1993-02-04

Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 30 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



TOBACCO SALES TO YOUNG PERSONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-lll, an act prohibiting the sale of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18.
Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Bouchard (Roberval) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.



COMPETITION ACT


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-400, an act to amend the Competition Act.


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


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Competition Act as it pertains to the advertising of the price of goods.
When goods are advertised for a certain price and someone goes into the store to buy them, they do not know what they will have to pay because invariably there is at least the GST on it, there may be a PST on it, there may be a tire tax on it and there may be another charge on it of some kind. The charges go on and on and a person has no idea what they have to pay for the goods.
This bill requires merchants to declare the dollar value of every tax or charge on every item sold in the marketplace unless the item is declared to include all taxes and charges. In other words, if you want to sell you specify the taxes all the way down the line in dollar amounts or you sell tax included.


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



TERMINATION OF ASSISTANCE TO INDONESIA ACT


Mr. Dan Heap (THnity- Spadina) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-401, an act to terminate Canadian assistance to Indonesia.

February 4, 1993
Routine Proceedings


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


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, because the invasion by Indonesia of East Timor which was condemned and still is condemned by the United Nations, and the subsequent massive violations of human rights in East Timor by the military of Indonesia, I have presented this bill which would terminate Canadian governmental assistance to the Government of Indonesia until Indonesia ceases illegal occupation and human rights violations in East Timor.


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


PETITIONS
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that was circulated by Mrs. Wanda Quigley of Wabush, Labrador who is in the gallery with us today.
Mrs. Quigley had a son who died from meningitis. She has circulated a petition all across the country calling on the Government of Canada to immediately put on the market a test for meningitis. In this way children can be diagnosed early and this dreaded disease can be stopped from spreading across our country.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to present petitions today on behalf of thousands of Canadians who call on the Government of Canada to take every possible measure to ensure that a test kit for the detection of meningitis is developed and made available to Canadians as soon as possible.
These petitions have been certified by the clerk for presentation in the House. They represent large numbers of signatures from my own city of Windsor, Toronto, Petawawa, Thunder Bay, Marathon, Grimsby, Hamilton, Orillia and Ottawa.
In tabling these petitions, I also pay tribute to Mrs. Wanda Quigley for her splendid initiative.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present petitions today on behalf of residents of Lumsden, Newfoundland, Sum-merside, Springdale, Catalina, Port Union, Comer Brook, Point May, Deer Lake, Grand Bank, Grand Falls and Fortune who join with the petitioners as represented by the members for Labrador and Windsor, calling upon the government to seek as soon as possible to develop and to distribute a test kit for the detection of meningococcal disease.
I too wish to pay tribute to Wanda Quigley of Wabush, her colleagues and confreres who raised this petition of
25,000	names right across this country.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure as well to table similar petitions to those to which my colleagues have made reference. These petitions are on behalf of many thousands of Canadians, in this case people from communities in the province of Newfoundland, Gambo, Springdale, Stephenville, Sop's Arm, Jackson's Arm, Raleigh, Glovertown, Fortune, South Brook, Wesleyville and Burin.
A great deal of credit is due Mrs. Quigley of Wabush and her friends who have taken this important initiative on behalf of all Canadians to encourage the government to ensure that a test kit for the detection of meningitis is developed and made available as soon as possible.
This disease has taken quite a toll on the lives of Canadians. A test kit is now being developed that could detect meningitis. The government through the Department of National Health and Welfare must ensure the kit is available to Canadians.
I take great pleasure in supporting the petitions.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to join with my colleagues in presenting a petition which has on it the names of thousands of Canadians, this time from Nova Scotia.
This petition was organized by Mrs. Wanda Quigley from Wabush. In this petition the citizens of Digby, Bridgewater, Pictou, New Waterford, Trenton, Sydney, Dominion, Scotsbum, Lunenburg, Dartmouth, Halifax and Sackville have joined to plead that the government take whatever steps necessary to ensure the test kit which is being developed is made available to Canadians so that lives may be saved.
February 4, 1993

I too compliment Mrs. Quigley for her work and everything that she has done.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Madam Speaker, I also wish to present a petition on behalf of thousands of Canadians who call on the Government of Canada to take every possible measure to ensure a test kit for the detection of meningitis is developed and made available to Canadians as soon as possible.
Meningitis has taken and continues to take the lives of many Canadian children. Last year in particular, it was a serious problem in the city of Montreal as well as in Ottawa where several lives were lost.
A test kit is being developed that could detect meningitis and the government, through the department of health and welfare, must ensure that the kit is available to Canadians.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition on behalf of over 400 residents in the little community of North Augusta, Ontario.
After 152 years, the community's post office closed at the end of January. Closing post offices and turning their back on rural Canada is not something new but this closing is a little different.
Closing was bad enough but Canada Post failed to abide by its own guidelines of allowing 90 days for community dialogue. This really is a protest against cutting back on service and failing to respect the 90-day dialogue to which the post office was committed.
It is my pleasure to present this petition, this form of protest, on behalf of the citizens of that little community.


Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, once again I have the pleasure of presenting petitions from the Armenian community of Montreal and indeed of Canada.
The Quebec National Assembly has introduced a motion that recognizes the importance of April 24 as the anniversary of Armenian genocide. Your petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to offer its
Routine Proceedings
sympathy to the Armenian people and especially to Canadian Armenians who survived the genocide on April 24, 1915, and support the international lobbying efforts aimed at compelling the Turkish government to recognize and acknowledge the events of April 24, 1915.


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the seniors right across our country and have presented many other petitions prior to today.
The present pension payments, even with the supplement, add up to a figure well below the poverty line. Overwhelming numbers of our senior citizens are living below the poverty line and are confronted with an immediate crisis due to the inadequacy of their incomes.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to urge the government to re-evaluate Canada's old age pensions so that they truly reflect the needs of our Canadian seniors.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that you and other members will recall the outbreak of meningococcal disease in Ottawa in December 1991. Sadly the first death in this region was at Hillcrest High School which is in the heart of my constituency of Ottawa South.
I am pleased to present additional petitions today signed by petitioners not only in Ottawa and Gloucester which I represent but also Sudbury, Pickering, Marathon, Nepean, Petrolia, Amprior, Mississauga, Toronto, Hamilton and Whitby, all in the province of Ontario and a few from the province of Quebec as well, especially close to the national capital region.
The petitioners urge the government to take every possible step to ensure that the test kit for early detection of meningococcal disease is made available for use to people in Canada so that lives may be saved.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, I too rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of thousands of Canadians, particularly Canadians in New Brunswick from Saint John, Rothesay, Oromocto, St. Stephen, Perth, Andover, Fredericton, Woodstock and the great city of Moncton.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
The petitioners call on the government to take every possible measure to ensure that a test kit for the detection of meningitis is developed and made available to Canadians as soon as possible.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, I would also like to introduce a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 with respect to serial killer board games.
The petitioners request that Parliament consider amending the Criminal Code so that violent and degrading materials such as serial killer board games can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 would like to introduce another petition from constituents.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to take the necessary action to reaffirm the commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to present petitions from the citizens of Canada, particularly from Newfoundland.
Meningococcal disease is very serious and can cause death if not diagnosed early. Hence the key is to develop an early diagnostic test. The key to prompt treatment is a test kit that will be safe and effective.
I therefore support this petition and ask the federal government to eliminate all barriers to the full and speedy development of this test kit. Human lives, particularly children's lives, are at stake.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Doug Lewis (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 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 have the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-98 at third reading. I would like to have done it the other day but we had some amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party that would have eliminated the bill. Evidently under the rules of the House that was in order so we had to spend a day debating whether or not we should have the bill.
Today we can again debate whether we should have the bill. I do not know the logic or value of that but perhaps it is some indication of the degree to which my friends opposite really want to get on with the business of the nation.
Borrowing authority is extremely important-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. member is complaining that a day was taken to debate amendments to this bill offered by members of the House. I think it is against the rules of the House to reflect in this way on a vote.
I would respectfully request, Madam Speaker, that you remind the hon. member of that point.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order I am sure my hon. friend from Windsor West listened with care as we all did to what the member for South Shore was saying. I do not think he was suggesting that anybody was wasting the time of the House.
I think what he was suggesting was that it seemed peculiar that four amendments, each of which would have eliminated one of the four clauses of the bill would have been debated for an entire day. I think that is what he was suggesting.
February 4, 1993


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would want to hold that nobody would be impugning motives to anybody else and that members would be careful in not giving the impression that they are impugning motives.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I certainly would not wish to do that, but I do believe I am entitled to my opinion that what constitutes a waste of time is nevertheless a waste of time. I would submit that quite possibly there are many Canadians who would agree with me that our job here is to get on with governing the nation and not to debate the same thing twice.
I would suggest that people who disagree with this bill or any other bill brought forward by this government should simply speak and vote against it rather than force extra stages in the debate that are of no productive consequence whatsoever.
Speaking to the bill, which is what I intend to do, the specifics of this legislation will ensure the government can meet additional borrowing requirements of $8.2 billion over those granted by this House in April of last year.
The reason for these increased requirements is no mystery. The slow pace of economic recovery in Canada, the result of a global recession, has combined with lower than expected inflation to significantly reduce government revenues from what we had forecast. At the same time our spending obligations under unemployment insurance and transfer programs to the provinces have been pushed higher due to the same economic weaknesses.
I will expand on the details of the bill in a few moments, but first I want to address the broader issue of government borrowing and the vital importance of deficit and debt control.
Deficit and debt control are not subjects of great interest to my hon. friends opposite just in some of the suggestions put forward a few minutes ago. We continually hear suggestions from the other side as to how the government can spend more money.
At the same time we hear the Leader of the Opposition in an absolutely remarkable statement suggesting that he is going to eliminate the GST. He has absolutely no idea whatsoever where he is going to get the $15 billion to $17 billion in revenue that it accrues, unless of course it is through this hidden tax on everything
Government Orders
including food and medical services that we understand is being considered. However, that is for next year because they can only come up with one idea a year it seems.
Meanwhile our hon. friends in the New Democratic Party seem to have no sense whatsoever of the concept of controlling expenditures. I sat here in the House the other day when the leader of the New Democratic Party got up and proposed that the way the government could accrue a whole lot more revenue was to eliminate expenses being claimed by businesses for things like lunches and dinners and hospitality which has been a long-standing practice in this country. Maybe my hon. friend is right, maybe those things should be eliminated. I might say I was rather amazed last night when I attended a reception hosted by the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association. I noticed virtually every member of the New Democratic caucus there, including the leader, enjoying themselves to the fullest.


Mr. McDermid:: They were at the trough.


Peter L. McCreath: Right there just having the most enjoyable time. I wonder what that says about the seriousness of those intentions.
The point I am making is that this government takes very seriously the idea of debt and deficit control. That is why this government has brought forward tough measures. These have made this government very unpopular at times because everybody likes to have services but nobody really wants to pay the taxes which pay for them.
Our predecessors found a solution to the problem. They did not pay for them. They let the debt and deficit simply grow. In fact, if the measures brought in by this government had not been put in place, this country's deficit would be approaching $100 billion today. That would be totally unacceptable by those of us on this side. I know that they have voted against every cost control measure brought in by this government during the four years plus that I have had the privilege of being here.
It is important for people to understand as we bring forward this legislation that there are different philosophies in this House. The guiding philosophy of our party is that painful as it sometimes is, you have to pay your way as you go. Really in the final analysis the idea that governments should spend and spend and spend and let their grandchildren pay the bill is simply not one that is acceptable to us.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
In his statement, my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance, powerfully summarized why this concern is so justified. He pointed out and I quote from his remarks of that day:
"Excessive government deficits, both federal and provincial, have contributed to a level of net foreign debt far higher for Canada than for any other G-7 country. This large net foreign debt, public sector and private, means that Canadians paid more than $22 billion in net interest last year to foreign lenders. That is money that Canadians cannot use to develop our economy. This adds up to the economic damage done by the higher interest rates and higher taxes that resulted from higher government deficits".
Harsh foreign indebtedness. Severe restraints on government's ability to assist people and build economic strength. Higher interest rates and higher taxes. These make up the painful price Canadians are paying today because previous governments put deficit and debt control on the back burner or ignored it altogether.
That is why since coming into office the keystone of this government's policies has been spending restraint and deficit reduction. This has meant taking firm and sometimes unpopular actions and decisions, such as closing military bases, privatizing organizations as the post office has been doing, reducing the number of employees on the federal payroll and putting limits on the growth of some provincial transfers. Now that is not to say that governments cannot learn to be more sensitive sometimes in the way these things are done.
It is extremely important, for example, as Canada Post carries out its conversion process that there be full and adequate consultation with the people in the communities. A moment ago I heard an hon. friend opposite present a petition with respect to an impending closure in his area. As a rural member I can say it is a cause of great anxiety in small rural communities when the big machine comes in and says: "Guess what? Your postmaster or postmistress is retiring and your post office is gone". It is important for Canada Post to be sensitive to those communities, to listen to what the people have to say and to provide them with the reasonable assurances they are looking for that in actual fact they are going to be provided with the same quality of service under the new approach as under the old. That is the key thing.
The same thing is true with respect to base closures. We have an overcapacity of military bases by some 40 per cent to 50 per cent. We cannot ask the Department of National Defence to use up its budget completely by maintaining antiquated equipment or infrastructure. However, the government has to do some planning. If there is going to be a base phased out the government must know what ameliorative measures or plans it is going to put in place so as not to devastate the economy and social life of the community.
That is critically important in rural areas like southwestern Nova Scotia where there is tremendous concern today about the future of CFB Cornwallis. I was very pleased to see the new Minister of National Defence recognize this point shortly after she took on that important responsibility. I want to say to her and to the House that there are many people throughout southwestern Nova Scotia concerned about the future of Cornwallis. I look forward to some early indication from the Minister of National Defence and the government with respect to what the plans are for Cornwallis in the short and long term.
As I was saying before, the actions the government has undertaken have been difficult but they have produced results. Last year's deficit was still significantly lower as a share of our economy than that in 1984-85. That is even despite the impact of the recession. Between 1984 and 1990 we had the lowest real program spending growth of any of the G-7 countries. I might also say that it was significantly below the growth levels of any of the provinces in this country. Most important, we have achieved a major turnaround in the basic structure of government spending.
When this government came into office in 1984 it was the beneficiary of a $16.1 billion operating deficit that was a legacy of the predecessor government. It was paying another $22.5 billion in interest costs on the national debt for a total deficit of $38.5 billion.
As I mentioned before, had there been no change in the course, today that deficit would have just naturally grown. Following along with the inertia that had developed over those years it would have been dose to $100 billion. This is totally, totally unacceptable. We would now be approaching the point where the World Bank would be saying: "We are taking over".
February 4, 1993

It is really an issue of sovereignty in the final analysis. The difficult measures this government has taken on in tackling the deficit problem is a defence of Canadian sovereignty.
At that time the government was spending $1.33 for every dollar of taxes it took in. Imagine how a household would do when a pay cheque of $500 is brought home every two weeks but $700 is spent. Boy, where would that leave you in the long term? That is what the previous government was doing.
In 1987-88 however we eliminated the operating deficit and transformed it into a surplus to the point that today the government is operating in the black to the tune of $6.6 billion a year.
We hear a lot of talk about deficits and about the amount of the deficit but it is important to understand and to recall the structure of that deficit and the structure of the debt. Our friends left not only a $16.1 billion operating deficit, but also a debt of over $200 billion.
While this government has been working to bring the operating deficit down to the point where it crossed the line and is now operating a surplus, the interest has still been accumulating on that $227 billion debt that was the legacy of the Trudeau government to the children of future generations of Canadians. If the interest that has accrued on that debt is combined, it is up to something in the order of $450 billion. This government has been operating in the black for the last four years. In fact we have been able to control the growth of that national debt to the point that it is more than $30 billion less than it would have been otherwise.
This is complicated stuff. Sometimes it is even difficult for members on the other side to understand, but it is not very hard for any Canadian to understand that if we annually spend more money than we are taking in then we will get ourselves into serious trouble. We can all understand and relate to that.
That is precisely what the Trudeau government was doing for years and that is precisely what has burdened Canadians not only for this generation and for the next generation but for our grandchildren. That is what it has come down to.
If the programs and the approach to deficit control that have been put in place by this government stay in
Government Orders
place, as they will after this government is returned for its third mandate some time during the course of this year, we will eventually get out of that cycle and Canadians will live with money in the bank in future generations as they should. A country with the wealth and resources of this country has no excuse for having to operate in the red at all.
Meanwhile we still have to pay interest payments on Mr. Trudeau's debt. That means further deficits, still growing debt and the interest charges that the debt imposes. We face the added challenges of pursuing fiscal responsibility at a time of slow economic recovery when Canadians are looking to government to do what it can to bolster new growth and job creation. This means we need to do more to break that vicious deficit-debt cycle and also to free up resources for new government investment in Canada's economic growth and competitiveness.
As the Minister of Finance announced last December we are pursuing those investments. We are taking concrete action to aid small business, to improve R and D incentives, to lever better working training and to expand national investment in infrastructure.
To fund these investments while restraining this year's deficit and bringing it down more sharply next year we must reduce government spending in other areas. This too is being done. Let me remind this House and all Canadians of some of the actions announced in December's economic and fiscal statement. These are spending control measures that will contribute to savings of nearly $8 billion over the balance of this fiscal year and the next two.
Let me list a few. For two years salaries will be frozen for public servants and employees of non-commercial Crown corporations. A similar regime will be applied to commercial Crown corporations that depend on federal funding. This does not mean that our public servants do not deserve increases and it does not mean that they do not need increases. However the reality is that we have to pay from within the resources that are available. I suspect that we have the best quality public servants of any country in the world. They are dedicated people who serve Canadians. The reality is that we must cut the cloth according to the pattern.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
Salaries will also be frozen for two years for the Governor General, Lieutenant Governors, the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, senators and the federal judiciary. Everybody is involved in this.
Operating budgets of government departments will be cut by 3 per cent. They are not getting an increase in their budgets. They are decreasing by 3 per cent. Including the wage freeze federal operating budgets will be 5 per cent lower than planned levels in each of the next two fiscal years. They are going to have to work hard to to do the jobs they must do with fewer resources available to do them.
The UI benefit rate will be reduced from 60 per cent to 57 per cent to ensure a freeze in the average benefit that is received. Nobody will get less money than they are getting now but there will be a freeze.
Grants and subsidies to most organizations and interest groups will be cut by 10 per cent in each of the next two years.
These actions will bring the estimated deficit down to $34.4 billion this year and $32.6 billion next year, compared to our budget forecast of $27.5 billion for 1992-93 and $22.5 billion for 1993-94. That is a result of the impact of lost revenues.
This slippage will totally be the result of the weaker than anticipated economy on revenues. With the action we are taking program spending over the next two fiscal years will be similar to that projected in the February 1992 budget. The government is not spending any more. This undesired and certainly unwelcome increase in the deficit is not a result of this government spending more nor is it a result of the dollar being out of whack because of the spending guidelines set down by the minister a year ago. It is a result of the revenue side being down. That is what has really put things out of whack and created a higher deficit. This is a result of weaker than anticipated revenues.
Again let me remind the House of what the minister said last year. He said:
The expenditure reductions announced in this statement provide a considerable reduction in the structural component of the deficit. As such, the deficit should decline rapidly through the medium term on the basis of the tight control over spending in place, stronger economic performance and lower interest rates. It remains the
government's objective to attain zero financial requirements over
the medium term.
Let me turn to the main provision of the supplementary borrowing authority bill. First, the amount of the supplementary borrowing authority being requested is based on currently estimated financial requirements of $30.5 billion for the year, up $10.8 billion from the February budget. This reflects the impact of the economy on revenues. There is an additional $1.8 billion requirement for loans to the CDIC but at the same time our total requirements have been partially offset by $4.4 billion relating to foreign exchange operations. As a result, the final net additional borrowing requirement is $8.2 billion.
Let me provide some additional information on the $1.8 billion that the CDIC will likely borrow from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This reflects the financial difficulties experienced in recent years by two member institutions.
Some $500 million represents what CDIC paid out to cover insured deposits held at Shoppers Trust when it was liquidated last year. The remainder has been used for loans in respect of Central Guaranty Trust. This is to help fund the acquisition of certain Central Guaranty assets and all deposit liabilities by the Toronto Dominion Bank. The loan for Central Guaranty covers the shortfall between assumed liabilities and assets and is secured by the remaining assets of the firm.
Let me briefly review the impact of foreign exchange operations. These have worked in two directions. On the negative side there has been a requirement of $1 billion to cover gains in foreign currencies held in the exchange fund account and another $3 billion to replenish foreign exchange reserves. However, these additions have been more than offset by $8.4 billion in intervention operations. This has resulted in a positive balance that has reduced borrowing requirements by $4.4 billion. Therefore the final net need is $8.3 billion.
I should also explain that this bill contains two concluding clauses dealing with unused borrowing authority that was previously granted by this House.
Clause 3 ensures that all unused borrowing authority in excess of $3 billion granted under this legislation will be cancelled on March 31,1993. This is a standard clause and allows a non-lapsing $3 billion contingency reserve to be carried forward into the next fiscal year.
February 4, 1993

Clause 4, the concluding clause, ensures that all unused borrowing authority granted under legislation earlier this year will also be cancelled on March 31, 1993. This provision makes certain that only the one non-lapsing reserve for $3 billion can be carried forward into next year.
I firmly believe that the government's expenditure control measures, those we have taken in the past as well as those announced in December, offer solid evidence that we are continuing to handle the nation's finances prudently and well.
It is also important to remember where so much of the government spending supported by this bill actually goes. Transfer payments to individuals, including unemployment insurance and old age security, represent the single greatest share of government program spending. These are followed by transfers to provinces, which include support for social welfare programs and education.
This is spending that plays an important part in helping disadvantaged Canadians deal with the difficulties imposed by slow recovery and widespread industrial restructuring. This bill will ensure that the government can meet its obligations while remaining committed to the action needed to bring Canada's fiscal situation back in balance over the medium term.
I apologize to the translators for speaking so quickly at times, thank the House for its indulgence and commend the bill to all members.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Official Opposition to the speech by the parliamentary secretary moving third reading of this bill.
In commending this bill to the House the hon. member attempted to blame the high level of borrowing authority sought in that bill on the weak government revenues which he said came about because of the weak economy. In this case, he has said something with which the House can be in agreement.
The weak economy has not only devastated the lives of more than 1.6 million Canadians who are out of work, it has not only devastated the lives of thousands of small business people who have been forced into unwanted bankruptcy, it has not only caused the loss of billions of dollars of production, but also all of this has meant
Government Orders
weaker government revenues. People who are out of work do not pay taxes. Businesses going into bankruptcy do not pay taxes.
In trying to excuse the weaker than anticipated government revenues, to find an excuse for these revenues because of the weak economy, my hon. friend reminds me of the individual who was brought before the court accused of murdering his parents and then pleaded for mercy on the grounds he was an orphan.
This economy is weak and government revenues are weak because of the deliberate action of the Conservative government. This government boasted through the words of the Prime Minister that it had deliberately induced the current recession. If my memory is correct the Prime Minister not only said that the government deliberately induced this recession but he said that was as clear as spring water.
Canadians will agree that this was in large part the deliberate action of the government due to its high interest rate and high dollar policies. These policies brought this country into a recession ahead of the rest of the world. They also continued the recession longer than might otherwise have been the case.
At the same time that the hon. parliamentary secretary was in effect saying that he and his government deserved mercy for the higher borrowing authority being sought on the grounds of lower government revenues, he was also saying that he and his government deserved credit for what they had accomplished in carrying out their major objective of debt and deficit control.
It is true that when the Conservatives took office they said that bringing the public debt and the deficit under control was among their principal objectives. However the numbers show that in this, as in so many other things, the Conservative government has nothing more than a record of failure.
What is the accumulated public debt today? I was going to say it was $420 billion but I thought I heard the parliamentary secretary say it was in the area of $450 billion. That is more than twice as much as it was when this Conservative government took office. How can this government claim it has achieved its objective of bringing the public debt under control when after eight years of Conservative government that public debt is more than twice as high as when it took office?

