbia who have noted that there is a link between violence in entertainment and desensitization to violence in our society.
The petitioners also express their concern about the fact that we are becoming a culture of violence and that violence has become an ordinary part of our children's lives.
The petitioners note that part of this culture of violence is the Serial Killer board game, a game which comes with a bag of 25 babies. The point of this game is to murder as many defenceless children and adults as possible.
The petitioners request that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading material such as the Serial Killer board game and the Mass Murderer trading cards can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by members of my community in Ottawa Centre. As you know, the latest federal budget cut funding commitments for social housing in 1992 by 34 per cent, which eliminates the strong federal presence in the housing sector that guaranteed the equal access to decent and affordable housing to which Canadians are entitled.
My constituents and I ask Parliament to urge the government to restore its commitment to social housing and reinstate all programs in this sector.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, I have two different petitions today. The first petition can be added to those presented by my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell asking that the laws of Canada be amended to prohibit the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of killer cards and the Serial Killer board game.
February 19, 1993

Routine Proceedings


Lyle Vanclief: Madam Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against persons are serious and abhorrent to society.
The petitioners ask that Parliament amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 444 and 445.


Mr. Mifflin: Has the Department of National Defence completed or planned any studies concerning the effectiveness of our current submarine operations?


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: No study has been completed recently or is planned concerning the effectiveness of our current submarine operations.


Mr. Mifflin: Will the Department of National Defence make public the expected concept of operations as well as the statement of requirement details of the corvette as envisaged by the defence policy paper of April 22, 1992?


Patrick Boyer: The corvette project has been formally designated in the department as the Canadian Surveillance and Sovereignty Enforcement Vessel (CAS-SEV). The concept of operations and statement of requirement are currently under development. A statement of capability deficiency has received corporate management approval. This document is classified confidential.


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


Charles A. Langlois: I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Bellemare:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When members present questions in writing, Standing Order 39(1) says that these questions can be placed on the Order Paper and addressed to various ministers. The questioner can also ask that a reply be given within 45 days.
This did not happen for two questions that I asked and I must tell you with regret that these two questions, Nos. 203 and 204, were raised on December 11, 1991 but were not answered for over 14 months. Yes, the answer took 14 months. In one case, I had asked that all departments involved in the question reply. The Department of Supply and Services, the Department of Justice and Statistics Canada have not yet responded.
As members of Parliament, we ask questions to be better informed and to be able to participate better on committees. The other day I sat on the public accounts committee and the subject was just those two questions. Strangely enough I had received the answer the day before.
If we have rules but they are not followed in this House, that is surely anarchy. For me in this case, anarchy means that I as a member of Parliament was not able to prepare carefully and in time for my committee meeting the other day. Furthermore, it is an insult to members not to receive an answer to a question that was raised very politely and within the rules.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I would just add that the member's representations have been received today and that in the coming days, we will see to it that his questions are answered more quickly.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Another member wishes to raise a point of order but I would ask him to wait a moment.
I understand the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester very well. I think that 14 months is far too long to wait when one is entitled to receive the answer and

Government Orders
especially considering that the answer should have come in 45 days.
Unfortunately, the Chair can take no concrete action at this time. Nevertheless, I will tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that the Chair instructs him to convey to the various ministers and departments that this way of proceeding is totally unacceptable. I might suggest to the hon. member that he discuss this matter in the House management committee. Perhaps the Standing Orders should be changed if the rule cannot be followed.
However, I do think that this unacceptable situation must definitely be changed.
So I go back to where I was. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Pierre H. Cadieux: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
An agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or (2) with respect to second reading of Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing. Therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice of my intention to move a time allocation motion at the next sitting of the House for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the second reading stage.


BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION (FISCAL MEASURES) ACT, 1992 MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992, be read the third time and passed.
Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I wish to share my time today with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. I will take the first 10 minutes and my colleague will conclude.
The bill before us today, Bill C-76, includes changes to the Canada Student Loans Program, a program that I have spent a considerable amount of time on during my years as an organizer within the national student movement and during my period of time as a member of Parliament.
There are a number of things I wish to say in the short period of time I have to speak. However, I would first like to put on the record some comments about the New Democratic Party's job creation paper that was released yesterday in Ottawa. It is a plan that will increase the number of jobs created in Canada over the next five years to 1.6 million, reduce the unemployment rate to 7.1 per cent, lower the deficit and bring down inflation, and it would achieve all of this without increasing taxes for low and middle income Canadians. Eighty per cent of Canadians would achieve these benefits without an increase in taxes.
I am proud of the accomplishment of my party and I will do all I can to promote this serious plan to the Canadian people. If we really want to address the employment problem in Canada we have to address education. Therefore we need a strong, adequate and fair Canada Student Loans Program to ensure that all Canadians, regardless of income, have access to education and training.
I would like to briefly quote from the NDP's job creation plan, from page 23 of the 60-page comprehensive, well-designed report. It says: "The skills and knowledge of the work force are critical to developing our economy, no less important than our country's physical and social infrastructure, investment strategies and research and development performance. By doing a better job at training and human development we will make our economy more competitive, improve employment and economic security for average Canadians and build social justice by helping reduce disparities in income and employment".
On page 24 it says: "Provincial and territorial governments have a critical responsibility to ensure that schools can do the best possible job at teaching basic skills and at preparing students for advanced education and the work force. Strategies must be developed to dramatically reduce the drop-out rate. Many of our schools' problems are linked to poverty. A full employment economic

strategy is one of the best ways the federal government can contribute to Canada's school system".
The hon. member opposite asks what that has to do with the bill in front of us. Very clearly it has a tremendous amount to do with the bill in front of us. A full employment strategy also ensures that students have an opportunity to secure jobs upon graduation, something they have no hope of doing now. The unemployment rate for youth in this country is abhorrent and something must be done about it.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of opportunity facing young people. I am even more concerned about the lack of interest this government has shown in their plight. There are few jobs, and with this one piece of legislation there is an additional financial penalty attached to being a young graduate and unemployed.
As a nation we have a much greater responsibility to Canada's young people. These young people must expect much better from this government. I am asking all members of the House to review the bill carefully, defeat Bill C-76 and get on with real financial reform in education.
The Canada Student Loans Program is a very important program. We know that from the statistics. It is well used but it could be much better used under better circumstances. Those who have problems with the bill certainly should have them addressed.
I quote from the latest annual report for the loan year 1989-90: "From the inception of the program in 1964 to July 31, 1990 approximately 1.9 million full-time students negotiated loans of $6.3 billion under the Canada Student Loans Programs".
Very impressive and obviously very important to the young people of Canada. We should know and be aware that 23 per cent of full-time university students in Canada who enrolled in degree programs received Canada student loans. We have to address the problems inherent in this system.
Government Orders
The most contentious aspect of Bill C-76 in my mind is the Canada Student Loans Program part of it. There are three aspects to it: minor housekeeping regarding forms, the repeal of the six-month, interest-free subsidy students enjoy when they graduate and changes to the cost sharing formula with provinces that have opted out, i.e. Quebec and the Northwest Territories, both of which I understand have not objected greatly to those provisions.
When fully implemented the repeal of the six-month subsidy will cost students between $30 million and $35 million a year. This is money that is being taken directly from young people who have recently graduated and have yet to find their first job.
This is a time when graduates face enormous unemployment, particularly those who are under 25 years of age. Earlier I referred briefly to the 16 per cent to 20 per cent unemployment rate for this group of people.
Even though students will not actually have to make payments until six months after graduation, the tab will be running on the full principal for an extra six months, a move that is sure to increase the number of defaults on loans. The level of default is already a serious problem with $150 million in defaults annually. Increasing the cost of student assistance will only increase defaults if fewer needy students apply which defeats the point of the Canada Student Loans Program to begin with.
Earlier this month we received petitions in the House with the names of more than 3,000 Saskatchewan students demanding the retention of the six-month study. Who are we best to listen to in this case? The government opposite that says this is necessary or the students themselves who have come and said: "We need to retain this six-month interest relief"?
The petitions signed by these students also call for the repeal of the 3 per cent tax that has been applied to them and the proposed elements of the lending for learning agenda that the government has imposed. In particular they called upon Parliament to re-evaluate and amend the Canada Student Loans Program to enhance accessibility, to guarantee 100 per cent of student loans and to improve accessibility to student loans for part-time students.

Government Orders
These matters are all very important to students. We owe it to them to consider them very carefully. When they have taken the time to review these matters in their own experience we should listen to them.
When Bill C-76 came to committee government members opposite refused to hear the testimony from students and insisted upon going directly to clause-byclause study. One member exemplified the Tory contempt for students when he cited a case where a student used her $3,000 loan to buy clothes. Both he and one of the members who is in the Chamber today urged even tougher measures to collect student debt.
The opposition at that meeting walked out and the Conservatives went through clause by clause in less than five minutes and did not listen to or pay any attention to the matters raised with them by students.
In terms of collection, I have cases in my constituency right now where Revenue Canada is insisting on collecting what it says are defaulted student loans from 20 years ago. The students in these cases are now adults and are insisting they have repaid their loans. The banks have destroyed the records of all those payments and Revenue Canada and the Secretary of State are insisting that these loans are outstanding.
The government has to do something about dealing with these particular matters. We have to change the Canada Student Loans Program. I accept that. I acknowledge it. I insist upon it. We have to change the Canada Student Loans Program. A number of reforms must be made. This bill does not do it. We have to scrap Bill C-76 and get on with bringing in a real bill that will deal with the Canada Student Loans Program.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the member referred to the New Democratic Party economic program. He will know that program calls for a minimum corporate tax of 14 per cent. He will also know, if he knows anything about things at all, that corporate profits this year are at the lowest level in Canadian history, lower than in the 1930s, and that over 50 per cent of Canadian corporations are in a loss position.
I was wondering how many jobs the member would think would be lost if we decided to impose upon losing
corporations, corporations making no profits whatsoever, a further 14 per cent tax. I suspect that the unemployment rolls would zoom beyond all comprehension. I was wondering if he would comment.
Mr. Taylor Madam Speaker, I am more than happy to comment on the question raised by the hon. member for Mississauga South. I am aware he was part of the committee studying the student loans bill that managed to go through clause by clause in five minutes and did not even hear what many of the students had to say.
The member will be aware that in the United States a minimum tax on corporations already exists. It is something we have talked about extensively in Canada for quite some time. In fact at one point his government was looking at a proposal for a minimum tax on corporations to ensure that they pay their fair share.
Despite some of the numbers the hon. member has put before us, I find extraordinary that recently the Canadian Manufacturers' Association reported that it is having one of its best years ever. Yet it is employing fewer people and is projecting further job losses to the end of 1993.
We are seeing a situation in which the corporations are benefiting at the expense of the work force in this country, primarily driven by the forces of the free trade agreement in the United States and the North American free trade agreement in Mexico.
As corporations prepare to deal with a world economy which is run on a race to the bottom philosophy, they have forgotten that in Canada we have an economy that can be built upon a basis that relates to high wage, high skilled jobs. Those are the sorts of things we in Canada have to work toward.
I am proud of the work that has been done by the New Democratic Party, my colleagues, myself included, on developing this job strategy for Canada. I hope the government will not put on its blinders, continue to call names and fantasize about what this program is all about. Read it and study it, just as the Canadian people will because they are going to have to put up with it after the next election.
February 19, 1993


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member in making his suggestion for changes to the Canada Student Loans Program is aware of what the premier of Ontario has done to the Canada Student Loans Program in that province. I wonder if he favours the reform that the premier has instituted where he cut all the grant portion of the program so that students now have to repay all the money instead of receive part of the funding in grants. Is that part of the reform he would like to see on a national basis to the Canada Student Loans Program?


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Madam Speaker, in one of my jobs prior to being a member of the New Democratic Party caucus and elected by the people of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency, I worked for the national student organization in this country for four years. It fought very hard to establish ways in which students could have access to Parliament and the Canada Student Loans Program in order to talk about grants instead of loans as part of a national program.
We argued through the early 1970s that provinces did not have the capacity to fund these matters on their own.
I would say that given the current circumstances where the free trade agreement is devastating the economy of Ontario the provinces have an extremely low capacity to be able to finance and fund programs like this one. There is a national responsibility for the Canada Student Loans Program and to education and training, and we have to accept that.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, I too want to deal mainly with the student loans part of Bill C-76.
Many campuses have set up food banks for starving students. Included in those universities that have had to do so is the University of Toronto, Simon Fraser, the University of Manitoba, the University of Alberta and Dalhousie University. I would think that is a pretty good indication of the dire straits in which students are finding themselves as they try to get education at many of the universities and colleges in Canada.
Students ask for loans because they are unlikely to be able to afford to get post-secondary education unless they can find some outside financing. Gone are the days
Government Orders
when the summer job would finance a major part of the school year. Students do not take loans in order to get extra spending money. Most students do everything possible to graduate with as small a debt as possible. They do not look forward to starting a career with a $30,000 or $50,000 debt at a time when their wages are as low as they will ever be in their career.
Under the circumstances the changes to the Canada Students Loans Act appear incredible. This bill increases the qualifying definition of a full course load from 60 per cent to 80 per cent. This measure will hurt the working student the most and the working student is the person who needs the assistance the most.
Many students can only attend post-secondary institutions if they can work part time to keep themselves and their families in many cases housed, clothed and fed. Working and attending classes become almost impossible if one has to take a full program or at least 80 per cent of a full course load.
If students in this situation are having to both borrow and work to fund their education the government by this bill is indicating: "If you can't work you don't deserve to go to school. If you can't work you can't have a loan". The result in many cases is the exit from the educational process of one potential student who would be a well skilled, well educated worker in the future.
As I said earlier, most students tiy to enter their profession with as low a debt as possible.
One of the things that has made the debt less odious is the fact that at least it did not start collecting interest until you had time to be settled in a career.
When this bill is passed, the interest charges will start immediately upon the student graduating, giving no chance for the student to get settled in a career. This means an even higher debt when the individual does start to pay. These days the chances of getting a job immediately are slim. Government policies are sending our industries south. This has made jobs all the more scarce.
Speaking personally, after graduating, both of my sons spent two years before getting jobs in which they actually used their degrees. My daughter who graduated as a chef was luckier but then she could not get a student loan anyway for that particular course.

