1996-03-06

The Speaker: As is our custom, we will now sing O Canada which will be led by the hon. member for Kootenay East.
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today with good news for businesses in my riding of Cambridge, and congratulations for the Royal Bank and the Business Development Bank of Canada. These organizations recognized the needs of businesses in the industrial heartland of southern Ontario. They announced on March 1 that they are forming a strategic alliance to provide financing for small and medium size businesses.
The program will provide loans in the range of $50,000 to $500,000, filling a recognized gap that exists in traditional lending patterns. This financing program is targeted to businesses in the expansion phase, especially those in information technology, telecommunications, biotechnology, medical devices, plastics processing, auto parts, advanced manufacturing technology, new materials and the agribusiness and food processing industries.
I applaud the Royal Bank and the Business Development Bank of Canada for providing this tangible support for small and medium size businesses, the backbone of the Canadian economy.
CrtcMr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has suggested the time has come for a review of the CRTC mandate. The fact that the government has intervened so many times in the last 18 months, obviously the review is long overdue.
The minister has suggested this review would be internal, a review conducted on the CRTC by the CRTC. Surely, this is a joke.
Last year the cabinet had no difficulty intervening in the CRTC process when satellite licensing became an issue. I suggest that was because Power DirecTv, also known as Desmarais, also known as the Prime Minister's son-in-law, was a licence bidder. In spite of cabinet interference, Power DirecTv still had to walk away from its licence.
Yesterday the cabinet was asked again to intervene with the CRTC on the satellite licensing process. It probably will not intervene this time because the Prime Minister's relatives are not involved.
This statement is an alert to the news media. Watch for the heritage minister to slip this cabinet non-decision passed you during the turmoil generated by today's budget story.
Tran Trieu QuanMr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for two years now, the father of tae kwon do in Quebec, Tran Trieu Quan, has been unfairly held in Vietnam, even after the Canadian Prime Minister's visit to that country. The Prime Minister merely inquired about the situation instead of demanding that Mr. Tran be released.
On behalf of the people of Quebec, we urge the Canadian government to realize that the diplomatic representations made to obtain the release of the Sainte-Foy businessman were unsuccessful.
We therefore call for the immediate suspension of any economic, cultural or social assistance to Vietnam until Mr. Tran is reunited with his family.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the government be aware of the need to protect Canadian citizens travelling abroad whether as business people or as tourists.
FisheriesMrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of this House the deep concerns of many fishermen across the Scotia-Fundy area. I have been meeting with the fishermen in this area and on Monday I attended the round table in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia with the fishermen and officials from DFO.
For decades the fishing industry has been the backbone of many local communities in Atlantic Canada. The new fishing policies such as licence fee increases, a new professional core fishery, ITQs, and Bills C-98 and C-115 have threatened the very survival of the hand-line fishery. Serious flaws in the Oceans Act as well as the Fisheries Act must be addressed.
I call on this government before it proceeds any further to allow the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to travel from coast to coast so that fishermen can be heard and changes implemented before a way of life is destroyed.
ChinaMr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus, I would like to say today that we deplore the intimidating tactics being employed by China off the coast of Taiwan. Why is it that superpowers cannot resist the urge to act the bully when it comes to small islands in their so-called sphere of influence.
The People's Republic of China should give up the notion that Taiwan is somehow part of China. Let China be China and let Taiwan be Taiwan. The Taiwanese people, including its aboriginal population, have a history and identity that is independent and distinct from the mainland. Any dispute of this fact must be resolved peacefully and with utmost respect for the democratically expressed wishes of the Taiwanese people.
It is time for China to put the political residue of the civil war behind it and realize that Taiwan, especially now that it is a democracy, is a country of its own and should no longer be seen as a refuge for the losers of a bygone battle.
Child ProstitutionMr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today's major dailies report that child prostitution is on the rise in some parts of the country.