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
What about its plea for praise on the grounds that the deficit, the annual difference between revenues and expenditures of the government, is being handled better than when this Conservative government took office?
In his December economic statement the Minister of Finance admitted that the budget deficit for the fiscal year 1992-93 would be $34.4 billion, some $6.9 billion more than had been forecast only a few months previously in his budget of February 1992. The Department of Finance is also saying that the deficit for 1993-94 will be some $10.1 billion above the $22.5 billion estimate contained in that budget of February 1992. If I am not mistaken, the budget deficit at the present time is at about the same place it was when this Conservative government took office. So this government has put the Canadian economy and the Canadian people through a high degree of pain for no real gain.
The government says: "Well, the reason that we have this increase in the public debt and this increase in the deficit is because of the high interest we are paying on our borrowing". Why does the government have to pay such high interest? Why did it have to pay such high interest on its borrowing? It was due to the policy that it helped put in place and supported and sustained for years, a policy of high interest rates which did tremendous damage to the economy of this country and also damaged the fiscal activities of the government itself.
I submit that it is not an accurate and open way of describing the operations of the government for its supporters to say that if we did not look at the interest being paid we would be doing okay. I doubt if that is really accurate, but even if it were, does this make sense to the average household or the average business? They would not say they were doing okay if they did not have to pay interest. Interest is a cost of doing business just as much as is the cost of merchandise or the cost of salaries. Interest is a cost that a household has to take into account, a household that has to make mortgage payments or payments on credit cards. It is just nonsense for the government to try and claim credit from the Canadian people and seek to be praised by the Canadian
people if, as it claims, it would be doing all right if only it did not have to pay such high interest.
In recent months interest rates have, fortunately, come down, but we have to remember that they are still very high in real terms after deducting the rate of inflation. Our interest rates are still very high compared to traditional spreads between interest rates in Canada and interest rates in the United States. While they have come down since the jump up last fall, they are still higher than the low level they reached at the beginning of September. So there is still a long way to go in bringing interest rates down in a way that will bring some real encouragement to this all too weak Canadian economy.
This government is trying to take credit for something which the record shows as an abject failure. When you look at what it said was its primary objective when it took office, the control of the public debt and the deficit, then obviously it has nothing to praise itself for. It stands a failure by the very criterion it set for itself, by the very premise on which it asked to be judged by the Canadian people.
The government, according to the parliamentary secretary, is concerned about the ratio of debt to our gross domestic product. It is now in the area of about 65 per cent. At the time it took office, the ratio of debt to gross domestic product was only 42 per cent. Even looking at this very key measure, we see a serious deterioration in our position compared to the position that existed when this Conservative government took office.
The parliamentary secretary talked about the views of financial institutions and borrowers outside of the country. One of the ways in which this government has made our debt and deficit problem worse than was the case when it took office is the extent to which our debt has come to be held outside this country. When the Conservative government first took office, the debt of the federal government was at least held almost entirely by Canadians. Canadians owed that debt to themselves. Now some 20 per cent or more of that debt is held outside this country, certainly making us more vulnerable than we want to be to outside pressures.
February 4, 1993

This is another reason to criticize this Conservative government when examining its claim for praise on how it achieved its primary objective of bringing our debt and deficit situation under control.
Let me say again that if this government, through the parliamentary secretary or through anyone on the government side of the House, tries to take credit for what has happened with our debt and deficit situation, in effect it is turning reality completely upside down. If this government through the parliamentary secretary or anyone on the government benches attempts to be excused by the Canadian people for the degree of borrowing it needs on the grounds that the weak economy has caused a weakness in government revenues, again I say they are exactly like the person in the story I heard who, when accused of murdering his parents, came before the judge and pleaded for mercy on the grounds that he was an orphan.
What is the effect of Conservative policies on the prospects for the Canadian economy? If we look at the executive summary of the winter Canadian outlook of the Conference Board we will see that while the Conference Board predicts growth in the economy of some 3.3 per cent next year, it also says that our unemployment rates will remain very high. They will remain well above the 11 per cent rate.
The Conference Board says that the most recent economic statement of the Minister of Finance, rather than having a positive effect on the economy, will be of a restrictive nature. The Conference Board said: "The mildly restrictive nature of Finance Minister Mazan-kowski's most recent economic statement will also pull back on growth in 1993".
The Conference Board report goes on to say: "The over-all impact of the measures in that statement will be slightly contractionary, lowering real GDP growth by roughly 0.1 per cent in 1992 and by 0 per cent in 1993". The Conference Board also says: "Consumer spending will be the hardest hit as the most important cost-saving measures were cuts in unemployment insurance benefits and a freeze of Public Service wages".
As the Conference Board points out, when employment growth is weak this obviously discourages people from spending. Surely this helps explain why the recovery is so slow and so weak compared to recoveries from past recessions.
Government Orders
The Department of Finance in its background paper to the budget of last February confirmed that the recovery from the current recession is much weaker than has been the case for any of our previous recessions. It pointed out that the recovery period from the recession of 1981-82 saw growth rates of from 4 per cent to 6 per cent and certainly by 1984 strong recovery had already been having a positive effect on the Canadian economy.
In order to make a real dent in unemployment, in order to bring down unemployment substantially to create the substantial number of new jobs that we must have in order to get well below the 11.6 per cent level we have been seeing and to put hundreds of thousands of Canadians back to work, we need rates of growth well above even the 3.3 per cent predicted by the Conference Board.
We have to get up to the 4 per cent level of growth and above, otherwise we are going to go along as we have been with 1.6 million Canadians out of work with the damage that is doing to their lives, the lives of their families and the lives of their communities across this country.
By the way, it is interesting that while the Conference Board spoke of a forecast of 3 per cent growth next year, this is far more optimistic than the government itself. The Department of Finance in a forecast connected with the economic statement of December by the Minister of Finance talked about growth only at the 2 per cent level. Also, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in a forecast a few weeks ago said that it looked to growth being only at the 2.5 per cent level.
Even if the more optimistic view of the Conference Board turns out to be correct, this will not be enough to bring down unemployment in any substantial way. We see therefore the cumulative and ongoing effects of Conservative economic policy not only in the continued all too high levels of unemployment and the all too low levels of job creation, but also in the figures we saw a few days ago regarding bankruptcies in this country.
The year 1991 was a record year for bankruptcies. Yet this Conservative government outdid itself because the total number of bankruptcies for 1992 set a new record. It was even higher than the record year of 1991.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
The government says things are not that bad. Bankruptcies went down in December compared to what they were in November, the lowest level in four months. When you compare the number of bankruptcies in December 1992 with the number of bankruptcies in December 1991, they were actually higher than they were a year ago.
How can the government claim any real improvement in the business sector of this country when bankruptcies in December were no better? In fact, they were worse than they were a year ago. This government's policies are causing this country's economy simply to spin its wheels when the economy should be moving forward.
What is troubling about these bankruptcy figures is that the number of business bankruptcies has gone up much more than personal bankruptcies. This is serious. All of these represent tragedies. The increase in business bankruptcies does not augur well for a strong, quick recovery for the return to health of our business sector.
Something else troubling about these numbers is that we see that bankruptcies have actually gone up in three provinces which in the past have been engines of growth for the entire economy. We see that bankruptcies have gone up in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. These are provinces to which the rest of the country has often looked for support and strength in terms of a recovery for the entire economy.
These most recent figures for bankruptcies in this countiy are really troubling. They are really a matter of concern when one looks not only at what has been happening but what could be and may well be happening now and over the course of the next year in this country.
We have had some other numbers produced by Statistics Canada. Statistics Canada yesterday published its help wanted index. The help wanted index is often looked on as a bit of a forecast as to what is going to happen to employment in this countiy. This Help wanted index showed no improvement in January at all. In fact, it dropped eight points in Ontario and as well in western Canada. This help wanted index, as members may know, is a survey of help wanted ads in a sample of newspapers across this countiy. This survey, as I have said, does not indicate any real increase or improvement in employment over the coming months.
Similar results can be drawn from a look at the survey of manufacturers which Statistics Canada carried out
and published recently. Statistics Canada questioned thousands of factory operators and owners. The conclusion of this survey, according to a report by Southam News, was that they expected more lay-offs during the next three months.
I want to remind the House that we have already lost
350,000	manufacturing jobs in this country in the past three years. The manufacturing base is crucial not only as a source of employment but as a foundation for the health of the entire economy.
To be fair, I should say that those surveyed expected increased output. More expected increased output than those who expected production to go down, but I repeat, on balance, according to the Southam News report, they expected employment would continue to fall during the next three months, although happily at a slower pace.
This Southam News report by Eric Beauchesne raises a very interesting point. It states:
The survey results again raise questions about claims that a
shortage of skilled workers is as big a problem as the shortage of jobs.
When we question the minister of employment about what is being done to create more jobs, he points to vacancies which need to be filled by skilled people. Certainly there are vacancies which need to be filled by skilled people. That is why we have been pressing the government to take more meaningful action to provide training and upgrading for our work force. However, if every one of those jobs requiring higher levels of skills would be filled, I think it is true to say that there would still be a million or more people out of work in this countiy and that is simply unacceptable. This is something that this government will have to deal with in the remaining few weeks or months that it is in office. Certainly, because it has not dealt with this problem, when the next election comes it is not going to continue in office.
What we have to recognize is that we not only need higher degrees of skill on the part of our work force, we need more jobs. There simply are not enough jobs in this country for the hundreds of thousands of people who want to work. We need policies whereby the government will work with the provinces and the private sector to create more jobs. We have to get away from the destructive policies of this government which have destroyed jobs rather than created them, which have driven businesses into bankruptcy rather than helping business to be healthy and to expand and move forward.
February 4, 1993

We need different policies than the policies of this government which have driven this country into the worst recession since the 1930s and have taken away hope and optimism from Canadians and replaced it with despair about the future. Canadians deserve better from their federal government, even from this Conservative government. They deserve much better than they obviously have received.
This government has asked, through the parliamentary secretary, for approval of a higher level of borrowing. I suppose it is true that as with business, government revenues do not always match the timing of its expenditures and governments have to borrow. However the parliamentary secretary has certainly not made a convincing case on behalf of the economic record and economic policies of this government.
A few weeks ago we were startled to hear an announcement by Statistics Canada that the recession was over. Canadians reacted to that announcement with consternation. Were there still not 1.6 million people out of work? Were businesses not announcing day after day thousands more lay-offs in coming weeks and months? Were businesses not announcing that they were going into receivership and closing factories and stores? No wonder Canadians were astounded by this announcement. No wonder there was no dancing in the streets and throwing hats in the air.
While technically it may be that the recession is over, the fact is that this is unfortunately only in the most technical sense, in the sense that perhaps the economy is no longer contracting and there are some signs of growth and movement.
How can we say we are in a recovery when there are still more than 1.6 million people out of work? Some of the so-called experts on the government side say that yes, it is a recovery but unfortunately a jobless recovery. What a contradiction in terms. How can there be a recovery in the economy of this country while there are still 1.6 million people out of work?
For the people who are out of work the recession is not over, in my own city of Windsor or anywhere else in this country, until people are back to work at permanent and
Government Orders
satisfying jobs. For them, no matter what the government says or any of its experts and spokespersons say, the recession continues and the recovery is not really here while we have so many people out of work.
I would like to see a strong recovery under way. I take no real satisfaction out of noting the despair and the lack of hope on the part of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. I take no real satisfaction out of noting the continued statistics about unemployment, bankruptcy and economic weakness, but this is the reality.
I have an obligation on the part of the people of my community and on the part of Canadians generally to say what is really going on. The government can take no satisfaction from any declaration by Statistics Canada that the recession is over while more than 1.6 million people are out of work and respected forecasting organizations like the Conference Board say that they have little or no prospect of going back to work for a year and more.
We need a different approach to government, an approach which recognizes problems of debt and deficit but which at the same time has a commitment to economic growth and which recognizes the contribution which only economic growth can make both to the creation of jobs and yes, the containment of our debt and the controlling of our deficit.
As even the parliamentary secretary admitted when he presented third reading of this bill to the House, when you have recession and worse, governments must spend money on things like unemployment insurance and welfare and at the same time government revenues decline because people are not working. They have no salaries so they pay no taxes. At current levels of growth government revenues decrease. Businesses do not make profits and they do not pay taxes either. However, in a context of economic growth governments spend less on things like unemployment insurance and welfare. People who are working and businesses that are making profits, without any higher tax burden, are the source of higher revenues for government. Economic growth itself is a major tool, a major instrument in the control and containment and ultimately the rolling back of the public debt and the deficit.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
At the same time economic growth provides the jobs required for satisfying lives for Canadians. Economic growth provides the basis for hope for the future, the confidence that there will be a better future for Canadians and their families.
This government deserves a severe indictment and, more important, a severe penalty from the Canadian people because, getting beyond the statistics, getting beyond the numbers, the fact is it has robbed millions of Canadians of their hope for the future. It has robbed millions of Canadians of the confidence they deserve to have and better lives for themselves and their families.
I say that we look forward to an early election so that the Canadian people will pass judgement on this government, remove it from office and give a new and better government a place in this House and this country. I believe it will be a Liberal government, one that will bring back hope and confidence for Canadians and help us to build a country worthy of its past and worthy of its future.


Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The Conservative government is asking the people for authority through this House to borrow another $8 billion.
This debate offers a rare opportunity to talk about the continuing tragedy of the Canadian nation. What we have just witnessed today is a speech from the finance critic of the Liberal Party that could be found in the library, given by the Conservative Party when it was in opposition. This back and forth of blame between Conservatives and Liberals in the history of this country politically was once explained as the difference between, as Tommy Douglas said, tweedledee and tweedledum.
When they are in government they are tweedledum. When they are in opposition they are tweedledee.


John Horton McDermid: The tweedledummers are in opposition.


David Barrett: The tweedledums are in government and the tweedledees are in opposition.


Shirley Maheu: You have not got a hope.


David Barrett: No, it does not matter. The cast of characters are essentially the same old record of attacking each other without offering positive alternatives or explaining to the Canadian people how they will get out of this mess.


An hon. member:: Tell us about Bob Rae.


David Barrett: I appreciate the interruptions made by both the Liberals and the Conservatives. It is guilt motivated and were I one of the priesthood, I would say forgive them for they know not what they do. In actual fact they indeed know what they do and they continue to repeat the same errors over and over again.
When the Conservatives ran for office they damned vociferously the debt and the deficits left by the Liberal Party. They promised that they would reduce the debt and the operating deficits. Just vote for a government under the Tories and all the problems will be resolved. Eight years later the same annual deficits are cropping up plus more demands for borrowing.
The gall is even worse for the Canadian taxpayers when they hear the Liberal Party suggest it has the answers when it left a massive debt and massive deficits when it was in power.
Tweedledee or tweedledum, take your pick. Neither has shown the innovation that the Canadian people demand. Less than 30 million people in this great nation have a cornucopia of resources, a cornucopia of wealth in terms of the ordinary people, the labour force, entrepreneurs and no leadership that is dramatic or imaginative enough to put together a package to pull this country up by its own bootstraps.
It is well enough for the members of the Official Opposition to look at the Gallup polls and see that they are leading. They decided the best approach is to come into this House and attack the government and say: "we will do better, trust us". They need to do more than that. It is the obligation of the Liberals to say exactly what they will do, not just stand up in this House and condemn the government. I too will present some ideas.
February 4, 1993

It is a dereliction of duty for the Liberal Party to come into this House and not tell us exactly where it stands on the GST, on the free trade agreement and on NAFTA.
The Liberals need to be concerned and heckled but I want to say right now that any suggestion that the Liberals go into the next election without defining where they stand on the GST and leaving the impression they will tax food must be put in writing as either a truth or a lie. They cannot escape the obligation to tell the Canadian people where they are coming from before the next election.
We know that the Tories have been failures. We know that they have philosophically pursued a course of action that has brought about devastation in this country. Built on that failure is a tacit implication that the Liberals will follow most of the Tory policies with minor changes. If we are going to make that suggestion then what we end up with is exactly this: A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Tories.
A deficit of $35 billion caused by what? Yes, part of the explanation in my opinion was correct by the Liberal finance critic. Economic growth has been stifled. Yes, there has been a recession. However, part of the reason for the stifling of that economic growth has been the free trade agreement which has allowed Canada to lose jobs in the manufacturing base at three times the rate of what the Americans have.
Did the Liberals say they will cancel the free trade agreement? No, they will tinker with it. I will say right now that we would give the six months' notice of abrogation and that is on record. That is what politics is all about, to say clearly and honestly where you stand. I stand here and say that the New Democratic Party would cancel the free trade agreement by giving the six months' notice.
One must say honestly that the Tories are touting this as their policy and they support it. The New Democrats say it is wrong and we would cancel. What is more dangerous is that the Official Opposition refuses to say what side of the issue it is on with the free trade agreement.
The Canadian people have a right and an obligation to know exactly what they are voting for and voting against. If you want the free trade agreement, vote for the Conservatives. If you do not want it, vote New Demo-
Govemment Orders
crat. If you do not know what you want except licking your finger and holding it up in the wind, vote for the Liberal Party.
I want to talk about the North America free trade agreement. I think the Tories are wrong. We agree in principle that they are wrong on this issue. There will be further erosion of the job base, causing more borrowing such as this bill. Where does the Liberal Party stand on the North American free trade agreement? Traditionally where it always has: North American free trade if necessary but not necessarily North American free trade.
Contradictory statements allow the Liberals to play both sides against the middle. We have a disillusioned public that is fed up with politics and politicians and they want a change of government.
Instead of giving leadership, the Liberal Party is back on the fence again. It created these debts and deficits. Now members make these swan-song speeches about how terrible it is, the Tories have done wrong but do not worry, big business will carry on the same old policies.
There has been a massive shift of taxation in this country away from the business sector, away from the corporate sector and on to ordinary people. Did the Liberals say they will put it back in a fair tax policy? In a pig's eye, they will. We cannot get three logical words of commitment from the Liberal leader when asked about tax policy. Have you ever heard of a man running for prime minister who stands up publicly and says he will tell us what he is going to do after he has won? That is like playing dice with the Damon Runyan character Harry the Horse. He throws the dice in the hat, holds it up over his head and calls out the numbers.
We do not need pig in the poke policies. We need honest statements by everybody in this House of what they intend to do to get this country out of the mess. The Tories have failed. They are gone. Nothing is going to save them.
The Liberals have an obligation to be honest with the Canadian people. Up to this date they have not been. They have an opportunity on this bill to tell the truth and they have not done so.
If you want Tory policies, vote for the Tories. For goodness' sake do not have a Liberal Party hiding behind Tory policy saying: "Oh, they are bad. Oh, they are wrong. When the Liberals get elected they will not change a dam thing.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
Why do they not take memberships out in the Tory party because the Tories are doing the Liberals' dirty work for them while the Liberals are hiding behind the curtains on these issues.
Why do we not have a clear-cut statement from the Liberal Party? January 1, 1994 is the implementation date of the North American free trade agreement. Regardless of how the Liberals vote in this House, regardless of talking about renegotiating or abrogation, we are talking about a new feature, implementation date January 1, 1994.
The election will be held before then. The people of this country have a right to know. If you vote Liberal will they refuse to implement the agreement on January 1, 1994? We know where the Tories stand. They will implement. However, this polling is directly related to the loss of jobs because of those trade agreements and we have not had a statement from the Liberal Party to the Canadian people that it will not implement on January 1, 1994.
Liberals cannot hide forever. The Canadian people are fed up to the teeth with duplicity, dodging and weaving. As much as I disagree with the Tories, as much as disdain their policies but like them as persons, it is in my charitable nature to love all people. It is my charitable nature to love all people and respect the rules of this House more than anything else. Even though I love some Liberals as individuals, hypocrisy cannot and must not be allowed to play a part in the forthcoming election in this country.
We hear the Liberals saying naughty, naughty to the Tories. Do we hear the Liberals say that the corporations must pay their fair share so that we avoid this kind of debt? Not on your life. Do we hear the Liberals saying we will never take 10 cents from a big corporation so that we can implement policies?
We read the records of who gave money to the Liberal Party. It is listed in the accounts of corporations and banks that gave money to the Liberal Party. It is all there.
My dear friends in the Liberal Party think they can have it both ways. This government has been a failure. It is going to be thrown out of office. You cannot be thrown in on the basis of fooling the Canadian people. Come clean and tell us where you stand on the GST. Where do you stand on the free trade agreement? Will you implement the North American free trade agreement in 1994?


An hon. member:: How about wage controls?


David Barrett: What are some options? I have a few comments to make. My friend mentioned wage controls. I was the only premier in Canada who refused to accept the Liberal policy of wage controls. I went back to British Columbia and implemented a policy of price controls- under a Liberal government, and we should never forget that. Price controls on food and energy, so that ordinary people could be protected from rapacious federal governments.
Let us look at the expenditure of public funds. This bill forces us again to borrow and add on to the debt for our children and our children's children. It is the same old kind of borrowing that both the Liberals and Conservatives are committed to: making offshore lenders wealthier yet based on the 27 or 28 million taxpayers in this country who are indebted offshore and internally in massive amounts.
There has never been a serious attempt since the Second World War to mobilize indigenous Canadian capital to work in Canada for Canadians. Canadians are among the best savers in the world. During the Second World War, capital as an instrument was mobilized just as much as manpower and arms were mobilized to fight for the success and survival of democracy. Everybody sacrificed, everybody contributed. Imaginative options were created in the financial sector during wartime which permitted this country to move rapidly out of the depression into measured and sustained growth.
I know it is a four letter word that frightens the Liberals and the Conservatives plan. The Japanese plan an economy, the Germans plan an economy and the new administration in the United States is now going to plan an economy. The new president admitted it yesterday. Not the Liberal Party or the Conservatives-laissez-faire forever.
What are the options? One is to examine those Canadian savings. This government finally opened up a very small window of access to those accumulated savings. A very good policy initiating self-responsibility in savings with tax benefits was opened to the Canadian people under the RRSP program. Good for the Liberals, they brought it in. It gave ordinary people an option to protect themselves against both inflation and devaluation of their own hard-earned money in high tax times by moving it into RRSPs.
February 4, 1993

Currently there is $105 billion in RRSP money in this country. Half of it is in self-directed funds and the other half is not.
There are ideas out there begging to be implemented that have absolutely nothing to do with the Tories, the Liberals or the New Democrats. They are strange to politicians, they are under the heading of common sense. One of those common sense ideas has been presented by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities calling for access to low cost funds to rebuild the infrastructure of this country; roads, sewers, sidewalks, all jobs that do not require a Ph.D.


An hon. member:: The Liberals did not show up for the vote.


David Barrett: I talk about the need for higher education for jobs. Just recently the most highly skilled work force in all of Canada was laid off in Ottawa in the high-tech industry. The high-tech myth is a Lorelei that is used by politicians to suck people along into thinking there is a great future there. Not everybody has a Ph.D. Thank God for that. Not everybody has a university education. Simple, clear-cut manufacturing jobs and industrial related jobs are the foundation of a resource based economy such as we have in Canada. However, it takes leadership.
Of that $104 or $105 billion that exists in the RRSP funds, as I pointed out, half of it is not directed. With wisdom, prudence, caution and leadership, using the Canadian municipal federation's own plans, municipal bonds could be issued tax free based on the United States model of the Fannie Mae municipal bonds.
The municipalities have said that there is $15 billion worth of work that should be initiated right away. We should allow people the choice, the freedom and the option to subscribe to a government bond that pays two points less than the going rate available in treasury bills or other securities and allow them to buy those bonds directly from their RRSP funds. We should allow them to give 10 or 20-year commitments to those bonds, within the shelter of the RRSP, to protect all interest they earn on those bonds and allow them to take that interest out tax free at the time the commitment is over, be they either 20-year bonds or 10-year bonds.
Government Orders
Further, we would allow a bonus amount of approximately 50 per cent of the value of the interest earned on the money they loan the government for those bonds to be taken out in a lump sum. It would be one and a half times the interest they earned on their own money that they could take out of the municipal bond and then use the cash tax free any way they want.
It would allow the Canadian taxpayers access to billions of dollars at a low interest rate. They would be designated funds to create jobs and build roads, sewers, sidewalks, parks and other parts of the infrastructure across this country.
We would make money back in increased taxation and increased internal purchases and in procurement here in Canada. That would be part of the whole plan of the structure. We would mobilize Canadian capital and would begin to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps in our own country.
Why borrow offshore? Why continue this tweedledee and tweedledum between the Liberals and the Conservatives? Why throw one out only to have the other come in to replace them? My challenge is to the Liberal Party. In the face of the Tory failure are we going to get the same old mess from the same old Liberals or are we going to begin to get some honest alternatives? Are we going to get some definite statements on the GST, some commitments to cancel the free trade agreement and to say no to the implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994 or are the Canadian people going to be fooled again by the Liberals as they have been in the past?
It is time for Canadians to reject both tweedledee and tweedledum and let us do things for ourselves.


William Warren Allmand: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. I have many close friends who voted for the NDP in Ontario a year or so ago and they are the most disillusioned people in the world. If we want to talk about flip-flops on policies, if we want to talk about cutbacks-I see the hon. member is leaving the Chamber because he cannot listen to the response.
Many people of goodwill voted for the great NDP in Ontario. They have made fumble after fumble and gaff after gaff. They have cut back on promises and so on.

Government Orders
Talking about hypocrisy, this is a party that when there is no chance of achieving government says that everything is black and white. If it was honest with the Canadian people, and the hon. member was premier at one time, it would find that once it takes control of a government there are many grey areas. That is the reality. That is the truthful situation of life. Some things can be presented in extreme positions. If the NDP wants to be fair and honest with the Canadian people and it achieves office, as Mr. Rae has and as Mr. Harcourt and the NDP has in Saskatchewan, it would admit that there are many grey areas.
I fought the last election on the free trade agreement. I do not know where the NDP was in that battle. I was at all-candidates meetings in Montreal and NDP candidates were talking about other things. They were not talking about the free trade agreement. He talked about fighting free trade but it was our party, the Liberal Party, that fought the battle against free trade.
During the referendum campaign last fall the premier of British Columbia took off. We did not know where he stood on that issue. He took off on a holiday to the United States or somewhere and left the battle to one of his ministers. The people in British Columbia did not know whether the NDP Government of British Columbia was for or against the agreement. For God's sake, let us be honest with the Canadian people.
There are many things in the NDP platform that I support, but when the member talks with a holier than thou attitude, as he does, he is talking like someone who is not in touch with reality.
We have now seen NDP governments in Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Look at the polls. The people who voted for those governments know that they have backed down on their promises and that they are not the great holier than thou paragons of virtue that they pretend to be. When I listen to that kind of speech I think I am listening to something from the 1930s.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, when the Liberal Party wants to get votes out of the centre-left population in
this country it relies on the old cliche about the CCF/ NDP just being Liberals in a hurry. When it appeals to the centre-left it always says: "Yes, the CCF initiated such things as medicare ideas and other social ideas". Part of what I said today included an idea about mobilizing Canadian capital. Is the member opposed to that?
To give the House a ranting diatribe against the Ontario government ignores the fact that the Ontario Liberal government lied about a deficit that was close to a billion dollars before it went into an election and only acknowledged it after election day. It left that mess for Bob Rae. Will the member talk about that? Will the member talk about the mess it left concerning Sky-Dome? The Ontario NDP government had to clean that mess up.
We can exchange insults and we can say "You said" and "I said" and everything else. We are facing an election now. I offered an economic alternative to this borrowing but the member did not comment on that offering. I also clearly said that the Liberal Party must state now, as the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra bravely did in the 1988 election, its position on NAFTA. The right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra bravely said that he would abrogate the free trade agreement. I returned to politics because I was opposed to free trade. I spoke against it everywhere and had I been invited to Montreal I would even have tried to speak against it in French.
This is 1993. This is a borrowing bill by a government that has nearly bankrupted this country. The Liberal Party wants to be the government. Where does it stand on the GST? Will it cancel it? What will it replace it with? Will it answer those questions? Where does it stand on the free trade agreement? Will it abrogate that or has it abandoned its 1988 position? Where does it stand on NAFTA? Will it implement it on January 1, 1994? We can spend a lifetime saying "You said this" or "You said that when you were in government". This government is finished. The Liberals may be the government. People are not interested in what they did in the past or what I did in the past. What in the world do they stand for now? They cannot go into an election and lie to Canadians. Tell us where they stand. All of us have a right to know.
February 4, 1993


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, I have heard of lot of hot air being hissed around in this place in the past but today's example has been one of the worst I have ever heard.
The hon. member got up and for 13 of his 20 minutes attacked the Liberal Party. He stood up there so high and holy and he neglected his own past. He led a government in the province of British Columbia that was dumped very quickly. It was one of the most destructive governments that the people of British Columbia have ever seen. In British Columbia he led a government that was not only incompetent but was a government of chaos. It was a government that governed not by the light of the day but by the light of the moon. He knows exactly what I am talking about.
In British Columbia the NDP which this man led into power, into the provincial house in the province of British Columbia, and its ideology were so soundly and roundly rejected that the New Democratic Party had to rebuild from the bottom up. He sanctimoniously stands in this House today and says that he knows what is right and that he has a plan. That hon. member led a government that did the impossible. His government's record makes Bob Rae look good in Ontario, and that is a heck of a hard thing to do.
The member is very good on his feet. He is one of the greatest orators in this place. However, when he starts to give lessons to the Liberals and even the Tories by God, about how to run a government and about how to put forward plans then he has no credibility.
The hon. member opposite said he had a plan. I would ask him on behalf of the people of Ontario if he has such a good plan could he please call up his colleague the premier of Ontario and tell him what it is. Then maybe, just maybe the people of Ontario would give him the respect that the people of British Columbia did not give him when he had his last chance to implement the plan, because the people of Ontario know that the New Democratic plan has cost them $11 billion in the deficit this year.


David Barrett: Madam Speaker, I enjoy listening to my colleague from the maritimes.
It is a selective memory but since he wishes to talk about it let us put the matter straight. The Liberal Party in British Columbia elected five MLAs. Within a year and a half it walked over and joined the Conservatives
Government Orders
and Social Credit in representing big business in British Columbia against our government.
The Liberal Party abandoned its principles and changed its coat just by walking across the floor. Now it has dumped them with the coats.
I predict that the same coalition will emerge in British Columbia. The Liberal Party will coalesce under big business money with the remnants of Social Credit and the remnants of the Conservative Party and again form a coalition in British Columbia. Name one other provincial government that received 48.5 per cent of the vote and lost an election. That was my experience when the Liberals formed a coalition with the Social Credit Party.
Did the Liberals in British Columbia advocate abandoning our land policy, our tax policy, or our car insurance? Not on your life. They never abandoned one single policy except to change the labour code against ordinary working people. That is what the coalition in British Columbia did.
Let the record be there. Let us understand one simple thing in politics. Whoever pays the piper calls the tune. The same piper pays both the Liberals and the Tories and calls their tune.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the intervention by the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca brings to mind the famous adage that when people sit in glass houses they should be careful when they throw stones.
That desperate intervention by the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca brings to memory some of the issues that arose in British Columbia when he was premier. This opportunity cannot be missed considering the holier than thou attitude which permeated his intervention this morning.
I could not help thinking back to the times when the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca was premier and about the way in which the forests of British Columbia were allowed to be pilfered under his administration in the same manner as they were pilfered before him and again after him. His record on that matter is not something to write home about.
The record of the former premier of British Columbia, now the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, is not great either when one remembers the opportunity he had while in office to rearrange land use planning in British Columbia to reduce the pressure on forest cutting in his own province and his failure to do so.