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
There is a move to pull away from the guarantee of student loans by the government, making the banks take the risk rather than the government continuing with its present guarantee. How will the banks handle this kind of situation? They will probably handle it exactly the same way as they handle increased risks in other areas, by raising interest rates or working on a floating rate.
This makes it that much more difficult for the students first to get the loan and second to pay it off when they are required to do so. Again, this increases the costs to the students and is a further incentive not to get into debt and consequently not go to school at all.
More than 7,000, and I noticed that my colleague said 3,000, post-secondary students in Saskatchewan have signed a petition urging the federal government to drop the student loans part of this bill. The government has made much to do in the last while about the value of training and the need to keep the standards and the educational levels of workers high.
Every one of the changes to the student loans part of Bill C-76 will have the effect of reducing the number of students who will be able to take advantage of post-secondary education.
Tracy Sletto, external vice-president of the University of Saskatchewan, has mentioned another problem not directly connected with this bill but still a problem, one that needs to be dealt with. Tracy Sletto has suggested that the differences in costs of education are not recognized by the student loan operation.
A third year dentistry student pays $9,660 for tuition and instruments while a third year arts student pays $2,200. Both students are allowed to borrow the same amount under the student loans program.
The students want assessments of needs of living expenses separated from the educational costs such as tuition, books and instruments. If this goes on, and Ms. Sletto goes on to point this out, eventually only students from wealthy families will be able to afford the more expensive professional colleges such as medicine and dentistry.
If students pay more, they should be able to borrow more. The financial barriers mean that some are turned away from particular colleges.
The changes in this bill are a step backward. It has been our pride in Canada to say that if anyone wanted
and qualified for post-secondary education they would have an opportunity to get it. This bill moves us closer to the old days when only rich parents' children and the few lucky scholarship winners could aspire to post-secondary education. That was not so long ago.
The government, this party, should change that. It should take a more progressive approach to attempting to get more people into the education program. Possibly it should change its name from the Progressive Conservative Party to the Regressive Conservative Party.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I think it is ridiculous that we are having this debate today. This debate was really part of the budget of the Minister of Finance about a year ago when the minister laid out all the provisions of this bill. The bill is really an implementation of that budget and should have gone through a voice vote last fall. The opposition in its usual fashion has held up this bill as it has held up every other bill that was presented.
Let me give a list of the bills on which this opposition has had to take the government to closure. Bill C-32, the Canada Assistance Plan, putting a ceiling on the growth of federal contributions. Bill C-60, the federal fiscal arrangements act by streamlining the operations of government. The Budget Implementation Act of February 1991; the Debt Servicing and Reduction Account Act; Bill C-56, the Spending Control Act; Bill C-63, the Dissolutions Act; Bill C-69, the Government Expenditure Restraint 1990 Act; Bill C-93, the Budget Implementation Act that is now before committee. We were forced into time allocation on that bill last week.
On the privatization of Crown corporations, Bill C-8, the Crown corporations restructuring act; Bill C-13, the Nordion Divestiture Act; Bill C-38, the Telesat Divestiture Act. Both are acts to try to get the government out of business and put money into the till by restraining the salaries of public officials. Bill C-26, the Public Service Employment Act; Bill C-55, the pension benefits act; Bill C-76, this act. We are on closure on this act on third reading.
We had to close second reading, we had to close report stage and now we are having to close third reading. It gets crazy. Of course we have Bill C-113 that is likely to receive closure as well. It is closure, closure, closure and that is from both sides of the opposition who say that we
February 19, 1993

have to restrain spending, get at the deficit and make government more efficient. That is what we are doing.
Every time we bring forward a measure to try to get some efficiencies into the thing, to try to cut down the cost of government, to try to run things more effectively, this group claims across the countryside that they think the deficit is important. They think the debt is important. They want to increase it. They do not want to cut anything or change anything. Just leave it all the same. Yet day after day in Question Period they ask: "Why do you not spend money on this or more money on the other thing".
This a group of phoneys. They say they have a program and it is only one program of spend, spend, spend, borrow, borrow, borrow and I suppose, print, print, print. We will be like Argentina before we know it.
Let us deal with this bill for a moment. I was involved with this bill at committee. We heard from the government officials with respect to the bill. They went over what they hoped to save the taxpayer on the bill. It is not a lot of money, but there is some, as mentioned on the student loan part, getting students to pick up the interest. They do not have to pay right away but they have to pick up the interest from when they leave school. They no longer get a six month free ride. They have to pay interest on their borrowings. They do not make payments for six months but they have to pay the interest. There are some costs there and that is quite an important saving to the government. We cannot cany on with programs that are free lunches and hope to cut back the cost of government.
The bill also deals with certain fees. We have the lobbyist bill before the committee now. This bill imposes a fee that is to be set by regulation on those who are professional lobbyists.
The cost of running a lobby program is about $450,000 a year. It is only realistic that the people involved in professional lobbying ought to pay the costs of supervising the lobbying program. We expect the banks to pay the cost of supervising the banks. We expect the trade unions to pay costs when they want to be supervised. You expect airlines to pay costs for landing fees and so on. These are costs that have to be borne and there is no reason why
Government Orders
those who are in the business of earning a living by lobbying government as professionals ought not to pay for the regulation of their services.
This is another part of this bill. It cuts down the cost to government. We also of course cut down the cost to government in this bill by reducing the salaries of the Prime Minister and the ministers of the Crown. Now that is not a lot of money, but it is $80,000 or $90,000 a year and that is important when we look at the financial conditions of this country.
Let me deal with the student loan portion for a moment. The suggestion is that the students were prevented from making any representation. That is not so. However, I want to say to you, Madam Speaker, that no student organization produced one brief, made one suggestion or produced one idea as to what changes within the fiscal constraints of the government, within the terms of the budget of the government passed by this House, could be made to this bill so that we could perhaps alter the bill in committee and come back to the House with something that they would like better. Not one brief, not one suggestion and nothing in writing other than a couple of letters that said: "We would like to appear". Why would you like to appear? Set out what you would like to appear for, you have had a year. The budget has been before us for a year.
There was not one bit of paper, not one set of ideas, not one explanation, nothing. Therefore we decided in committee that since there was nothing before us, we had other things to do and we had to pass the bill, so we passed the bill.
The opposition did not like that motion and so they walked out. The opposition walked out of committee. They did not come and make proposals in committee to amend the bill. Not on your life. They did not file a single amendment in committee as to how to amend the bill. They brought forth no suggestions and so we went ahead and passed the bill. We could see nothing wrong with the bill. It did not take us long to pass it and we passed it. Of course we passed it, that was our job, that is why we were on the committee and that is what we were doing. We were looking at the legislation going through it point by point and we did. We went through it point by point and we passed the bill.

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
We did not pass one section of the bill. One section of that bill dealt with the Small Businesses Loans Act. We did not pass that section. Another bill was before the House dealing with the Small Businesses Loans Act so we did not pass one section of the bill. We just refused to pass it. Therefore, that section of the bill is no longer in the bill that is before this House.
This whole matter of saying we foreclosed them out of committee, we somehow damaged their rights to appear, we somehow refused to hear the case is specious. It is not worthy of anything. To stand in this House and suggest that somehow they were abused, that somehow they were hurt is just not so. The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party did not stay around for the clause by clause study, they walked out. They thought: "Well, we will walk out. We are on strike. We are not going to represent Canada any longer. We are not going to stay in committee. We are going to walk out".
They then come to this House and say: "They walked out. They did not have a chance". They had the opportunity to stay there, they had the opportunity to make amendments, they had the opportunity to make suggested amendments but they did not do it, they walked out. Of course that is what they do. They walk out.


An hon. member:: They walked out today.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I am not supposed to comment that way but they certainly walked out. Let us go on with some of the problems we have to face as a government.
This year the provinces, the provincial power corporations and the federal government will go to the markets of the world to borrow $60 billion. After this year is over the cumulative debt of the power corporations, the provinces and the federal government will be well over $650 billion. Right now the amount of money owing by the provinces, the power corporations and the federal government to foreigners and Canadian corporations to foreigners exceeds $300 billion.
We are probably the greatest indebted country in the world and certainly per capita we are. The question is: does Italy owe more than we? Certainly not to the outside world it does not. We are terribly in debt. We are so terribly in debt that it has been expressed by many,
including the C.D. Howe Institute last week, that we are in danger of not being able to borrow more money at all.
Last September all of a sudden we could not sell our treasury bills and interest rates had to rise. They rose by a good full 2 percentage points, nearly 3 percentage points. Our treasury bills at that point had been selling for 5.5 per cent and all of a sudden they were selling for
8.5	per cent.
We blamed that on the referendum. We said that because of the dislocation of the referendum the markets had decided to forget about Canada. They would not trust us. The referendum probably had something to do with it but probably not everything because in November when the referendum was all over-there was no referendum debate in November-the same thing happened all over again. Only this time it went to 9 per cent.
Now we have been able to chisel rates back down again bit by bit but it is fragile. It is very fragile. Our financial conditions are not good. We have borrowed far more money than we can afford to pay back. We have to get our House in order and we cannot tax more. We cannot, like the New Democratic Party would have us do, put taxes on corporations that make no money. Otherwise they would go out of business. The fact is profits are far too low.
Our friend from Windsor was making a comment about Mr. Frank's statement before the finance committee concerning the Conference Board. Several people came before that committee. Most of the time the member from the New Democratic Party did not want to be there because he did not want to listen to this stuff-and he was not there and nobody represented the New Democratic Party. They did not want to listen.
The fact is we are in danger of having our credit cards pulled completely and so here we are. We cannot carry on with any more borrowing and we cannot carry on with any more taxing.
There is no point in trying to raise the taxes on the wealthy. They will leave the country like they have already done in many cases, taking their investment income through tax havens. It is not hard to do. It does not take a genius to figure out how to avoid Canadian income tax 5 you have lots of money. Those are the kinds of people they want to tax right out of the country. Instead of bringing them into the country and keeping them here where they will invest, they want to throw
February 19, 1993

them out. That is supposed to create jobs. Yes it will create jobs for tax planners, airlines and movers. One-shot jobs and that will be it.
They talk the game about reducing the debt. The fact is that we cannot continue to run deficits. We have to priorize our government activity and only do those government activities that we really can afford to do.
I am going to say this as a member from this side, that our side has not been nearly tough enough in cutting back on the cost of government, on cutting back on expenses or activities. Simply, the time has come when we can only spend what we take in in taxes. We do not have any more money left and we cannot borrow any more. We cannot get any more by the printing press. We cannot get any more by taxation. We have tapped the well dry.
Therefore, we have to start learning how to cut our cloth. What we ought to be doing in this House is not debating this bill, but debating the activities of government and what activities they think and we think on a priority basis the government could get out of.
Somewhere along the line we are going to have to cut back on the amount of government we have. Whether that means in the entertainment field, whether that means National Film Board, whether that means changing unemployment insurance very much more dramatically than we have, or whether it means in transfers for education or loans and so on, we are going to have to cut back because it is not there any more. The well has no more water in it. We cannot keep adding on to the deficit and adding to the debt and not paying it back.
I regret this debate because I think it is a foolish debate. It is a debate about spending more money. The government has come forward with a plan that cuts back in a very minor way some of the benefits that some people have had. The lobbyists are going to have to pay a fee. The Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers are going to have to take a cut. Students are going to have to bear the interest on their loans from the date they leave school, though they will not have to commence payment until six months later.
In other words, we are going to have to cut back a bit. They say no and we say it is about time we started looking at the problems. I want to say that this bill is not
Government Orders
nearly tough enough considering our financial condition. To stand and object to this bill as they have shows complete lack of understanding of the condition of Canada.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I would like to set the record straight if I may with two very quick comments. Then I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question.
On the remarks that my colleague made referring to the members of my party, the New Democratic Party, not wanting to listen to witnesses in committee, he should perhaps go back to the record. The NDP and others walked out of the committee because we felt that the committee itself was not really ready to listen and consult with students and people most affected.
It is important to know this information. Then you do not start giving motives to people in order to try and make them look bad. I would just counsel that to my colleague because people who are listening to us here in Parliament would appreciate us to at least state the fact that the opposition did walk out. But the opposition felt that it had been provoked primarily because the government side was not really prepared to listen to the people most impacted.
My hon. colleague used several words in talking about this being a foolish debate. I do not think it is a foolish debate. It is an important debate where we are going to be opposing Bill C-76 as a party. That is because we believe if we are going to change the rules in this particular legislation involving student loans then perhaps we should first force the government to do what it said it would do before accepting any of the changes to the law that it wants.
We would like the government to first, lift the 3 per cent tax on student loans and second, increase the weekly loan limits that were last raised in 1984 as a precondition-and I hope that my colleague hears me- to supporting the government's other initiatives.
Before we talk about raising taxes, before we talk about further burdening the Canadian taxpayer, can we not have an obvious sign from this government when it makes promises in committee that the reason it is going with this particular law is because it will enable it to

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
reduce the 3 per cent or eliminate it and also increase the allowance? Can we do that first?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend from Chambly suggests they will go along with our bill if we take away the 3 per cent charge.
The 3 per cent charge is no darned different from the charge we make to CMHC on a CMHC loan when you get a government guarantee on a CME1C loan from your bank. We charge 2 per cent on the full amount of that loan. Here we are charging 3 per cent. It is a flat fee and is charged against the loan.
It is a realistic charge because it covers the cost of the government doing the insuring. It is a trade-off on the insurance. That is what it is. You do not have to borrow money on a student loan. You can go to the bank and borrow money if you want on your own.
This is a great deal. We give you a student loan. You do not pay interest during the time you are in school. Sure, 3 per cent is added to the amount of the loan to cover the loan insurance cost and then you start paying it back six months after you finish school. It is a pretty good deal.
The hon. member complains and says he wants the amount lifted from 1984. We would love to lift the amount. Again where does he think we will get the money from? Where do we get the money for these things? Who do we go after to get the money? Where do we get it? Do we pull it out of mid-air? Do we go behind this building and pick the trees-there are some beautiful money trees back there. That is the way they think. I only saw a big deep river valley back there. There are no money trees.
The suggestion that somewhere along the line we should just lift the 3 per cent levy, that we should increase the loan limits makes no sense.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, there seems to be a contradiction between what the hon. member is saying with reference to the 3 per cent administration fee and what the Minister of Finance said on February 25, 1992 when he delivered his comment in this House on the budget. The finance minister said: "In addition my colleague the Secretary of State will be negotiating a new arrangement for student loans with financial institutions. The expected saving will provide scope to improve the Canada Student Loans Program
and to eliminate"-and I stress the word eliminate-"the 3 per cent administration fee on student loans".
Is the member in agreement with the Minister of Finance or do we have two views on this policy? Does he support the continuation of the 3 per cent fee on the loan or does he support what the Minister of Finance said and that is to remove it?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, it is very simple. If you negotiate a deal with the banks to take a portion of the loan risk then the government would waive the fee.
The trouble is the government wanted to get the banks to take 10 per cent of the loan risk. In other words, we would only insure to 90 per cent. The banks said: "Oh, no. We want 100 per cent coverage". You cannot have it both ways. We would like to be able to negotiate a deal with the banks to get them to carry these student loans risk free. We would guarantee 90 per cent but they would be stuck for 10 per cent of the loan and they will not do that.
There is a question of trying to get the matter running right. I understand where the member is coming from but we need two to make a bargain. We are using the regular banking system to put up the money because we do not have the money ourselves. We must have the bank supervising this loan arrangement. We would like to see the banks take a piece of the risk but the banks refuse to take a piece of the risk, probably because the students have not proven themselves to be very good commercial risks. It is a bad comment on a lot of our young people who go to universities and borrow money from this program, but the number of defaults has been literally amazing. That is an unhappy matter.
There we are. We have a fee to cover the risk and we have not been able to negotiate it out.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly. I listened to my hon. friend speaking about Canada's credit rating and I know he is a nationally recognized expert on markets and these things.
Therefore I ask: in the unlikely event that the money markets, money managers and so on came to believe that there was a serious possibility that there might be a Liberal government elected in this country, what impact

February 19, 1993

would he anticipate on the Canadian dollar and on the markets generally?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, in the finance committee meetings of two weeks ago Mr. Neufeld from the Royal Bank indicated that one of his great concerns was statements that might be made by key political figures in this next year. He said that he felt the matter was so tenuous that a statement made by someone, either a leader of the government or a leader of the Liberal Party, or something of that nature, and he did not say necessarily a political person, might trigger a rejection of our debt.
That particular matter is quite serious. It has been suggested that perhaps statements by the Prime Minister during the referendum debate triggered part of September's problems but they did not trigger November's problems.
It does not take very much when someone is pushing the limit of his or her credit card to get somebody to say: "I am sorry, you have reached the limit you cannot borrow any more".