This situation is totally unacceptable and we must vehemently condemn this undermining of Canadian children's basic rights. All those working with children must be made aware of this plague and co-ordinate their efforts to put an end to the activities of these exploitative and depraved individuals.
Current legislation must be vigorously enforced so that those who commit these repugnant crimes will be punished as they should be. If we need to take additional measures or to adopt amendments in order to make the fight against child prostitution and sexual abuse more effective, we should do so without delay.
Job CreationMr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out the contribution of some 30 Canadian businesses, which are contemplating setting up an in-house training program for high school, college and university graduates.
According to program officials, this program will create 50,000 entry level jobs for young people and help restore hope to a generation that would be only too pleased to play an active role in our society.
Also noteworthy is the fact that all funding for this program will be provided by the companies, to the tune of $12,000 per trainee per year. Only administrative expenses will have to be covered by the Canadian government.
This is a good move worth mentioning, especially after our Prime Minister recently called for greater co-operation between the private sector and government to promote job creation.
International Women's WeekMs. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is International Women's Week, a week to mark progress on women's equality here in Canada and around the world.
Canada is respected as a world leader in advancing women's equality. One of our priorities is the recognition of human rights as the foundation of women's equality. Human rights are universal, inalienable and indivisible.
The International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development has chosen International Women's Day, March 8, to present the first Florence Bird award. It is an honour that recognizes efforts to promote women's rights as human rights in the media. It is a fitting tribute to the remarkable Canadian journalist and activist who headed the Royal Commission on the Status of Women almost 30 years ago.
Minister Of Intergovernmental AffairsMr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week, Stéphane Dion, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, travelled to British Columbia, where he tried to sell the distinct society concept to the people of this region, who are bitterly opposed to it.
In an attempt to reassure them, he stated that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society confers no additional powers on Quebec and, therefore, does not take anything away from other Canadians. What is the use of talking about distinct society if it is a meaningless concept? Will Mr. Dion keep talking about a worthless clause? Some other weekend, will he try to convince Quebecers that a distinct society clause could bring about the changes promised by the no side in the days leading up to the October 30 referendum?
Frankly, Mr. Dion should stop using the phrase "distinct society", which has become trite and has lost any meaning when he uses it. For the moment, he should focus on how the federal government could change how the powers are shared.
Disability Tax CreditMr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, talk about slash and burn. Some disabled Canadians, through no fault of their own, have found themselves indebted to the federal government.
Revenue Canada changed the forms for claiming the federal disability tax credit. These disabled Canadians, after submitting the new forms, were deemed ineligible for the credit as they were no longer considered to be disabled. Figure that one out. They were also told to refund to the government the credit they had received from previous years, with interest.
One constituent whose husband is severely disabled wrote to me saying:

Revenue Canada wrote us February 2, 1996. They stated that our disability deduction had been disallowed for 1994 and we owed them $1,200 including $100 interest. The amount had to be paid by February 20, 1996 or more interest would be added-$1,200 is an entire month's paycheque for us.

Will the Minister of Revenue show compassion and review this unfair tax policy? So who is slashing and burning? The Liberals are the experts.
Gender EqualityMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the concept of gender equality is at the very heart of the values in which Canadians firmly believe.
We recognize that women face particular problems which must be eliminated in order to ensure equality. Since women are confronted to situations that differ from those that men face, the federal government pledged to take these differences into account in the development, review and implementation of federal initiatives.
The guide to policy development, which is based on a comparative analysis between the two sexes and which was released earlier this week, will be a key component in the fulfilment of our commitment.
I ask all members to join me in stressing the vital contribution of women to our society's success. Together, let us make sure that women and men can co-operate as equals in the building of a better world.
International Women's WeekMr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the honour of millions of women and men who are working toward gender equality around the globe. During International Women's Week we are invited to reflect on women's progress in all fields of achievement.
In keeping with our lead role in talks at the Beijing conference on women last year, Canada must continue to fight for women's equality in the face of dramatic social change. It is up to all of us to ensure that the commitments made at the Beijing conference are honoured.