Government Orders
He did not pay attention to that key issue which has plagued the viability of forests on the west coast.
I am also reminded by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, who was a very distinguished minister for Indian and northern affairs, about the fact that when the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca was premier, he did not keep the promise on the Nishga settlement. He was such a cause celebre in the provincial legislature of British Columbia that the member for Nishga who had been elected as an NDP member, if I remember correctly, decided to sit as an independent as a sign of protest with respect to the then premier and now the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
In his attack on the Liberals, the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca is conveying the clear impression that after all he prefers the Tories, which is rather amazing considering the agenda of the NDP. However, that is his problem. He seems to be very upset about the fact that on the GST there is no clear statement being given by other parties. In our case, that statement certainly does not apply because our leader on behalf of the Liberal parliamentary group has taken the very clear position that if the Liberal Party is elected to office, the GST will be replaced by another tax.
At that point you can proceed in two ways. You can decide on the alternative tax as a government, as a decision made by cabinet on its own, or you can do that by way of consultation with the public through parliamentary means. It is the Liberal way to adopt a process whereby we would consult the public. We would engage in an over-all tax reform in which the GST would be analysed against which alternatives would be studied. The consultation process would be extensive and would then lead to the alternative to the present tax system which as you know, Madam Speaker, is tilted very much in favour of the haves and is heavier on the have nots.
In other words, what we intend to do after the next election is have a more progressive taxation system with hopefully less flat tax rates applied regardless of income and with rates of taxation which are heavier on those who have more and which are of course progressively
lighter as incomes decrease. That is the Liberal view on the approach to taxation. We know that can be done.
Since 1984 there have been over 30 tax increases introduced by the present government. We will have to look at all of them and reorganize the taxation system in a fair and progressive manner.
The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca also produced a lot of synthetic indignation on the subject of NAFTA and the free trade agreement. We had a debate in the House on that subject a few months ago on a Liberal opposition day. We took a very clear position. I do not know where the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca was on that day. That position is on record. It states quite clearly that a Liberal government will want to examine the NAFTA proposal if it is in place in a manner that will ensure an improvement both on the labour side and on the environmental side of that particular agreement. This position has also been taken by President Clinton. We think that in co-operation with the present administration in Washington that approach will be possible and will be successful.
There is on the part of the Liberal Party a very clear position that has been taken in this regard. It is a reasonable one that will appeal to the majority of Canadians. It has been thought through because, as everybody knows, the weak aspects of the NAFTA agreement are definitely those aspects related to the environment, labour standards and labour input.
In this debate today we have to look at the performance of the government on a variety of fronts. We cannot of course spend too much time on calming down the boiling spirits of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. The agenda is much too important. We have to look at the bill as it stands before us today and say that there are a number of areas in which the performance of the government which is now seeking additional funds leaves very much to be desired.
A couple of days ago I attempted to deal with the social aspects of the government's performance. Today I would like to devote the few minutes available to the approach by this government to our natural resources. I will attempt to divide these remarks between water and energy, fully aware of the fact that the subject is so
February 4, 1993

immense that it cannot be covered adequately by way of just one intervention.
We find not just anomalies, as in the case of the GST application and its effects on the environment, but some very serious conceptual faults in the performance of the government.
First let me deal with the question of the GST and one specific example. I was stunned to receive on March 10, 1992, a press release issued by Treasury Board in which we were informed about the suspension of the goods and services tax, the GST, from certain products. On this list of products were fertilizers and pesticides.
The pesticides are as a result of a decision made by this government regarding packages costing $500 or more. If they are labelled in accordance with the pest control products regulations, having a purpose that includes agricultural use, they will be exempt from the GST.
I ask why on earth the government would take a step of this kind. Certainly it is a measure which will facilitate an increase in the use of pesticides. We know that some of the pesticides in commercial use are extremely damaging to the environment and particularly to the water systems.
One cannot help but ask this question. Why should books not be exempt from the GST when chemical fertilizers are exempt? What is the rationale behind this initiative? Why would the government do that when in the green plan, which is certainly not under the jurisdiction of Treasury Board but nevertheless is part of the over-all long-term approach of this government, there is a profound concern about the preservation and the protection of the environment. Here we have an indirect subsidy, an exemption from a tax which applies to a product which we all know ought to be used extremely carefully and possibly phased out in the long term. However, that is only a detail.
I would like to stress that after eight years of Tory administration we can begin to notice the emergence of initiatives that have been promised but not carried out. For instance, let me refer for a moment to the 1987 water strategy.
Government Orders
The federal water strategy was in a way launched by way of an initiative by the Liberal government before the 1984 election which set up a water commission under the leadership of Professor Pearse at UBC.
I believe that commission reported in 1985 or 1986. In 1987 a federal water strategy emerged and we welcomed it. We thought it was a good idea. It is a good idea because we need a federal water strategy for a variety of reasons. The only unfortunate aspect of that strategy was the fact that it remained silent on water diversion and water exports. That was because at that time some members of the Conservative government were in favour of some of the crazy ideas being proposed for massive water diversions between Canada and the United States.
That federal water strategy has remained virtually unimplemented. A federal water bill has been promised by several successive ministers of the environment. Six years later we have not seen any legislation introduced. What is going on? Why is this federal water strategy, admittedly a good concept, not being implemented? Evidently the chickens are coming home to roost. I do not doubt the intention at the time, but promises which are made must be kept.
Here we see an increasing need for a policy to be implemented in the interest of public health of Canadians and the long-term use of water which is being recognized increasingly as a commodity of increasing and substantive importance, not just in Canada but around the globe. A legitimate question to be raised during this debate would be when will this promise be delivered?
Again on the subject of water, I must raise the question of the abatement of persistent toxic chemicals entering the Niagara River and Lake Ontario.
In 1987 an agreement was signed between the then Minister of the Environment and his counterpart in Washington whereby a promise was made that 50 per cent of the persistent toxic chemicals entering the Niagara River would be cut in half. We do not know whether that promise will be kept with regard to the Niagara River.
At a meeting in Niagara Falls, New York, a few weeks ago scientists at that meeting indicated that this promise might be kept but it is not quite certain. At that time it became publicly known that 1,500 kilograms of persistent toxic chemicals are entering the Niagara River daily. Among them are arsenic, lead, PCBs and DDT. You name it, a soup of the most incredible variety of

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
chemicals is still entering that river. We learned that of these 18 toxic chemicals, eight are still unregulated. In other words, there is no regulation affecting eight of these 18 persistent toxic chemicals as of today.
We thought the highly publicized Canadian Environmental Protection Act was a good measure as a whole. It could have been stronger. It was debated in committee but we certainly felt that it was a measure that ought to proceed, although in four areas it could have been considerably improved. Yet that legislation is not used as expeditiously as it should be used in order to regulate toxic substances entering the environment.
While the legislation is there and the instruments are there, the government is reluctant to make the resources available to the Department of the Environment and to the scientific communities in order to broaden the scope and the coverage of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act so as to regulate more toxic chemicals the environment, the water system and the atmosphere.
This situation is going to reach emergency levels if it is not dealt with soon. Measurements in the Niagara River, as they are made right now by the scientific community, are to the extent of 1,500 kilograms per day of persistent toxic chemicals entering the system which includes a very high figure for arsenic which we all know is not something one drinks every day for breakfast. There is lead and DDT, as I mentioned earlier, and other dangerous substances.
I might add on that subject that while there is at least on paper an agreement between the two countries on reaching a certain target by the year 1996, namely by reducing the water pollution or the amount of toxic chemicals entering the system by 50 per cent, there is not a similar agreement or at least a target related to Lake Ontario.
In other words, we have an agreement for the river, but we do not have an agreement for the entire lake. This is a very important and urgent matter because reducing the entry of toxic chemicals into Lake Ontario has an important significance for the health of eight million people living along the shores of that lake, as well as the health and the condition of people living along the St. Lawrence River downstream.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up. I regret very much that I am unable to continue my presentation.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I listened to the dissertation on the environment and water resources by my hon. friend from Davenport. While I found it very interesting, I had some difficulty drawing a connection between his dissertation and the bill that is before the House which is for borrowing authority.
In the initial part of his remarks he did speak a little bit about his party's approach to taxation. It is in that regard that I would like to ask him a question.
I must first compliment him for having developed the art of obfuscation to a level that has only previously been achieved by his leader.
He said that although they are going to get rid of the GST, that is for sure, they are going to wait and consult with Canadians before they decide what to do, if I understood him correctly. I am not sure whether this consultation is not also obfuscation, designed to get away from the fact that they really have not figured out what on earth to do, or if it is because they do not want to tell the public what they are going to do.
We are told they are considering a secret, hidden, business transfer tax that would be applied to everything, like food and medical services. That may or may not be true, I do not know.
I notice that in his references to the GST, he says that the taxation policies of this government have been targeted at benefiting the haves rather than the have nots. Therefore, I would ask him to explain how that coincides with the fact that this government in its income tax reforms has taken 800,000 Canadians off the income tax rolls. I wonder how he could say that about the GST, given that Canadians with incomes of less than $30,000 are in fact shielded from the GST by the GST credit. So his comments simply do not make any sense at all in that regard.
February 4, 1993

I would ask him about his own party's policy. Why will the Liberals not come clean with Canadians and say what they are going to do to replace the revenues now provided by the GST. Is it because they simply do not know, or they simply will not say?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair question by the member for South Shore, for whom I have great respect, both for his intellectual and oratorical skills. I would be glad to offer him an answer.
First of all, on the borrowing authority and my intervention, the member for South Shore knows very well that whenever the government asks for money, you can deal with the over-all policy of the government in any way, shape or form. In this case it is a substantial amount, mind-boggling -actually but understandable. I chose to focus at report stage on the social policies. Today at third reading I focused on natural resources.
Unfortunately I could not go on enlightening the hon. member further on the subject of the depletion of natural resources and the poor policies of the government. I could not cover, for instance, forestry for which this government has a pathetic record. We are now being haunted in Europe for our poor reputation in forestry management.
I could not deal with the question of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in depth, as I would have liked to. I could not deal with the energy policies of this government. It has completely abandoned, in its vision for the future, the potential and the desirability of alternative energy resources, and the necessity of reducing our dependency on fossil fuels.
One has only to look at the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Resources to see what has happened over the last eight years. There is a virtual decline, if not elimination, of grants and subsidies to renewable energy sources. The energy policy of this government in terms of the long-term outlook for Canada and the globe has been a complete disaster.
In answer to the other two questions of the hon. member for South Shore, perhaps he was not listening very carefully because I said that our position is one in which we say clearly that there will have to be an alternative to the GST. We know that the revenue of the state has to be assured and we think that the search for those alternative sources of revenue should be con-
Govemment Orders
ducted in a transparent, visible manner, rather than behind closed doors. Therefore, we would engage in a public consultation by way of parliamentary and other means after the election, in order to find the alternative sources of taxation that will be necessary to replace the GST.
As a true democrat, the member for South Shore would applaud an initiative of this kind on the part of the Liberal Party. That is the way we prefer to do things. We do not want to impose our will and our preferences, but to do it in consultation with the people affected, as one should particularly in taxation methods. We can have a debate on the merit of that measure on another occasion.
The member is quite right when he says there are segments in our society that can qualify for a GST credit. I can tell him that there is increasing resistance, objection and criticism, particularly on the part of the seniors in Canada, to the fact that they have to fill out an income tax form which they did not have to do before and to the fact that their revenue is being scrutinized every year in order to qualify for this GST tax credit. They would prefer not to have to do it and they would prefer not to have to pay the GST.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the public consultation aspects of the hon. member's answer. He said that the Liberals are going to have public consultations.
As I remember correctly, four parliamentary committees and two royal commissions held wide public consultations from coast to coast, over a 40-year period as a matter of fact. In each one of those reports it was recommended that the manufacturers' sales tax be abolished and that a value added tax be brought in. In those 40 years the Liberals were in power most of the time and most of those committees and royal commissions were brought to fruition by the Liberal Party.
What did that public consultation mean to the Liberals? Obviously nothing because they did not take any action at that time. This government did take action on the recommendations and brought in a value added tax which was the recommendation of those commissions and committees both of Parliament and of the Senate.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
What different consultation does the hon. member think he is going to have this time? Why should the Canadian people believe that they will do anything after they have been consulted because they did not over the 40-year period to which I referred?


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, you have no idea how glad I am for this question. It reveals that light does not penetrate the limited grey matter of the hon. minister. He has never been famous for shining very much, but today he has demonstrated his utter stupidity. I will explain why. It has not dawned on him that Canadians do not like the GST. This is the point. Canadians do not like the GST. That is a fact of life. That is a political fact. It now requires a public consultation in light of the experience of the last few years. It is as simple as that.
We have gone through several years of GST and Canadians do not like it. Therefore a consultation is essential. In a democratic system would the hon. minister not want to have a consultation? Is he against it because we had consultations in the past? We must have consultations all the time. We must go to the people frequently, particularly on the subject of taxes. Otherwise we lose touch.
This is why this government is so low in the public opinion polls. It has lost touch. It thinks it can govern when the public is mad at it. Obviously there is a need for public consultation. I am astonished that the minister would ask such a silly question.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am willing to debate the hon. member any time in this House of Commons, but the quality of the debate is lowered when he stoops to calling names. It is unbecoming of the hon. member and totally weakens his argument.


Roger Simmons: That is not a point of order. It is against the rules.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's will please abstain. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's should know that screaming at the Chair will not change anything.
The hon. member for Davenport has used some terms which Beauchesne's may or may not consider parliamentary or unparliamentary. However, when the use of terms creates problems inside the House normally the parliamentary thing to do, the honourable thing to do, is to withdraw words which the hon. member does not normally use in the House. I am sure he would want to withdraw words which have been used in the last minute or so to enable us to continue with debate.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, I would-


Roger Simmons: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member. The floor had first been given to the hon. member for Davenport. I will certainly recognize the hon. member afterward. I cannot recognize two people at the same time.
The floor had been given to the hon. member for Davenport and he had risen to answer. The hon. member for Davenport has the floor.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, accuracy should prevail in this debate. The way in which I described the mental capacity of the hon. minister of state reflects an accurate statement on my part, which I do not think I can withdraw.
That is the assessment that I can make in all honesty from the minister's intervention and from the calibre of his question.
Therefore my statement stands.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Burin-St. George's and I will continue after.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, on my point of order my intervention was not directed at the Chair. The minister was clearly abusing the rule. I flagged that to him and made no aspersions to the Chair, so save me the lecture.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do not recall giving a lecture to the hon. member. I simply reminded him that screaming "point of order", which he did, was unnecessary. I could certainly hear him and I had given the floor to the hon. member for Davenport.
I would like the House to understand what I have said before. I agree with the hon. member that if we look at Beauchesne's the words "stupid" and "stupidity" in debate are not considered unparliamentary as such.
February 4, 1993

However, when we talk about decorum in this place I think it has been agreed among all members of the House that if an accusation or something that can be construed as an insult causes a disturbance then normally members do withdraw that statement.


Charles L. Caccia: Madam Speaker, in commenting on what you have just said I would like to assure you that mine is not an accusation. It is simply a statement of fact.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I will read the "blues" and if necessary come back to the House on this point.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, it is with a certain amount of chagrin that I rise to join in this debate today. It is an honour for me to follow such experienced and illustrious members of this House as the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Windsor West.


Philip Derek Lewis: Excuse me.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I do not know why the hon. Solicitor General wants to be excused, but I will excuse him if he wishes.
In a discussion with the hon. member for Windsor West earlier this morning he made a point that I agree with whole-heartedly. He said in a borrowing bill such as the one we are debating today it is tantamount to irresponsibility of the highest order to give the government that has so mismanaged the Canadian economy over the last eight years another crack at it by giving it any more money. This government should realize what it has done and is doing to the Canadian people. Throw in the towel and do what the Canadian people want, which is call an election and call it today. No more borrowing bills. No more money to the government.


Shirley Maheu: Increasing the debt.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Issue the writ.


Mr. Bjornson:: The public knows this is not an alternative.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The Canadian people do not mind. I love the way the hon. member from Manitoba hurls an insult and leaves just as I love the way the hon. Solicitor General keeps wanting to be excused. I have excused him. He can go.
Let us look at some of the things this government has done to the people of Canada over the last eight years.
Government Orders
In this year of grace alone the deficit has been revised from $27.5 billion to $34.4 billion. For average Canadians worried about their jobs, worried about their children's education, worried about whether their children will ever have a job, worried about whether they are going to have a job next week and worried about the economy generally, it is really wonderful to hear that the deficit has been, and I quote those anaemic not to say banal words, revised upward. It sounds so unthreatening to say that something has been revised upwards.
If we take $27.5 billion from $34.4 billion then we have a huge increase in the deficit from a government that has told us from the day of its arrival in power, a day that shall live in infamy, September 4, 1984, that it was going to deal with the deficit. It certainly dealt with the deficit. Oh, yes. We cannot deny that it has dealt with the deficit, revising it upward and upward every year, every day, every month. Every morning Canadians wake up and they are another $100 million in debt.


An hon. member:: Shame. Shame.


Mary Catherine Clancy: This is the government that wants to borrow more money and take us further into debt. This is the government that is looking for voters' confidence. It is amazing. This is a government that with this kind of record could not get a car loan from a chartered bank.
This same government over eight years has attacked and attacked the fabric of this country and the dreams of Canadians. It has attacked the simple things that every Canadian thought were his or her heritage.
It is absolutely appalling to look at the fiscal record of this government. It is appalling to think that in the 1990s Canadians are as ill-prepared for the future and in as bad a position financially as they are when we are facing the exigencies of the globalization of our economy.
It is beyond belief that a government that has created this snafu, that has created situations in which Canadians no longer feel that there is any hope for the future or that they can trust their government, then comes out with a whole load of theories that are tired and do nothing for individual Canadians. The government does not do the one thing that every Canadian from coast to coast to coast wants it to do: deal with the economy and create some real jobs.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
That is what Canadians want in every riding in this country. Whether it is one of the major Toronto ridings, such as Broadview-Greenwood or Scarborough, smaller ridings in Ontario, ridings in the greater Montreal area, such as Saint-Laurent, Halifax, western Canada, central Canada, northern Canada, urban or rural does not matter.
What do Canadians want? We know what they want. They want jobs. They do not want jobs at fast food outlets that pay them minimum wage. They want jobs that give them hope for the future. They want jobs that give them a chance to provide for their families. They want jobs that give them a decent standard of living. That is the birthright of Canadians. What has this government done? It has taken away their birthright.
Not to pour oil on the fire, I am afraid that attitude is a stupid attitude. In this House, no matter where we sit, we must understand, as our neighbours to the south have understood and as maybe the Solicitor General who still needs to be excused will understand some day, that it is the economy.
There was a phrase said in the United States that I hesitate to use here in this House. I think we all know what it was. It is the economy. It has been the economy. It will continue to be the economy. It is the economy for every man, woman and child in this country. It has become a truism that the best social policy is a job.
In this country today young people come out of training courses, universities and vocational schools and they cannot get jobs. Whether they are trained to be skilled workers, whether they have a Ph.D., a law degree, an MD, an MBA, or a degree in engineering they cannot get a job. There are young people in this country today who have gone five, six, or seven years without anything that remotely approaches a real job. That is a disgrace.
That is something that every one of us should be giving our best efforts toward solving. In this country young people work hard, study hard, learn everything they can and get themselves trained but then there is nothing for them when they come out.
I do not know how many of us in this House have ever gone through a significant period of unemployment. I did once, very briefly. It was about a three-month period. I well remember the feeling of not being able to find a job.
I remember the depression when one realizes that with one's skills and education one still cannot find a job. In this country today there are millions of people in that situation.
What is their government doing for them? Zip. Nothing. What is it doing for those people who have looked to the government for assistance? Nothing. This is not something that any Canadian of whatever political stripe can deal with. This is not something that they should have to deal with. This is something that calls for immediate action.
It is interesting watching our neighbour to the south, the things that happen, the desire for change that is roiling across this country as it roiled across the United States in the most recent election.
We look at President Clinton's announcement yesterday that he is going to immediately introduce an infrastructure rebuilding program. Is that not interesting?


Mr. Butland:: You should have been here last night to vote.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I was here to vote.


An hon. member:: There were eight Liberals.


Philip Derek Lewis: A family feud.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Get out of here. There were more than eight Liberals. There were 80 Liberals here last night.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie cannot count, among other things. The hon. member from Saskatchewan and, again, the hon. Solicitor General should not interrupt. It is rude.
The point is that the President of the United States will introduce an immediate infrastructure package. Who has been saying that in this House for two years? It was the hon. member for Beausejour, the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He has been saying that, as have all of us in the Liberal Official Opposition-as opposed to those persons who have no official status and keep interrupting, and I promise the hon. Solicitor General that it will become more official as the sparks fly upward or should I say as the flames engulf-they are burning in Orillia right now.
February 4, 1993

At any rate, the point is that jobs, jobs, jobs are the answer. We know that is the answer. The time has come to do something about it. The time has come to relieve the anxiety and the out and out fear that is grabbing Canadians by the throat. The time has come for this government to do what governments are supposed to do in this country.


An hon. member:: Resign.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I agree with that too. However, if this government is not going to do what it should do, which is issue the writ now as we are four years and two months past the date of the last election, then it should create jobs for Canadians. That is what this government should do. Creating the climate for a good economy is what Canadian governments-


John Horton McDermid: Climate.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I do not disagree with the hon. minister. He is saying to me "climate" and he is shaking his finger.
I agree with him. Do it.


John Horton McDermid: Not create jobs.


Mary Catherine Clancy: You could create a few jobs too. It has happened in the 126-year history of this country that now and again the federal government has tried to create a few jobs, though I admit not often in the last eight years.
Other governments have created jobs. The sky has not fallen and the capitalist system has not fallen into the ocean. Creating jobs, if it happens to be a by-product of creating the climate to create jobs, is not necessarily a bad thing for the people of this country, particularly when the people of this country are attempting to wend their way out of the worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
We are sitting here in this House today in one of the coldest winters physically and economically that Canadians have ever seen. There is rank and abject suffering out there in this country while we sit here in this House and see no programs being developed to assist people.
Instead we see the creation of institutionalized attacks on Canadian citizens. I refer to Bill C-105, which I understand is not going to be debated today. One can only hope that the government is seeing the error of its ways. I want to talk about that because if the government is not seeing the error of its ways maybe it needs a few stories with human faces about what this bill could do to
Government Orders
the people of Canada if it is left as it was originally introduced.
When I first questioned the government on this bill before Christmas I mentioned the horrors facing Canadian working people who will no longer have the opportunity to be protected by the Unemployment Insurance Act if they quit "voluntarily".
From 1980 to 1984 I chaired the unemployment insurance appeal board in Halifax. I saw many cases of people who quit because of horrendous working conditions. The one I remember most was a man who was working-


John Horton McDermid: That is justification.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I am getting to that.
I understand about justification. If the member will just be a little patient he will see the point to my story.
There was a man who quit his job and was disqualified by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. He came before us as the appeal board to explain the reason that he had quit. He was working on an underground project. Subterranean piping was being put in. It was winter and it was cold. He was wearing rubber protective clothing but because of the temperature in the hole in the ground in which he was working the rubber would freeze and it was very difficult to move. On top of that water from some place or other was pouring down his neck while he was working. He said that he just could not stay there. He was sick every night, he was getting a cold, he was going to get pneumonia and on and on.
In that particular case we allowed the appeal. It went on to the umpire and it lost. The umpire did not want to deny the appeal but said he was forbidden to allow it because of the provisions of the act.
If that situation is not sufficient to create just cause everyone of us can think of thousands of other situations in which working people are going to be at a disadvantage because of employers.
In the entire UI appeals process employers do not even have to show up. The person who has left his job goes to the appeal. If the employer does not want to show up, and it is nothing to the employer, he does not have to come. What about-and I am not going to discuss it to any great extent because I have talked about it before and I will talk about it again in a different context-the whole question of sexual harassment?

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
The Minister of Employment and Immigration responded by saying that sexual harassment is just cause. That is cods wallop. It is not just cause.
This government, this country and this culture do not yet truly recognize that sexual harassment is a creation of offensive behaviour against women. The vast majority of men still do not understand the point. The fact that women are forced to deal with what can only be described as an unfair burden of proof means that they are not going to get their just desserts under this bill. This is just another example of the way in which this government carries on cavalierly in the face of evidence to the contrary and attacks working people rather than creating the right climate, as much as the minister might not like it, and creating some jobs so that people can have a decent life.


Mr. Crawford:: They do not care.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I am afraid the hon. member for Kent is absolutely right. The Conservatives do not care. They will care soon. Within the next six months they will care, but by then it will be too late.
There are so many tragedies developing in this county1 from coast to coast. In my region of Atlantic Canada tragedies in the field of employment, and the lack thereof, are becoming so much the order of the day that they almost do not have any impact any more. People are becoming callous because tragedy is something they deal with eveiy day.
The situation in Port Hawkesbury-am I out of time? I will leave the situation in Port Hawkesbury and just say that this is something the government could work on as well.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I was probably one of the few people in the House who listened to my hon. friend's remarks. I did so because she represents a maritime riding and the estimates include moneys which will go, in part, toward the purchase of the new helicopters.
We have all sat here and listened in amazement as her leader attacked the fisherpersons of this country and attacked the military by saying that the Liberal Party when it is elected would eliminate or cancel the plans for these new helicopters.
In view of the fact that these new helicopters will be used in search and rescue missions, which is very
important to my hon. friend's electorate, and in view of the fact that she has a military component among her electors I wonder if my hon. friend would like to take this opportunity to disassociate herself completely from the remarks of her leader, or does she want to suggest that her electors want to fly about in these 30-year old helicopters that will be 35 years old by the time they are replaced? This has been a devastating attack on people who require helicopters for rescue.
I notice my hon. friend did not participate in any of the questioning on the helicopter issue. I would have thought she would have, unless she really rejected her leader's position on this purchase. It would be good for her to set the record straight. She should start her personal election campaign by abandoning that position. Those helicopters are so old they have almost served longer than the Leader of the Official Opposition and they run the veiy real risk of becoming older than some of her leader's ideas.
I thought it would be appropriate to take this time to put on the record the fact that the member should abandon her leader's old ideas, abandon this nonsense about the helicopters and stand up for her electors in Halifax.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, it always gives me great joy to be questioned by the hon. Solicitor General because he gives me such wonderful material.
I am going to deal with the helicopters, but let me first say that I stood up for my electors about the possibility of putting the women's prison in the greater Halifax-Dart-mouth area, where the facilities are. However the Solicitor General put it in Truro, where there are no facilities. That is all right. I am sure the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester was happy but I do not know about the hon. member for Halifax West.
Allow me to deal with the helicopters. Disassociate myself from my leader? Never. First, Liberals do not do that and, second, my leader is right.
In my riding there is not just a significant military component, as the Solicitor General called it, but the largest military base in the country and we are very proud of that. We are proud of the search and rescue and we are proud of the Sea Kings, which may be old but they do the job. If they were refit and refurbished they could continue to do the job. It is only elderly solicitor generals who have a problem with being over 35.
February 4, 1993

Another very interesting point is that I have another component in my riding. In my riding and close to my riding I have five universities with the highest tuitions, the oldest physical plants and the lowest salaries in Canada. Why do we have this problem in our universities in Atlantic Canada and in my riding of Halifax? One of the reasons is the cuts this government has made to Established Programs Financing, and more so the cuts it has made to R and D.
The five universities in the greater Halifax area heard the Leader of the Opposition say that we would priorize moneys that would have been wasted on nuclear search helicopters that we do not need. I have a news flash for the government: the nuclear threat has reduced and the cold war is over. My leader said that he would priorize that spending and direct it into, among other things, research and development at Canadian universities.
At Dalhousie University, the Technical University of Nova Scotia, St. Mary's University, the Atlantic School of Theology, the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design and at my Alma Mater, which is outside my riding but on the edge of it, Mount St. Vincent University, people cheered when they heard that because they want more research and development. That is what we need and that is what this government will not give us.
If the Solicitor General is so interested in the helicopters can I also remind him about the submarines. His government was going to give us all these submarines.
When I was nominated in 1988 I built my nomination speech around the fact that we did not need or want submarines. Lo and behold I got elected and I am here now. It did not hurt me then and I suggest to the hon. Solicitor General that the people of Halifax know what is smart defence spending and what is not smart defence spending. They will be very happy when we have control of those kinds of budgets and we spend the money in places where it can be best utilized.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party and our colleague from the Liberal
Government Orders
Party have trotted it out yet again: the Liberal policy is municipal infrastructure.