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-76, and particularly the amendment to the Canada Student Loans Act.
Unlike my colleague, who indicated a little earlier that the debate is somewhat foolish, I must suggest that this is one of the most important debates this House has seen in a long time, mainly because it focuses on education. If this House was to spend most of its time dealing with the questions of education and literacy in Canada we would not have to worry about the kind of difficulties the hon. member is referring to, whether we are dealing with the question of deficit or the question of debt.
I know and everyone in the whole world knows that if we were to focus on the question of education we would be able to help those who are educated to find jobs in a lot of ways. If they have jobs that will mean the generation of revenue and funds and the reduction of debts, and eventually it would mean the elimination of the deficit. It does not take a genius to make that direct correlation between job creation and education.
Government Orders
Everyone has said that, from social groups such as the National Anti-Poverty Organization to the Economic Council of Canada and the Conference Board. Everyone everywhere has said that in order for Canada to deal with this outstanding, incredible problem of debt and deficit we will have to focus on education and the elimination of illiteracy.
As it is the economic situation is in such a mess that it needs the attention of everyone, regardless of their political affiliation or partisanship, regardless of whether they are premier of a province, chairman of a bank or are the government at the federal level. However, we have seen a lack of co-operation, a lack of co-ordination and people shooting in different directions.
The debt and the deficit are everybody's problem. Between the provincial governments and the federal government we have borrowed from abroad, as the hon. member for Mississauga has indicated, hundreds of billions of dollars of foreign money, and that has put Canada in an extremely awkward position.
The main objective of any government is to provide services that are essential to society, essential to the community. As far as I am concerned, one of the main objectives of any government is to ensure that its people receive the education and the kind of tools they need in order to improve their lives and live in a comfortable setting.
To that extent I have always felt that the objective of our educational system should be to prepare our youth for a changing world in the field of humanities, in the field of technology and for an information-based future, as well as to enable them to become successful members of our society.
Frankly, while young people are the key to success in our society we are seeing a total failure on behalf of every level of government to address this whole question of education in order to help them to be full-fledged citizens of our country. I only have to outline the horrifying percentage of young people who do not finish their high school educations.
According to Statistics Canada more than 30 per cent of students who enrol in the primary and secondary educational system do not finish their high school educa-

Government Orders
tion and therefore they end up in low paying jobs or on social assistance programs. For that matter, they even end up in jail by committing offences that are not tolerated by our society.
For those who continue on to university the statistics, which have been repeated over and over again, show that over 50 per cent of students who enrol at the university level do not finish university, whether they are part-time students, special students or full-time students.
Not only that, but the literacy level, which is reading and writing, is very alarming. In July 1992 Statistics Canada released an outstanding report indicating that 71 per cent of youth between the ages of 16 and 24 have literacy problems. As well, and even more shocking, 56 per cent of those between the ages of 16 and 24 have mathematical or numeracy skills problems when it comes to dealing with everyday requirements.
It certainly should be a cause for alarm to the government at the federal level and all governments at the provincial level that we have an outstanding problem that needs outstanding action, and they should take notice.
To use the argument that we just do not have the money, that we are running out of money, so we are not going to spend on education is foolish. We cannot just close the tap. We cannot look at money that we are spending on education as an expenditure. We must look at money spent on education as an investment. The only way to make money is to invest money.
What is better than investing money in the future of Canada, in the youth of Canada? It does not take a genius to understand the analyses done by Employment and Immigration, Statistics Canada and independent analysts all over the country. They are telling us that by the year 2000 we are going to have a situation in which unless people have a high school diploma there will be no hope of finding a well paying job.
Never mind that. They will not even find a job. It will be a lot more difficult by the year 2000 to find a job unless they have a high school diploma. That means that we must make it a priority of society that every single person, particularly our youth, who wants to go to school can be helped to enrol in schools.
The reason I say this is that we have it doubly difficult. We have a shrinking population. The Canadian population is on the decline. We are not on the upswing of things. By the year 2010 or 2020 a lot of people will be in the upper echelons of their life, age 55 and up, and fewer people will be between the ages of 16 and 24.
We are going to see more pressure being put on those who are in the work force to produce the kind of resources and assistance that is needed to support our social programs and those who are no longer in the work force.
We know, as Statistics Canada has indicated, that by the year 2000 we will only have 1.1 million youths between the ages of 16 to 19. That puts a lot of pressure on us as a government and as a society to do everything we can to ensure that those 1.1 million students receive the kind of education they need to be prepared by the year 2000 and beyond to support all the great social programs that we have in place.
Not only that, but the pressure is on these very same students, the same youths, to pay the debt that we have incurred in the past and which is still being incurred by federal, provincial and, to a large extent, municipal governments. The pressure is on those students, and we have to do everything we can to help them out.
That is why my party and my colleagues in the Liberal Party have been pushing over the past four years to ensure that the focus of the policy and everything this government does is on youth, the economy, job creation and everything that is needed to help our youth, students and workers to continue paying for all those wonderful services we are providing.
We can no longer do the same things we did in the past. We must do things differently because we are entering into North American free trade and we just had the free trade agreement with the United States.
We have learned from the past that unless we adapt quickly to the changes in technology and to the new era of information-based equipment and technology we cannot compete. Never mind what our neighbours in Mexico, the United States or Asia are doing. We cannot compete anywhere unless we make that drastic move, and unless we make education a priority.
That is why on a number of occasions we have called on the government to embark on some sort of tangible strategic national plan concerning the questions of education and literacy.
February 19, 1993

So far we have seen nothing but report after report. The government has put on the table a number of reports but we have yet to see an action plan that takes those reports and turns them into something that can benefit the community, particularly its youth.
My party has made some tangible suggestions. The hon. member from Mississauga was asking, what do we do? We have made some suggestions, such as establishing a national apprenticeship program. I think that would work beautifully.
If members asked the community, educational institutions, university professors, the business community and those who are out there they would hear agreement. This is the best and most effective way to ensure proper results for our youth. It is one of the best ways to help our students and our youth in order to carry on and move toward the future.
We called on the government to stop the consultation process, to introduce some sort of action plan. We will continue to call on the government to stop the cuts to transfer payments when it comes to those who are the providers of education to our students.
We called on the government to stop its attacks on the educational institutions and what did we get? From 1986 until now we have seen in excess of about $4.9 billion in cuts in transfer payments to the provinces in areas such as post-secondary education. That by itself is a tremendous burden on the provincial governments and it is a tremendous burden on the universities.
What we have seen in the past is a total and major assault on youth, whether we are talking about the government taxing books and reading materials or whether we are talking about the latest attack on the UI bill and what it is doing to our youth and our workers.
Those are some of the points I would like to bring to the attention of the House and my colleague on the government side who spoke a little earlier on.
We are opposed to this bill for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons is that the Minister of Finance had promised on February 25, 1992 he would remove the 3 per cent fees. I indicated this earlier in a question to the member for Mississauga.
Government Orders
The government indicated it will be removing the 3 per cent fees and the charge on the borrowing for student loans. What does the government do? It is February 19, almost one year later, and no action has been taken. We have not seen any movement on the part of the government in order to remove the 3 per cent tax. It was promised. The government should deliver the goods.
The second problem we have with this bill is the government is planning to eliminate the six-month interest free period. That will come into effect on August 1, 1993. If the government is willing to guarantee a job for every student who graduates from university immediately after graduation I would presume nobody would have any difficulty paying his or her loan.
Every one of my colleagues in this House and outside who have borrowed while he or she was going to school ended up paying back the loan if he or she had a job. But to turn around and to say to the student population whether you are working or not, you have to start paying the interest on your loan, I would suggest is highly unfair. Those are two of the reasons why we are opposed to this bill.
We are also opposed to the fact that the government did not address the questions it must address when it comes to the question of education in Canada and the question of youth.
My colleagues in the New Democratic Party had the audacity to stand up in this House and talk about the interests of students and youths when we have an NDP Government of Ontario that won on the premise it was going to reduce, never mind eliminate, tuition fees. That was a part of its policy. What a shameful stand the NDP has taken over the past few years.
The first thing the NDP did was attack the student population with an increase in tuition fees the first year. Then in the second year, a second whammy, a second increase in tuition fees. It came up with a third whammy, and that is to remove assistance for those students who badly need it.
I know there are some honourable colleagues in the New Democratic Party who will stand up in this House and publicly deplore the actions of the Ontario New Democratic Party when it comes to our student population. I know some of my colleagues who would not support that, but some members of the NDP have to say it on the record otherwise the population of Canada, in

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
particular the population of Ontario, will not and will never forget that.
This is one problem. Another problem is attitude. I do not know whether the Ontario government is learning from the federal government or vice versa. There seems to be a partnership between both provincial and federal governments in their attack on the youth of Canada, on the youth of this province and on the youth of this community.
I can only say that in my region, in my city and my community in excess of 25 per cent of youth are living below the poverty line. We do not have to go very far. We only have to cross Wellington Street where we see those four or five tents. On a regular basis there are homeless youth sleeping in those tents, youth who want to see a better life for themselves, youth who have found themselves without any help and without any support from anywhere, whether it is from the NDP provincial government or the federal government.
Those are the kinds of people when we have to make our priority. Only the youth are going to be able to move us forward as a society and make sure that we can deal with the questions we have been unable to deal with in the past. They are the best investment this country has, the best insurance for the future.
That is why my colleagues and I are adamantly opposed to Bill C-76. Simply put, we consider Bill C-76 an attack on our youth.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my hon. colleague's remarks wherein he called our party, the New Democratic Party, audacious. I think we are audacious. I think we have a great deal of audacity, particularly when I look at the strategy for a full employment economy that was released yesterday by my leader. I really believe it is an audacious program and I am proud of having this audacity as being a member of the New Democratic Party.
I can hear the prattling of my fellow colleagues on the Liberal side who do not like to really hear some of the examples of NDP audacity, but let me simply tell you what lack of audacity means. It means not having any program at all. It means not having alternatives. It means to me not managing properly.
Every time the Liberals mention Ontario they fail to mention the fact-and I would not call that audacity, I would call it lack of audacity-that when the NDP was elected in Ontario-I hope it does not make the Liberals unhappy to learn that it was an election. We were not just appointed. However, we opened up the Treasury and we looked in and found that the David Peterson government had left us with a huge debt.


An hon. member:: How much?


Philip Edmonston: Approximately $300 million at the time. That was the debt. Eighty per cent of the total deficit was a Liberal heritage. It was a legacy that we were given.
Sometimes when I hear the Conservatives on the other side saying: "Look, go easy with us a little bit because we inherited all this debt", at least I know how they feel because we in Ontario had the same experience as the poor Conservatives over there. They inherited Liberal debt.
I think audacity means courage and I believe our party has courage and that is why our party is presenting alternatives. I would ask the Liberals: Where are your alternatives for children? Where are your alternatives for students? What do you have to replace the system we have right now?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague heard exactly what I said. I said that some of my colleagues have the audacity. When I say some, it does not mean all. There is a big difference between some and all.
The hon. member went on to talk about this famous plan of the NDP to deal with the question of the economy. I did not see anything in it for our youth. I did not see anything in it that will revitalize the economy per se. I did not see anything that really addresses this whole question. More important, they talk about the debt in Ontario. Do you know that in a matter of two years, the NDP Government of Ontario has increased the deficit from $800 million to close to $11 billion; $10.7 billion or something.
Maybe my hon. colleague should learn a little about mathematics just to verify those numbers because those are accurate numbers. If you are to calculate that per capita, perhaps the province of Ontario has the highest deficit of any province in Canada.
February 19, 1993

It has put us in an extremely awkward position. In a matter of two years it has incurred more debt in the whole history of Ontario, from Confederation until now. It has flip-flopped on every issue from auto insurance- he should be very upset with that-to the education question and everything else. There is nothing the Government of Ontario has not flip-flopped on.


Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough-Agincourt):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from Ottawa Centre and I was very interested to hear what he had to say about our youth and their future.
I am a father of five children and I have looked at the legacy that we are going to leave for our kids. I look at what our kids are going to inherit. Today we have well over 1.5 million unemployed. We have a deficit and a debt in this country compounded by what my children in the province of Ontario have to face from the government of Mr. Rae.
I am devastated that my children will probably have to work for ages and ages by the time we come out of this predicament that the Conservative government and the NDP Government of Ontario have put us into.
My question to my friend is the following: does he not agree that unless we get programs from this government here today, our children will have to bear the brunt of it? Our children will probably have to work like slaves to get us out of this mess that the Conservative government and the NDP government in Ontario have put us in. Our country has a double B rating.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question of my colleague. I know how hard he works trying to raise the issues for his constituents before the House.
Just to add to what the hon. member was saying, as it is we have students right now who are waiting in front of food banks. I appreciate his comments very much.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I know time is running out and I will be quick.
There should be a new theme song in here; "Where the Liberal Party Goes, Debt Follows". I am flabber-
Govemment Orders
gasted to hear the comments of my friend from Scarborough West. It is incredible.
I want to come back to my question. My hon. friend spoke on education. I listened with great interest to what he had to say on that subject. His solution to the problem seems to be throwing money at it.
This was the approach that his party took when in government. He criticizes what he referred to as reductions of more than $4 billion in spending by this government and my hon. friend over here complaint about debt. I do not know which way they want it but when he talks about the school system and the outcome of the educational system he seems to suggest that the solution lies simply in throwing money at the problem.
I spent 17 years in education before I came to this place. I want to tell my hon. friend that people who are making attacks and challenges on the education system do not recognize the fact that we now have the impact of the Young Offenders Act, the impact of drugs, the impact of television and television violence, the impact of kids coming from split homes and the impact of kids being latchkey kids. Is my hon. friend suggesting, or does he think, or is it the policy of the Liberal Party that we should have a national office of education? Does he think we should initiate national standards of testing in education?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, we always called on the consultative process with all partners, with all those who are involved in the educational system in order to come up with an action plan that will truly deal with the question of education and the question of literacy.