Intervenor FundingMr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the next few days I will be reintroducing in the House my private member's bill to create a federal intervenor funding act for Canada.
Intervenor funding as I have proposed it allows all Canadians to have an opportunity to have a direct voice in government decision making. Too often, hearings in front of federal boards and agencies have been dominated by those wealthy enough to hire expert witnesses. What of the other Canadians who are left in the cold by a lack of funds to represent their legitimate concerns? They often go unheard.
Every voice that is left silent is a voice that is being excluded. If we really mean that we want to give our constituents a voice to allow them to be heard in the public interest, then I ask all members on both sides of the House to support a federal intervenor funding program.
NaftaMr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States are currently involved in a dispute, under NAFTA, concerning eggs, milk and poultry. The U.S. is invoking chapter 20 of NAFTA to challenge the tariff equivalents obtained by Canada as a replacement to the supply management system in these sectors.
We recently learned that, should Canada's position be rejected by NAFTA's dispute settlement panel, some 138,000 jobs in Canada and Quebec will have disappeared by the year 2000 in Canadian agricultural sectors. In Quebec alone, there are 45,000 jobs at risk.
Given what is at stake, we cannot afford to lose. The Bloc Quebecois will continue to keep a close eye on the government's handling of this important issue.
Early ReleaseMr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the new minister of fisheries announced that lobster traps will have a new rectangular escape mechanism. This is the Liberal way of providing early release to incarcerated lobsters.
Holy mackerel. Early release for prisoners and now lobsters. There is something fishy here. Murderers who get life can get early release in 15 years and now lobsters getting early release right away. Let us put some mussels behind incarceration and clam up on early release.
The issue of early release for criminals is not a red herring; it is not for the halibut; it is for real. As this government sits on its perch and contemplates the process of early release, I invite the smaller Liberal fish over here to come out from under the rock and stop porpoisely trying to skate around the issue.
Students Against Drunk DrivingMrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the important work being done by a group of young people in my riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt. The Humboldt branch of Students Against Drunk Driving, known as SADD, ably led by Jeremy Elder is planning a march to be held in Humboldt on Friday, March 15, 1996.
The purpose of the march is to draw attention to the social and economic costs of impaired driving. Stated like that, the consequences of drunk driving do not seem that consequential, much less horrific than when expressed in human terms. Consider instead the grief of a parent who loses a child to a drunk driver, or the fear of a small child waiting alone in the dark in a car outside the local beer parlour wondering if Dad will be able to make his way home, this time.
I know my colleagues in the House will join me in saluting the efforts of Jeremy Elder, the other members of SADD Humboldt, parent volunteers, Mayor Doug Still and principal Ron Ford.
International Women's DayMrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Friday is International Women's Day. I would like to wish a happy day to all Canadian women and to congratulate them on the progress made on promoting women's rights.
But women are vulnerable. For example, 52,000 North American women die of breast cancer each year. In the ten years of the Vietnam war, 48,000 women died on the battlefield. Over the same period, more than 300,000 American women died of breast cancer. This terrible disease is usually hereditary, but no one is safe.
Last year, in Vancouver, more than 3,000 people showed that they care about other people's lives by taking part in the walk against breast cancer. We must remind everyone, and particularly women, to be on the lookout and to learn to recognize the symptoms of this disease, which can be beaten if detected early enough.
A word of warning for all but especially to women that life is often up to us. Congratulations to the BC Breast Cancer Foundation for its work in this area.
Breast CancerMrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as part of the pink ribbon campaign to support breast cancer research, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage all Canadians to increase their awareness of this insidious disease.
According to statistics provided by the National Cancer Institute of Canada, an estimated 17,700 women in Canada will develop
breast cancer in 1996, while more than 5,000 Canadian women will die from breast cancer this year.
All women are at risk for breast cancer. In fact, one in nine Canadian women will be diagnosed with this disease in their lifetime.