Mary Catherine Clancy: You bet.


Steve Butland: It is very important. They suggest that it is solely a Liberal idea.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Of course it is.


Steve Butland: It is the whole country's idea, with the exception of the people opposite.
Last night the Liberal Party had an opportunity to say in a vote that they support a tri-level, municipal infrastructure rehabilitation, yet the New Democrats were home alone. There were seven Liberals here to vote for the policy, a very important platform in the Liberal policy.
I know in questions and comments the response is often evasive so I am going to ask a specific question of the member and not get off track. Why were the Liberals not here last night to vote for a very important part of their platform, municipal infrastructure?


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, it is very true I was not here last night. When I heard about it this morning I was at first horrified, but then I discovered that the vote last night was on a private member's bill of the New Democratic Party. That is fine. I am glad that party picked up our idea.
It is our idea. We have had motions and private members' bills, votable motions and opposition days on infrastructure. Indeed we even had the government accept some of our policy on the new home ownership project.
I remind my honourable, very kind and truly gallant friend from Sault Ste. Marie that I am awfully sorry we were not here last night. Believe me, if ever in the history of the world right after pigs fly they form a national government, I will be happy to support their infrastructure project.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. friend a very brief question.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
The Liberal Party is laying claim to what was instituted by the Minister of Finance with regard to housing policy as its ideas. Might I remind the hon. member that the ideas did not come from the Liberal Party or from the Conservative Party. They in fact came from the Canadian Home Builders' Association and the Canadian Association of Real Estate Boards. They did not come from the Liberal Party.
I wish she would quit standing up and taking credit for them. She should give credit where credit is due, to the associations that brought the ideas both to the opposition and to the government, and this government listened to them and brought them into effect.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. minister that I am delighted to give credit where credit is due. I have even given some of it to his government.
I would like to add in closing that I wish the Conservatives would steal some more good ideas from anywhere so we could have a few decent programs that the people of this country so desperately need.
The hon. minister could steal a couple more good ideas. I will give them to him, and if he would implement them quickly and create some jobs I would not care if he ever thanked me. As a matter of fact I would not care if he did not even mention my name.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, we are obviously debating the borrowing authority bill. It is quite interesting from the contradictions in the speech of the member for Halifax that she represents the party that is famous for its spending and overspending and famous for not attacking anything or going after any measure that would reduce our debt as a country. The Liberals are for spending more; they are never for spending less.
With regard to some of the specifics she mentioned when she talked about the government creating jobs, I think it is worth mentioning that the point we on this side of the House should make more often is that a government puts in place policies and legislation that create an atmosphere or a climate wherein jobs are created. Her solution is to borrow more money and throw more money at the problem, without attacking the very shaky policies they have had over the years that have created some of the problems we now face. If borrowing more money was a solution to the problem all governments would do it.
There is failed logic in the speech just given by the member for Halifax. She attacked the very thing they have supported for years and years.
A government has to get the fundamentals correct. It has to create a climate wherein people want to invest, businessmen want to take chances, and real jobs are created. I will go through some of the elements that must be present to create real jobs.
I remind the member there are 1.3 million more Canadians working today than when we took office. That is an established fact. There are over 12 million Canadians in the work force. Incidentally those 12 million Canadians in the work force-Canadians who are working today is the way I should phrase it-represent 89 per cent of all Canadians eligible to work who are working. We do have an unemployment rate which is higher than any of us in this House would like to see, but we still have 89 per cent of all Canadians working.
Obviously we would like to achieve 100 per cent. Can we achieve it? Maybe we can, but we achieve it by supporting the types of programs and the types of strategy we on this side of the House support. I want to remind the member what some of those programs are and what we have done with regard to the fundamentals.
Interest rates would be a good place to start. Some 10 years ago perhaps all of us in the House were in the work force, but Canada had 20 per cent interest rates under the leadership of a Liberal government. Interest rates went through the roof; inflation went through the roof.
In Canada today we have the lowest inflation rate we have had in 20 years. We have the lowest interest rates we have had in 20 years. This fosters a climate for investment and is why Canada is predicted to lead the G-7 nations in economic growth this year.
The fundamentals are there and they are working. They are going to create real jobs and real opportunity. That is what we on this side of the House believe.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. He can continue his presentation after Question Period.

It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair till two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
February 4, 1993



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, it may be possible that I will not be here to participate in the debate on the fixed link project so I want to make my views and my strong support known for this 13-kilometre bridge.
As a member of Parliament and businessman in Atlantic Canada for years, I know for sure that the key to Atlantic Canada's economic future lies in the best possible transportation system available. Without proper highways and without this direct connection to the Island, we will never achieve our potential and share in the wealth of Canada.
Currently Prince Edward Island has an unemployment rate almost 40 per cent higher than that of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. It also has a much lower average income. I believe that when the fixed link is completed, Prince Edward Island will be able to compete on a level playing field with the other maritime provinces. This, combined with a proper four-lane highway throughout the region, will allow the entire area to compete with anyone.
Not only will this project provide a competitive infrastructure, it will also attract hundreds of thousands of tourists to our area during construction and after completion. In the meantime it will create thousands of jobs throughout the Atlantic region in a time when we need them the most.
For those of us in the immediate area it is hard to believe that the project is actually about to begin. The concept of a fixed link has been talked about for a hundred years and even as late as two decades ago approaches were-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members from Quebec have once again ignored the needs of their fellow citizens by voting against a motion condemning as unfair, inequitable and far too severe a government policy that introduces cuts in unemployment insurance.
They continue to add to the already heavy burden on people who are in greatest need. They forget they have a duty to defend the interests of their fellow citizens who are barely coping in these difficult times. We must remember that when people lose their jobs and are not eligible for benefits, they have to go on welfare, which means the burden is shifted to the provinces.
We must also remember that the government administers a fund to which it does not contribute one penny. Since only employers and employees pay into the fund, they should at least have some say in the matter and have a chance to consider their future.


NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, when the talking stops and action is required Canadians cannot find the Liberal Party.
The Liberals have changed their position on free trade. The Liberals have changed their position on the GST. On the gulf war they had three different positions over three different days.
Last night, when the House voted on an infrastructure and highways program, the Liberals did not attend the vote. The Liberals knew about the vote. Only six Liberal MPs showed up to support the motion presented by the NDP member for Regina-Lumsden, calling for a national infrastructure program and a highways program.
On 15 occasions since last November the Liberal Party has asked for such a program in this House. Yet last night, when there was a vote on this motion, the Liberals did not attend. Had they attended last night's motion, it would have passed.

February 4, 1993


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, today Le Devoir reports that the Ecole superieure de danse du Quebec in Montreal has informed its teachers and accompanists that there has been a change in policy and they will be obliged to work during a summer course held from June 21 to July 23.
The existing jurisprudence and unemployment insurance manuals refer to section 6.2(5): failure to renew a job contract. According to this section, most teaching contracts are automatically renewed from year to year. A teacher quits voluntarily if he decides not to renew his contract for the coming year.
Fifty per cent of the income of the Ecole de danse du Quebec comes from provincial subsidies. Here we see employers already tightening the screws before Bill C-105 has even been adopted. They are trying to intimidate employees into signing a contract for the summer so they can make more money. At this rate, we must have some amendments to Bill C-105.


ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, children and adults in Davis Inlet have reached the depth of despair when attempts are made to end their lives.
There are 100 of these communities in Canada. We have a Third World problem within our own country. The pattern of disease among Canada's aboriginal people resembles the main killers of the developing world.
As Canada's legislators in this House of Commons we have a moral responsibility to take serious constructive action to address these critical problems. I cannot accept members in this House declaring that this situation is the fiduciary responsibility of a certain province or another. We can no longer allow the aboriginal community to be the ping-pong ball in the jurisdictional debate between the federal government and the provinces.
For years we have been hearing what needs to be done and how we can do it, yet we have continued to
procrastinate. The economic and cultural base of native communities needs strengthening immediately. Action is needed now, not further study.


AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend our government and the province of Alberta for their co-operative efforts in signing the Canada-Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture Agreement.
The goal is to facilitate the conservation and protection of the natural resources that agriculture uses to minimize the impact of agriculture on the environment.
As the member for Wild Rose I applaud both the spirit of co-operation between the two levels of government and the long-range view toward protecting the agricultural environment of Alberta.


Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, this government just does not get it. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development keeps saying relocation of the Davis Inlet Innu is not the answer.
The minister does not understand the difference between a relocation forced on a people and a relocation requested by a people. Sending the children outside their home territory for treatment when they have to return to the same despair and hopelessness they are trying to escape is no solution.
Why will the government not believe the Innu when they say relocation to the site they have chosen on the mainland is their best hope for the fresh new beginning they so desperately need in order to heal themselves?
Time and time again aboriginal people in this country have suffered the consequences of government presuming to know what is best for their interests. This attitude has to stop now.
The government does not know what is best for the Innu. I urge the government to trust the Innu to propose the right solutions for their people. Listen to them and respond. Do not impose outside solutions. The Innu cannot take it any more and we will not stand for it.
February 4, 1993


OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw the spectacle of an Official Opposition depending on political rhetoric and disinformation to satisfy its own partisan ends.
Just now we heard the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre say that the federal government does not participate in any way in the Unemployment Insurance Fund. To a certain extent this is true, but it is not the whole truth, because the federal government has an obligation to make up the fund's deficit.
Even more obvious is the opposition's capacity for condemning and criticizing, without ever suggesting concrete solutions to the problems we are facing in Canada today.
The Leader of the Official Opposition is a case in point. One day he supports free trade and the next he condemns it. One day he supports the GST, the next day he is against it, and the day after he wants to introduce a value added tax. You can never tell what side of the fence he is on.
These people ignore reality and will not face the facts. Above all, they are abysmally ignorant about the taxpayer's ability to pay. And even worse, by spreading false rumours they help create crisis after crisis in this country.


BILL C-91
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, just when the new Clinton administration in the United States is starting to consider ways of controlling escalating drug costs including limits to patent protection, this government pushes ahead with the Senate passage of Bill C-91.
In Bill C-91 the Tory government has complied in advance with the North American free trade agreement.
It has been aided and abetted by the Liberal Party that continues its waffling on free trade.
Last night in the Senate only 30 Liberal senators bothered to show up to vote against Bill C-91. If their full complement of 91 Liberal senators had turned out, this bill would have been defeated.
By their absence the Liberals ensured passage. Liberals once again followed Judy Erola, former Liberal Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and now chief lobbyist for multinational drug companies.
Canadians deserve better representation to protect their rights to affordable health care.


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, I call upon members of this Parliament to abide by the expectations of our constituents wherein they require that this place be a more respectful place. My constituents have heaped scorn upon all political parties for their behaviour.
As we enter into an election period the tendency will be more and more to achieve recognition by the media and hence our constituents, no matter how silly it may be. Exhibitionist acts that appear to defy authority will likely be tempting some.
This Chamber has seen fish, crows, suggestive gestures, profanity and poor acts of righteous indignation, and I question, impressing whom?
If one is incapable of making one's point through the use of intelligence then surely silence should be considered. In respecting this place perhaps it would be wise to consider respecting those from whom we expect respect.


LITERACY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in September 1988 the Prime Minister announced a $110 million initiative aimed at funding literacy activities over a five-year period. At that time he stated:

February 4, 1993
The time is now long since past when government can sit on the sidelines and leave the issue of illiteracy to the efforts of the voluntary sector.
These programs will come to an end in 1993. So far there is no commitment of government intention to continue funding these literacy programs. As we know, literacy is directly linked to poverty and to unemployment.
The government must act to remove the barrier facing the poor. It must ensure a proper funding policy is in place. The government must recognize that literacy is a right of Canadians and not a privilege.
I call upon the government to do the right thing and continue funding literacy programs in Canada.


EATING DISORDERS AWARENESS WEEK
Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Charlesbourg):: Mr. Speaker, this is Eating Disorders Awareness Week, with the theme "breaking stereotypes, celebrating a healthy weight".
The National Eating Disorders Information Centre and other groups all across Canada will tackle the problem of the obsession with slimness and appearance, especially among women. The purpose is to draw attention to the social factors that contribute to eating disorders, like anorexia, bulimia or obsession with slimness. Information on eating disorders will be given to the public to dispel the myths and indicate where to find the appropriate resources.
I am pleased that the messages being conveyed this week are in keeping with this government's efforts to promote the concept of healthy weight. A healthy body can take many different shapes. Having a healthy weight does not necessarily mean being slim.
I want to congratulate the National Eating Disorders Information Centre for all its efforts to draw attention to this important health problem.


VIOLENT CRIME
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Tlranscona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the families of Sherri-Lee and Maurice Paul and Terri-Lynn Babb, three Manitobans who were murdered in the last month by men whom our justice system could not seem to stop by restraining orders from stalking them and killing them.
I also rise on behalf of Mrs. Sharon Jensen, my constituent, whose daughter Marilyn was killed under similar circumstances last year and who despairs about the political system ever reacting to the work that she has done to try to get this government and the Manitoba government to do something about these crimes. She has fought hard to prevent another mother from going through what she has.
On behalf of these families and all Canadian families whose relatives have been taken by or who live in fear of these kinds of acts, I call upon the Solicitor General to take action now to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to ensure that restraining orders are actually worth more than the paper they are written on, and that we as a society do everything we can to ensure that the system does not fail another family in this way.


CRIME PREVENTION
Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important concerns expressed by Canadians is the need for effective crime prevention in our communities.
In the riding of Elk Island citizens from all walks of life have joined together in organizations such as Rural Crime Watch in an effort to make our homes safer and more secure. As a result of many months of hard work these volunteers have set up a province-wide rural crime watch workshop which will take place this weekend in the community of Nisku.
Participants include representatives from municipal, provincial and federal governments, as well as police, judges, prosecutors and farm organizations. In addition student winners of essay and poster contests will be recognized. The theme of the workshop is working
February 4, 1993

together to prevent crime. Let us all work together for safer communities and a better Canada.


NORTHUMBERLAND
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, the major concern of people across this country is the unacceptably high unemployment rate and the persistent economic recession.
Despite the government's insistence that good times are just ahead of us, my riding of Northumberland continues to face new job losses, business closures and bankruptcies. Federal government cutbacks to social expenditures and provincial transfer payments have resulted in Northumberland municipalities from Trenton across to Cobourg and Port Hope scrambling to meet new demands on social assistance programs.
Home owners and small businesses are already strangled by numerous federal tax increases. Consequently, our municipalities feel forced to cut necessary services such as day care, dental care, family counselling services, emergency child services and seniors care services.
This government's insistence on dealing with debt through the cutting of programs has increased hardship across this country. People are our nation's most important resource. The government must introduce programs which will encourage wealth creation in this country, introduce people-centred policies and stimulate a sense of hope in a nation with a great future.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait.


COMMEMORATIVE MEDALS
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, one of the first and most significant events to take place in my riding in this or any other year was the presentation on January 3 of 101 Governor General's 125th anniversary commemorative medals to citizens of Fredericton-York-Sunbury who have distinguished themselves by their contributions to making Canada a better place in which to live.
These 101 medals were intended to honour not just those citizens selected to receive them, but also to reflect real tribute to the thousands of other men and women who regularly help to build our community and our country. In their own way each of them is truly an unsung hero.
Oral Questions
It is fitting that this medal was commemorating our 125th anniversary and hopefully it will help us to dedicate ourselves to Canada's rich destiny in the 125 years which lie ahead.
I want to express my respect and appreciation to His Excellency, the Governor General, for his wise and sensitive judgment in striking these Canada 125 medals.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

["Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richelieu for his question. As with the previous question, I will certainly pass the hon. member's representations on to the government House leader as soon as possible."]
Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister will be meeting with President Clinton tomorrow. President Clinton said he wants new agreements on the environment and on labour conditions to the NAFTA deal before proceeding with NAFTA.
Will the Prime Minister agree with President Clinton tomorrow that he is right in demanding changes to the NAFTA deal?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has got it wrong. President Clinton has said the NAFTA deal will not be changed. He is seeking supplementary agreements to the NAFTA which have nothing to do with the text itself. These have to do with the environment and labour relations.
It also has to do with an arrangement he wants to make with the United States Congress that we have nothing to do with at all. He will ask Congress to increase the amount of labour adjustment policies that they have. That is with good reason because on a per capita basis the Canadian labour adjustment policies such as training and related matters are about two to three times better than those of the United States.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when the President of the United States says that he will not proceed with implementing the agreement between the United States, Mexico and Canada until they have obtained satisfaction on the environment and working conditions, it is quite obvious that he wants changes to this agreement.

February 4, 1993
Oral Questions
Since the President of the United States is asking for changes to the agreement, will the Canadian government take advantage of these discussions to ask that Canada obtain the same conditions as Mexico got with respect to energy policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the President has said quite specifically that he is not seeking, repeat not seeking, changes to the agreement. He is seeking some side agreements, what he has called supplementary accords, with Mexico and to an extent with us. He is concerned as much about Mexican cross-border environmental problems as anything else and those will not change the text of the NAFTA agreement.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the minister is trying to be technical. The President has said the United States will not proceed with NAFTA as long as it is not satisfied that it has the proper conditions concerning the environment and the labour conditions. It is clear that the United States wants some changes.
Will this government take up this occasion to make sure that in the matter of energy Canadians will be treated the same way the Mexicans are being treated by the Americans in that deal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I repeat again, the NAFTA text is not subject to change.
The President has said he is seeking changes with the environment and labour elements that are outside of the text. He is also looking for, as I said a minute ago, changes to the labour adjustment policies in the United States of America. It has nothing to do with Canada.
The fact is that we had been talking about the same type of accord on labour and on the environment with the outgoing administration. We are seeking to continue
those discussions with the incoming administration when they are ready to discuss what the specifics might be.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, given recent U.S. trade actions against pork and steel we assume that the Prime Minister in his conversations with the President will seek from him assurances that that sort of trade harassment is now going to end.
Since President Clinton has said that he will seek two parallel or supplementary accords on the environment and on labour standards will the Prime Minister, for his part, now seek a parallel or supplementary agreement on subsidies and anti-dumping which would prevent the sort of harassment we have been seeing in Canada for the past month?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that question to my hon. friend two days ago.
What we have achieved through the Uruguay round negotiations, which I know he and I both sincerely hope will be completed successfully very soon, is a substantial improvement on the countervailing duty and subsidy arrangements that would affect all countries.
As regards the anti-dumping which is the subject of the steel problems, we and many other countries have tried but there is no willingness on the part of the Americans to change their anti-dumping laws. Their anti-dumping laws are the same as our anti-dumping laws. I am sure my hon. friend is not standing up saying that he wishes to see a reduction or elimination of the protection we have against some actions on the part of American companies hurting Canadian companies.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows in the Uruguay round, the long delayed Uruguay round which we would all welcome, there is provision for a subsidies code.
Will the Prime Minister seek from the President of the United States an assurance that the President will urge an early conclusion of the Uruguay round or if not, that the subsidies code in the Uruguay round be transplanted to NAFTA so we can end this sort of trade harassment we are getting in Canada?
February 4, 1993


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend can be assured absolutely that the Prime Minister will be urging the President to proceed with a satisfactory conclusion of the Uruguay round as soon as possible.
That has been our position for some time now and I will be taking that message to Mr. Kantor when I meet with him. I am sure my hon. friend will be very pleased that will be the position of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, my leader is in Port Hawkesbury visiting the most recent victim of the Canada-U.S. trade deal.
While the Prime Minister said yesterday that the move by Premium Automotive was atypical of Canadian companies, he knows full well as does the Minister for International Trade that since the trade deal was signed over 400,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country. He also knows that the United States administration is harassing Canada on softwood lumber, on steel and on hogs, simply to name a few.
When our Prime Minister visits President Clinton, will he indicate that the Liberal policy of renegotiating the contract is simply not on and that based on the FTA's dismal record Canada will cancel this deal and will not proceed with the North American free trade agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from an objective analysis of the free trade agreement by the C.D. Howe Research Institute:
"It seems clear that the recession has not been due to factors directly related to the free trade agreement. Indeed, the facts so far are more consistent with the optimistic scenario of free trade supporters than with the views of detractors", like my hon. friend. "Free trade with the United States has helped the development of higher value-added industries that are crucial to Canada's economic growth. In particular, many of Canada's manufacturing sectors seem to have performed remarkably well on the United States market under the free trade agreement".
Oral Questions
If my hon. friend needs any proof of this he need only look to the last Statistics Canada trade results for the first 11 months of last year when our exports to the United States were up 11.9 per cent compared to the year before.
If he goes back to 1988 when the free trade agreement started he will see that Canadian exports are up about double the rate as those from Japan, Germany or the United Kingdom into the United States market. Canadian companies are performing well. They are succeeding under the free trade agreement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the minister can say anything he likes but he should recognize that Canadians believe the real way to measure the effectiveness of his policies is by the number of unemployed which continues to escalate in this country.
The minister also knows that again and again we have heard that the Canada-U.S. trade deal was not going to lower our social programs to the lowest common denominator. However, we have an auto parts company in Nova Scotia that may be going to New Hampshire, a U.S. state with no income tax, lax environmental and labour standards and worst of all, an unemployment insurance system just like the one the government is proposing.
Is it a coincidence that this government's Draconian UI reforms conform to states like New Hampshire, or does FTA and NAFTA have something to do with it?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the mind boggles when it hears all the inconsistencies riddling the hon. member's question. If he goes right to the heart of the issue he will find that the company in Nova Scotia makes steel gas tanks. Not many companies are using steel gas tanks now. They are using plastic gas tanks. That is the fundamental problem that company has faced. It has not kept up with the marketplace.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister. The minister is always quoting favourable articles with regard to free trade and NAFTA. Can he explain how an American expert has said that the recent U.S. ruling on steel was an example of harassment, corruption and I quote: "reveals the hypocrisy and absurdity of U.S. dumping off"?

February 4, 1993
Oral Questions
While he is on his feet can he also explain how Canadians can get a fair deal in Mexico when IBM officials say they were told to offer a $1 million bribe in order to get a contract that a Canadian company did not get because of the corruption in that country as well?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend and his colleagues in the New Democratic Party do not want to see the NAFTA proceed. They would like to see a country like Mexico kept at low levels of economic performance and low levels of wealth so that it cannot raise its standard of living, its standards of environmental protection, its standards of health care, not through hand-outs from other countries but through its own sources of wealth that will be generated by the free trade agreement.
Surely my hon. friend can take the blindfold off his face and try to look at the positive elements of this agreement on Mexico. Or does he want to see Mexico stay down so that the New Democratic Party can lord themselves over that country?



Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health. Yesterday the Tory majority in the Senate rammed through Bill C-91 which effectively harmonizes Canadian drug patent laws with that of the United States. At that very same time in Washington, a Senate committee issued a scathing indictment of U.S. drug patent laws, singling out those laws as the prime reason for escalating U.S. health care costs.
I want to ask the minister of health: Since it is clear that the U.S. Senate says that its system is flawed and since President Clinton of the United States says their system is flawed, why on earth are we adopting the very system that they are about to abandon?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we had that debate a few weeks ago and we gave the arguments that should be given in terms of intellectual property.
When my friend talks about the health care system in the United States, he knows very well that it is not a question of drugs management. He knows very well that we do not talk about universality in the United States. We know that even if the Americans are not covered, the Canadian system remains exactly the same.
Once again, we had that debate. We showed the evidence that Bill C-91 was good and fortunately the Senate confirmed the decision of the House.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Arkansas Senator David Pryor, senior adviser to President Clinton, in commenting on this report yesterday said: "Well, what can we do about this situation?" In short, he says that we can shorten the patent life of drug products in the United States. In other words, they could adopt the Canadian system of compulsory licensing, the very system that this government killed last night.
Now that the deed is done, now that the government has killed compulsory licensing, whose interests was this government serving since it is clearly obvious now that it was not the interests of the Canadian public?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer the member by what was said to me yesterday in his own province by a researcher at Dalhousie University. He told me that fortunately Canadian researchers will now be able to keep the property of what has been found in Canada and use it in terms of the way we work. In clinical trials, it will work in terms of the application of that research. It will not go to the United States; it will remain in Canada.
This is exactly why all of the science community is happy with Bill C-91. It represents a big victory for researchers in Canada.


PREMIUM AUTOMOTIVE TANKS INC.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The rantings yesterday of the Prime Minister about the owner of Premium Automotive may make good TV but they do nothing for the unemployed workers who are left out in the cold as a result of his government's incompetence.
February 4, 1993

Oral Questions
Will the Acting Prime Minister instruct the minister for Atlantic development to begin negotiating today with the province of Nova Scotia and with local authorities a plan to create lasting jobs in the Port Hawkesbury area and indeed in the entire strait area?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that officials from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as well as the province are meeting right now to discuss possible ways of seeking new investors and new ways of keeping that facility open.
My hon. friend and I are of the same mind, that if there is any way that we can keep this facility open and maintain those jobs then that is the objective that we both have.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. The people in Port Hawkesbury deserve action from this government.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister again: Will he work with the local authorities to create a comprehensive plan to restore the economic health of that area which has been so sadly neglected by his government over the last eight years?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, now we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. I think my hon. friend must have a very, very short memory. He does not remember that the Cape Breton investment tax credit has been one of the important ways that we have seen jobs created in that part of the country. It has been a very generous tax credit that has generated jobs and has generated opportunities for the people of the country. I think my hon. friend should be reminding his constituents of this because this government has not ignored the plight of those people in his part of the country.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REFORM
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, this morning Le Devoir reported that employers have already started to use Bill C-105 to tighten the screws on their employees.
My question is directed to the Minister of State for Employment and Immigration. When will she realize she has just opened the door wide open to employer abuse of employees and when will she withdraw Bill C-105, once and for all?


Hon. Pauline Browes (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a substantial debate on this issue. Bill C-105 has not come to the floor of the House of Commons for debate to this point.
Let me just remind the member that when we speak of this bill we are looking at whether it is fair that people who are working should be paying for people who choose not to work. Is it fair to restrain the deficit with these measures in terms of people who choose not to work? Is it fair for new workers that come on that employers are able to get those persons without paying UI? Is it fair that more training should be done because of the UI?
I say that this is quite fair.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Mr. Speaker, through you, I want to say to the minister that unemployment insurance is something we all pay for and should not be used as an excuse to impose this burden on the unemployed. It is because of this government's policies that they are being laid off in the first place.
Furthermore, since the beginning of this debate we have heard the government say time and time again that the appeal process will restore the balance. I wish the minister would realize that-


Mr. Speaker:: Please put your question.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: -the process takes months and even years.