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval-Ouest):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Bill C-76. The purpose of this omnibus bill is to implement certain measures announced in the budget tabled on February 25, 1992.1 would like to deal more specifically with the measures that affect the Canada Student Loans Act.
Education lessens the likelihood of unemployment and increases one's chances of making a better living. Since 1984 the federal government has stressed that to make Canada more productive, more competitive and to

Government Orders
enhance the quality of life of Canadians it is vitally important to have an educated, skilled and adaptable labour force.
The report Inventing Our Future: An Action Plan for Canada's Prosperity, published in October 1992 by an independent group of prominent Canadians, has confirmed the already solid consensus on the crucial role of education in becoming competitive internationally.
The government has announced its plan to update and reinforce the Canada Student Loans Program in order to continue to provide financial assistance to eligible students to pursue studies at the post-secondary level. By reducing the cost of defaults and improving the efficiency of the program it will be possible to increase assistance to needy students. In his February 1992 budget the Minister of Finance promised that the 3 per cent fee would be eliminated and limits on loans adjusted, subject to the successful completion of negotiations with financial institutions on new financing arrangements for the Canada Student Loans Program.
It should be emphasized that the program's basic objective is and will be to provide needy students with financial assistance to pursue studies at the post-secondary level. The government is intent on offering a loans program that provides subsidized loans to borrowers who are still pursuing their studies, and does so at reasonable cost and with reasonable conditions for repayment.
The negotiations are progressing. The Minister of Finance announced in his economic statement in December 1992 that the government intended to table a bill to authorize the new financial arrangements very shortly.
In addition to a new financial structure, various proposals have been prepared and communicated to the provinces. These proposals concern the program's mission, eligibility criteria and accountability with respect to spending under the program. More specifically, the proposals are a response to a host of concerns that have been raised over the years by the general public, the provinces, students and the Auditor General.
Generally speaking, these measures will do more than encourage access. They will also be more results-ori-ented by linking payment of assistance to successful completion of the individual's studies within the requisite time frame. Fair and uniform standards will be set to regulate implementation of the program across the
country, simplify evaluation of requirements, maximize resources and increase the level of assistance offered to needy students.
It was explained previously that the amendments proposed in Bill C-76 would deal with three main issues: eliminating the six-month interest-free period after graduation, as of the 1993-94 loan year; updating the alternative payment formula designed to compensate provinces choosing to opt out of the program, including an extension of the deadline for giving notice of their intention to opt out; and allowing the minister to determine which forms will be used in the program.
I will deal with each issue separately. First of all, the bill proposes to eliminate the six-month interest-free period after graduation. At the present time, the government guarantees loans made to full-time students by lending institutions and subsidizes these loans by paying interest costs while the students are at school and for six months after graduation.
After completing their studies, students must enter into a consolidated repayment agreement with their lending institutions. Borrowers must repay the principal and the interest accrued starting on the first day of the seventh month following their graduation. Depending on the total sum borrowed, repayment may extend over a period of nine and a half years.
The interest subsidy on student loans represents more than 40 per cent of the program's cost. Every year the subsidy costs Canadian taxpayers about $200 million. This is a very costly measure and a direct and substantial investment in our human resources.
During the past two years there have been recommendations that the government should completely phase out interest subsidies, even in the case of borrowers who are still pursuing their studies. The government is not proposing any thing as drastic. We will continue to pay the interest accrued on loans while borrowers are at school. Full-time students will continue to benefit as long as they are enrolled in an educational institution.
Furthermore, they will still have up to six months after graduation to negotiate repayment terms with their lending institutions. For borrowers with an average debt of $6,100 upon graduation, monthly payments will in-
February 19, 1993

crease by less than $3.50 if they decide to capitalize the interest accrued on their loans.
Less than 5 per cent of all recipients of student loans accumulate debts of more than $15,000. In fact, 85 per cent of borrowers owe less than $10,000 and 60 per cent less than $5,000. Those whose debt levels are higher are, for the most part, university students who consequently have a better chance of obtaining a full-time, well-paid job. All things considered, the financial obligations of most graduates would seem quite reasonable.
I may add that although after graduation they no longer receive an interest subsidy borrowers remain eligible for interest relief, if they are unemployed because they are unable to find a job or are ill or temporarily incapacitated. Under this interest relief program, borrowers who are unable to repay their Canada student loans because they are unemployed can ask the government, and I think this is very important, to pay the interest on their behalf for a period of up to 18 months.
Furthermore, the existing legislation is still sufficiently flexible to allow borrowers to negotiate or renegotiate with the lender the kind of repayment terms that reflect their ability to pay.
I would now like to say a few words about the proposed changes in the formula for compensatory payments to provinces that may decide to opt out of the Canada Student Loans Program.
I may add that Quebec and the Northwest Territories have already opted out of the program. They have chosen to set up their own student aid program with the money they receive under the compensatory payments formula. They will continue to receive these payments, which amounted to $87 million in 1991-92, or about 20 per cent of the cost of the program.
The present formula, which has been used since 1964, presents a real problem. It does not strictly take account of the fact that if a participating province withdraws from the program the federal government would continue to pay costs related to previously made Canadian student loans.
The proposed changes to the compensatory payments formula will ensure that the program has the financial resources to help needy Canadian students in the prov-
Govemment Orders
inces and territories and at the same time compensate provinces that establish their own student aid program.
Furthermore, the proposed amendments would require any province that intended to withdraw from the program to notify the administration in writing at least 12 months before the beginning of the loan year in which it intended to withdraw.
The third and final amendment to the act would simplify program administration. It will give us more latitude to plan and adopt changes to the form and co-ordinate changes with lenders and the provinces.
Clearly, the purpose of the proposed amendments to Bill C-76 updating the Canada Student Loans Program is to make this program better serve present and future generations in the interest of the whole country. Now that I have explained to them what the amendments in question are about, I would ask hon. members to please pass this bill which I and all Canadians believe is most appropriate.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks. His comments were very well expressed and I find that his speech was well prepared. I would just like to ask him some questions because, even though his presentation is complete, he still raises some questions which he could answer to complete what he said.
Bill C-76 would eliminate the six-month period for students. The government is trying to save $35 to $40 million with this measure, but we must keep in mind that the student will still have to pay interest on the principal, I believe. I do not think that will change. So the interest continues to accrue but the student does not need to pay it for six months.
My question is this: from what I understood, the reason for stopping the subsidies in this way was mainly a trade-off. In exchange, the committee agreed to remove the 3 per cent tax on that amount. Did the hon. member understand the same thing, that it was a trade-off? Because the 3 per cent tax amounts to $35 to $40 million, I think. Can we take one load off students and put another one on them, or should they have to bear both together?


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I did not sit on the committee that studied the bill. I did not take part in the discussions. I cannot say today whether I understand the

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
bill in the same way as committee members understood it then.
What I can tell my hon. colleague is that we do want to ask all Canadians to participate. Now we say, as I just said, that if a student cannot afford it because he is out of work, sick, or disabled or for other reasons, he can negotiate with the government for an 18-month period to pay the interest that my hon. colleague just mentioned.
This does not mean that we want to make a public issue of the interest students owe and tell them: "Well, you are not studying anymore so we do not want to help you anymore". It simply means that we are asking everyone in this country to take part with us in finding solutions and ways to help the economy recover, to get young people back in the labour market, to cut down the number of school drop-outs as much as possible and to give the most encouragement to those who want to learn and advance academically and go back to their studies. Those are the kind of measures we are trying to establish, and I believe that the hon. member sees the purpose of this bill in the same way.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's thoughtful speech and especially his concern that Canada requires more money to be spent on education and on students so that there are better opportunities to get jobs and we can compete more effectively internationally.
It is understood by the member that this is an absolute requirement. He also suggested that all Canadians should be expected to assist in resolving the financial problems of Canada. Just a short time ago his colleague indicated that the NDP in its economic proposals was not making a sensible proposal by calling for a minimum tax for corporations. As the member will know, just a few years ago 100,000 corporations in this country earning profits of $27 billion paid no tax at all.
That is largely because there are concessions made to business. For example, the business entertainment expense deduction allows three martini lunches and even the services of prostitutes to be purchased by businesses for their clients at taxpayers' expense.
How does the member justify this kind of tax policy that on the one hand allows 100,000 corporations earning profits of $27 million to get away tax free? Why should they not be obliged to share this burden of Canada's financial problems? On the other hand, in Canada we are charging income tax on scholarships earned by bright students.
Why does the Conservative government believe that lottery winnings, millions of dollars in some cases of unearned windfalls, should go tax free and yet make it tougher on students to obtain student loans and impose more strict and stringent conditions on the repayment of those loans?
Is there not a bit of inconsistency in what the member is saying? He says we need these people to go through school. We need them to improve their education for the benefit of all Canadians. We seem to give tax concessions to businesses for luncheons and prostitutes and that kind of thing. Yet we are taxing scholarships and making it tougher to get student loans.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I think that ideally speaking, the member is right. Everybody should pay their fair share of income tax in this country.
Also, we have to give some incentives to industries to promote their companies to provide work for people. I think we should have policies that would give all Canadians the opportunity to work and to be able to compete not only in Canada, not only in the provinces, province by province, but also abroad, world-wide.
I think the policy of the Conservative government would probably be the best in the world to allow these companies to do business with others.
I do not want to penalize students, companies or anyone in Canada but we have to give them the chance to be competitive and allow them to compete.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues I would like to deal with in the debate today but I fear the time constraints on me will be overbearing.
I want to start by talking about the fact that the government is using time allocation once again on this bill. Just to remind the House and the Canadian public of the Draconian approach this government takes to dealing with legislation in the House, closure has been
February 19, 1993

used 15 times in Parliament since the November 1988 election.


An hon. member:: We need an election.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We need an election in the worst way. I agree with the hon. member.
The fourteenth time closure was used to change the Standing Orders so the government would not have to use closure very much again. The fifteenth time it was used on a motion because it cannot move time allocation on a motion; it has to be on a bill.
We have had time allocation galore since the rules were changed in 1991. I could list the number of times since the rules changed. Over half the time allocation motions have been moved since the rules were changed which made it easier, shorter and faster for the government to use time allocation instead of the old closure rule.
We have had time allocation now 20 times in Parliament which is an unbounded record. No one comes close. If we count the number of stages of a bill to which it has been applied-like in one motion today it was applied to two stages of this bill, both the report stage and the third reading stage, which is allowed under the rules-there have been 31 applications of time allocation. It is pernicious, and today we had notice of time allocation on another bill for Monday.
What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of the people in the House. Never before have we had a government so reluctant to engage in public discussion on the bills brought before this House.
These are not bills that are popular. These are not bills that are designed to curry favour with the public. These bills in many cases represent very unpopular measures any government that had a chance of getting re-elected would not introduce.
The government knows it is in trouble so it is soldiering on with a bunch of unpopular measures at which a government that believed in its chances of re-election would balk and look at in a more reasonable way.
I want to look at the record on this bill alone. The bill was debated at second reading in November. It was referred to committee on November 30, 1992. We heard some reference to the committee proceedings and the usual high-handed way the member for Mississauga
Government Orders
South dealt with the bill in committee by refusing to allow students to appear and be heard, who after all are gravely affected by the legislation. Members were boasting on one hand about consultation, about how they consult with everybody, but on the other hand when the students came to make their protests known about the bill they could not be heard.
You do not consult. You do not listen. You just soldier on and put the jackboot to everybody. You put them to the students when you do not hear them in committee and then you put them to the members of the House by putting time allocation on the bill. That is what you have done.
The bill came back to the House for report stage debate for something like 42 minutes on February 12. We know why the Conservatives did that. They had to get the debate started so they could move time allocation which they did on February 15. They slapped time allocation on the bill, here we have time allocation, a total of four hours and 15 minutes on report stage and one day, a short day, on third reading.
I suggest that the government's approach to legislating is frankly a disgrace. It cuts back the time the House is available to sit and then it applies closure to cut off the debate.


Peter L. McCreath: Debate the bill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I heard that member speak this morning and he hardly said a word about the bill. The Minister of Finance, on his introduction-


Peter L. McCreath: Why didn't you listen to my speech?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I did. I listened to his speech. It was the most ridiculous set of comments I had ever heard. I also listened to the Minister of Finance in his speech yesterday morning when he introduced this bill.