While women cannot do much about certain links to breast cancer, such as a genetic predisposition, research has indicated that there are a number of factors linked to the risk of developing this complex disease.
Let us show our support for breast cancer research.

Oral Question Period
CubaMr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the conflict between the U.S. and Cuba is heating up. Canada is now caught up in it, as the target of the virulent attack by Senator Jesse Helms. The crisis now developing between Canada and the U.S. is liable to have very serious economic repercussions.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he agree that the American reaction affects Canada first and foremost, because Canada is Cuba's principal trade partner, according to recent figures?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this problem with the President of the United States last week. I informed him that it was unacceptable to Canada that legislation passed by the U.S. Congress could apply outside that country.
On Monday and Tuesday, I had an opportunity to discuss the same problem with 13 Caribbean heads of government. In the joint press release issued at the conference, it was stated unanimously that laws with extraterritorial jurisdiction are unacceptable under international law.
Obviously, Mr. Helms' statement speaks for itself. My conversations with the president indicate that he is aware of Canada's objections, and that the bill is currently before Congress. We hope that people will become aware of the long term consequences if, at the international level, all countries took the same kind of initiative as the U.S. has.
Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, given the current protectionist atmosphere in the U.S., does the Prime Minister not feel that, over and above the conflict with Cuba, we are dealing here with a challenge to the very terms of the Free Trade Agreement?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill reflects the atmosphere in the aftermath of the Cuba-U.S. incident. As the House is aware, we have clearly expressed our disapproval to the Government of Cuba concerning their attack on civilian aircraft flying outside Cuban territory. At any rate, the International Civil Aviation Organization is addressing the problem today in Montreal.
I have learned from experience that U.S. pre-election fever often leads to statements that are more heated than they would be at other times. After the election, perhaps Senator Helms or others will be more approachable.
Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for International Trade made a statement here in this House in which he expressed a hope that the president will use the discretion available to him to reduce the impact of the bill. Should that hope not be fulfilled, however, what action plan does Canada have in mind to protect the thousands of jobs that would be affected?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, after a law is passed in the United States there is always room for the administration to take some precise action. I discussed that possibility with the president and he will look into it. We do not think this law will be in operation for many months to come, not before the end of the summer.
Therefore we will see how the administration deals with this piece of legislation and we will advise.
Somalia InquiryMrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the commission of inquiry on Somalia is just as muddled as the events it is investigating.
On February 29, the Minister of Justice said in this House that, in order to avoid a conflict of interest, and I repeat, in order to avoid a conflict of interest, he had asked certain individuals to be represented by counsel of their choice rather than counsel from the Department of Justice.
How does the Minister of Finance explain the fact that the highest ranking officers currently under investigation, that is, Lieutenant-General Gordon Reay, General James Gervais, General John de Chastelain and Admiral John Anderson along with the former deputy minister, Robert Fowler, continue to be represented by counsel from his department?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that the commission itself, when it undertook its work, said it would focus the inquiry on the senior members of the forces.
In recent months it has interviewed some of the more junior ranking officers and enlisted personnel. This matter came up in the House last week and I take this occasion to repeat what I said then. The fundamental principle on which we have operated is that where interests conflict separate representation will be afforded.
In 13 cases so far we have arranged to have separate lawyers retained and paid for by the Government of Canada so that individual interest can be represented.
Whenever in the course of an interview or in the course of testimony it becomes clear that there is a difference between the interest of that person and the institutional interest of the government, we ask that the proceedings stop and we advise the person of the right to separate counsel. If the person makes that choice, we arrange for them to get a separate lawyer.
As I said last week, if the hon. member is aware of any case in which justice is not being served because that process is not being followed, I encourage them to tell me about it so that we can redress it immediately.