Oral Questions
Again, I want to ask the minister: When will she withdraw the bill? That is the only thing we are waiting for.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-105 will come to the floor of the House of Commons with an opportunity to debate. We look to the members of the House of Commons to make any improvements that need to be made at that time.
I want to stress to the people watching today that what this bill is all about is that those people who choose not to work will not get unemployment insurance. There is just cause. There are many reasons why people choose not to work and that would be covered under just cause and those persons would get unemployment insurance. There will be ample opportunity for the discussion of this.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
There is still no resolution to the tragic situation of substance abuse at Davis Inlet. Local people feel that flying children to the United States is not a long-term answer.
I want to ask the minister today to tell the people of Davis Inlet whether he agrees that a treatment program must be culturally based and must be in the Innu language. If he agrees with those principles, will he respond favourably to a request that will come forward from Davis Inlet today or tomorrow based on those lines?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, what I announced yesterday was an immediate answer to an emergency problem with the kids who were involved last week in the gas sniffing problem. Obviously we are waiting for the community. As I said yesterday, no decision will be made which would be contrary to what the community wants to do.
I heard the vice-chief say this morning that they would prefer to have a treatment centre within-not the reserve because they are not reserve Indians-their community.
I do not turn down that proposal. However, tomorrow morning we have people from the federal level and the provincial level who will discuss with people in Davis Inlet. They will certainly come up with a proposal. If the nature of the proposal is the same one that my friend proposes, I will certainly consider that option.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there is a location called Border Beacon just west of Davis Inlet which has an airstrip and facilities and which could be put in place at relatively little cost.
That I believe is the preferred option of the local people. I want to ask the minister whether he believes that is the best option with a holistic approach to treatment. When that proposal for a Border Beacon treatment centre comes forward, will he see that the finances are put in place immediately to fund such a treatment centre?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, my officials have been instructed to discuss that option with the people tomorrow.
However, I want to raise in the House the question of gas sniffing and the problem of suicide, particularly within the aboriginal community. In December I met with the chiefs from different provinces. I will again meet with them in March. The problem is one of the major mental health problems we have with aboriginal people in Canada.
The decision we make for Davis Inlet is very important for those people. We have to keep in mind that the problem goes beyond the people we are talking about. We have to consider all the communities we deal with across Canada.


IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE BOARD
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting minister of immigration.
February 4, 1993

Earlier this week, there were serious charges from members of the Immigration and Refugee Board in Montreal that they were pressured by senior officials to make decisions on refugee applications contrary to the facts. This is a repetition of similar incidents in Toronto last year.
Considering that the Immigration and Refugee Board is supposed to be an independent tribunal, will the government initiate an independent public inquiry into these serious charges and take steps to stop these incidents immediately?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, the comments that the hon. member makes are serious. I would expect that he would be providing details himself of where there are incidents of some wrongdoing.
The Immigration Appeal Board and the Immigration and Refugee Board are independent bodies. They make decisions weighing the facts of the matter. If there is some specific information that the member wishes to share with the department or with me, I would be pleased to review it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered the question.

Last November, Dr. Sam Ifejika resigned from the board in Toronto, alleging that board members were under political pressure. There were also instances of racist remarks, ridicule and mismanagement.
When will the government start cleaning up this very important board and stop its appointments of incompetent political friends?

When will the government take these matters seriously?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, you know that each of the members who are appointed to boards and commissions have the opportunity to be reviewed by standing committees.
I would say there are very few members who have been appointed to such commissions that members of the opposition have taken the opportunity to review. It has been the position of the government that there is an opportunity to review the qualifications of Immigration
Oral Questions
and Refugee Board members. You will find that the qualifications of those persons who have been appointed by Orders in Council to independent bodies have been excellent appointments. Indeed, we are very proud that so many women have been appointed to those boards as well as representatives of visible minorities in order to have proper representation of the Canadian population.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. First, I want to congratulate him on his new post. I see members scurrying about in their seats over there. That is how you get action in the House, Mr. Speaker.
Many of us, including the minister, were in Saskatoon last week for the rally of some 13,000 Saskatchewan farmers. The minister's own department says that Saskatchewan farm income last year was at the lowest level in constant dollars since 1938. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he is ready to make an announcement on a third line of defence, an emergency payout to western farmers which would help not only the farmers but people in jobs in small towns, villages and cities across the prairies.
As a new minister is he willing to look at a new farm policy where farmers are paid a price based on the cost of production with a cap of 7,000 or 8,000 bushels of wheat? This would help the small farmer more than the large farmer. I am asking about the emergency pay out and a new farm program.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member did not point out was that the members who were scurrying around were from his side, rushing back to sit behind him so it would look like he had some support for what he was saying.
The member raises a serious question. No doubt there is concern in the farm community, especially on the grain and oilseeds side of agriculture, as Saskatchewan is the biggest producer of these commodities in the country.
If you look at the programs that the federal government has put in place, the majority of the money that has gone into special programs has gone into the province of Saskatchewan. He might be interested in knowing that the anticipation is that close to a billion dollars will be paid out in farm programs in this calendar year in the province of Saskatchewan.

Oral Questions
It is not all bad news. Cattle prices are very strong. We had a larger than anticipated final payment go out from the Canadian Wheat Board at the beginning of the year. We will be monitoring the situation. We are always willing to look at new programs. What he is suggesting is that we adopt the NDP farm policy. We are not prepared to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister or the Minister for International Trade.
We heard the minister indicate there is no longer much interest from the government in maintaining its third line of defence policy which has been part of the agricultural promise for the last couple of years.
I want to ask what became of the support levels for the supply managed part of agriculture, which was made very firm last February 18 to a very large group of farmers in this capital. Now the international press reports often that Canada's position is tariffication. What became of the promise to those farmers who were gathered here last February? The government said it would not support tariffication but would support a strengthened article XI.
Why do all of our negotiators-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask hon. members to perhaps put some constraint on the length of their questions. The hon. minister.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the position has not changed. The position is precisely the same as has been stated for I think over two and a half years now. It is a balanced position in support of a clarification and strengthening of article XI, together with the position taken in support of the export interests particularly in the grain and red meat sector.
This is precisely the position our negotiators in Geneva have taken right up until the present time and will continue to take.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Louise Feltham: Mr. Speaker, my question today is addressed to the Minister of Justice.
Many people in Wild Rose are concerned about the Young Offenders Act, particularly as it relates to age and repeat offenders.
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if consideration is being given to revising the Young Offenders Act to lower the age from 18 to 16 years and to deal more severely with repeat offenders.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an important point. As we all know, this House approved Bill C-12 last year where young offenders who have committed crimes like first degree and second degree murder could be transferred to adult court. We have addressed that point.
The other point is repeat offenders, not only for young offenders but all criminals who repeat offences. There is a sense in the country that we should look at this more closely.
I should be ready to get back to the House later this spring to address the specific issues and make sure that people will feel more secure in their homes.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services.
Yesterday the minister flatly denied in Hansard at page 15326 that the former chief policy adviser to the Prime Minister was the lobbyist on the EH-101 helicopter contract.
I have in my hand a copy of the registry of lobbyists with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs where Fred Doucet Consulting International is registered as a lobbyist. In addition, on checking the files I have discovered that the same company has written to
February 4, 1993

no less an authority than the director of the Liberal Research Bureau last June lobbying on behalf of the EH-101 contract.
Given that the minister was flatly wrong in his assertion yesterday with respect to the former senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister, I suggest that perhaps he was wrong as well in his assertion that all contracts had been signed.
Is the minister now willing to correct the record with respect to the senior lobbyist and also to table the contracts on this questionable expenditure at this time?


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for putting this question. I reiterate and confirm what I said yesterday and what in fact he said today.
As a matter of fact Mr. Doucet is not a lobbyist for EH-101 but is a lobbyist for Paramax. That is a different thing.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Wyatt Dick: If the hon. member wants to be accurate, why does he not try to be accurate for a change instead of trying to mislead people.
If the hon. member would like to know about the contract, as he indicates for the record on television, since the contracts were announced or the announcement that they were going this way on contracts signed last October, why have you never asked for this matter to come before committee? We could have discussed the contents of the contract in general before committee any time, but you only do your grandstanding here.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: We have a long tradition in this House of not addressing members or ministers in Question Period or any other time personally, but through the Speaker. I know that the hon. minister would want to stay consistent with that. The hon. member, a supplemental.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, we have a saying in Newfoundland that that kind of an answer really takes more nerve than a masked toothache to produce.
For the minister to suggest that Fred Doucet, the former senior policy adviser to the Prime Minister is not a lobbyist for EH-101 but is a lobbyist for Paramax, which is the main Canadian contractor on EH-101, is some-
Oral Questions
what ridiculous and insulting to the intelligence of Canadians.
I want to ask the minister this. The Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday and I have asked again today for the government to table the contract, specifically to table whatever clauses have been inserted to try to impose upon a future government an obligation to carry on with this contract.
What is the minister afraid of? It is the taxpayers' money. They have a right to know.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your comments earlier and I will of course try to direct all comments through you.
It is unfortunate that the histrionics put on per usual by the hon. member who is asking a question derogate from the seriousness of the matter. If he was serious he would ask us to come before a committee and he has not. As far as I know, there has never been a contract tabled in this House of the type he has been asking for in the 20 years I have been here. He is aware of this fact. He is acting only for the television show.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and concerns the administration of the postal service in Canada.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister say why the post office in Martintown, Ontario, with a population of 1,500, and the one in Saint-Clement de Riviere-du-Loup, with a population of 1,200, had to close when the postmaster retired, whereas Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive, with a population of 600, and Bras-d'or, with a population of 121, still have a post office after the postmaster retired? Is it because they are in the Prime Minister's riding or is that a coincidence?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell knows very well that Canada Post makes its decisions without any intervention from the government. However, I might remind him when he refers to the Prime Minister's riding, for example, that Canada Post changed the service in five municipalities in that riding. So that riding is not an exception; it is like all the other ridings in Canada.

February 4, 1993
Oral Questions


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In one town, population 121, Canada Post tried twice to advertise to hire a postmaster. Nobody applied and the post office is still open.
I want to ask the minister, is that not a two-faced policy on the part of Canada Post? Why is there a set of rules for the Prime Minister and one for the rest of Canadians?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the government does not intervene in the operations of Canada Post. We do not intervene for any constituency, even for the constituency of the Prime Minister. If we did intervene the hon. member would be the first one up on his feet to blame us.


EXCISE TAX
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue and concerns Hibernia. We now know that some supermodules might be built outside the country. In that regard, Revenue Canada has already made a ruling that a 25 per cent tax which is normally payable would not apply. This decision could hurt our Canadian manufacturing companies. Can it be appealed?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, an extensive survey was conducted, including sending out formal questionnaires to the industry, some time ago to determine whether Canadian companies were able to comply with the made in Canada provisions of the Customs Tariffs Act.
After careful consideration it was determined that the Canadian companies which had responded-and all were contacted-had indicated they were not. Only then was a decision and ruling made.
Having said that, I can assure the hon. member that if Canadian companies come up with new information I would be very happy to instruct my officials to meet with them to review their case and look at the situation again.


HIGHWAYS
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The economic future of Atlantic Canada depends totally on transportation. The most important aspect of transportation in Atlantic Canada right now is the completion of a four-lane highway. This is not a road issue, it is just simply our future because we cannot compete without it.
The commitment of the government of over $2 million to cost share and considering the urgency of the matter to the region, will the minister deliver this $2 million program over two years?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the Government of Canada has made generous contributions-if he allows the expression-to provincial highways over the past few years. As a matter of fact during the past 10 years we have devoted $230 million to provincial highways.
Out of the economic statement of my colleague the Minister of Finance in December, we have allocated $200 million to be spent in both maritime provinces. The discussions are ongoing as to the spending of this money over what period of time and in what provinces and we hope to make an announcement shortly.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Supply and Services concerning the helicopters.
In a letter to me dated October 14, 1992 the minister advised me that the prime contracts with Paramax were still under consideration and discussion so he could not tell me what the terms and conditions were. However, yesterday he told the House that the deals were completed on October 8. Even then the minister was trying to hide the facts on this misguided deal.
Will the minister not agree that whatever the cancellation costs on this deal, they are but a fraction of the costs to the Canadian people of this misguided transaction and that the deal should be cancelled now before more billions of dollars of public moneys are wasted?
February 4, 1993


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in November 1990 the standing committee on national defence reported on maritime sovereignty.
In recommendation No. 9 the committee recommended that the Sea King be replaced. In recommendation No. 10 it recommended that air surveillance capability of the Canadian forces be increased. In recommendation No. 11 it recommended that the better equipment needed for search and rescue be provided.
I want to point out in a separate aside that the hon. member who just asked the question supported the replacement of the Sea King helicopter. Has he changed his opinion?


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be quite aware that reference was to the deep sea fleet and since that report the cold war has ended. The Soviet Union has collapsed and is no longer a military threat to this country, a fact apparently the minister was not aware of when he signed this deal in October 1992.
Will the government not now concede that the Department of National Defence in seeking to justify this has misled Canadians and that the pilots who use these Sea King helicopters in search and rescue have advised the government that they are far better helicopters than these multimillion dollar helicopters the government is wasting its money on?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question I want to tell him that as far as I know the cold war was over long before 1990 when he agreed that we needed these helicopters.
All the evidence and all the options are here and the hon. member will get them in his briefing tomorrow. All the options are just as expensive as the option which the government has followed.
The government has not misled the people. We have talked consistently about the EH-101 since 1986 when it was one of two options then put before the government by those submitting tenders. The government announced its proposal in 1987.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader with regard to the business of the House for the remainder of today and Friday and Monday and Tuesday of next week.
Perhaps while the parliamentary secretary is on his feet he might want to indicate what date the government is contemplating proroguing the House to bring in a new throne speech.
In addition I note that the Minister of Finance has left the Chamber, but perhaps the parliamentary secretary would share with the House the date the budget will be announced.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I will answer my hon. friend's question on behalf of the government House leader. This afternoon we will be continuing with third reading of Bill C-98, the Borrowing Authority Act. If time permits and with the co-operation of my friend and also my friend from Kamloops we have a number of pieces of legislation lined up: second reading for Bill C-93, the government organization bill; third reading of Bill C-69, the air and maritime safety act; and second reading of Bill S-8, the motor vehicle safety act.
Tomorrow we will continue with unfinished business from today, after which we will deal with the Senate amendment on Bill C-54, the farm products marketing act, and report stage of Bill C-73, the Canada Post Act.
On Monday we hope to complete second reading of Bill C-110, the Northumberland Strait Crossing Act, and second reading of Bill C-99, the small businesses loans act.
Tuesday will most likely be an allotted day and discussions will continue with the House leaders with regard to the business for the remainder of the week.
With regard to the other two questions asked by my hon. friend, to my knowledge there are no plans to do these things in the immediate future.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. minister a question. He knows that we worked for a long time together on amendments to the Parliament Act, but two other bills took a great deal of time of some members on all sides of the House. The first is on conflict of interest, which we have reported; the second, a very important one, is the amendments to the Elections Act which we reported in December.
Can the minister give us an indication as to whether the government intends to present at least one of these bills to Parliament, but especially the first part of our suggestion on amendments to the Elections Act, tabled in late December, at the last minute, when we were given all kinds of indications that we could expect this bill to be submitted to Parliament very soon and that it would be sent to the appropriate parliamentary committee so that we could have at least some of those amendments in place for the next election?


Marcel Danis: I thank my hon. friend for his question. Like him, I hope that hon. members will be presented in the near future with a bill to amend the Elections Act. My hon. friend knows very well that this kind of legislation requires a consensus of the political parties, and that is what we are working on now. But I am hopeful that we should be able to present a bill, as he suggests. I thank him for his suggestion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, earlier my colleague the opposition House leader asked specific questions regarding the throne speech and the new budget. Before Christmas we were told that this would likely occur in early February. Because of the uncertainty that exists around this issue I also pose the question to my friend. Could he at least give us some general indication when the government will introduce a throne speech and a new budget in the hopes of establishing some new direction for the country?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, as I told my hon. friend the opposition House leader my answer is the same for the NDP House leader. To my knowledge the government has no plans to proceed with that in the immediate future.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my House business question relates to the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs earlier today which asks that the government not proceed with legislation on the Nunavut land claims settlement until the minister has had a chance to go before the committee
and also to discuss this issue with the representatives of the Dene in Saskatchewan and the Dene in northern Manitoba.
I would like to hear from the government House leader that there are no plans to proceed with this legislation in the very near future.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question of my hon. friend as representation and certainly pass it along to the government House leader.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the same minister a question. We know that Bill C-88 to amend the Copyright Act has been long awaited by all Quebec and Canadian authors. It only has to pass report stage and third reading. Can we hope that this will be done in the very near future?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Richelieu for his question. As with the previous question, I will certainly pass the hon. member's representations on to the government House leader as soon as possible.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1992, be read the third time and passed.
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, this morning I was going over some of the things we have done as government in terms of the fundamentals. I suggested that we have those well in place and positioned to do very well as the economy continues to grow.
I mentioned interest rates. Interest rates are the lowest they have been in 20 years, as is inflation and our productivity has grown remarkably in the last couple of years. In terms of the fundamentals we are in a position that our economy can grow. It has been suggested by the G-7 nations that of all the G-7 nations, and most economic think-tanks including many Canadian think-tanks are telling us that in 1993 Canada will lead the rest of the world in growth. It is simply because of the fundamentals we have in place that will allow our Canadian economy to grow.
February 4, 1993

Today we are debating a borrowing bill. We are talking of borrowing somewhere in the vicinity of $8 billion in borrowing authority. Those on the other side of the House are appalled by the fact that the Government of Canada has to borrow $8 billion. That is about the only thing we agree on, because none of us can take a whole lot of pleasure in knowing that the Government of Canada has to borrow money to keep going.
That is where our agreement ends because since I have been in this House, the other side has never offered any suggestions that would eliminate the need to borrow. That is what we want to do. We do not want to borrow money, but the reality is we are in the position that we have to. In fact, if the spending habits of the Liberals when they were in power had continued when we took office, we would not be talking about borrowing $8 billion today. We would be talking about borrowing $16 billion to just compare our numbers with theirs.
In other words, the amount of accumulated Canadian debt today would not be in the order of $400 billion. It would be pushing close to $900 billion, in fact close to $1 trillion if we had continued in the same line the Liberals practised during their regime back in the late 1970s leading into the early 1980s right up until the time we took office in 1984.
None of those individuals on the other side of the House have ever supported any of our measures in attempting to trim or reduce the size and spending of government. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this issue.
What comes to mind are some of the positions the leader of the Liberal Party has taken in the last number of weeks. I would like to read the entire editorial in today's The Ottawa Sun. It is entitled "Vanishing act". I think it very well sums up the position of the Liberal Party under its leader:
Jean Chretien has come up with his own Liberal brand of voodoo economics by promising taxpayers that a future Liberal government would simply wave a magic wand and make the nasty old GST disappear.
Trouble is, when you see through the smoke and mirrors you discover the Liberals would actually replace the unpopular tax with a brand new business transfer tax of their own.
Government Orders
In this article he calls it a sort of Grit sneaky tax. He says:
Make no mistake: This scam is little more than a hidden tax intended to fool taxpayers.
Under the plan, businesses would be required to total their sales, subtract their costs, and then pay a percentage back to the government.
The poor consumers would still have to pay higher prices, of course. They just wouldn't see it spelled out in bold print on their receipts at the checkout counter in the form of a 7% tax.
It goes on to say:
Taxpayers aren't about to be tricked by the sleight of hand, not when their money rides on the cards.
If Chretien is to replace the GST, he must find a credible way to raise the $15 billion in lost revenue.
But if a hidden business transfer tax is his idea of tax reform, then Chretien had better do his homework before hitting the hustings.
Taxpayers' memories aren't that short. They remember the GST was intentionally not buried into the price of goods and services so as to stop future governments like his from hiking it every time they need a fresh injection of cash.
That was the one modest concession taxpayers received-an assurance that no future government of any political stripe could raise the tax without immediate hell to pay from the taxpayers.
In conclusion, it says:
Putting the tax out of sight won't put it out of mind for voters, no matter what Chretien thinks.
For that reason he should think again.
Getting back again to the point which I am attempting to make, we do have a huge debt problem in this country. It is not going to go away by simply waving a magic wand. The Canadian people know that, the Liberal leader does not. If he is talking about eliminating the GST, he is fooling no one but himself.
There are only three basic ways for governments to tax. It can tax income, it can tax capital and it can tax consumption. If one of those areas is eliminated, which the leader of the Liberal Party is suggesting, the consumption tax, there are only two other areas in which he can tax. That is what he has to grapple with and that is why I am suggesting the Canadian people will understand when it comes time to vote. They do not want any more smoke and mirrors, they want the truth. The truth is the Government of Canada cannot forgo $15 billion in tax.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
That is not the only thing the Liberals have said in regard to the tax over the last number of years. Originally they condemned us for having to deal with the idea of taxation. I guess they believed that if we did go ahead with that tax and if we did bring in a new GST that our political life would be threatened. They could march into office without having to say anything and without having to show their hand. That is exactly what they are doing.
A $400 billion debt is a problem for any government. It is a problem for ours. I am suggesting that if we had followed the course laid out and that is being laid out now by the Liberal Party, that debt today would have doubled and we would really be behind the eight ball.
There are many ways to measure debt. The way I would like to measure it today would be the measure of debt that we have in this country in relation to the goods and services produced in this country. In other words let us measure our debt against our gross domestic product and find out where we stand.
In 1984 when we took office, the debt or deficit when measured against the goods and services produced in this country was in the area of 9 per cent. In the last eight years, we have reduced it to the level of 4.5 per cent.
We are on the right track. It is going to be a long and painful recovery but we are not going to achieve results by attempting to fool the Canadian people and in a sense, fooling ourselves.
We will continue to attack the problem and we will continue to take the political heat for having done it. At the end of the day, the Canadian people are going to figure it out. They are going to tell us that we on this side of the House have done what was necessary. It was not popular but it was necessary.
I am going to leave it at that. I know that we have 10 minutes of questions and answers. I will be pleased to answer any questions from the other side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions or comments.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I know the previous speaker is very sincere in what he
says. We believe that it is the wrong and inappropriate course to take. We will continue to attack. I suggest that they are attacking the wrong things. The Canadian public acknowledges the fact that the attack is on the wrong places.
His demeanour is a little bit better than the tenor of the debate this morning. It got a little bit rancorous when a pre-election type of mood was prevalent in the Chamber. This morning one hon. member indicated to the hon. member from Brampton that he was stupid. That is totally inappropriate. There is no place for that in debate. It continued to get worse and worse and really debased the House. At least I acknowledge that the hon. member is sincere in what he says even though he is probably totally incorrect.


An hon. member:: And misguided.


Steve Butland: I should add totally misguided. This is the borrowing authority where the government wishes the authority to borrow another $8 billion to expend in areas which it should not. Its priorities are totally misguided. We are talking big bucks here. Yet to bring it into total perspective, I was totally shocked that the Minister of Labour, in response to a letter from a constituent, came to tell me that the federal minimum wage is $4 an hour. Very few people know that. I could not believe it at first. I am incredulous that the federal minimum wage is $4 an hour.
In Newfoundland, the minimum wage is $4.75; in P.E.I. it is $4.75; in Ontario, not surprisingly it is $6.35. However the federal government's minimum wage is $4 per hour. The minister says he is going to take a look at it.
We are talking about borrowing millions of dollars and we cannot afford to raise the wages of those very few people who earn as little as $4 an hour. The government should give a late Christmas present to these people and give them an instant raise to about $6 an hour. We are looking to borrow millions of dollars and we cannot afford to give a person who is making $4 an hour any kind of increase. The last increase was from $3.50 to $4 in 1986. We are talking about priorities. That is the kind of misguided priority this government has.
February 4, 1993

We talk about deficit. We have a certain amount of sympathy for deficit reduction, but at the same time on whose back does the deficit reduction have to fall?
I know that Ontario has been hardest hit by the recession. Seventy-nine per cent of all job losses have been to Ontario; 54 per cent of the increase in unemployment is in Ontario; 37 per cent of Canada's population is in Ontario; 39 per cent of total bankruptcies are in Ontario. The federal government has continued to pass the buck but not the bucks. They have passed the buck to the province and the province in turn, without choice, has to pass the buck to the municipalities.
The latest initiative by the federal government, which has not come forward yet because there are discussions, are the grants in lieu of taxes. Federal buildings and properties in municipalities across this country are not taxed. The federal government will pay a grant instead of taxes. It may very well be appropriate.
However, right now the government is saying it might have to cut back on the grants to the municipalities. As a result, the buck will again be passed to the municipalities. This time the province is bypassed. The municipalities will have to increase the tax base within the municipality and the local politicians will have to take the heat for that. Once again the federal government chooses to pass on the responsibility. It is letting someone else take the heat of its actions.
I suppose there is a ray of hope. Government members say the recession is over, and I would be very happy if I completely believed it. One gentleman on Bank Street at the Camera Exchange has been in that location for 12 or so years. I do not think he would be concerned that I am mentioning the name of the business. He has a big sign saying: "I am sorry, I did not know the recession was over but I am now bankrupt". Many Canadians can relate to that.
Statistics Canada says the recession is over, but certainly we have no indication that it is. Statistics may say one thing, but reality says something else. There are a number of bankruptcies at present and the number continues to escalate. The number of unemployed remains at 11.8 per cent. In my community it is about 16 or 17 per cent. I suggest in some communities it is probably
Government Orders
a lot higher than that. There is always somebody worse off than you.
I want to go back to priorities. The government continually looks for villains. It says to the unemployed that if you quit your job or leave it under circumstances which it does not approve, then it is going to have to cut your unemployment insurance. The villain in this case is made out to be the people who leave their jobs for one reason or another, but no one in this government ever talks about those other villains. Perhaps the terminology is inappropriate. Erase the word villains. Other individuals who could be responsible for part of this deficit that we have accumulated, all of us.
No one in this government has yet responded in any sensible way at least about the family trusts. The wealthiest families in this country are able to set aside millions and millions of dollars for their children. The previous government said it was going to give them 25 years and they could pay taxes on those millions and millions and millions of dollars in 21 years.
This government said that 21 years was not long enough to get their finances in order, so it is going to wait until the last child of that family passes away. They may need another 21 years. If you are a multimillionaire you may have 35 years to get your finances in order.
What happens when a constituent calls my office and says that Revenue Canada is breathing down his neck? Let us say he owes $1,200 and he cannot pay it. Revenue Canada is calling his place of employment saying if he does not pay soon he will be in trouble. That is the problem. We are not pointing to the people we should. Come on, get involved with the deficit reduction. We do not hear from this side.
Certainly not one of our big fans is Diane Francis who has written a book called Controlling Interest. I recommend this reading for the Conservative members who are here and those who are not here. It talks about the wealthiest families in this country. Canada has one of the greatest concentrations of wealth in the whole world. She says that fewer and fewer people are controlling more and more of the country's finances and if we do not force them to pay any income tax, they will continue to get richer and richer.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
They are the paper entrepreneurs. There is not even any money exchanged, it is just paper, but they get wealthier and wealthier. This government says it does not want to tax them at this time. It wants to give them a little while longer.
One of the reasons the government gave was they may have a disabled child and want to provide for their future. If you are a multimillionaire and you have a disabled child, I would hope that you would care for that child. To say that you have to pass this legislation to protect this child is just not acceptable. It is incredulous. You would perhaps put a small little adjunct to a piece of legislation to say okay, if there is a disabled child in the family, allow them to do this but not to exempt everybody.
I would recommend this book. This is good reading because Diane Francis is a big supporter of these folks, a great friend, but in this she says something is dramatically wrong.
The government continually says we have got to have our fundamentals. The Prime Minister says every day we have to get our fundamentals right before we move forward. I keep repeating that after eight years of just about anything, if you do not have the fundamentals right you have obviously failed. It is obviously time to change direction. You have to get beyond the fundamentals.


An hon. member:: Falling flat on them.