An hon. member:: It was another bill.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It was another bill, but his speech on that bill had nothing to do with the bill. He almost popped out of his skin. I want to quote him for a moment. He was excited because he had some new figures on trade. He had new export figures and he said how high they were and what a tremendous increase it was. He said it was an 11 per cent increase over 1991, the largest year-over-year increase since 1984. Of course 1991 was not a great year for the Canadian economy. Though an

Government Orders
11 per cent increase may sound very good and it is quite good it probably started from a pretty low base.
The hon. member for Mississauga South knows all these figures, yet his minister did not dare put the figures on the record yesterday in spite of repeated urgings by me that he do so. I sat here and challenged the minister repeatedly in the course of his remarks.
If somebody had come into this country from outer space after listening to the minister's speech he would have thought the Canadian economy was coming up roses. You never heard anything so rosy in your life. He cited all these figures about how his policies had worked, how inflation had been wrestled to the ground, how trade was booming and how everything was just coming out the way it was all planned by the government.
The minister did not mention the 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work. He did not mention the hardship his government has put on Canadians. He criticized President Clinton because he said that he was making a huge tax grab omitting to mention the fact that this government had taken another $50 billion a year out of the Canadian economy with tax increases since it took office.
I ask the member for Mississauga South to correct me and tell me that it is at least $50 billion. Is it not $60 billion or $70 billion now? I am sure he does not know those figures. I know why he does not say them. He is ashamed of them. The government has taken all this money. For eight years it has gouged Canadians of all this money and the deficit is still at $30 billion. Talk about incompetent management. At least President Clinton promised to reduce the deficit somewhat. This government promised it but never did it. It took all the taxes but it never reduced the deficit. Talk about incompetent management.
I do not want to get waylaid on that. Unfortunately it is a side issue to the main point of this bill. However when we hear the Minister of Finance introduce a bill, ignore the provisions of the bill and talk about his handling of the economy in laudatory terms, we have to say that something is wrong with this minister. He ignores the human suffering that the policies he has forced on Canadians have brought across this country.
Unfortunately that suffering is what we want to talk about in this House. That is what we want to discuss on budget implementation measures. That is what we try to raise on these budget bills but the government does not want to listen. It wants to apply the jackboot and put closure on it. It does not want to listen to the people affected. It does not want to listen to elected representatives in this House. It just wants to have its way with the Canadian public.
I would like to quote very briefly from a speech given by Matthew Barrett, chairman and chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal, at the annual meeting of the shareholders on January 18 of this year. The member for Mississauga South is probably a friend of Mr. Barrett. I do not know but I suspect he knows him well. I would imagine he had him appear before the finance committee when the member was chairman.
In any event, I thought a couple of quotes might be helpful to remind members of the mess we are in as a result of the government's policies. He said: "As a percentage of income Canada owes more to foreigners than any other major industrial country and, make no mistake, attracting and holding those funds means higher interest rates". Of course the Minister of Finance boasted about how low interest rates were in Canada because, as he said, they are lower than before. But they are not low in real terms. That is the real cost of borrowing to Canadians. Canadians are paying a lot of money. Even though interest rates have dropped we are paying a lot of money, a lot more than other countries are.
Mr. Barrett also said something about the level of debt owed by each Canadian. He said: "The public debt continues to grow and spread insidiously. In 1976 we owed almost $9,000 for every household in the land". By the end of 1992 it was $60,000 and over half of that $60,000 is attributable very directly to the eight years that Canadians have suffered under this government.
I cannot let the government go without turning to its friends in the NDP who have blasted around the last couple of days with this new five-year plan. They have abandoned those plans in Russia, I believe, but we have the NDP pushing them here. I would have thought it would have had the sense to abandon them too, but apparently not. These copies are hard to come by. It was just released yesterday, but when I called to get a copy this morning I could not get one. I want to thank the hon.
February 19, 1993

member for Chambly for his copy. I see it is charging for this plan. I can understand why. That is part of the deficit reduction plan for the New Democratic Party.
I took a look at the plan. I have seen the lavish pictures in it, I must say. I do not know who the photographer was but the photographer did very well. There is a great shot of the member for Yukon at the front and some pictures of people handing out dollars and change in the centre. I am impressed with that. That is just great.
I think it is important to look at the NDP five-year plan in some kind of perspective. I suspect it had this plan financed by the Tory Party. I can see every day the aim of the member for Yukon and the Prime Minister is to get together, as the hon. member for Esquimalt- Juan de Fuca did this morning when he stood and sent one of these soft lobs to the Prime Minister in Question Period: "What are you going to do about the Liberals?" The Prime Minister lines up at bat and hits and it looks as though it is a home run.
When you are the front-runner I guess you have to expect these kinds of hits but you would not expect that the New Democratic Party, which protests that it has all the virtue in the world and does not really want to be partisan most of the time, to line up with the partisan Prime Minister of Canada and throw him soft lobs so he can take a swat at the Leader of the Opposition. Yet that is what we are witnessing in this House every day. As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca says: "There are politics going on here". I will acknowledge that he is correct on that score.
In any event I enjoyed looking at this document. I enjoyed even more reading the comments about it in some of the newspapers. I know the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca will want to hear these comments. Apparently his leader, whom he almost beat in the leadership convention, had a little trouble when she got before the reporters answering questions about the document.
Apparently it says that the NDP's policies are going to reduce the deficit by $8 billion and yet Informetrica, the Toiy-hired independent study group, says that in fact it is
Government Orders
going to be $11 billion. The NDP had not picked up the difference between the two. Perhaps the $3 billion was a slush fund to hand out to people like Bob Rae to help him out of the particular financial difficulties he has got the province of Ontario into. I do not know. It is not clear where that money is going but there seemed to be some kind of discrepancy there.
As it said in the newspaper account:
Ms. McLaughlin and Mr. Langdon -
I guess he was there to help:
- repeatedly insisted that the NDP plan would reduce the federal deficit by $8 billion. In fact, the independent analysis by Informetrica Ltd. showed that the deficit would be reduced by the correct figure of $11 billion. None of the NDP officials noticed the discrepancy until it was pointed out by a reporter.
I do not know, but it appears that the hon. member for Yukon is embarking on a tour to pump this plan out to the public and she is going to speak in Winnipeg, Ottawa, Kingston and Toronto. I hope I hear her when she is in Kingston.
I want to say also that I thought the comment at the end of this newspaper article was interesting. The vice-president of Informetrica said:
"Conservatives should be happy with the consequence," Mr. Sonnen told reporters at the NDP news conference. "This will shift people's perceptions of the NDP".
Perhaps the hon. member for Mississauga South is going to join the NDP now. I wonder if he is one of the happy Conservatives as a result of this plan. I did not hear him speaking in laudatory terms about it, but perhaps if the two got together Canadians would realize what we have been saying along, which is that there really is no difference between the two parties.
Either way Canadians get ridden with debt whenever one of these parties takes office. To hear the NDP and the Conservatives, it is the same old plaint every day: "The only reason we are in debt is because of those awful Liberals". Yet the NDP in Ontario, when it took office, had something like a $3 billion deficit after it cooked the books to increase it and then it has run it up to $10 billion or $11 billion now. It says: "Oh, it is all the Liberals' fault".

Government Orders
The Tories took over with a $38 billion deficit in the first year and they had six months to run that up higher, which they did. They stretched and spent and it went up to $38 billion. It was not at that figure in September 1984 when they took over, but they managed to get it to $38 billion and that has sort of been their benchmark ever since.
Never mind that in the 1985 budget the Tories said by this year it would be down to $15 billion or so. Forget all that. It is not. It is double that. However, they went ahead their merry way and predicted that in another two or three years the deficit would be down, but it did not go down. Perhaps the member for Mississauga South could tell us why the projections that the finance ministers gave in their budgets all proved wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why. I will let you in on part of the secret. The government did not control expenditures the way it said it would. It cut expenditures here and there but then it increased them everywhere else. That is what it did.
No Canadian is fooled by this. We can cite all kinds of examples of government waste and extravagant expenditure. We have mentioned before how the government could have saved millions of dollars if it had cut its advertising budget. We know how much this government spends on advertising.
I suspect the NDP in Ontario does the same kind of thing now. Certainly this beautiful book of the new five-year plan is an indication of the lengths to which that party will go to spend money to convince Canadians that it is really doing something when it really is not.
There is another thing I want to mention about this document. I heard my friend speak about this and thought he should be very careful because he said this was a plan for full employment. It says it is a full-employment economic strategy. It may be but the difficulty is, and I did not see the figures mentioned in the report, that from the press reports it appears that the leader of the New Democratic Party admitted that this would take the unemployment rate from 11 per cent to 7.1 per cent in five years.
I grant that is a good start, I acknowledge that. I am delighted the NDP takes that position, even though there may be some weaknesses in the arguments and there may be problems in getting there because of some
of the other things in the report, and I could say more about that. It is a laudable aim but it is not full employment. I do not regard 7 per cent unemployment as full employment and I do not think anybody in this party does either.
The scheme needs to be reworded to say toward full employment, but unfortunately that is not what it says. I know that the members would not want to mislead the Canadian public by suggesting that if these schemes were implemented everything would come up roses, as the Minister of Finance says it is now.
We know it is not. We know the Minister of Finance is wrong. He has been wrong before and his colleague, the former Minister of Finance, was wrong every time. The jury is still out on the Minister of Finance. He claims that the measures he took in December are the reasons that everything is working out so well today. We know it is not.
The minister also says that the free trade agreement and the GST have done wonders for the Canadian economy while almost every economist in the country will acknowledge that is not the case. Indeed, there is a strong argument to be made that the economy is now recovering from the free trade agreement that the Conservative government put in place in 1989. It has taken that long. It has taken years to recover.
I am running out of time. I had so much I wanted to talk about that it is difficult to fit it in, but I wanted to talk about the approach our party has taken to economic growth.
The Prime Minister, provoked by the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca today, tried to say that the Liberals have no policy, but we do. The policy was put forward in two recent speeches by our leader, particularly in Toronto. The leader stressed the importance of economic growth to the development of our country and the fact that without growth we will not create jobs in Canada.
The aim and thrust of a new Liberal government will be to shift the focus from shrinking the economy and squeezing the economy through a tight monetary policy to one that is based on the growth of the economy to create jobs and new industries in the future. We also said that we were committed to fiscal responsibility in dealing with expenditure control, not necessarily an $8 billion reduction in the deficit. A reduction of $8 billion off $30 billion over a five-year period is not very much. I believe the figure from the five-year plan is cumulative. The
February 19, 1993

debt problem in Canada is severe and this government has made it critical.
The monetary policy must be changed to allow a much more balanced approach to growth so that we can have some inflation, if need be, and not throw everybody out of work.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh, no.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The member for Mississauga South objects to that. The Conservatives have squeezed the economy so they can get inflation down to 1.5 per cent, but at what cost to Canadian workers? It has been tough, tough, tough. Tory times are tough times and NDP times are worse.
We need greater fiscal co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. That is something that has been sadly lacking under this government. When it introduced the GST the plan was clearly to have it dovetail with provincial taxes but it did not. The government was not flexible enough to manage to make that transition.
Had the government been able to get such agreement Canadians would not be saddled with two taxes at once when they go to the store and storekeepers would not be saddled with two different taxes to collect, all on different things. It is a real problem. It is a tremendous cost of doing business. The government boasts that the GST has helped but the only people it has helped are the people who are only involved in exports. Persons who are selling domestically, where they are manufacturing and selling more than one thing, are faced with difficulties because of the taxation system in place in this country.
We also believe that our trade policy must reflect the realities of the GATT. We are anxious to settle the problems in GATT and bring the agreement to a conclusion.
I see my time has run out. I profoundly regret that because I could go on at some length about the policies the Liberal Party has espoused and will espouse when it takes office, as soon as the government gets the courage to call an election.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the member, who is a great parliamentarian and historian, would probably want to say, but did not, and I thought I might do it for him, that in the 1980-84
Government Orders
Parliament the Liberal government introduced time allocation 25 times on 18 bills and full closure on two motions. In the 1984-88 Parliament time allocation was used 20 times on 16 bills and there were two motions of closure. That is quite less than the Liberal record.
So far in this Parliament, 1988-92, time allocation has been used 18 times on 13 bills and there have been three time allocations on motions.
That is an interesting situation because I note that the Liberal Party, desirous of expediting and improving the form of government and cutting the cost of government-and he made quite a speech with respect to the efforts of Mr. Matthew Barrett of the Bank of Montreal. He did not bother saying that the Liberal government had co-operated with the New Democrats to make closure necessary on Bill C-32, the Canada Assistance Plan, and Bill C-60, the federal fiscal arrangements bill or that the Liberals and New Democrats co-operated to oppose Bills C-20, C-21, C-56, C-63, C-69, C-93 and C-76, all in this session of Parliament, all designed to cut and streamline the cost of government.
The member did not say that the New Democrats and Liberals had opposed the government on getting the government out of Crown corporations. On Bills C-8, C-13, and C-38 he and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party, tweedledum and tweedledee, voted together to make sure that the government had to force closure on the dissolution of Crown corporations. They believe in high Public Service salaries so they co-operated with the New Democratic Party again on Bill C-26, the public service employment act, Bill C-55, the pension benefits act, and they are now co-operating with them on Bill C-113, the Government Expenditures Restraint 1993 Act. I wonder whether that will require time allocation. I suspect it will.
I want to ask him one question because he raised the issue. It is a question we all want to know. He said: "Inflation, if need be". I want to know what inflation this country is going to get with a Liberal Party. What is a necessary inflation rate?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question directly, and then I want to comment on something the hon. member said in his remarks. I do not know what a reasonable level of inflation would be. It will not be high. However, we will not throw 500,000 people out of work in order to reduce the level of inflation from 4 per cent

Government Orders
to 1.5 per cent. That is not what we will do. That has cost the Canadian economy millions and millions of dollars.
Not only are those people not paying taxes now, and remember it is this government that induced the recession, but they are drawing unemployment insurance. Now the government is introducing measures to take them off unemployment insurance so they cannot get a cent from their government after paying premiums at exorbitant rates to this government, which has doubled and tripled the premiums. It is an absolute scandal and a disgrace. Frankly if the government had done a reasonably proper job when it took office in 1984 of doing all the things it said it was going to do it would not be in the pickle it is in today.
I want to respond to the hon. member's comments about closure. He says we co-operated to block these bills so that closure had to be applied.
Let us take a look at the legislative record of some of these bills. I think the member will find that the debates were remarkably short. For example, notice of time allocation on Bill C-110 has been given for Monday. That is the fixed link bill for the Northumberland Strait. There have been five speakers on that bill, one hour and 39 minutes of debate, and the government has given notice of time allocation. That is the kind of record this government has.
This is not a case of prolonging a debate and then the government stepping in and introducing closure to cut it off. This is after a short debate. The government says it does not want to hear any more from the opposition and cuts it off right away. That is what is going on here. Do not make any mistake about it.
The hon. member talked about the use of closure and cited all these figures from past Parliaments which do not match what has gone on in this Parliament. None come close. He can cite all he wants. If he looks at the debates he will see that before closure or time allocation was used by previous governments a reasonable amount of debate had elapsed. The House sat longer per year in those days than it does now. We have had our time cut back. This House has not sat that much during the four years we have been here because the government keeps
using closure whenever the House does sit in order to ram its bills through.
It does not want to have public discussion on the bills.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to question the member. The member mentioned as he began that we should have an election and I agree with him.
The Prime Minister said before the last election that he would not cut social programs, and we saw what happened. He said he promised his mother he would not do it. We see the cutbacks in unemployment insurance. We see the cutbacks in social programs. We see the cutbacks in equalization payments to the provinces. Now we see student loans being cut back.
We have a situation in which this government is on its last legs and is trying to force through legislation. I was here in 1984 when the Liberals were on their last legs. They went four and a half years before they called the election. Interest rates were running at 22 per cent. The New Democratic Party has finally put forward a program that we think could stimulate the economy and get things going but all we hear from both sides is that this side does not want to say what it is going to do and this side is showing us what it is doing.
I want to ask the member when the Liberal Party is going to tell us what it is going to do. He has said that it would harmonize the GST. The people of Canada do not want that. He said had the government done the right thing and worked with these people it would have harmonized the GST. Is that what the Liberal Party is going to do if it becomes the government?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member protests too much. He has very much misconstrued my words. I said that the government blundered ahead with the GST without having achieved any harmonization with the provinces before it did it. That has been a mistake.
We will introduce some new tax. Our leader has promised that after the next election he will set up a parliamentary committee of all parties which will consult widely-