Steve Butland: Falling flat on your fundamentals.
I was a teacher for 28 years. If I could not teach the fundamentals to somebody in eight years, I would have been on my head. You are an absolute failure as a teacher. Therefore you are an absolute failure as a government. You cannot blame the student and you cannot blame the residents of this country for your failures. Please get off that fundamental kick. You had better change the fundamentals.
I want to talk about Hibernia for a few moments. Hibernia is a massive project, $5.2 billion. We support the project but Canadians are saying we want our fair share of the contracts. The government is a shareholder and an investor. Last year Algoma Steel lost a contract
to a Belgian steel company. I went to St. John's. Believe me, they were very hospitable. I think they had very good explanations at that time, but we were convinced that Belgium was dumping steel in Canada.
This past week MIL Davie of Quebec said it was not even allowed to bid on a contract for steel. It went to South Korea. It was not even allowed to bid.
The minister is up on this. He said yesterday that there are steel companies that are going to benefit from a rebar contract next week. I have been told on many occasions that if any other country had a megaproject of that size, there would be an absolute guarantee, not a target, a guarantee that there would be jobs created in that country because of such a project.
Trade deals? Obviously miserable failures. We are losing our manufacturing base. In 1990, of the jobs created in Canada, I believe 91 per cent were service oriented. I have nothing against service oriented jobs, but you cannot base a country's future strictly on service oriented jobs.
I am going to recommend more reading: The Work of Nations by Robert Reich who is perhaps the main architect of President Clinton's new economic policies in the United States. He is an individual with a very refreshing sense of a new direction for the country. I listened in on his confirmation hearings. He talked about labour law. He said he was going to introduce anti-scab legislation and there was not a whimper, not a whimper from Republican congressmen.
Yet the Ontario government talked about that and, lo and behold, we thought for sure the sky would fall and every business would leave Ontario, we could be assured of it. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you see the irony of this.
In The Work of Nations Mr. Reich talks about why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. In the United States he said fewer and fewer people are in control of more and more money. That left the poorest fifth of Americans by 1990 with 3 per cent of the nation's total income, down from 5.5 per cent 20 years earlier. It is called the old trickle down economics. If we just leave it to the market to decide, it will indeed decide. It will decide to keep it to the upper level of the country, not to the bottom group. We have to learn to be more equitable in everything we do in this country.
February 4, 1993

The GST is the most hated tax ever brought about by any government. I did a survey of all the businesses in my community. I thought businesses were big supporters of the government. No. They said: "Scrap it. Scrap the GST because we cannot afford it, it is an administrative nightmare. Everybody who buys something from me says I am at fault for this." It has created more underground trade than ever before. It just was the wrong tax at the wrong time. It is a hated tax. Every single day and with every single purchase people are reminded. They have a genuine distaste.
Of course the government is going to say: "It is a lot of money. We make a lot of money out of the GST. What are you going to do? How are you going to get it?"
Neil Brookes of Osgoode Hall, a renowned economist, has identified a series of tax breaks that cost the Canadian treasury more than $8 billion a year and primarily benefits business and the rich. He said that we could scrap them without harming the economy. Rather than demanding lower taxes, Canadians should be demanding fairer taxes and a better social welfare system.
Again, if people are on any government assistance they are painted as being a freeloader, they do not want to work, they have no ambition and we should not be paying them what they are receiving. I say in many other countries in this world, in countries which have economies that are doing quite well, they do not point out these people as being free loaders. They say it is just fine. It is an acceptance and I give them credit. However, through a continual barrage of negativism we bring the load from those up here to those down here. It is misplaced, misguided, unfortunate and inappropriate. One would wish that we would stop on that kind of bent.
Municipal infrastructure I know has been a random shot. Let us get on with it. I think everybody but the government says: "Let's go for it". Sixty-three thousand jobs created almost instantly. It says it is going to cost us too much. It is going to cost us $400 million in the deficit over a five-year period. That is not too much.
I could see the psychological lift. People have given up hope. They say that if they get the fundamentals right any longer we will all be gone. There will not be a country, there will not be an economy left. For God's sake, do something. This is one thing that is a very
Government Orders
positive step. Everybody is ready to go ahead. They have all the engineering. Every municipality is saying they have problems but they are prepared to get involved. The provinces are prepared to get involved.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill.
I want to begin by referring to some remarks that government members said repeatedly during their speeches today. I refer specifically to the member for Carleton-Charlotte and the member for Brampton who kept saying that the government is creating a climate where jobs can be created. They kept repeating that phrase "creating a climate where jobs can be created". The other sentence they repeatedly used was: "We are making sure the fundamentals are right; we are putting the fundamentals in place".
I say to the government that inflation, and I cannot debate this point with them, is under control. I give the government credit for that. I have said before in this House that I think its ratchet on inflation is too aggressive. I think that the expense in terms of the number of people who are unemployed is too severe. Having said that, I acknowledge that the almost zero inflation in this country is something that the government should get recognition for. I would also say that because of that we have lower interest rates. That is as far as I go with this government.
I happen to believe that the fundamental issue that the government has ignored has been the tax system of this country. This government came to power in 1984 with a very strong commitment to comprehensive personal and corporate tax reform. Here we are nine years later and we still have probably the most complicated, most complex tax act in the world.
Even the best tax lawyers and tax accountants in this country will readily admit that this tax act is an unmitigated disaster. The rules, regulations, exceptions and the exceptions to exceptions make it an instrument that only very few can use.
I believe, and I have believed this for three years, that this tax act is one of the most fundamental reasons why there is absolutely no trust and no confidence or spirit or very little spirit or confidence left in this country.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
A tax act should be considered something that is good. The tax act is mostly built on trust and has to meet certain tests. It must be fair, it must be simple and it must be efficient. This tax act does not meet any one of those tests.
In fact, last year 80 per cent of the tax returns filed in this country had mistakes in them and they had to be returned to be corrected. What a waste of money. What an inefficient instrument. The only people who really know how to use this instrument are the corporations whose wealth, sales, profits and retained earnings are so large that they can afford expensive tax lawyers and tax accountants.
A senior official of one corporation in this countiy whose sales are in the billions of dollars told me: "I have 40 tax lawyers working for me. With this tax act I have orchestrated a situation so that I have not had to pay tax in 10 years". It is all legal. There is nothing illegal. It is just this 20-year document from budget after budget, Liberal and Conservative budgets. I am not saying that we have not played a part in building up this complex and archaic instrument. The bottom line is that this tax act has now broken the trust we have with average Canadians.
That is the reason that for the last three years I have been trying to advance debate with a constructive alternative to this tax act. The idea I have been proposing is the single tax system. This is not an idea that I created. It is an idea that has been debated for 15 or 20 years. Some would argue that the idea goes back 40 or 50 years.
My initial source of information on this idea came from respected economists at Stanford University, Dr. Robert Hall and Dr. Alvin Rabushka. They are Americans but the same basic principle applies here. In their presentation of the single tax system they basically argue that because the tax act has reached such a level of unfairness, complexity and inefficiency we must get back to basics. We must stop running the economy of the country through the tax act. We should go back to using the tax act as an instrument just for collecting revenue for the treasury, for collecting the amount we need to ensure that our health care system and our social security systems are all looked after.
The tax act should not be used for other economic instruments. In other words we should flush out all the loopholes, flush out all the corporation loopholes and all those exceptions and those exceptions to exceptions. If a particular corporation needs money from the Government of Canada, regardless of whether it is in the energy sector, the forestry sector or a manufacturing sector, let it come to the respective department of government and put forward its case. Make the corporation justify it in terms of job creation and let the line department grant it the money, whether through an interest free loan or a grant, and link it to job creation. Let the political fathers decide whether that taxpayers' money should go out.
Right now, we have a tax act under which between $30 billion and $40 billion worth of grants are going to business with absolutely no accountability. There are corporations in this countiy that are using tax preferences, some of them 15 years old. They were given it for a policy objective that was maybe relevant 15 years ago but is no longer relevant today. It is buried in the act and so they get that tax preference. It is nothing more than a grant to corporations.
We on this side of the House talk about examining alternatives to the GST, and my leader has stated unequivocally that we are going to scrap the GST. We are going to scrap the GST because the GST was a very poorly designed tax implemented at a very bad time. The concept of a consumption tax is not a bad idea but this government has designed the tax so poorly that it has really been the straw that has broken the camel's back, in terms of the spirit or the attitude of Canadians toward tax policy in this country. Nothing less than the scrapping of the GST will be acceptable to Canadians. Make no mistake about it, my leader is not fudging on this particular commitment. He is not fudging. It is not going to be a maybe yes and a maybe no. The GST is going to be scrapped.
The government is always asking, as are journalists and other so-called experts, where we are going to get the $15 billion to replace it. There are many areas in which we can pick up $15 billion.


An hon. member:: Name a few.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am going to name many right now. First, as a result of the current unfairness, inefficiency and complexity of this tax act, which this government supports, we right now have an underground economy in this country second to Italy. It is over $100 billion. If
February 4, 1993

members do not believe me then they should phone Professor W. E. Diewert at the University of British Columbia. He has spent the last 10 years of his life studying the underground economy in Canada. If we have a fair, simple and efficient tax system in this country some of that underground economy will come back on stream. That is one source of funds.
Second, I support the NDP 1,000 per cent with respect to trust funds. There are guestimates that there are anywhere from $20 billion to $50 billion in those trust funds. I actually know some people who have those trust funds and quite frankly I do not think some of them would mind. That law was an Edgar Benson law, it was a Liberal law made 21 years ago. Do not nail me today for something we did 21 years ago. We must change that trust law. There is probably $2 billion or $3 billion that we could take out of those trust funds without affecting those people in any way, shape or form. That is the second area from which we can get some revenue.
Third, last year taxpayers paid about $69 billion in personal income tax. Corporations paid about $11 billion to the treasury, and of that figure $8 billion was paid by small business. Only about $2.5 billion came from large business, mostly foreign multinationals. I cannot believe there is not a member on that side of the House who does not believe that we can find some tax preferences hidden in that $40 billion which we could redirect and redistribute without losing a single corporation.
Ultimately it is not corporations that pay tax but people who pay tax. The trade minister's point is that we must increase productivity. If we treat people fairly productivity will go up because people will make better products at better prices. That is where our exports come in and that is how we are going to reduce our current account deficit.
The only instrument this House of Commons has left with which to mobilize the will of this country, the only instrument this country has left with which to galvanize Canadians and to show Canadians that we are going to treat them fairly is the tax act. We do not need a pro-business tax policy but a pro-people tax policy. That is where the single tax comes in.
Are those enough examples of where we could get the $15 billion? I will just repeat them.
Government Orders
I want to repeat my examples of possible sources of the the $15 billion: One, the underground economy; two, the trust funds; three, let us look at the tax preferences; and four, efficiency and increased productivity because people feel they are being treated fairly.
I have had members on this side of the House and people on the street ask: "How come your party and your leader do not endorse the single tax?" My leader has said repeatedly that he is looking at the single tax idea as one of the options. However, I cannot stand up here today and say that the single tax is perfect because I do not have access to all the books and records on that side of the House. However, it is a doable instrument. It is something that can be done but we need political will to do it.
I am not even saying that the single tax is perfect but it is a viable instrument that allows us to advance debate. Canadians are no longer going to accept the status quo. The status quo is gone. I predict that if this Minister of Finance-and I happen to like this Minister of Finance, I like his style and his attitude and everything about him so this is nothing personal-brings in a budget with anything less than a pro-people tax policy then I guarantee that he is history.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my hon. friend on the work he has done on the single tax, and particularly for coining the phrase single tax. This is a very important contribution to work in this area.
Although he may find it difficult to believe that members on this side may occasionally agree with things said by the other side, it is very important that we develop some kind of simple, visible, fair rate of tax, and particularly a system which is not a flat tax.
He may have noticed in The Ottawa Sun of February 4, there is a particularly ridiculous article saying that a flat tax is wrong, and it goes on to talk about work that he and I have been doing from time to time, completely misrepresenting it. It is an article by Rick Gibbons of The Ottawa Sun. I wonder if he could explain to us how his concept of the single tax would be a progressive or gradual tax.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
In my own studies I have found that the principle of having an income support system connected with the single rate of tax and integrating those two is a veiy succinct and straightforward way of having a progressive tax system that takes people from the income support or welfare system right through to the highest incomes in a very fair and visible way. I wonder if he could tell us how his concept deals with progressivity.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about a single tax or a single tax system being simplistic. In fact many people say that things like RRSPs, the Canada Pension Plan, charities and child care, all of the things that we need to consider in a tax system, are not properly considered in these systems. I wonder if he could give us his ideas on those aspects as well.
I believe that is all I have to say, but I would like to again congratulate him for the work he has done in bringing the Hall-Rabushka ideas very much into the Canadian context.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, it is tough to accept a compliment from the government. I had better be careful.


An hon. member:: Go ahead, take a bow.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I want to begin by saying that we have shared ideas on many occasions and we are committed to comprehensive reform. I thank the member again for his support and encouragement.
I want to first of all react to the article by Mr. Gibbons in The Ottawa Sun. A year ago the Sun organization and The Financial Post were the only two papers in Canada that substantially endorsed the work on the single tax. Maybe the Sun organization has switched its position.
For starters, he should not be calling it a flat tax so we are not even talking about the same thing. The single rate of tax is a concept which basically says that we are going to throw away all of the massive numbers of tax preferences that are in the act, but not without being sensitive to the notion of progressivity.
In the single tax that I have designed, and there is room for debate on this, there are progressive features for making sure there are very generous credits for senior citizens, families with children, charitable donations. We have not disturbed the RRSP structure. On the corporate side, we had a very progressive feature by
making sure that the first $100,000 on the corporate side is a tax credit, which is extremely beneficial for small business in this country.
The original idea of a flat tax did not have any of those progressive features built into it. I have not read the article by Mr. Gibbons so I really should not comment.
Let us go to the hon. member's point. I know he is ahead of me on the notion of linking it to an income support system, which I totally support. I must confess that I have not figured out how to do it. Can he imagine if we could have an income support system which would do away with all the duplication and all the bureaucracies in all the provinces across this country.
I think we could win respect overnight if we ever did something like that. Once again the political will for this kind of reform is now the government's challenge. If it does not do it, then it will be ours.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by congratulating my friend and colleague from Broadview-Greenwood, not only on his remarks in the last few minutes in this Chamber, but equally on the persistence he has shown on the single tax idea or more generally on the need to simplify, not make less effective, but make more understandable our tax system. I want to congratulate him and encourage him to keep up the work.
I have done my part rather publicly in spreading the gospel and taking his very excellent pamphlet on the single tax and distributing it to a number of people, to school groups and other groups that have a particular interest in this subject, including some groups that can promote the idea. I say to him, hang in there. It is a question of time.
We have before us another bill looking for more money. Can you think, Mr. Speaker, of any crowd that more deserves yet another licence to print money than the group which sits opposite as the government? It wants to borrow more money. I will come back to that.
Let me share a thought with you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose I do not have the right to have any real contempt for anybody or any group of people, so perhaps the word I am looking for is pity. If I do not have contempt, I at least have pity for a couple of groups of people in society.
February 4, 1993

My friend from St. John's East can rest easy. He is neither one of the individuals I am thinking about nor is he in any of the groups I am thinking about.
If I were capable of real downright contempt it would be for a couple of groups of people: those who trigger false fire alarms and those who make obscene phone calls. Both come from a discipline of cowardice, of meanness, not to mention that they inflict some pretty unfair cost on society when they pull that false fire alarm. They trigger a whole sequence of events, all of which cost money and in some cases a fair amount of anguish. Of course the obscene phone call is in a class by itself with respect to the human cost, the anguish that it causes.
Mr. Speaker, being the astute gentleman that you are, you are sitting there saying: "What does this have to do with Bill C-98, the borrowing bill". I do not want to suggest that anybody on the opposite side is either of the ilk that would make obscene phone calls or trigger false fire alarms. That is not my point. I wanted to get the attention of the House to a couple of the characteristics, rather disreputable characteristics, despicable characteristics involved in those two activities, the attribute of unfairness of inflicting undue cost, the characteristic of cowardice.
I want to put before the House a couple of very specific examples that have a lot to do with this borrowing bill. For example, take the matter we have just dealt with and will continue to deal with in this House, the unemployment insurance changes.
In particular, take the government's proposal that henceforth people who quit their jobs will forfeit their eligibility for unemployment insurance. I know the fine print and I know the nice words that accompany it. I will do the government a favour and I will mention those words too. It says if they quit without just cause. That is fair if it is stopped right there but that is not the signal it sends out.
We come back to the other two activities I mentioned. It comes back to the question of being unfair and mean. The government's intention to do that sends a far larger signal. If it wants to catch the work interloper, the person who only works when he or she has to in order to get a few bucks or a few stamps, if that is who it wants to catch, there is a way to do that. The government does not
Government Orders
have to use a sledge-hammer. It does not have to cause a lot of anguish. It does not have to set up circumstances whereby people will be obliged to stay in occupations despite harassment.
I could set up examples where people whose basic instinct is to work have been put in situations where despite their best efforts, the relationship in the work place has been such, either from the standpoint of personal harassment or sexual harassment, that it has become untenable to work in that place.
Under the bill they have the option of quitting because as the rhetoric on the other side says: Well, it is only a matter of time and they can prove they had just cause. But in the interim, who buys the groceries during that month or that year when they are proving just cause?
I could equally talk about the category of people who get fired and the provisions for them under that bill. Again, without going into detail, that goes straight to the issue of cowardice on the part of the government. It puts the employers in the driver's seat and it lets the employee fend for himself or herself. It is cowardly and it is mean.
Let me give another example. I was talking with my friend, the minister of fisheries, only yesterday about this issue. We had an exchange here in the House during Question Period on Wednesday. I raised with him the circumstances involving people who have lost their groundfish licences because of a very arbitrary, a very cowardly, a very costly and a very mean stipulation about inactive licences.
As I have said to the minister privately, in a letter and in the House yesterday, I basically understand where he is coming from. He is again using a sledge-hammer. If the licence is inactive-emphasis is on the word inactive. If it is inactive groundfish licences he is talking about, these people who live in the Gaspe, the Magdalen Islands in Quebec, New Brunswick, P.E.I., Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, those thousands of people altogether totalling 2,800 to 3,000 people who will be directly deprived of their licences if this measure goes through unchanged.
What does the minister mean by inactive licences? He has defined it as if they have had no catches during the past two years, 1991 and 1992, then the licences are inactive. Well, are they?

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
Perhaps a couple of other circumstances apply. Perhaps there were people like those living in the Rose Blanche area or Isle aux Morts who have had a winter fishery for many years, dozens of years. During the last five years, starting in 1988 through to this year, they have found that their landings have dropped off. In the case of the community of Rose Blanche it is from four million pounds in a three month fishery down to 100,000 pounds.
Some of them in their wisdom and looking after their own pocket-books came to the conclusion it was not worth spending $50 on gas and food to go out and catch $20 worth of fish so they did not go. They kept in touch with a neighbour or two in the community who went out. They found out Joe did not get any fish yesterday or the day before so there was not much point in their spending the money on gas and food to go out and go further in the hole, or as the song says "another day older and deeper in debt".
So they did the prudent thing from the standpoint of their family budget. They stayed ashore. Why? Because they were lazy? No, because they were smart. They were smart enough to figure out that if you spend $50 to make $20 you are even further in the hole than you were before you went out that morning. So many of them elected to stay home, not to stay home because they were lazy, but to stay away from fishing.
They had no landings for those two years. Some of them because they had some initiative went a step further and said: "Since I cannot go fishing, since it does not make sense to spend $50 to make $20, maybe in the meantime I will look around for a job driving nails, painting buildings, working ashore for a few months". Does that mean they had abandoned the fishery? Not quite. The fishery had somewhat abandoned them at least temporarily, or the fish had abandoned them. So they went off and got other seasonal jobs and they had no landings during those two years.
Now had the minister said before the fact that if they did not have landings over a certain period of time then he would consider the licence to be inactive, that is a matter of fairness. However, to write the rules after the fact is very cowardly and unfair.
Mr. Speaker, if you think that is a graphic example let me give you a really graphic one. I spoke in the last 24
hours by phone to a gentleman in my riding in the community of Petites. Now Petites is an isolated community. You cannot reach it by road. It is literally a 15-minute boat ride from the community of Rose Blanche, Harbour le Cou which my hon. friend from St. John's East will know very well.
For the last 12 or 13 years this gentleman in Petites, every morning save maybe Sunday, but five or six days a week has gotten out of his bed at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning and has taken the 15-minute trip over to Rose Blanche to join a boat crew of four other people. A total of five people. They have fished together for a number of years.
Now keep in mind that my friend from Petites is not the skipper of that boat but is one of five members who crew that boat. There is the skipper, my friend I spoke to yesterday, plus three others; a skipper and four crew. They have fished every year for many years, in the case of this fellow for the last 12 years.
For example, in 1991, one of the two years that the minister is using as criteria for cancelling a licence, that crew caught about 150,000 to 180,000 pounds of fish over a 10-month period. Last year they caught roughly the same. In the two year period they caught just over
300,000	pounds of fish.
The fish plant manager or the collector buying the fish knows when the boat comes in, it has one great pile of fish in the hole. There are five men on board. Who owns which fish?
The convention that has grown up over the years is to sell the fish in the name of the skipper. It makes a lot of sense. Another way to do it I suppose if you follow the Crosbie dictum is to say: "Okay fellows. Count all the fish out, we want five equal piles here". That was not the way it was done. If that was the way he had wanted it done I suppose they would have done it that way. God knows fishermen have done sillier things at the direction of the government. They made the mistake of selling it all in one pile in the name of the skipper.
Now then the question. If DFO bureaucrats go out to find how much fish the other four fellows caught, they are going to find the answer real fast. Not one single pound. Not an ounce.
February 4, 1993

Now then let us go back to the minister's brave words of December 18. "If they did not catch any fish we are going to take their licence". What he really said is: "If you cannot prove you caught fish we are going to take your licence".
So you sit there and think that example cannot be real.
I will tell you how real it is. Just by coincidence this man called me three or four days ago and I just got back to calling him yesterday afternoon.
In the meantime, yesterday morning he had been visited by DFO. DFO went into the community and said to various people that some qualified for a licence and some did not. It said to one man standing beside my friend that DFO records showed he had caught six pounds last year and he qualified. Another man, my friend, was not on the list. He explained he was part of a crew that caught 150,000 pounds. That does not apply. He did not qualify for a licence.
It is now February 4. We are already one month into the year. DFO answers not to worry about it because he will be able to appeal it. He will and six weeks or two months down the road there is no doubt he will have his licence, come March, April or May.
Returning to my earlier comment about those who make obscene phone calls and those who trigger false fire alarms, this act is every bit as despicable because the sledge-hammer approach has inflicted unnecessary pain. This man I spoke to on the phone last night told me that if they took his fishing licence after 12 years, after fishing 10 months a year for 12 years, they might as well cut off both his arms. That is the kind of anguish that these cowardly, mean, costly policies of the government are inflicting.
So far, these are only my words on all of this. Let me give one other line of information.
I mentioned that these five people were fishing together and the fish were sold in the name of one person. All of that is true. Let me speak of something else that is true.
The Unemployment Insurance Commission over the years has actually figured a way to deal with this. It simply said the fishermen did not have to count their fish out in five piles. It was assumed if there were five people fishing together they each had one-fifth of the effort so the total value of the landing would be divided by five. Each one would be given credit for one-fifth of the
Government Orders
landing. On that basis the men would be paid unemployment insurance.
Over the years the men I am talking about have regularly fished for 10 months. On the basis of that fishing activity they have drawn UI for a couple of months. What better proof does one need?
What do we have here? One arm of the government, UIC, acknowledges not only that they have fished but that they have done such a good job they qualified for UI for a couple of months so they can get back in the boat. Another arm of the government, in this case fisheries, is saying because there is no record they have fished they will be deprived of their licence to fish and will be caused anguish. A sledge-hammer will be used on them.
Government is about collecting money. It is about spending money. But surely there has to be more reason to have a government than that.
Government is also about reflecting our values as a people. We are not a mean-spirited people. Government should not get its jollies out of making life miserable for fishermen or people who are seasonal workers, or people who are in the work place and have to make agonizing decisions because of harassment. Government ought not to be in the business of reflecting that kind of meanness of spirit. That is not the values we project as a society, that we hold as a people. Government ought to set the tone. This government is setting a tone but what an awful tone.
One of our values in society is that we have a work ethic. You would never know it by listening to the rhetoric of this government. This government has the idea that somehow there are 27 million lazy hangashores, as we call them in Newfoundland. A hangashore is a person who stays ashore because he is too lazy to go fishing.
The government has the idea that there are 27 million hangashores and it has to be the policeman guarding them. It has to make sure they get out of bed in the morning. It sets their alarm clocks for them, gets them out to work and hustles them off because they might all stay home and get beer bellies.
It might come as a shock to that crowd over there but some of those people, about 99 per cent of them, actually do want to work. I know people on welfare. I know people on unemployment insurance. I know people who are just scraping by. The litmus question to them at all times is: "Would you rather be doing what you are doing or working?" Every time the answer comes back: "I would rather have a job 12 months a year".

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
Until we get a government that believes in people, that reflects the values we hold as a society including the work ethic, until we can get rid of a government that gets its jollies out of putting people down, of denigrating people and suggesting that people are lazy hangashores, until we can achieve that it does not matter whether we give this crowd another whit of authority to borrow. They are going to spend like drunken sailors anyway.
All we can hope is that the time comes sooner rather than later that we put people on that side of the House who reflect rather than undermine the values of Canadian society.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Burin-St. George's for his generous remarks in the earlier part of his speech.
I want to pick up on his point that there seems to be a lack of understanding about the way the dignity of people is affected by some of the programs and systems coming from this government.
One of the problems this government has is that it is really in the hands of the officials. I may be wrong on this but the political will has dissipated to a point where I get the feeling that the officials in finance are basically running this country. The lobbyists are the ones influencing these ministers and this government in terms of its direction.
I have worked with officials before. There are many fine bureaucrats in this government, but they have this favourite expression in officialdom, especially in finance: "It is not doable. It cannot be done". I think one of the problems is that this government has become a captive of officialdom and it is basically the people who end up getting the short shrift. I wonder if the hon. member could comment on that.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my friend from Broadview-Greenwood and I agree on many things, but I am not sure. I had better have a talk with him on this one. I hear where he is coming from. I will come back more directly to the point he just made. I basically believe that public officials are a pretty good lot. Some get led astray.


Mrs. Sparrow:: But they are human.