An hon. member:: It is a war on the GST.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: It is a war on the GST, as the hon. member says. That is correct. It is a war on the GST.
We will set up a committee which will conduct a study and determine what kind of tax will be reasonable, perhaps not acceptable but at least reasonable, for Canadians. It will consult with provincial governments so that they also have some input on the way the tax operates so the federal government does not bulldoze its way into the tax field and drive Canadians out of work, out of business and into bankruptcy. That is what the government's policies have done.
The GST was one of the major planks in that policy. The Minister of Finance was boasting about it yesterday in his speech, for heaven's sake. What more evidence do we need. Of course the member for Mississauga South was a staunch supporter of the GST. His constituents are going to thank him for that come the next election I am sure.
The NDP say: "We are going to get rid of the GST and soak the rich". As Mr. Simpson said, there is good reason to increase taxes in certain brackets in Canada. I am not disagreeing with that but let us look at what Jeffrey Simpson said in his article in The Globe and Mail. Mr. Simpson knows I like to quote him.
With regard to the Informetrica analysis of the socialist five-year plan he said: "The party wants out of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Nor could Informetrica estimate the very negative consequences of the NDP trade policy. Nor could Informetrica estimate the almost certain decline in business confidence caused by higher corporate taxes, a 2 per cent refundable training tax, the abrogation of trade agreements and higher personal income taxes. Nor could the NDP's fiscal commitments be considered fully credible. The party calls for defence cuts without saying how or where and outlines some new spending for child care infrastructure, research and development but the plan also notes many other areas for potential new spending without offsetting spending reductions".
So the answers are not all there. This document is trumped about as though it was some sort of a godsend, but I think the hon. member for Mississauga South and I at least have this in common: We agree this document is a pretty feeble effort.
Government Orders


Philip Edmonston: Mr Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Com-ox-Alberni on this subject, 10 minutes each I believe with a period for questions.
I have been listening to the debate all morning with a great deal of interest. We do have a number of colourful speakers here. We have speakers from both sides of the House who have been in government for many years. It is very instructive to hear the substance they give forth occasionally but also the political parrying back and forth is also interesting, and entertaining as well.
I should have been forewarned when I came here that it would be that kind of a day because at 10.30 a.m. I saw about 40 students sitting where the Conservative members are sitting right now. They were students from the school attended by the Prime Minister's son. They wanted to know what we would be studying today, what legislation we would be passing and what we would be debating. It was refreshing to see students, actually children behaving as children, rather than seeing adults behaving as children.
When we get into these kinds of debates, we get into almost a bizarre world where the Conservative Party with Bill C-76 has a program without a doubt and we do not like it. The New Democratic Party does not think the solution is to penalize students to the degree that Bill C-76 does. We do not believe it is a solution. With respect to the part dealing with lobbyists, we do not think the lobbyists are being reined in or controlled as they should be. That is why we are studying the question in committee.
At least the Conservatives have a program we can oppose and we have a program which both the Liberals and the Conservatives, as I was not surprised to see them do, oppose as well. I am very proud of the NDP program because it has some good elements in it. I did give a copy of the NDP program to the member of the Liberal Party so he could base parts of his speech on it. I have not yet seen any program from the Liberal Party. In a preamble to what I have to say on Bill C-761 hope that we will see something substantial, something which is serious and is not contradictory.


An hon. member:: The Liberals are going to play hide and seek.

February 19, 1993
Government Orders


Philip Edmonston: My colleague on the other side says the Liberals are going to play hide and seek. We will see but we do have some time left before the next election. I do hope the Liberal Party will give us at least as much as we have given them: a program they can debate, they can make fun of or they can agree with, at least something substantial.
Let me address the parts of Bill C-76 that we believe we cannot accept. There are several parts to Bill C-76. The parts that interest me are those dealing with lobbyists and those dealing with paying back student loans to the government.
I heard my hon. colleague from Laval-Ouest say that the government really has no choice, the rules have to be tightened up. We have several rules dealing with students and the repayment of loans. One rule is that there is more or less a subsidy of six months from the time that the loan comes due until they begin paying it off.
Bill C-76 in a sense is tightening that up in that it is saying we no longer allow that period. I must say during that period the students will still have to pay. My hon. colleague from Mississauga may be able to correct me on this. They will have to pay the interest on the principal. If this bill is passed they would have to start paying as soon as it comes due. There would no longer be a six-month period of forgiveness.
I have no qualm that students should pay what they owe. I have no problem with that. I do not believe there is such a thing as free education. People do have to pay for it, either the students partly, their parents, myself, or citizens in general. I think the citizens of Canada really want to pay for students because they are our future.
For many of the Conservatives who will no longer be sitting in those seats after the next election, those students will probably be paying their pensions. It will not be with a great deal of joy but they will be doing it anyway. It is in our best interests to make sure that those students have good, well-paying jobs.
When I look at the impact of Bill C-761 do not see the trade-off I expected. I understand it was discussed and agreed upon in committee that in exchange for having the students pay when the loan falls due after they graduate without a six-month period of forgiveness the
government would eliminate the 3 per cent tax on the loan.
That is one question I have been asking many of the speakers. I have not had an answer to it just yet. Perhaps I will not today but I expect that eventually I will. To me it means we are getting a 3 per cent tax on student loans. I really think it is a bit much if at the same time we remove the forgiveness period of six months while they are out looking for a job. I think that is taxing them again in a roundabout way.
I understand what my colleague from Mississauga said. We have to get this deficit down. I believe him. It is a serious problem. I read the financial press as much as anybody else. However, the problem is this: if we are going to have any credibility whatsoever in this government, we are going to have to set the example with expenses. I am not just talking about the Conservatives; I am talking about Liberals and NDPers as well. We have not done that to any great extent.
I know it can be said it has been done somewhat or that it has been done better than the Liberals. The population at large, Canadians outside these walls, are tired of hearing us say we did it a little bit better than the Liberals, or a little better than the NDP, or the Parti Quebecois, or the Bloc. They are worse than we are.
People are sick and tired of these sterile comparisons. The people of this country would like profoundly, in the depths of their hearts, to see us for once say that we are going to set a massive example. Here are the cuts and here is where they are coming.
I would like to compare this to what President Clinton said in his speech: "We have to make tremendous cuts". He mentioned entitlements. There is the question of universality and the safety net. He mentioned that but he also said: "Here is where we are going to make these tremendous cuts as of the next few months". A poll of his speech that night just came through the wires. Over 70 per cent of Americans were prepared to accept even additional taxes if he was going to go along with those massive cuts.
That is why we are against Bill C-76. We do not see the fairness aspect as a political party which is based on fairness. That is why we placed an alternative before Canadians. That alternative is toward a full-employment job plan. That is very important.
February 19, 1993

In conclusion, I would just like to say if you are going to attack the Conservatives or Liberals, you had better have an alternative. Our party has it.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member and I would appreciate hearing his opinion.
In Quebec today weekly lottery winnings total $2 million. Does the hon. member think it would be possible to have a special tax for lottery winners, who would in this way participate in the development of our country, because the money would be put in the bank and used to give our students a chance to get a better education? I would like to know whether the hon. member would support this idea.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a wonderful idea. I think it would be a way to really invest in our young people. In fact, there is a similar suggestion I would like to make.
One of the reasons why I object to the GST is that it does not apply to transactions in financial institutions. I invest a lot in the stock market, and whether I win or lose, I would not object to my transactions being taxed because I think these are financial transactions that ought to be taxed.
I think the kind of suggestion I heard from one of the Conservatives across the way-and one is the operative word-makes very good sense. The hon. member made a very sensible suggestion and I applaud that.


Robert Evans Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chambly for sharing his time with me. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-76, which as members know deals with a number of fiscal measures designed to trim government expenditures. Some of them I do not really have any difficulty with.
On the idea of taxing lobbyists to pay for the regulatory process for lobbyists, I think the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is a little overly concerned that this is a way of depriving people of getting access to their members of Parliament.
Government Orders
If there are people in the business of being third parties who introduce Canadian citizens to the government or to members of Parliament and derive funds from that, I have no hesitation in seeing them pay for the cost of regulating that kind of business. I have no difficulty with that section.
I do have some difficulty with the cutting of ministers' salaries and that kind of thing. I am not sure this really is going to have an impact on the deficit or the debt at all. As Mike Harcourt, the premier of British Columbia, pointed out when he was giving his pre-budget message to the people of British Columbia, the actual amount spent on the whole operation of Parliament is something like 1.82 per cent of the total expenditure in the province of British Columbia. It is a very tiny amount and any cuts to ministers' salaries or to those kinds of salaries are really token and symbolic. I think it misleads the people of Canada to suggest that it in any way contributes to the cutting of the deficit, although there is some value in that as a symbolic measure.
If we really want to take a look at the waste in this section of the Public Service that is represented by Parliament we should have an independent tribunal to examine salaries and benefits. It would ensure that those salaries and benefits enjoyed by members, ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister are in line with the kind of work being done and the kind of expenses being experienced by people occupying those offices. I do not think it should be done on an arbitrary basis. As a symbolic measure, I think it should have real impact and people should know what the reasons for it are and what legitimate levels of compensation should be paid to members of the government and the Prime Minister.
I really do not look on that section of this legislation as being of very much importance. I hope the government will consider something along the lines of an independent and impartial salary and benefits tribunal that will look at salaries of members in this Chamber and make sure they are in line with our duties.
In addition, there has been some comment on the expansion of the limits of small business loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act. I do not think that is really an important section in this bill. In fact, I think all those measures are sugar coating to make it more palatable to accept the real weight of this bill, which is an attack on

February 19, 1993
Government Orders
students through the changes in the student loans system.
If we are trying to cut the debt and deficit of this country it should not be done on the backs of students. I hear the government talking about the need for more education to make us more competitive and to make it possible for young people in our country to become more employable and more flexible so that they will be able to participate in the high-tech, information-oriented economy of the future.
This government has done virtually nothing to help Canadians realize the promise and the need for more education. A little while ago it was talking about adult literacy programs and yet almost no money has been put up to finance those programs. It talked about the tremendous cost burden that illiteracy constitutes in the Canadian economy and how much our Gross National Product could be improved if the adult literacy rate in Canada could be improved. However, very little in the way of government effort and government money has gone into that. It does not put its money where its mouth is when it speaks of literacy and education.
The government also criticized the fact that Canadian business spends less on worker and staff training than virtually any other business group in any other industrialized country. Canadian business ranks among the worst in terms of the amount it spends on improving the educational level of its employees. What has the government done to change that, to bring Canadian businesses up to international standards so that our workers and businesses will be more competitive and more able to be more successful in the world economy? It has done absolutely nothing.
Again, in this piece of legislation it has dumped the problem of the deficit and the debt on to the backs of Canadian students by making the Canadian student loans system more rigorous, more difficult for students to qualify for student loans and when they are finished their training, more difficult for them to pay it back. Why is the government putting the burden of the debt and the deficit on the backs of those who are least able to pay for it?
That is why I asked a previous speaker from the government side why there was such inconsistency in
government policy in terms of the way it treats students as opposed to the way it treats business. On the one hand I pointed out that there are 100,000 businesses in this country that were very profitable. They earned $27 billion in profits, yet paid absolutely no tax at all. The member from Mississauga criticized the NDP's economic paper when he pointed out that we would impose a minimum tax on those businesses.
On the other hand, student scholarships that are earned by talent and ability and by the intelligence of the students are taxed under the income tax system when
100,000	businesses in this country earning $27 billion in profits are getting away tax free. How do they do it? They have the business entertainment deduction. They can deduct things like three martini lunches and the services of escort agencies paid for at the expense of the taxpayers.
What kind of a country would have those kinds of priorities where it is willing to finance or allow businesses to deduct the costs from their income tax of escort agencies and three martini lunches and yet tax scholarships in the hands of students who earn those scholarships by the talent of their brains and their ability. It simply does not make sense.
As was pointed out by the member for Laval-Ouest-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 2.45 p.m., pursuant to a Standing Order made Monday, February 15, 1993, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
February 19, 1993

And more than five members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the recorded division stands deferred until six o'clock p.m., Monday, February 22, 1993.
I believe there is unanimous consent to go right into Private Members' hour.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being three o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
develop a comprehensive environmental charter of rights.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to stand in the House this afternoon to speak on my private member's motion: That the government should develop a comprehensive environmental charter of rights which would promote and protect the health of our planet and would impose harsh penalties on all individuals and corporations found in violation of the charter.
While Canadians may have trouble at times finding ways to keep our country united, one thing is certain. Canadians agree that there is an issue out there upon which the quality of our lives depends: the environment. There is no doubt that there has been a deep and permanent shift in Canadian values and attitudes on this issue. Despite our diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, Canadians from coast to coast to coast share an abiding relationship with the land they love and cherish so dearly.
That being said, every Canadian should have the right to a clean and healthy environment; clean air, water and soil and justice for those who threaten them. Unfortunately, there is no such legal right in Canada. In fact,
Private Members' Business
most Canadians are excluded from the process by which environmental law is enforced in this country. There exists no requirement that they even be involved in the development of these laws.
The average citizen is not empowered as an individual to launch an environmental lawsuit against powerful corporations or government. Industry complains that the rules of the game change with the political winds of the day and environmentalists are concerned that existing environmental rules are not enforced or non-existent. The establishment of an environmental bill of rights would establish in law each citizen's fundamental right to environmental equality and would guarantee the public the right to a healthy environment.
The right of future generations to help the environment must also be protected as it is not enough to only be concerned about our short-term gains or health. Such a bill would also democratize environmental decision making by guaranteeing the public's right to participate and thereby increase government accountability.
Further, an environmental bill of rights could deal with existing environmental problems and would force government to address the issue of leadership and the environment in an area in which the need for leadership has never been greater than it is today.
I look to the south of us and I must say that it does my heart good to see the lights of that great environmentalist, Vice-President A1 Gore, leading the way and breaking new ground as it relates to the environment and the new BTU tax that was set in the last speech of the President.
A federal environmental bill of rights would be similar to the Canadian Bill of Rights. It would take precedence over all federal legislation with the exception of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, it would not be binding upon provincial legislative authority.
A number of provinces and territories have already implemented environmental legislation. The province of Quebec established a Quebec Environment Quality Act in 1977 which includes elements of an environmental bill of rights.
The NWT was the first to pass a comprehensive NWT environmental bill of rights in November 1990. The