Roger Simmons: I hope all of them are human. I do not know why you are so shocked. I hope they are all human. On one occasion I named an official in this House. He is in the Public Service but is no longer working directly for the government except at arm's length. I will not name him again but he knows about whom I am talking. I thought he had forgotten he was a public official and began thinking he was a water boy for the Tories.
When they cross that line then there is a problem. I do not think the bulk of them are across that line. I believe my friend is talking about others who stray across that line, or cannot find the line, or do not know where it is.
This morning I was in a meeting where we were being briefed on some fisheries issues, specifically the issue of groundfish licences. I know the minister of fisheries. He is a man for whom I have a lot of respect. He is intelligent and quite fair. I tried to figure out why he got bamboozled-and that has to be the word-into this policy because this is really a sledge-hammer policy. When he wakes up he will realize what the officials have done to him. I do not believe this was of his own volition. If he had thought this through, he would not have done what he did the way he did it on cancellation because he caused a lot of pain.
I found myself saying, and I might as well say it because I have already burnt my bridges with that crowd anyway: I will tell you one thing. When and if we become the government the first thing we are going to do is run IQs on the whole crowd of you because somewhere among you there is a raving idiot who came up with this cock-eyed scheme. When we find who it is we are going to get rid of you because that type of person is doing a great disservice to this country and to those fishermen who are out there today anguishing and in emotional pain wondering if their livelihoods are being cut off by some person who is using a sledge-hammer to kill a fly, as it were.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying very hard to work on a paper here prepared by one of my colleagues which I think has the potential to address some of the real problems that the families in this country face. However, even though he is
February 4, 1993

Government Orders
an Albertan, he will understand I am unable to sit here number of people who have a long history in this and pass on it.	industry.
The comment that I would like to make relates particularly to the fisheries program. The member quite rightly comments on the intelligence and the dedication of the current minister of fisheries. While one may not agree with a number of the things that he proposes to do, he certainly had the courage to take action to address the concerns of the fishery.
One of the criticisms in the past has been that government has not consulted or discussed with those directly in the fishery the proposals that it puts forward. This is a flaw. This has been a flaw of all governments, including this one. I would argue that the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development attempted to change that process in responding to the crisis that we saw in 1989.
I would like my friend's comments on my observation that the licensing policy has been worked out in direct consultation and with very strong approval of what we call the union, the president of which I may point out is the former Liberal member of Parliament for St. John's West. I use the word former in terms of Liberal as opposed to member of Parliament I think to be fair and accurate. Certainly there has been broad consultation.
I say absolutely that there are parts of the licensing policy that I do not like, as it pertains to part-timers for instance. I do not think we fully understand part-timers. The current president of the union and I disagree on this and he has attacked me publicly on it. God knows he has attacked me enough times. However, I just want to point out to this House, and I know my friend will agree, that these licensing policies have been developed in consultation with the representatives of the fishermen.
The one point that I would add is that I think the emphasis here is to take the licence out of the system if the licence has not been used. I would share the concern that if the licence has been used and there has not been fish caught that we have to be very careful, but I think it is important to recognize that this process has been developed in consultation with a number of people and a


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from St. John's East. I hope he heard what I said specifically on the point he just addressed.
Let me repeat myself. I understand that there is a need to retire inactive licences. Where I disagree with the minister and the government, and I used the term before, is they used a sledge-hammer to get at a fly. They had a relatively small problem. They had ways, through their records, of finding out which licences were really inactive and instead of that they sit in Ottawa and they issue a blanket press release which causes more pain than it creates solutions.
The member talks about courage. The minister has got a lot of courage on many issues but on this one I would not classify it as courage to sit in Ottawa and put a press release out and cause the pain that it caused.
The member mentioned the president of the union, Mr. Richard Cashin, a good friend of mine over many years. Yes, he is a former Liberal member of Parliament. I think these days he has gone a bit astray and got tangled up with the NDP crowd and that kind of stuff, but he is also fairly close to that crowd over there. He was only recently honoured by being admitted to the Privy Council. As the member will know, not everybody gets in the Privy Council, but some do. He got in there on July 1. He has friends in all parties.
Cashin does a reasonably good job of protecting the interests of his members. I say to him publicly, and I will say it to him eyeball to eyeball as soon as I get a chance, if he was part of this scheme that has caused pain to men like those in Petites and Rose Blanche-they are just examples, there are many others-if he condoned that he needs his head examined. Richard, you need your head examined if you condoned this. But I do not think for a second you did. I think what you did is what I have done. You have condoned the idea of getting rid of inactive licences. I do not think Cashin is being properly represented here if it is suggested that he gave his approbation to the minister going out and causing the kind of pain to full-time fishermen in Petites and Rose Blanche that has been suggested. I do not believe it.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-Transportation; the hon. member for Don Valley East-Cyprus; the hon. member for Bonavista- Trinity-Conception-Government spending; the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville-Visible minorities; the hon. member for Kootenay East-Water.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think every member in the House today recognizes that this has been an interesting debate. It is probably because it is a borrowing authority bill. As such it has such a wide scope that members can get into their pet topics and really get some interest from both sides of the House. To ensure that we can accommodate all those who do want to speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the normal hour of
adjournment for the purpose of continuing consideration of Bill
C-98, an act to provide additional borrowing authority.


David Charles Dingwall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard the suggestion which was made by my hon. friend with regard to extending the hours. There have been no consultations with members of the Official Opposition with regard to this. In point of fact I was going to raise it during the regular question but the government House leader was unavoidably absent. We were given indications at an earlier time that the government would be proceeding with a bill other than Bill C-98, which is the borrowing bill.
Notwithstanding that I do wish the record to show that the hon. government House Leader did verbally indicate to me late yesterday that they would be proceeding with Bill C-98, but I have to tell the Chair and, through the Chair, members opposite that we were prepared to proceed with Bill C-93 as opposed to Bill C-98. As a result, I do not think we could give consent to the provisions that the hon. member has made reference to in terms of extending the hours today.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.
And more than 15 members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
The member who has just moved the motion loses his place as far as debate is concerned.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-98, the borrowing authority, by which the government seeks authority to borrow an additional $8.2 billion which is in addition to the budget that was laid down last fiscal year, the fiscal year we are still in, and the additional borrowing that took place last fall.
This will bring the government's borrowings above the budgeted amount by the $10 billion or $11 billion that the government goofed in its estimates in the last budget. This is not the first time that it has messed up in its estimates of the deficit. The deficit this year is now predicted to be $34.4 billion, $7 billion higher than what it said it would be at budget time.
This deficit is $10 billion higher than it should have been using the projections the government used in the budget before last. According to the estimates from two years ago the deficit that we now have is twice what it was projecting. The projections have been away off. Ever since 1988 the ministers of finance have been predicting lower and lower deficits and every year when the year comes to an end we discover that we are still in the low $30 billion range and we have not shaken out of that in all of those years.
Yet the Minister of Finance, the member for Etobicoke, who was the Minister of Finance for most of that period was unshaken. He said that he has the fundamentals right, he understands the economy and he has the solution. Yet every time he makes a prediction he is wrong. He has been so busy getting the fundamentals right that we now owe twice the national debt that we owed when he first became finance minister in this country. The debt that we are all paying as a result will now be in the neighbourhood of $40 billion worth of interest every year to sustain the debt that he has brought upon the people of Canada.
February 4, 1993

We have listened to some of the government members say that opposition members and backbenchers are wasting the time of the government by this discussion because really all we have before the House is a piddly little idea of borrowing more money and they should not get excited about that.
The fundamental reason that members of Parliament are in Parliament is to watch over and agree to the expenditures of government and the taxation that governments levy. If we are going to stand idly by and not say anything when governments come to us for further borrowings, we are falling down in our duty. The only way that that further borrowing can be paid is by future taxation and that is right within the ambit of every one of these backbenchers, whether they are on the government side or the opposition side. Our duty, the main reason we are sent here, is to overview and give approval or otherwise to the government's estimates for expenditure and its methods of creating that expenditure and paying for that expenditure through taxation.
This has been the reason for parliaments since before 1215 and the Magna Carta and it continues to be the basic right of parliamentarians. To imply that we are wasting time by discussing a mere borrowing bill misses the point precisely. I cannot understand why a government member would be so callous as to raise that as a legitimate argument.
This government has been sitting with its eyes closed to a great extent, if we listen to its view of what it has done for the economy. I in my riding and many others across the country who represent different regions saw
76,000	individuals and small businesses go bankrupt last year. It was a new record. We have never before had that proportion of bankruptcies, even at the height of the Great Depression in the 1930s.
It is only recently that the government has even been able to say the r word for recession, but the sad fact for most Canadians is that they have been in a depression for quite a long time. The government has been busy fighting inflation and through that it has to a great extent induced the recession and the depression.
We have been hearing about averages, and we all know the problems with averages. A wit once said that the economist and the statistician do not seem to understand the pain of an average. For instance, if a person had one foot in boiling water and another foot in freezing water they would say that on average the man should be comfortable. We know that is not the way comfort works.
Government Orders
We also know that using averages does not tell very much about the fight against inflation.
I represent a constituency in prairie Canada. I have watched the fight against inflation and I must say that it has been devastating. When I first came down here in 1980, farmland in my part of the country was considered to be worth about $800 or $900 an acre. Then governments began to discover inflation and decided that to fight inflation they would use extremely high interest rates, which they did. They put a lot of farmers out of business. They put a lot of villages out of business. They shut down a lot of farm suppliers. They depopulated parts of rural Canada. In the process they have managed to force the price of farmland and the value of all assets of the community from about $900 an acre down to less than $300 an acre.
The people I represent have paid a huge price in fighting inflation. The value of their assets has been cut by two-thirds at least. It does not matter whether they were home owners in one of the small towns or cities of my riding or farmers out in the country. If their assets were worth $1 million in 1980 and they have not increased the size of their business, farm or property, they are now worth $300,000. That is a tremendous contribution to inflation. In making that contribution they have less assets to borrow against and less assets to raise capital from.
The government has taken the view that everyone has to pay for inflation, and my friends and neighbours accept that. However they think they have paid a rather high price. They have paid an even higher price than just losing the value of their assets. They have paid a high price by losing their very incomes. For those who make their living on the farm there are numbers of ways of showing the losses in their farm incomes. I will use two methods that were put forward recently by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
The first method of discovering what losses farmers have put up with in the province of Saskatchewan alone would be to take the realized net farm income between 1980 and 1984 on average-and we use adjusted prices so that we do not have to worry about inflation; these are in 1992 dollars-and compare it with the realized net farm income for the years 1992 and the estimates for 1993. The shortfall would be in the neighbourhood of $880 million to $1.1 billion; a $880 million shortfall already realized for 1992 and the estimates for 1993 would indicate a $1.1 billion shortfall from the average realized net income of the early 1980s for Saskatchewan farmers.

February 4, 1993
Government Orders
We could use another test. We could take the average net farm income for farmers in the years 1980 and 1981 and compare them per worker against the realized average industrial wage per worker in Saskatchewan at the same time. We would find in 1980 and 1981 that those figures were almost the same. The farm worker received $13,500 and the industrial worker received $15,500. They were almost the same, just a few thousand dollars difference.
When we make that same comparison now after all the farm support that has gone into the farm community, we find that the average farm income in 1991 amounted to $6,700.74 per farm. How did the industrial worker make out in that same period? In 1991 his or her average industrial wage was $24,197. There was a vast change in that period of time.
I submit that part of the reason for that vast change was not only the trade war which occurred but also government policy which struck out all or most of the assets farm people had with which to refinance or to finance other ways of making farm income.
The fight against inflation and trying to get the so-called fundamentals right has really been harmful to rural people in my constituency and across the country.
I have discussed a little about the income shortfall as seen on a farm-by-farm basis and when compared to the average industrial wage in my province. If we look at the effect of the trade war on those incomes, we can extract some of the costs that have occurred because of the trade effects of that war as a result of various actions of both the European Community and the American government.
In 1985 the President of the United States introduced a farm bill which included the right of Americans to grant export enhancement funds to exporters. This had the effect of driving the competitive price of international grains down as much as $80 per tonne. Right now farmers in my community do not net $80 per tonne for most of their grain. We have an idea of how devastating this action by the Americans was and what it could do.
If we use the pre-trade war average price of grain in Saskatchewan alone and superimpose that trend, we see that because of the actions of the Americans and the response of the Europeans farm income in Saskatchewan shows a shortfall. Even with the government assistance that has been provided there is a shortfall of $6.7 billion from 1985 to the present. In those seven years we have had a $6.7 billion shortfall of income from the kind of income we normally are used to out there. It was almost $1 billion per year on average.
We have seen farm debt increase from $21 billion or $22 billion in 1986 or 1987 to in excess of $24 billion. I cite that because the Europeans and the Americans have not had the same kind of news to deal with. They are our two largest competitors. We are among the third largest exporters of grain and oilseeds, yet our farm incomes are falling behind the net farm incomes of those countries because frankly those countries care more about their farmers than do Canadian governments.
Using 1981 net total farm incomes as a base, European incomes fell over the decade of the 1980s by 16.5 per cent. American farm income over that same decade rose by 23 per cent at the same time as Canadian net farm incomes fell by 51.4 per cent.
We can see that farmers in the United States have been much better cared for by their governments than has been the case here. Their net incomes over the decade rose by 23 per cent, while ours fell by 51 per cent. This was done in the name of getting the fundamentals right and in the name of fighting inflation.
Government policy has continued to put pressure on farmers and their families. In the financial statement before Christmas the finance minister said there would be even further reductions to the government expenditures on grading and inspections in meat plants and in processing plants. That was accompanied later by announcements from some officials indicating that it was to be the intention of the Government of Canada to reduce grading and inspection standards to standards equivalent to those of the country to which we might be exporting.
February 4, 1993

Private Members' Business
In other words we would lower it to Mexican standards if we were thinking of selling to the Mexicans, or even lower if we were exporting to some country with standards lower than those of the Mexicans.
There was no explanation of how to separate product that had been so graded if it did not go to the particular country but instead ended up in the refrigerator of a consumer in Canada. There was no explanation of how we were to respond when some of our international customers said: "We used to buy your product because you had such high grading standards and we could always count on Canadian product meeting those standards".
Those good customers will start looking at our changed grading standards and say: "We might as well buy from the Americans who have a much looser arrangement than you have. We used to prefer your product because we could be sure that the standards would stand up and that we were buying quality. But if you are going to abandon that then I guess we will find another place to get our product". We will have to start looking for other customers.
This is a stupid way to become world competitive, all in the name of having the fundamentals right. I have spent some time showing how misguided some of the fundamentals were.
In that economic statement as well we heard the Minister of Finance say that the Crow benefit which western Canadians used to think was almost part of our constitutional heritage was to be degraded a bit more. We watched in the early 1980s as the Liberals backed away from their commitment to freight rates to an area that is land-locked and was developed on the basis of a secure transportation system. They backed out of that and have been presenting some money to the railways each year. At the moment it stands at about $730 million. The government has shown that it is no longer considering that a firm commitment. It has decided to back off bit by bit. It is taking 10 per cent away this year. That will mean about 8 cents to 10 cents a bushel less in the pockets of farmers next year, thanks to that little announcement.
It also sends a signal to farmers that the Crow rate is no longer anything that can be counted on. If a minister of the Crown who is in charge of finance can stand up and take 10 per cent of it away on a whim with an announcement in the House then there is nothing to stop him from taking 100 per cent of it away at some future date.
The residents of rural Canada are feeling less and less secure with this government. They see that this government does not have the fundamentals right. It cannot produce projections. It cannot guess right. It cannot do anything right. It is then time we made it veiy clear that the government should resign so we can have an election and find a replacement.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Ihesday, November 17, 1992, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whittaker:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of developing a healthy small business sector in Canada by targeting more federal contracts to the small business sector and establishing a more aggressive Buy Canada program.
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Okanagan-Si-milkameen-Merritt.
The motion reads as follows:
That the government should consider the advisability of developing a healthy small business sector in Canada by targeting more federal contracts to the small business sector and establishing a more aggressive Buy Canada program.
First, it must be said that the motion tabled by my hon. colleague is acceptable in principle. This government is always striving for a strong and diversified small business sector.
The government will always do its utmost for the thousands of hard-working business people who create

Private Members' Business
thousands of jobs that benefit all Canadians. Earlier in this debate, an outline of this government's many reforms concerning government procurement was given.
I must go back briefly to this outline so that we can clearly understand what the motion before us today means and, I might add, better realize the remarkable work done by the Minister of Supply and Services.
It is with the needs expressed by small businesses in mind that more than three years ago the Minister of Supply and Services decided to undertake a major reform of his department. Today, we are proud of our very fruitful co-operation with Canadian business people.
The new business practices of the department are based on five major objectives which I will briefly describe.
First is the use of a procurement system which is accessible and competitive. I am of course referring to the open invitation to bid, which allows any business person to tender for the contracts of his choice. Indeed, it is our small business people who select contracts based on their priorities and their potential, and do this using a personal computer.
The second objective has to do with the implementation of an impartial process to hear the complaints of suppliers, namely the Procurement Review Board, which is now part of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. The board allows any contractor who feels he has been wronged to make representations. Some have successfully made their case.
Third, the support provided to the Canadian industry is confirmed by the new policy on Canadian content. Supply and Services Canada gives priority to procurement in Canada by limiting the competition to qualified Canadian suppliers of goods and services when there are enough of them to ensure competitiveness.
Fourth is a greater social and environmental responsibility. We are referring here to the employment equity, environmental protection and energy conservation requirements in dealing with suppliers.
Our fifth goal is to provide first-rate customer service, as is expected from a department like ours.
Our business partners are demanding and so are we of them. They understand our new approach and have expressed support for it.
In fact, this is the kind of offer that is hard to refuse: greater accessibility, improved efficiency, top-notch service and more chances of tendering for federal government contracts.
The competitive bidding system we have can be considered as a good tool for economic growth.
I am not saying that all suppliers should deal with the federal government. What I am saying is that those who choose to, for one reason or another, will be surprised to see how easy it is and will be able to improve their competitiveness.
As I read over my hon. colleague's motion, I must point out a minor aberration which shows the weakness of the motion being debated as it relates to public procurement.
My hon. colleague would like the small business sector to get more contracts. Fine, but let him know first that 80 per cent of our suppliers are small and medium-sized businesses at this time. That is right, 80 per cent. If you factor in contracting-out, it would be closer to 90 per cent. This goes to show that small and medium-sized businesses are truly major players in the area of federal government contracts.
I could emphasize other highly positive aspects of our reforms which are intended to be forward looking. The main thing is that Canadian entrepreneurs wanted a chance to compete and the government responded swiftly to this perfectly legitimate request.
This debate is an opportunity for me to reaffirm that this government is making every effort to assist our small and medium-sized businesses in looking for new markets, to promote their competitiveness by giving them more opportunities to compete for federal government contracts and to assert themselves on the international markets.
Therefore, the motion put forward by the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt runs counter to measures that have been in place for over two years. Worse, it suggests that our small and medium-sized businesses lack vitality, that our entrepreneurs lack initiative and that risk is never rewarded. It also suggests that government ignores the demands of the Canadian small-business sector, when nothing is further from the truth.
This attitude does not surprise me but I must say that it does not at all suit the economic challenges facing this country. By the way, I want to assure the hon. member that any suggestion of his will receive due consideration, provided that it can foster the financial security of our fellow citizens.
February 4, 1993

Supply and Services' initiatives have been given a warm welcome throughout the country, and I can tell you that civil servants themselves are happy to work in a setting considerably more stimulating, although more demanding.
Day after day, we are happy to demonstrate that the Government of Canada can innovate and be efficient. This is great news for the taxpayers as well as for us who administer their tax money. The future depends on it.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this bill that has been brought to this House by the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, a seat-mate of mine in the Chamber. He is the NDP critic for the small business sector.
The member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has been a very strong spokesperson for the small business sector in this House and to the government on quite a number of matters. The issue in this motion today is just one of the many that he has been able to raise. I am very glad to be able to speak both in support of this motion and in support of the small business sector that is being promoted in the member's motion.
The member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt in presenting this motion to the House had a couple of very astute things to say, and I just wanted to briefly quote him before I enter into my own remarks. The member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt said: "This government has given lip-service to improving the business climate in Canada and this would be an ideal time for it to show some positive action for the small business sector through its support of a buy Canada, buy small business program".
The member also said: "It is only by opening the bidding process and guaranteeing that contracts are awarded to small Canadian businesses through a buy Canadian, buy small business program that we will ensure small businesses continue to create jobs in the economy and help bring us out of our continuing recession".
Those are very important words for us and for the government to hear today as it is contemplating the
Private Members' Business
various actions that can be taken to assist the small business sector in the work that it is doing.
I would also like to indicate to this House how important this matter is. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are a very strong supporter of the small business sector and are aware of its importance to the Canadian economy. More than 97 per cent of businesses in Canada are small businesses with fewer than 50 employees.
In 1989 small businesses maintained a labour force of more than 3.75 million people, equivalent to over one-third of the total private sector employment in all of Canada. From 1981 to 1989 small businesses created 81.5 per cent of new jobs in Canada. At the same time this has been a very difficult time for small businesses.
Just yesterday the newest bankruptcy figures were released. In 1992 there were 14,317 business bankruptcies in Canada. That is an increase of 821 over the 13,496 businesses who declared bankruptcy in 1991.
The recession is very hard on the small business sector, which is a large employer and a major stabilizing factor in many of our small communities and major cities.
The Government of Canada can play a very important role in the development of programs that would be of some assistance to small businesses, and that goes beyond tax measures and other matters. We all know there are negative and positive tax measures that can be utilized to assist businesses.
The most negative tax measure has been the implementation of the goods and services tax that small business people right across the country have said has harmed them significantly. That is something that could be eliminated as soon as possible. It would certainly be eliminated if the New Democratic Party were elected after the next federal election.
There is another side to all of this too, and that is what the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt is getting at in the motion before us today. The Department of Supply and Services purchases about $8 billion in goods and services every year for the Government of Canada; 60 per cent on a competitive basis and 40 per cent on a non-competitive basis. This is a very important and significant component of the way in which government money, which is being spent anyway, can be targeted toward small businesses in Canada.

February 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
The buy Canadian program suggested by my colleague is a very important way for the government to adapt some of its current policies to assist the small business sector. Earmarking just a portion of this supply and services' contracted money specifically for Canadian businesses would be of great assistance, particularly to those businesses that operate in rural and remote areas.
I want to give a couple of examples from my own constituency about how significant this might be. Economic development in rural constituencies is a difficult task at the best of times. Sometimes the stabilizing force of a contract is all that is needed to get a rural business, particularly a manufacturing or a processing business, under way. A lot of activity is taking place on the drawing board in northwest Saskatchewan that could utilize some of this sort of kick-starting that is available from government policy and program development.
The Western Diversification Office has indicated that a program it would be able to fit in is one to assist with the production of ethanol from grain stocks on the prairies. The government should make a very strong commitment to ensuring that ethanol product is available for purchase by producers. It is the same thing with the production of energy. Governments can play a very important role in ensuring that the energy produced from co-generation facilities by independent producers in rural and northern isolated communities is purchased by the utilities.
More important is the whole area of aboriginal economic development. The government has paid a lot of lip-service to this area and in fact has put some programming in place to ensure that aboriginal communities can be involved in generating revenues which would be useful in helping the people who live in the aboriginal communities.
The most negative aspect about economic development in aboriginal communities is that the money can be put in place for capital but it is not in place for operations. You can buy equipment and set up a manufacturing or processing operation but the problem comes in being able to maintain that operation while the business person in the aboriginal community is out searching for markets, et cetera.
If this government established a set-aside program under a buy Canadian umbrella for aboriginal economic development, ensuring that 10 per cent of certain budgets, for example the national defence budget, was being used to purchase products from these aboriginal manufacturing plants, it would have a stabilizing effect on that aboriginal community and that aboriginal business. It would certainly ensure that all of the activities engaged in at that manufacturing plant would be enhanced and allowed to grow. We would have a guaranteed contract in place to produce the duffle bags for the armed forces or whatever the purchase might be. They would have the ability to finance operations while they are looking for the other contracts that would expand and ensure the success of those aboriginal businesses. To me that is a very important matter.
We have to make sure the rural business infrastructure is maintained. We have to ensure that we do have the ability to purchase at the local level.
Most members of Parliament in this Chamber will realize that we have very little ability to utilize our budgets for purchasing locally. Most of our stationery, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, is purchased centrally in the House of Commons. It would be nice to be able to support local businesses through local purchasing.
I am quite concerned about the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement and how they affect the ability of the Government of Canada to enter into a buy Canadian program. The free trade agreement with the United States currently hinders the ability of Canada to have a buy Canadian program, a Canadian sourcing program of some kind, a Canadian government policy, a Canadian value-added profit policy, et cetera, because the free trade agreement prevents purchases over $29,000 from being set under those guidelines.
One of the very first things that this government has to do is cancel the free trade agreement so that we can have in place a complete buy Canadian program. It is even more important because we are about to enter into a new agreement with Mexico and the United States, the North American free trade agreement.
February 4, 1993

I was just having a look at the North American free trade agreement and found that article 1004 prevents Canada from having a buy Canadian policy. In fact, the effect of 1004-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, this issue of small and medium-sized businesses is frequently discussed here in the House of Commons, as it was in Quebec's National Assembly when I had the privilege to serve there as MNA. As years went by, unfortunately, alot was said but very little was done for small and medium-sized businesses across the country. The facts show that small and medium-sized businesses create more jobs than all corporations put together. In fact, the number of jobs is even three to four times higher. But when we look at industrial subsidies in the country, we realize it is easy for big businesses to get all sorts of benefits from the government. However, the government keeps saying that it is encouraging small and medium-sized business which is creating jobs.
I would like to draw to your attention the fact that in the past organizations were established to defend small and medium-sized businesses. There was one in particular which I remember. It was called Business Warriors and was based in Toronto. I recall that they had the opportunity to defend their opinion that small businesses received comparatively less tax benefits or grants than large corporations. And they made their point with supporting evidence that small and medium-sized businesses were indeed penalized.
So, the case before us is still the same. How can we help small and medium-sized businesses? And the motion presented by one of the opposition parties brings back to the surface the kind of program we could set up in order to really help small and medium-sized businesses develop themselves and compete.
Competitiveness is the in word today. If companies, no matter how big, cannot expand, we cannot expect them to make great progress in being competitive. The suggestions I would like to make, after listening to numerous debates on this matter concerning small businesses, is
Private Members' Business
that we should focus on programs in a concrete way and not on bills or regulations 200 or 300 pages long. The first thing we should do is visit small businesses. Some associations and individuals that are very articulate could tell us about the needs of small businesses, about the tools they need to expand and be really competitive. That is what they are asking for.
Just because they make those suggestions does not mean they will get carte blanche for everything they need. There is always some leeway. They know that. They can tell, with the evidence to prove it, what they need in order to expand. But if they do not have a chance to speak out on these things, we will never be able to find out what would help small businesses to grow.
Some of them have been very successful in this country. Over the Christmas holidays, I read Mr. Bombardier's story. It is amazing to think that he two of his brothers began the business in his garage. That gives you an idea of how important all that can be. I also read that many inventions do not come from laboratories at a cost of millions of dollars. In the past 50 years, most big discoveries, like Xerox, for example, were made by people working in their own basement or in a garage.
Entrepreneurship exists, but one must be watching out for it. I am convinced that if those people could say what they need, we on our side with the resources, experience and statistics available could easily show that there is some room to manoeuvre and we could write up in a few pages what is needed for them to develop.
That is extremely important, not only for confidence or competitiveness but also for encouraging other people. They would feel supported. You know that confidence is extremely important in international affairs or in other things.
I would like to give you an example of this. One of our colleagues here from the Liberal Party, the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex, did a terrific job on the possibility of using grain to make ethanol and derivatives. Research has been done on this and it has been shown that this industry, which is now very small, given the required resources could become a major industry in our country, not only for the environment but also for the tremendous spin-off benefits.