Private Members' Business
elements of an environmental bill of rights are also included in the Yukon environment act of May 1991.
The province of Ontario released for public review an Ontario environmental bill of rights in July 1992. As well, several American states have the equivalent of an environmental bill of rights, the most noted being the Michigan environmental protection act of 1972.
The concept of the environmental bill of rights is very intriguing. An environmental bill of rights would contain both substantive and procedural features enabling the legislation to put into place certain mechanisms to achieve specific environmental objectives. These would include the public's right to a healthy environment. The public's right must be enforced through improved access to the courts and/or tribunals. The onus of proof should rest with the plaintiff and should be on a basis of probabilities. There must be an increase in public participation in environmental decision making and legislated intervener funding for public participation must be made available. There should be mandatory notification of the public when significant environmental approvals are made.
Greater protection is needed for employees who blow the whistle on polluting employers. If we are going to have a UIC snitch line we can have an environmental polluter snitch line too.
There must be the creation of an accessible and affordable electronic registry that would give the public necessary government and industry information concerning environmental standards: the use, storage and release of pollutants and infractions. The use and the access to the state of the art environment reporting would provide the public with news and changes in our environment on a regular basis. It would be like an environmental monitoring program.
I believe there should be an independent environmental commissioner or ombudsman appointed to make sure that the principles of the bill are applied in a fair and consistent manner.
In addition, the position of an environmental auditor general should be created who could report directly to Parliament with powers of investigation similar to the powers invested in the Auditor General. This office could issue an annual public report reflecting the federal
government's goals with respect to environmental programs, spending, implementation and enforcement.
In the past governments have been held to public scrutiny mainly in terms of their economic achievements. This is no longer true. The time has passed when strict economics is the main indicator of progress.
Governments must become more responsible and accountable for the environment. After decades and even centuries of economic growth, environmental conditions have worsened. The health of Canadians has been threatened and the physical foundation of our economy, our precious stock of natural capital, being fish, forest, soil, air and water, has been eroded. In fact we are now building up an ecological deficit which is as threatening in the long run as the more visible financial deficit.
This country and its leaders need an agenda that is environmentally driven. Canada needs to carve out an industrial policy which underlines the fact that good environmental management is also good business by integrating the economy and the environment.
We need to encourage expansion of the industrial sector which is involved in producing goods and services that help protect the environment. Part of the problem is Canada's lack of innovation in relation to environmental management. Instead of strictly following the initiative of Germany, Japan and others, Canada should be blazing the trail. Clearly Canada needs to build a wider involvement from all sectors of the public, including the involvement of Canada's First Nations peoples.
1993 has been proclaimed the Intematioal Year for World Indigenous Peoples. The theme for this year is Indigenous Peoples-A New Partnership. I believe the time has come for western science to integrate its environmental efforts with that traditional knowledge.
Aboriginal people view the environment as the foundation of our spiritual well-being as well as our economic and physical health. One of the major costs of progress has been a spiritual one, the feeling that we have been alienated from nature. For many of us the physical uprooting from the land of our ancestors and the adoption of modem technologies have brought a deep sense of loss and in part disorientation, confusion and disempowerment.
February 19, 1993

By responding in a creative way, native communities have begun to rekindle traditional forms of worship and philosophies based on the understanding that the earth is our mother. Traditional knowledge is the accumulated knowledge and understanding of the human place in relation to the universe. It encompasses spiritual relationships with the natural environment and the use of natural resources.
The potential for the use of traditional knowledge in the areas of the environment, renewable resources and sustainable development is tremendous. A government of the Northwest Territories report on the traditional knowledge working group outlined recommendations calling for the use of traditional knowledge within the government decision-making process in a number of areas, including the environment.
Research and development efforts by the Dene cultural institute in Hay River, Northwest Territories, helps to bring greater recognition to the importance and value of preserving traditional knowledge for the use of scientists, governments and aboriginal peoples of today and generations to follow.
At the Rio conference in June 1992 a number of indigenous principles and objectives were recognized, including the world's need for better understanding of indigenous people's knowledge and management experience related to the environment, and the need to apply this information to contemporary development challenges.
Chapter 26 of Agenda 21 also recognizes indigenous values, traditional knowledge and resource management practices with a view to promoting environmentally sound and sustainable development. It also recognized that government should where necessary work in full partnership with indigenous peoples and their communities.
I believe the environment is an extremely appropriate area in which governments on all levels could develop co-management relationships with First Nations peoples. In doing so Canada would set an example for other global communities to follow.
It is not enough, however, to expect individual First Nations' representatives sitting on co-management boards to advance traditional knowledge. Extensive research and documentation work by aboriginal peoples on their environmental knowledge must be supported.
Private Members' Business
Without this research support, decision makers will continue to rely on western science and will not implement the learnings and beliefs of traditional knowledge.
Where do we go from here? In conclusion, I have to say it is our responsibility to plan a strategic course of action to protect the future of our environment. Canada must become a true world leader in the fight to protect the ozone layer. We must protect the health and abundance of our oceans. We must give immediate attention to protecting traditional food sources of the world's indigenous peoples who are suffering from toxic and PCB contamination. Contamination of the food chain means a lot of suffering and a lot of hardship for indigenous populations. A moral code of ethics held by the Dene should be adopted to guide the interpretation and implementation of this bill.
As Bella T'seleie of Fort Good Hope, Northwest Territories, explained: "Everyone takes responsibility for what is going on, on the land with the animals, not only the game officers. This is why our Dene system works. Anyone in the community who does not follow it is considered naive and is not respected". There is a great deal of social pressure when these rules are not followed because our survival depends on the land and the animals.
We must develop ways to measure how we are doing in our efforts to protect the environment. We must establish cultural survival schools and regional and world environmental study centres, maybe even a world biodiversity centre in the Northwest Territories which is seen by many parts of the world to be the last frontier of clean air and clean water. That is not really true but that certainly is an image we would like to preserve.
We must also have more focused and tougher legislation put into place. An environmental bill of rights would be an excellent start. It would give each person the right to live in a healthy environment and make polluters and governments accountable should they infringe on those rights.
Those who resist this initiative really fear that the rules of the environmental decision-making game will shift into the hands of the public when in reality an environmental bill of rights ensures that individuals, groups, companies and governments all play by the same

Private Members' Business
rules. This sounds like a reasonable goal in a democratic society.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this very important debate about the environment.
I would like to begin by commending my hon. friend from Western Arctic for bringing this important subject before Parliament. I know it is a matter of deep concern to her, particularly in view of her constituency and the sensitivity of the environment in that part of the country. I too represent a constituency that is blessed with the bounties of nature but is also an area very much subject to environmental damage and difficulties. I share her concern for the environment.
As to whether the solution she puts forward is the ideal one or not, that may be a different thing. I am not sure that it is an appropriate or desirable thing that the protection of the Canadian environment in the final analysis should be turned over to the courts as opposed to resting the obligation on the heads of the elected people, who are accountable.
When an environmental difficulty arises in my own area the telephone lines in my offices are absolutely blitzed with calls. That is appropriate and proper. If the public were to make a challenge under yet another charter of rights, I am not sure that would be the best protection for our environment. With the greatest of respect to my hon. friend, the imperative she is concerned about, the preservation and protection of our environment, is an aspiration shared by all members of this House. The best way to protect the environment and the interests of future citizens, my children and I hope some day my grandchildren if I should live so long as to have some, is by having accountability rest with government. I think actions speak louder than words.
I might use a few minutes to reflect on some of the actions taken by this government. Perhaps the most significant, but certainly the most visible, is the very historic green plan brought down by the government in 1990 with the greatest commitment of financial expenditure with respect to the environment in the history of governments.
I do not want to talk about just the money involved because I think the green plan is much more than money. One of its main features is that it sets forth an environmental action plan totally consistent with the principal recommendations of the Brundtland commission with respect to sustainable development as a goal.
If I may remind the House, economic development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs is the concept of sustainable development as set down by that commission. That is the basis for environmental policy but also resource development of this government, which is extremely important.
In effect the green plan is a co-ordinated action plan dealing with many environmental issues: acid rain, climate change, parks, wildlife, coastal ports and waters, and so on. I would be pleased to provide to my hon. friend or to anyone else a list of all the expenditures involved there.
The point is that it is not just a matter of spending money. It is the partnership approach that is applied in the green plan, the idea that the federal government does not just throw money at a problem but actually goes out and brings people together: other levels of government, industry, individuals, and people interested in preserving their future and their environment. As well, it requires of the government regular reporting to the people of Canada through this Parliament on the state of the environment in this country.
The green plan establishes targets and schedules for action. Take for example the recent establishment of regulations relating to the pulp and paper industry. These are not easy things to be faced by that industry. I know that the Bowater Mersey paper mill in Liverpool, Nova Scotia, is very much challenged by the $37 million that it has to come up with in order to comply with those regulations.
Obviously there is a need for the government to show some flexibility to ensure that the requirements of those regulations will improve the environment. These things have to be scrutinized.
What is significant is that those regulations are there. The government is not backing down in the face of the
February 19, 1993

expenditures required. That is going to lead to exactly the kind of future ray hon. friend is looking for.
The environmental review process put in place by this government with the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is extremely important. It was passed in June 1988. At the same time the government brought in a practice whereby no new policies can go before cabinet, no new initiatives, until there has been an environmental impact assessment done to make sure that development in this country is consistent with good environmental practice.
That is this government putting action where others might just use words. I do not refer to my hon. friend from Western Arctic when I say that, but I know that a lot of people like to mouth platitudes about the environment. If we are going to pass on to the next generation of Canadians a clean, healthy country, we have to set these standards and guidelines, and as a government we have to live up to them.
The record of this government is very impressive. We have to look upon development and economic development within the context of the environment.
My hon. friend spoke about the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio last year. Although environmental aspects of the conference seemed to attract most of the media attention, it is very significant the two concepts of environment and development were linked by the United Nations.
It is equally interesting to recall-and I noted earlier today my hon. friend from Oxford spoke to this fact- that the leadership in that international gathering, the largest gathering of heads of states in the history of the world, came from Canada. It was not just from the fact a Canadian was the commissioner of that great event, but the fact that the delegation looked at as the world leader was the Canadian delegation and the fact that the green plan was looked upon as a model for the rest of the world.
That is very encouraging as Canadians. We cannot sit back and rest on our laurels about that. We have to continue to be vigilant. I can say that my colleagues on this side of the House, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the House, welcome the new priority it would appear the environment is to have in the United States.
Private Members' Business
There has been a lot of talk about the North American free trade agreement. Some concerns have been expressed by some people with respect to whether or not it adequately allows for protection of the environment and the maintenance of environmental standards. I am delighted President Clinton has indicated that he would like to have some sort of parallel agreement to address it. There is no question where the Government of Canada will be on it. As Mr. Clinton himself pointed out, we already have one of the most respected and successful records in the world in this regard.
It is extremely important that all members of this House, and indeed all Canadians, do not lose sight of the fact that we cannot lighten up on this issue. Our future in part is dependent on what we do with our environment. Therefore we cannot back off in any way, shape or form.
In concluding my remarks, I would not want to impose upon the House in the time available to me, I must again commend my hon. friend for bringing the subject forward. I really believe it is right here in Parliament that accountability should reside. That is why I do not think a charter of rights in this regard would be helpful to Canadians.
However I think we all have to look to the future. The environment is something that is a legacy to our children. We want to make sure that it is a legacy that we are proud to leave them.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to enter into this debate sponsored by the hon. member for Western Arctic. She says in her motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should develop a comprehensive environmental charter of rights.
I am extremely pleased to see this motion on the table before us once again. Mr. Speaker, you will remember that I put forward a motion veiy similar to this in June 1991, just to refresh your memory and the memories of members of the House. The motion I put forward at that time read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish a bill of environmental rights to empower Canadians to fight polluters and guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthy environment.

February 19, 1993
Private Members' Business
There is a tremendous similarity in these two bills and I am very pleased to rise again today to discuss this incredibly important issue for all of us.
As the hon. member who introduced the motion said, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are all too aware that our environment teeters on the brink of irreparable destruction. Cynical attempts by governments to buffer big businesses, continued practice of sacrificing our land, our air and our water to cheap and easy profits do nothing but sell our children's right to a healthful future.
This is very critical at a time when the entire world is debating the issue of how government should be involved in dealing with the environmental destruction that has occurred and how to prevent environmental destruction that we know will occur if we are not involved in the process.
The establishment of an environmental bill of rights or an environmental charter of rights is something that is most significant because it empowers people to be involved in the entire process of keeping an eye on corporations, governments and those people engaged in environmental activities.
There was a bit of a lull in this process of defining the rights of people on the environment and the jurisdiction of provinces, individuals, municipalities and the federal government over the environment. Some time around October 1992 when the government brought forward the motion to amend the Canadian Constitution, one of the principles included in that amendment was a charter of social rights. It included a right to a healthful environment.
That clause alone gave us reason to believe that the government was prepared to take certain steps that would give us something close to an environmental bill of rights. Therefore the debate over federal-provincial or whatever jurisdiction ceased for a short period of time.
There is no question that at a time when we are debating whether or not to build a bridge between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, how to deal with dams in western Canada, how to deal with the fragile environment of the Northwest Territories, of the Arctic
and other such matters, it is very important that we have a context in which to look at them.
I am indeed shocked today to read in the Toronto Globe and Mail an article that tells me that the direction that this government is taking is exactly opposite to that which this country desires. I want to quote briefly from the article in today's Globe and Mail:
The federal government is reviewing all of its environmental regulations with an eye to eliminating rules that might hurt national competitiveness or drain the public purse, The Globe and Mail has learned.
In other words, this government is trying to find a way to make it easier for environmental polluters to do business in this country and to get away from those things that will protect the Canadian environment and the Canadian people from the activities that they are engaged in.
I continue to quote:
The Treasury Board told the environment department last fall "to look at existing regulations and identify those that significantly hinder Canadian competitiveness or impose needless costs on consumers".
This is from a memo from deputy minister Len Good to staff. This is simply incredible.
They talk about the review being linked to the Canadian government's Prosperity Initiative, a report released last October containing 54 recommendations to include Canadian industries' competitive position in the world.
In this House just a short time ago the subcommittee on acid rain to the committee on the environment tabled a report entitled From Words to Action. In that report we detailed findings from our study of the way in which the United States has dealt with acid rain controls. One thing we discovered in looking at the system in the United States was that under President George Bush, who is not a noted environmentalist as is Vice-President A1 Gore, an office of competitiveness was established right next door to the President's office. The office of competitiveness was headed by Dan Quayle, a man for whom I am sure we all have some respect.
The office of competitiveness was eliminating environmental regulations to make business more competitive in the United States, thereby jeopardizing the environment. In our case we were looking at acid rain matters, and we found that previously agreed upon acid rain
February 19, 1993

regulations were not being implemented on the specific request of the office of competitiveness.
Under its prosperity agenda, the equal of the Dan Quayle committee in the United States, this government is preparing to do exactly the same thing the Americans were doing, which has stalled acid rain matters in Canada.
If this is the action the Canadian government is prepared to engage in while at the same time talking about trying to protect this environment for the future of Canada, then we have to view with significant doubt virtually everything else it is saying because obviously its commitment to the environment is much less than the words it speaks here.
The North American free trade agreement is another matter that falls under some scrutiny for environmental considerations. An environmental charter of rights in Canada would go a long way toward empowering people to ensure that some of these matters were looked at more closely.
This government has accepted an environmental assessment of the North American free trade agreement. That environmental assessment was not done under the rules this House created just last year with the passage of Bill C-13, the Environmental Assessment Act. The assessment of the North American free trade agreement was not done by the agency that was created to do environmental assessments, previously the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO, but by a committee of deputy ministers. It was a committee on the government side. The committee basically said it was okay and that the North American free trade agreement passes the environmental assessment test. It did not pass any test that was established by this government.
I was a part of the committee that helped to rewrite the government's previously flawed Environmental Assessment Act. When Bill C-13 was passed in this House, despite certain objections I had to the way regulations were going to be dealt with, I very much agreed with most of it. We should be using that Environment Assessment Act when we examine all policies, programs and projects in the future, starting with the North American free trade agreement. We should also be applying it to the fixed link proposal which is going to be debated in this House next week.
Private Members' Business
In conclusion, I want to commend the member for bringing this motion forward to allow for the debate to continue on this most important issue. I want to urge the government to take every step possible to move away from this idea that business can look after the environment and get back to giving the people the power to protect and enhance the environment.
I agree with the member that the aboriginal peoples of this country-northern, plains, Cree and others-have a very solid reputation in this regard. We have a lot to learn from the way in which the environment has been protected and enhanced in the past. We must get back to that position whereby we can ensure that we will leave to our children a world that was better than that we inherited from our parents.


Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the motion of the hon. member which reads: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should develop a comprehensive environmental charter of rights". This charter would empower Canadians to fight polluters and guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthy environment.
Let me make it clear that the protection and enhancement of the environment are high priorities for this government. Our record clearly shows our commitment. On December 11, 1990, we released our environmental action plan, Canada's green plan. This plan is based on a vision which Canadians share: to secure for current and future generations a safe and healthy environment and a sound and prosperous economy.
This is what the green plan does. The government's commitment to the environment has been enshrined in legislation. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, an act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, affirms in its preamble a commitment to:
Achieve sustainable development by conserving and enhancing
environmental quality and by encouraging and promoting economic
development that conserves and enhances environmental quality.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ensures that all federal departments and agencies conduct environmental assessments of all project proposals for which they have a decision-making authority and gives the Minister of the Environment substantial powers to ensure that this process is fair, efficient, transparent and

February 19, 1993
Private Members' Business
allows for a high level of public input into decisions on projects which have a potentially significant impact on the natural environment.
In addition to this legislated base, the Prime Minister has clearly committed this government to consider the environment as a priority in all its policy and program decision-making.
As a government, we realize that the activities of government touch Canadians in many ways which are not directly linked to projects. That is why it is government policy to require that an environmental statement accompany any proposal considered by Cabinet dealing with policies or programs which may have a significant effect on the Canadian environment.
While the process of assessing policies for their environmental impact is still in its infancy, considerable progress has been made. For example, the Department of National Defence reviewed its policy on port visits by nuclear-powered vessels. The transit of Dixon Entrance by U.S. submarines was also assessed.
Agriculture Canada integrated an environmental review component into its farm safety net program. In addition, External Affairs conducted and made public an environmental review of the North American free trade agreement, the first major economic policy initiative to undergo such a review.
The Minister of the Environment has the responsibility to administer the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). This act gives the minister substantial power to establish regulations protecting Canada's air, water and land. More than this, the act obliges the minister to report to Canadians at regular intervals on the state of the Canadian environment.
CEPA guarantees extensive rights of public participation in decision making affecting the environment. It also confers upon the public the power to take court action against any polluter who contravenes the act.
Environmental information is another area to which the government attaches a great deal of importance. During the process of consulting with Canadians as a part of the development of the government's green plan, individual Canadians stressed repeatedly that a major priority of government must be the regular provision and
wide dissemination of readily understandable information on the state of the environment and how it is changing.
Canadians told us they wanted a sound basis to make their own decisions about the environment. They wanted a basis to understand whether the actions they were taking as individuals would help to reduce environmental degradation. They want to be able to judge whether government is doing its part to contribute to a healthy and sustainable environmental legacy for our children. As well, Canadians want to have a basis to make judgements about the environmental performance of industry.
The routine provision of high-quality environmental information is a major commitment included in the green plan.
In the view of the government, the measures we have already put in place are the best way to empower Canadians to fight polluters and ensure that the government lives up to its commitments. We already have what is needed to guarantee all Canadians the right to live in a healthy environment. An environmental charter of rights would duplicate many of the provisions which already exist and is not an adequate substitute for an environmentally aware electorate making fully informed decisions about government performance. This is true accountability. The Canadian people will be the judge of whether we are successfully meeting our environmental goals.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: [.Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to talk on this motion of my hon. colleague from Western Arctic on the issue of a comprehensive environmental charter of rights.
When my colleague from South Shore was speaking he mentioned that he would like to make sure that the environment is there for his grandchildren to enjoy. At the rate his party is going his grandchildren will not have any environment to enjoy.
He mentioned that the green plan was an historic plan and I think the plan is history all right. I have not seen
February 19, 1993

much evidence of what the green plan is doing for the people of the eastern Arctic, the area I represent.
When I talk about the environment, as I mentioned earlier in Inuktitut, the aboriginal people have never ruined any part of the environment, have never caused any group of animals to become extinct.
For the Inuit, the Inuktitut language has no word for pollution because we do not create pollution. We do not have a word for radiation. We do not have words for cadmium or PCBs. We have words for dirt but that is about the strongest you can get. When we are talking about pollution or radiation the nearest we can come to is something that makes you sick.
When I say that the Canadian government would do well to listen to my colleague from Western Arctic and myself in terms of protecting the environment, I think it would be well advised to listen. When we are talking about preserving the quality of the environment, we are not just talking because it is the issue of the day. We are saying these things because we have always been concerned about the environment.
In the Northwest Territories, the area that my colleague and I represent, the government was the first to pass a comprehensive bill of rights on the environment in 1990. In 1981, the Yukon government passed legislation containing some elements of an environmental bill of rights. The principles involved in a bill of rights are: the people's right to be involved, the people's right to participate and the people's right to a healthy environment.
When we talk about pollution and not causing the pollution, I would just like to mention some few instances of where other outside groups have caused pollution and environmental damage on the land on which we live, in my case Nunatsiaq, "the good land".
The DEW line sites, the distant early warning sites, have been left behind by the Americans, leaving thousands of barrels of whatever the barrels contain as well as the barrels themselves, which has caused a considerable amount of damage to the land. One good example might be the Horton River DEW line site situated between the communities of Polutuk and Thktoyaktuk. That site is littered with an estimated 10,000 45-gallon fuel drums, and various abandoned buildings and equip-
Private Members' Business
ment. This site is on Inuvialuit land, the area the Inuit occupy in the Beaufort region.
It is astonishing that the federal government under its green plan decided it was going to clean up a minimum of 21 DEW line sites. That particular place at the Horton River site has not been cleaned up even after three years have passed since the Inuvialuit reached an agreement with the federal government to clean up that site. That agreement acknowledged that the government had an obligation to remove all debris, all the fuel drums, the towers and the structures that were not required at the site. I repeat, three years after that agreement was reached between the Inuvialuit and the Government of Canada, that site has not been cleaned up.
It seems there are insufficient funds in the Arctic environmental strategy, which the Minister of the Environment very loudly proclaimed in Iqaluit a couple of years ago as the answer to cleaning up the environment. It is too bad that the government has not followed through. I urge the government to try and work co-operatively with the Inuvialuit to achieve the wanted results, which is cleaning up the environment in the area that people see as pristine and without any environmental damage. Unfortunately the environmental damage has not been as a result of us living in that area, but other outside factors.
It has to be understood that the Inuvialuit have to be involved very comprehensively in the clean-up. The government must follow through and stop reneging on its promise to do this clean-up and should immediately take steps to correct the situation.
In the Northwest Territories we have some resources that people want to take out. We do not really have a problem with mining companies, oil companies and other groups wanting to take resources and minerals out of the Northwest Territories. I would like to mention briefly the Izok mine development in the Kitikmeot region. This is the central Arctic region in which they want to have a large-scale complex for development and mining.
Again, we do not really have a problem with people wanting to take that stuff out, but we want to ensure that the environment is not destroyed in the process. That is why we have to be involved as aboriginal people, whether Inuit, Dene or other groups of aboriginal people in Canada. That is why we have to be involved in the

Private Members' Business
planning, development and the shutdowns in all aspects of any mineral development. I point out we have never caused any species of animals to be extinct because of pollution to the land. We have never destroyed any part of our land. That is why we have to be very involved in any development of any kind.
I would like to mention a recent study respecting caribou. A great number of the people I represent depend on caribou, which contains high levels of cadmium. It hurts when people mention that maybe we should be eating less caribou, seal or muktuk.
Some years ago I remember we were told that we should not be eating any more seal liver because it contains mercury. We did not stop eating seal because we believe it is very healthy. I certainly did not do that. As a matter of fact, I love to go out to the area I am from, go out to the flow edge, get some seal and eat the liver.
We are not going to stop eating seal because it is a very healthy part of our diet, fresh raw seal liver. We are not going to stop doing that and we are not going to stop eating caribou just because somebody tells us.
I remember one Inuk said he would never stop eating even if his hair were falling out from his head. That is how tied we are to the environment and to the issue of eating the animals that we hunt in the north.
We would like the government to do a little more to try and prevent the pollution that is occurring in the north. We would like the government to follow through on some of the green plan and on doing more for the people, especially the mothers. In a study done over a series of years, Inuit mothers were found to have high levels of PCBs in their breast milk. It is scary that some mothers decided that they would not feed their babies breast milk when it is still the best for the baby.
There was one instance where the mother was looking for alternatives to breast milk. It is a sad situation when mothers have to do that.
I urge the government to follow through and follow the advice of my colleague, the hon. member for Western Arctic, and develop an environmental bill of rights so that we can feel that we are very much a part of the Canadian society and that people do listen to us.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this private member's motion. I certainly congratulate the hon. member on the spirit of the motion.
The enhancement and the protection of the natural environment is a goal to which this government and all members of this House are firmly committed. It is a goal that will require changes in the way we make decisions at all levels of society, as individuals in our lives at work and as governments.
We made the development of a comprehensive framework for better decisions on the environment a priority. That is why this government has developed an environmental action plan which it has called the green plan.
The government engaged in a series of very extensive consultations with Canadians in all segments of society. We started those consultations with a paper entitled: "A Framework for Discussion on the Environment". That paper outlined the government's proposed environmental framework and set out possible measures to deal with specific environmental issues. We asked Canadians to give us their vision on the government's suggested approach and to tell us whether they agreed with our proposed priorities.
A number of clear messages came out of those consultations. Despite the emergence of a number of major issues competing for attention such as the Constitution, the economy, native affairs and international developments, Canadians remained deeply concerned about the environment and felt that environmental quality actually is deteriorating.
Canadians are looking to their governments for leadership on this issue. People recognize that individuals have a key role to play. They are optimistic about our ability as a nation to solve our environmental problems if we work together.
In focusing on single issues, Canadians want action on a broad range of issues from global warming to toxins, to waste management, to parks and wildlife and of course to the north. Consistent with this, people attach a high priority to those activities linked to the solution of a number of environmental problems. For example, there was general emphasis on the importance of better science, information and education.
February 19, 1993

What Canadians were telling us in those consultations is consistent with what we now understand about the nature of our environment. That is that air, water and land are not separate entities but form integrated ecosystems which require systematic action across a broad front.
The green plan reflects both what we have heard from Canadians and the evolution of our own policy thinking. It takes a comprehensive approach, a co-ordinated package of action across a broad range of environmental issues from climate change to parks and wildlife. This corresponds to what Canadians want. Equally important it corresponds to what we know about our ecosystem and the linkages between issues.
The green plan reflects the importance we attach to taking action which helps us to address environmental issues across a broad front. For example, the green plan emphasizes better science to allow us to understand environmental problems and their solutions. It emphasizes better information so all Canadians can make more informed decisions and hold governments, industry and themselves more accountable. It also emphasizes better education leading to an environmentally literate population increasingly involved in making better environmental decisions.
The green plan is specific. It sets out explicit targets and schedules and commits to ongoing consultations and extensive environmental reporting. These are the green plan's goals in terms of the environment. However, they can only be achieved by changing how we behave toward nature. Hence the green plan focuses on environmental responsibility through better decision making.
The green plan empowers Canadians to make a difference in decision making at all levels. Through better environmental information and education, Canadians will be equipped to make informed judgments about the performance of industry. Through regular reporting on green plan progress, Canadians will be able to hold governments, business and each other accountable for their progress or lack of it.
Individuals are also empowered to protect the environment in federal legislation. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, gives extensive rights of public participation in decision making that affects the environ-
Private Members' Business
ment. CEPA also confers upon the public the power to take court action against a polluter who contravenes the act.
The green plan also recognizes the important role of the federal government in making good environmental decisions.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, to be proclaimed later this year, will ensure that all projects that require a federal decision are carefully assessed for their environmental implications.
Moreover, we have moved beyond the assessment of projects and since June 1990 have as a matter of government policy required that environmental impact assessments be made for all policy and program initiatives coming before cabinet for decisions.
Furthermore, our policy requires that a statement of the environmental implications of each policy or program be made public.
The green plan challenges all Canadians to make better environmental decisions. As a government we are prepared to lead by example. This is the way to effective protection and enhancement of the environment. It requires a change in behaviour at all levels of society. It requires a national co-ordinated strategy to provide people with the assurance that their individual activities are part of a co-ordinated approach to change.
Individuals, corporations, and governments need to know they can work together to make a difference.
Our government's priority is a broadly based attack on environmental degradation achieved by an environmentally literate society-one in which citizens are equipped with the knowledge, skills and values necessary for action-not piecemeal initiatives through the courts.


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

It being 3.46 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 22, 1993