February 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
However, if they do not have government resources to help them start up, we cannot expect miracles. Times are pretty tough, so that is all the more reason to give them moral support, financial support, of course, and technical support. Luckily, we have the National Research Council which has an international reputation and can help them.
We could talk about it for a long time and we know that there have been many discussions and debates on small and medium-sized businesses. First, because they belong to associations, they must speak out on the issue because they are out in the field, they know the needs. We can be guided by what they can do, what they know and especially what they want in setting up a real program. With that, I am convinced that the "Buy Canada" program mentioned in the motion could follow automatically, because if we enter a new field where no one has been before, we will certainly be the best and over time we will be very competitive. So we would buy Canadian not just out of pride but because it was a rapidly growing field and we would have the necessary skills and entrepreneurship.
Many ideas could be submitted. A famous saying of Einstein comes to mind: Imagination is more important than intelligence. Of course, we take it for granted that a certain amount of intelligence is required and I am sure it exists, but imagination is the key to advancement. Small and medium-sized business is the most important engine of our country's development. We are a nation of 27 million and we have shown that we can play an extremely important role on the world stage with our inventions and developments and so on. We have proven ourselves.
I could give examples of technologies, like fibre optics, where we were world leaders. However, that technology has been sold and today it is the Japanese who are developing it secretly. But that is another matter.
In conclusion, are should call on those who are in the field. We have public moneys to supplement what they do not have at their disposal in terms of research and funding. That program will be the real beginning. It will be the basis. I am convinced that it is the only answer, and the most needed one.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for introducing this motion about the contract awarding system of the federal government or, in other word, its procurement system .\nThrough the Department of Supply and Services, which awards $8 billion worth of contracts every year, the federal government gives small businesses the opportunity to prove their capabilities and to develop new expertise.\nLike the abolition of the manufacturers' sales tax, like the free trade agreement, which was intended to create a larger and freer market for our small and medium-sized businesses, the policies of the Department of Supply and Services are specifically meant to develop a more accessible and more competitive Canadian market.\nLike all my colleagues who participated in this debate, I think that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt underestimates what this government is doing for our small businesses.\nFebruary 4, 1993", "My colleague should not consider solely the details of our policies, he should consider the whole consistent package they represent. I will not repeat what others have already said about the importance of the small-business sector for our economy.\nEvery single member of this House could elaborate on that theme, because small business is really part of everyday life. What is more important is to underline the consistency of our policies taken as a whole.\nSupply and Services Canada has restructured its policies to take into account the need to find new prospects for small businesses with the constraints of a more demanding national and international economic environment. The department helps give our small businesses a chance to excel in this country and elsewhere in the world.\nSince 1989, the minister has tried to give better access to federal contracts, to streamline its policies, to modernize its systems, to encourage competition and to give Canadians the opportunity to question the department's system for awarding contracts.\nYou can see that it was no easy task, but it was carried out, and small businesses know how to take advantage of it. Recently, for example, I had the opportunity to announce, in my riding-"]
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
Thursday, February 4, 1993 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. John Sopinka, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 4th day of February, 1993, at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Whittaker (p. 15463).
Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Bronte-Missisquoi):: Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt for introducing this motion about the contract awarding system of the federal government or, in other word, its procurement system .
Through the Department of Supply and Services, which awards $8 billion worth of contracts every year, the federal government gives small businesses the opportunity to prove their capabilities and to develop new expertise.
Like the abolition of the manufacturers' sales tax, like the free trade agreement, which was intended to create a larger and freer market for our small and medium-sized businesses, the policies of the Department of Supply and Services are specifically meant to develop a more accessible and more competitive Canadian market.
Like all my colleagues who participated in this debate, I think that the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt underestimates what this government is doing for our small businesses.
February 4, 1993

My colleague should not consider solely the details of our policies, he should consider the whole consistent package they represent. I will not repeat what others have already said about the importance of the small-business sector for our economy.
Every single member of this House could elaborate on that theme, because small business is really part of everyday life. What is more important is to underline the consistency of our policies taken as a whole.
Supply and Services Canada has restructured its policies to take into account the need to find new prospects for small businesses with the constraints of a more demanding national and international economic environment. The department helps give our small businesses a chance to excel in this country and elsewhere in the world.
Since 1989, the minister has tried to give better access to federal contracts, to streamline its policies, to modernize its systems, to encourage competition and to give Canadians the opportunity to question the department's system for awarding contracts.
You can see that it was no easy task, but it was carried out, and small businesses know how to take advantage of it. Recently, for example, I had the opportunity to announce, in my riding-



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor
General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House
in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
["The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the motion is dropped to the bottom of the list in the order of precedence on the Order Paper."]
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy to this Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Private Members' Business
Bill C-63, an act to dissolve or terminate certain corporations and
other bodies-Chapter 1;
Bill C-91, an act to amend the Patent Act, to amend another Act
in consequence thereof and to provide for other related matters-
Chapter 2.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Whittaker (p. 15463).
Gabrielle Bertrand: Madam Speaker, when the debate was interrupted, I was about to say that last week, in my riding, I had the pleasure to announce that a contract for $1,974,987 had been awarded by Revenue Canada Taxation to Imprimerie Montreal-Orford in Magog.
This is a reminder that more than 80 per cent of our suppliers are small businesses that can take advantage of these opportunities.
We have already heard detailed descriptions of the open bidding process which is the main component of the department's reform.
I would, however, like to stress two aspects that are a tremendous asset to the process, and I am referring to the Procurement Review Board and the Canadian content policy which some people seem to overlook.
The integrity and fairness of the procurement process must, in the final analysis, be able to stand up to a detailed review by an independent third party.
In the case of contracts covered by the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, suppliers who feel they have been treated unfairly can bring their case before the Canadian Procurement Review Board. The board has proved to be a quick and inexpensive way to deal with complaints.
If the supplier wins his case the board may award costs and recommend compensation, including payment of a certain amount, or order a repeat of the procurement process on a competitive basis. This is a precedent for Canada.
When we talk about government openness, I think Supply and Services Canada and the Procurement Review Board are a case in point. I would even go so far as to say that it is up to us as members to inform small businesses of these mechanisms.

February 4, 1993
Private Members' Business
Many industrial businesses and associations have said that such a redress mechanism should be made available to Canadian suppliers for more goods and services purchased by the federal government.
Consequently, the government intends to introduce a bill expanding the mandate of the Procurement Review Board. Once passed, this bill will allow the board to review the purchasing of goods, and later the purchasing of services, in order to determine whether access to information was fair and if the evaluation criteria were clearly defined.
I am convinced that hon. members of this House will vote in favour of such a bill.
I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to our Canadian content policy. We favour a "Buy Canada" approach, as evidenced by our Canadian-content policy.
For a long time now government procurement in Canada and elsewhere has been considered an instrument for industrial and regional development.
Supply and Services Canada is convinced that these goals will be better served by an open and competitive purchasing process. Competition on the domestic market ensures that Canadian suppliers can make it on the world markets. Government procurement will not be used to favour or support non-competitive suppliers.
Canada has played and continues to play a leading role by applying stricter business practices relating to preferential purchasing on the domestic market.
However, subject to our obligations under GATT and the FTA, Supply and Services clearly favours buying in Canada. This is done by restricting the competition to qualified Canadian suppliers when there are enough of them to insure that there is competition.
In order to take advantage of this preference, suppliers must be able to guarantee that the goods they have to offer are entirely made in Canada or, if they are made up of both imported and Canadian components, that the final product complies with the rules of origin.
Generally it means that a significant proportion of the manufacturing or processing must take place here in Canada in order to make a new product out of these various components.
In the case of services, the value of the work done in Canada by staff located in Canada must generally account for at least 80 per cent of the bid value. For big public projects or large purchases, review committees still make a detailed evaluation of the possible regional and industrial benefits.
I hope that my colleagues opposite will be able to appreciate the impact of the measures I just talked about. Personally, I am convinced that such a policy benefits our small businesses.
I will say again that the government is doing everything it possibly can to help our small businesses.
What I wanted to stress is how coherent, dynamic and innovative our economic policies are. Supply and Services Canada illustrates our commitment to meeting the present and future needs of our small businesses.
Consequently, I cannot but oppose the motion before us today as it contradicts the thrust of our policy on contracting.
Soon, the government will introduce a North American free trade agreement in Parliament.
Here is another example of a policy which, together with all the other existing policies, will provide better opportunities for small Canadian businesses, allowing them to reap the benefits of international trade and to grow and create stable employment for Canadians.


Jean-Marc Robitaille: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues on this side of the House, I am happy to take part in today's debate on the motion of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. Let me remind the House that the hon. member's motion, as worded, seeks to develop a healthy small business sector in Canada by targeting more federal contracts to small businesses and establishing a more aggressive Buy Canada program.
like all my colleagues in this House, I favour the development of a stronger small business sector in this country. However, the second part of the motion, the targeting of more contracts to small businesses, raises many questions, as we could gather from the comments made earlier by my colleagues.
I would like to stress one aspect of the debate that has been ignored until now. I mean the divergence of opinions when it comes to choosing the best way to support small businesses. There are two contrary opinions stemming from different points of view about today's economic realities.
February 4, 1993

My colleagues have detailed the policies in question. I will therefore refrain from repeating data and figures already known.
There is no doubt in my mind that the government is making all the necessary efforts to meet the needs of our small businesses in Canada. Everybody knows that this government's priority is economic growth and the creation of secure jobs.
Small businesses are largely responsible for the vigour of our economy and consequently for job creation in general.
Therefore, I remind my colleague opposite that the present restructuring of the Canadian and international economies turns out to be a major test both for the government and for our wealth-producing small-business sector.
This government has managed to put in place structures and programs adapted to the needs of our small businesses.
In an ever-changing environment, we have acquired what if takes to compete internationally and gain access to the most promising markets.
As the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi indicated, the free trade agreement, the abolition of the manufacturers' sales tax, the North American free trade agreement and a host of policies and programs are all designed to help our small-business sector, and their consistency is striking.
Indeed, the government offers our small business sector the chance to become more competitive, to excel on lucrative markets, to develop new expertise and new technology, in short to thrive.
There would be no point in granting contract quotas to our small businesses. It is an outdated principle as our daily experience confirms.
Now more than ever, Canada must preserve and assert its status as a trading nation which can provide high-quality goods and services at competitive prices. To do so, we will have to face tough competitition and prove we are the best. Our small businesses know that and act accordingly. They have to if they want to survive. It is a harsh reality from which there is no turning back. The world will not wait for those who cannot face the music.
Private Members' Business
Protectionism still creates much tension between the major trading countries, but it is undeniably losing ground as more multilateral and bilateral trade agreements are negotiated. As far as I am concerned, I would rather believe that an increase in present and future business opportunities for our small businesses will bring us prosperity.
I want to commend the government for its efforts on behalf of our small businesses. I also want to congratulate in particular Supply and Services Canada and the hon. Minister of Supply and Services for the contract awarding system. In a situation where you are always asked to do more with less, the hon. minister was able to align his priorities on the needs of our businesses. Under his leadership, Canadian government procurement has become a more competitive, fair and accessible one. No doubt our business people will use this as a springboard to reach foreign markets. I do not think it would be going too far to call the hon. Minister of Supply and Services a reformer and innovator.
Right now, I doubt that my colleagues on the other side would agree with me. Their philosophy on change and economic growth points them in a direction leading nowhere: protectionism. As if Canada could isolate itself when it is one of the most powerful and most respected countries in the world. There is no reason to be afraid. We should be confident and rise to the greatness of this country.
Rejection and a wait-and-see attitude should be banished forever. Canada is a young country, it is vigourous and it has a great future provided it remains open to the idea of profound political and economical changes both on the domestic and international levels.
I would like my colleagues opposite to take note of the policies of Supply and Services, including those of the Procurement Review Board and then I would like them to meet the management of small businesses in order to hear their comments concerning those policies. The only way to really establish the value of a policy is to confront it with everyday reality.
Let me say that small businesses all over the country approve the actions of the Minister of Supply and Services and those of the government. They only want a chance to compete, to test the realities of the market and to be treated fairly. They trust themselves and want us to give them a real chance.

February 4, 1993
Adjournment Debate
The motion debated is based on an outdated perception of economic development. It implies that the government can control economic development as it wishes and act as if other countries do not exist. I object to a statement that denies, yes, denies, today's reality. We should not conclude that the present government fully meets all the expectations of our small businesses. No government could attain that objective. But I say that the direction and the specifics of our policies are meeting the challenges of the day, and that the Department of Supply and Services is a concrete example of the common sense that guides this government with regard to awarding of contracts.
As you will have guessed, Mr. Speaker, I think that the motion as presented does not reflect what we should do to help our small businesses.
Therefore, I will vote against the motion of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the motion is dropped to the bottom of the list in the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to a question I put to the Minister of Transport on November 19, 1992.
On November 17 of last year Canadian Pacific Railway announced its intention to abandon all its rail lines east of Sherbrooke, Quebec. This decision means the loss of 358 kilometres of rail line in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and eastern Quebec. It will also mean the loss of more than 300 jobs in a beleaguered region.
On the date in question I asked the minister to use his discretionary power through section 23 of the National Transportation Act to reverse this decision. The minister refused to act, stating he would wait until after representatives from all sides of the debate had made their opinions known.
Section 23 also stipulates that the minister's discretionary power must be exercised before these hearings take place. The move indicates the government is ready to forsake its already tattered commitment to regional development. This is not a local rail line into the maritimes, it is a lifeline to the rest of Canada.
The National Transportation Act is the key to regional and economic development and it is under this act that viable transportation links to all regions of the country are recognized. The minister's refusal to act signals his department's abandonment of Atlantic Canadians and it also shows something that we have already known for a long time, that this government has a dearth of a transportation policy.
Although CP Rail is a private corporation, it is still regulated by the federal government. The federal government has the responsibility to maintain essential links. Under the NTA regulations, once abandonment is applied for, the National Transportation Agency must decide whether or not the operation of a line is of economic benefit to the affected region.
Given the fact that this is the main artery into the maritimes, it is without doubt of vital economic importance. Without it Atlantic Canada must depend on the region's rapidly deteriorating highway system.
I once again call upon the Minister of Transport to take the initiative and reverse CP Rail's decision and maintain the federal government's commitment to regional economic development. The government's reluctance to act is yet another illustration of its lack of a coherent national transportation policy, one that is creating difficulty in my region and across the country.
Given the past investments made in CP Rail, the time has come to invest in the workers of this company and Atlantic Canada. Save the railway and save the jobs. Creating jobs entails saving jobs.
February 4, 1993


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the motion from the hon. member for Halifax.
Railway companies under federal jurisdiction have a legal right under the National Transportation Act of 1987 to apply to the National Transportation Agency for authority to abandon operations of any of their lines.
The legal and logical extension of that right means that the agency must accept and process all such applications for abandonment of rail line operations submitted in accordance with the rail line abandonment provisions.
It is also true that sections 23 to 26 of the act provide the Governor in Council with the power to issue binding policy directions to the agency. However, the hon. member opposite can appreciate that neither the Governor in Council nor the Minister of Transport can order the agency to ignore its statutory responsibilities. By giving notice of intent to apply for abandonment, CP Limited has initiated the statutory review process.
Those concerned over the effects of that abandonment or any abandonment of CP's lines may have on Atlantic Canada should, and I am sure will, use the provisions of the act to present their views about the continuation of rail services. Every party must also understand that the railway will and should have the right to equally represent its case.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, have you ever been to Cyprus? I was there last November with the Canada-Cyprus parliamentary committee and I had an opportunity to walk the green line. The green line is the name of the United Nations buffer zone that runs through the city of Nicosia, which is a divided city. In fact it is the only divided city in the world. It used to share that honour with Berlin but now the only divided city in the world is Nicosia.
On one side of this green line there are some 35,000 Turkish troops and some 8,000 Thrkish Cypriot national guards. On the other side there are some 10,000 Greek Cypriot national guards and about 900 Greek troops. Right in the middle are the UN peacekeepers including some 575 Canadians.
Adjournment Debate
It is a really weird feeling to walk along that green line in Nicosia because it is as if time stopped in August 1974 when the fighting stopped. That was almost 20 years ago. There are abandoned buildings pock-marked by 50-calibre machine gun bullet holes. There is a car dealer with dozens of new 1974 automobiles. There are abandoned houses that have been vandalized and littered with 1974 newspapers. It is a veiy weird sight indeed.
What is the solution to the problem? I think the solution is a new federal constitution for Cyprus, a return of the property or some compensation in lieu of that for the refugees who have been expelled from northern Cyprus, the settlement of the boundary line reflecting the fact that in 1974 80 per cent of the population were Greek Cypriots and only 18 per cent were Turkish Cypriots, and the withdrawal of all foreign troops.
Is that achievable? The United Nations is about to sit down and try to negotiate such a settlement just 30 days from now. However, without waiting to see what the results of those negotiations will be Canada has decided to withdraw all of its peacekeeping forces this year. Are we just going to walk away from Cyprus after 30 years of trying to help keep the peace there? What else can we possibly do? Constantine Georgiadis, an associate professor of philosophy at McMaster University, wrote to me saying that it is time for Canada to put genuine pressure on Turkey to renounce its 18-year occupation of Cyprus.
I agree with Dr. Georgiadis and tonight I want to hear whether the minister agrees.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is quite right. Last December we did announce that we would withdraw our troops from Cyprus beginning in June 1993, after 18 years of service there during which time thousands of Canadian men and women have made us very proud. They have done so under very difficult circumstances. After 28 years of both sides having an opportunity to come to some sort of an agreement-maybe they are unable or maybe they are unwilling, we cannot answer that right now-they have been unable to negotiate a political solution. It is really time that Canada withdrew from Cyprus.

February 4, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Parties in dispute, whether in Cyprus or elsewhere, must understand that there are limits on the duration of peacekeeping operations for all countries.
The basis for any peacekeeping operation has always been and always will be, within the immediate future, an agreement by the parties involved that they will try to the best of their abilities to work out a settlement.
Our withdrawal does not mean an end to our involvement in diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute nor does it mean an end to the UN peacekeeping missions in Cyprus. This is a decision for the UN to make.
With regard to the negotiations my colleague mentioned that they would resume again this spring. We look forward to attempts by the UN through diplomatic negotiations to try to resolve the effort. However, Canada has been there 28 years and neither side has been willing to come to some agreement. We feel that our commitment to international peace is so strong that perhaps it is time our troops served in other missions, either in Cambodia, Bosnia, Croatia or Somalia.


GOVERNMENT SPENDING
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a follow-up question regarding the EH-101 helicopter program. This is the program, as you know, that replaces the Sea Kings on our destroyers and our aging search and rescue fleet.
I asked a question of the minister when the program became a public interest and I was not very happy with the answer.
The program was approved in July for an expenditure of $4.5 billion. The position of the Leader of the Opposition was that we supported the replacement of these aging helicopters, the Sea Kings and the search and rescue helicopters, but we had major concerns with the expenditure of $4.5 billion, given that the economy was in rough shape, 1.5 million Canadians were unemployed, bankruptcies were at a record high and the federal debt was mushrooming.
What has happened since then has only exacerbated the problem. This is one of the reasons we are mounting this major attack, because of the concern that the public
is showing and the concern that we have in the opposition.
In November the Auditor General issued his report and in the section on national defence he made two points relevant to this program. One was that the defence management program system that manages programs of this nature in his terms was ineffective and expensive. That is a serious indictment for a system that looks after $3 billion worth of capital acquisition programs a year, $3 billion a year.
The Auditor General made another observation that was more troublesome and certainly more relevant to this program. He said that of all the programs he looked at, none of them was directly related to national defence policy and those that had problems, most of the problems occurred in the early stages of the project, where the EH-101 project is now.
Another red flag was raised recently at the turn of the year when the Minister of Justice became the Minister of National Defence. She stated to the media that she had major concerns about this program when she was Minister of Justice and she sat in cabinet and presumably was privy to all the information that was discussed regarding purchase of these helicopters for $4.5 billion. If she was not convinced, how do we expect the public to be convinced that this is a good expenditure of taxpayers' money?
I questioned the minister on this and the Auditor General's concern. It is not necessarily my concern. It is a concern expressed publicly by the Auditor General. The minister did not respond to the Auditor General's concern, but she made reference to the fact that the EH-101 helicopter program was discussed at large and at length, was her term, by the defence standing committee.
The minister was not a member of that committee but I was and it was not discussed at length. It was not discussed at all. It appeared in the minutes of the report and the recommendation of the committee was that the Sea King helicopter is being replaced.
I want to make it clear that it is the position of the Official Opposition that the helicopters be replaced. But the expenditure of $4.5 billion right now is at a time when we have 1.5 million people unemployed, when we are closing hospital beds, shutting down transportation,
February 4, 1993

cutting transfer payments and the deficit is still the same as it was eight and a half years ago.
When that report was put together the deficit was projected at $27.5 billion. Today it is going to be $34.5 billion. That is $7 billion more. That is one and a half of those programs.
If the government thinks that it can ram this program through at this particular point in time when it has the economy in its worse shape ever and the program has concerns of the public at large, the minister herself and the Auditor General, if the government thinks that it can push through a program like that and expect the opposition to roll over and play dead, it is living in a state of advanced disillusion.
The public is looking for answers. It deserves answers. The opposition is looking for answers and we deserve answers. We are going to pressure the government until we get those answers.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to respond to my colleague. I find the juxtaposition interesting however and I promise him that he will certainly get it.
It is my pleasure to respond. I think there is no one in this House more capable of understanding these issues than the hon. member, considering his past involvement in national defence. He certainly knows the role that this helicopter would play, particularly in its relationship to the frigates which have been such an important part, not only of our naval defence program but our over-all defence program and also in areas of search and rescue.
The jobs these helicopters will do in terms of environmental protection, drug interdiction, fisheries patrol and others are well known. I know the member would agree with me that it is incumbent upon us to provide the best equipment available to our service men and women serving on land and at sea.
I recognize that $4.4 billion is a lot of money. It should be recognized, though, that it is over an extended period of time. In fact the $358 million a year which it averages out to be is just over 10 per cent of the entire Department of National Defence capital budget, to which my friend across the way has just alluded. While defence
Adjournment Debate
expenditures reduce we are still capable of making this purchase.
It is obviously important to recognize that the purchase of the EH-101 will provide somewhere approaching 45,000 person-years of employment. That is not a small number. It is recognized that these jobs will be right across the country. Canada spends a little less than 2 per cent of its Gross National Product on defence spending when many countries are spending something approaching 4 per cent.
I do not think that anyone in the House would disagree, for instance, that the area of search and rescue is one of the fundamental purposes of this purchase; 15 of these helicopters will be allocated to protect those who make their living by the sea. This helicopter with its ability for longer distances, its greater capacity in terms of ice and inclement weather and its ability to stay in the air longer gives us that added edge we have so sadly needed for such a long period of time.
It is a big decision for this government and this Parliament to make. It is an important decision for all Canadians in terms of our over-all national and collective defence policy and it is not one that is taken lightly.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, I rose in the House last June to ask the government about the appalling lack of members of visible minorities and ethnocultural community members on the bench. My complaint is still relevant today.

Canadians are tired of endless studies on the relationship between visible minorities and the justice system. We know that the problem lies in representation in the system.
We need judges who share the experience of young people and visible minorities in our big cities. It is essential that our multicultural population be represented in our country's judiciary so that judges can understand the real situation in this country.
Last June, the Minister of Justice answered that Canadian judges are taking sensitivity courses on race relations and on women's issues.

Adjournment Debate
However, that is not enough. Education programs are a good start, but the federal government can and must do better.

It is no longer acceptable that one of the most important segments of Canadian society remains almost exclusively the domain of white men. It is time that the judiciary and indeed the entire Public Service reflect the population they are meant to serve.
Employment equity cannot be shoved off to the side or equated with multiculturalism. These two policies are not the same.
Yesterday at the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, the Department of Finance sent its administration ADM. While I am sure the assistant deputy minister felt he was the appropriate person to appear before the committee, he was there to talk about employment equity instead of multiculturalism.
Employment equity is not an end in itself. It is a means of making sure that the government is truly reflective of the population so that it can serve the citizens of this country more efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, even according to the figures given in June by the President of the Treasury Board, women and visible minorities are vastly under-represented in the Public Service. When will the government stop dragging its feet and take the necessary steps to improve the representation of visible minorities as well as women in the Public Service and in the judiciary?


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville for her continuing commitment to the equality of all Canadians.
It is common knowledge that Canada's racial, ethnic, religious and linguistic diversity continues to grow. Already according to the 1986 census the visible minority population of Canada is over 6.3 per cent of our population.
A changing society presents Canadians with both a challenge and an opportunity; a challenge to develop
inclusive policies and programs and an opportunity to draw on the strengths of a diverse society.
In working toward a more inclusive system of justice and in keeping with the Canadian multiculturalism act the Department of Justice faces a major challenge. This challenge consists of ensuring that all Canadians enjoy equal access to justice by identifying and meeting the special needs of multicultural groups where appropriate.
Lawyers and judges, indeed all justice system professionals must be sensitized to the various ethnocultural clientele they will encounter. The laws and legal process must be clear to all Canadians regardless of their first language or country of origin.
In order to achieve this goal the Department of Justice supports the National Judicial Institute and the Western Judicial Education Centre in their efforts to provide judges with training to sensitize them to the cultural differences of minority groups and their implications for contact with the judicial system.
Recent ministers of justice have worked hard to try to expand the range of people who sit on the federal bench. The commitment of this government when it comes to judicial appointments and visible minorities is clear.
For one, the Minister of Justice welcomes the advice of the special interest groups and informed individuals on particular appointments especially on the furtherance of the government's commitment to appoint more representatives of Canada's ethnic and cultural minorities to the bench.
In addition it is a clearly held and practised principle of the new judicial appointment process developed and implemented by this government as of January 1, 1989 that the judiciary should represent a broad cross-section of Canadian society. To achieve this the appointment of women and individuals from cultural and ethnic minorities is specifically encouraged.
With regard to the Department of Justice, which is a huge stakeholder in the provision of legal services in Canada, in October 1989 the departmental advisory committee on visible minorities was established. The mandate of the committee is to recommend the development or modification of departmental policies, procedures and initiatives as they relate to the recruitment, retention and career development of visible minorities.
February 4, 1993

Adjournment Debate
Recruitment efforts have been expanded in the Department of Justice to include visits by members of the management team to the indigenous, black, and Micmac program of Dalhousie University.
An employment equity guide has recently been approved by the department executive committee and will be distributed to managers across the country. The purpose of the guide book is to inform and guide employees and managers in particular on the nature, operation and over-all aim of the employment equity program.
Awareness training concerning multiculturalism is also being provided to Department of Justice managers in order to enhance the notion of inclusive justice which means making the justice system more accountable, more responsive and more reflective of the interests and values of all Canadians.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, last summer I asked the government a question about the problems my riding of Kootenay East was facing because of the Columbia River Treaty.
I pointed out that under this treaty B.C. and Canada already have an alarming lack of controls over the Columbia River flow. This has caused serious economic and environmental damage in my riding.
I asked the government whether it would specifically exclude Canadian fresh water as a goods subject to export in the free trade agreements with the U.S. and Mexico. The minister chose to evade my serious question.
The NAFTA text has now been released and it unfortunately fails to exclude fresh water although some other items are notably excluded.
The government continues to claim that because the free trade agreements do not mention fresh water exports, water is therefore protected. However, a growing number of experts believe that this glaring absence of a written guarantee in the trade agreements leaves the door open for future water exports especially under the national treatment terms for resources in times of shortages. The NAFTA also allows non-energy pipeline transportation.
Constituents in my riding know exactly how the diversion of water severely affects local tourism, recreation, fish habitats and water quality. They understand that water is not just like any other resource for sale.
This is happening now. Canada's economic and environmental needs are already being affected under an
international water treaty signed with the Americans in 1960.
I recently attended public hearings between Montana and Idaho concerning new proposals for their Columbia River reservoirs. I was surprised to learn that the multi-use plan far exceeds the original intent of the treaty which was simply for the purpose of flood control and hydroelectricity.
The Americans are taking major steps to increase irrigation, protect their fish and enhance their recreation and tourism. They want to reduce power production and increase environmental benefits. Such changes will reduce Canadian sales of power to the Americans and affect the environmental conditions on our side of the border.
Clearly, the Americans are already very much involved in sharing control of Canada's fresh water resources and are planning increased and different uses for it and the federal representative on the permanent engineering panel has done nothing to protect our interests. This is the situation now.
The NAFTA contains no specific provisions prohibiting large scale water exports. Under international law, international treaties supersede any domestic policy. These treaties are entrenching American rights to Canadian water.
Can this government which negotiated the free trade agreements please tell the Canadian people exactly how this country will be able to protect our precious fresh water in the face of growing demands on it? The citizens of Kootenay East who depend on the great waterway of the Columbia River want a real answer this time.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my comments will help ease the fears of the hon. member for Kootenay East.
The Columbia River and its tributaries of course cross the international boundary between Canada and the United States. Our two countries have long shared water and hydraulic resources, as the Boundary Waters Treaty officially recognized in 1909.
Water flowing to the United States from the Canadian part of the Columbia River is not covered or affected by the free trade agreement and will not be affected by the North American free trade agreement either.
The dams on the Columbia River are managed under the terms of the Columbia River Treaty by B.C. Hydro, the Bonneville Power Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

February 4, 1993
Adjournment Debate
The Columbia River Treaty manages a common resource so as to ensure the most flood prevention and the most energy production. It does not deal with water exports.
As for water exports, Canada's position is clearly stated in the federal water policy adopted in 1987. This policy forbids large scale water exports from Canada through the diversion of lake or river water.
Furthermore, section 7 of the law implementing the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States clearly states that the agreement does not apply to water, except for bottled water to be drunk or stored in
reservoirs. This law has been in force since January 1, 1989.
Similarly, the North American free trade agreement does not include large-scale water exports; the law implementing NAFTA will have a clause confirming Canada's sovereignty over its water resources.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.28 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 5,1993