Pierrette Venne: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice does not consider this a flagrant conflict of interest, what does he think of the fact that lawyers from his department are concocting both the prosecution and the defence of the senior ranking officers and that, moreover, they are sitting at the same table during the hearings and regularly consulting each other about the course the hearing is taking?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand the point the hon. member is trying to make. I hear words being used but they do not add up, at least in my mind, to an effective criticism of the process.
The commission is represented by separate counsel, not government counsel, paid for by the people. The government and the Department of National Defence are represented by justice lawyers.
As I have said, if others appear who happen to be present or former employees of government who have a different interest they will be separately represented.
The lawyers acting for the commission are not government lawyers, not justice lawyers. If the hon. member has a specific concern in mind I invite her to write me about it. I will look into it and I will respond to it directly. However, at the moment I am not able to see in anything she said today grounds for complaint.
Canadian SovereigntyMr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Canadians and constituents of Reform members particularly I again state our condemnation of the shooting down of two private U.S. planes by Cuba. I also state our equally strong condemnation of the American anti-Cuba trade bill that encroaches on our sovereignty and the anti-Canadian statements by Senator Jesse Helms.
Surely it is time for the government to do more than wring its hands and do something decisive to protect Canadian interests from these disturbing American actions.
Can the Prime Minister explain why his personal appeal to the U.S. president and the personal intervention of his trade minister have failed to produce any support for the Canadian position in Washington, thereby placing Canadian interests, jobs and trade at risk?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. leader of the third party supporting our position. We have made all the representations we think are appropriate at this time.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs will talk with Mr. Christopher later this week. As Mr. Helms is good a friend of Mr. Gingrich, perhaps the leader of the third party could call Mr. Gingrich and ask the Republicans not to vote for that bill.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, the protectionist speeches given in the American Congress are a carbon copy of those made by Mr. Turner and others in this country in 1988. Perhaps the Prime Minister could arrange for those speeches to be burned-
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Preston Manning: The actions the Prime Minister has mentioned here today, phone calls to the president, media releases, negotiations at the highest levels, are essentially political actions to deal with this problem.
When the government has taken the political route to dealing with trade disputes the U.S. has usually been the winner, as with the grain imports case. When Canada has used the practical and business like dispute settlement mechanism in NAFTA Canada has tended to be the winner.
Has the Prime Minister instructed his trade minister to launch an immediate challenge to the Helms-Burton bill under the dispute settlement mechanism of the NAFTA?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bill has not been passed. We should let the bill pass, see what the president will do with the bill and how it will be applied.
In terms of trade relations with the United States, we have done very well. At this moment we have the biggest surplus we have ever had with the United States.
The biggest trade relations in the world are between Canada and the United States and so there are always problems of this nature. We have been reasonably successful at resolving them. Sometimes we refer disputes to panels under the NAFTA. We might use this route if needed once the bill is passed. Then we will see the effects.
However, we have done what we can to this point. I am delighted that the leader of the Reform Party is supporting this government. I will send a copy of Hansard to Newt Gingrich.
Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident why Canada's trade interests are not being properly represented. If the Prime Minister would go back to the NAFTA and read the dispute settlement mechanism he would see what it says: "The dispute settlement provisions of this chapter shall apply whenever a party considers that an actual or proposed measure of another party would be inconsistent with this agreement".
It is quite clear that the Helms-Burton bill in the American Congress is a proposed measure in violation of the NAFTA.
Why does the Prime Minister not direct his trade minister to file an application to the dispute settlement mechanism with respect to this bill?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bill not been passed yet.
When we formed the government there were 130 grievances between the two governments. The number is down to below 10 at this moment because we have done it in the proper fashion. We believe that if we have a civilized discussion with the Americans we will probably have a better result. Then it will be time to move if we feel we are going nowhere.
However, I do not think Canada will gain a lot in losing its cool.
Société Radio-CanadaMr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in 1990, the voice of Radio-Canada was silenced in the regions, and in 1996, if the government decides to eliminate advertising, as recommended by the Juneau report, the voice of Radio-Canada affiliates in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, eastern Quebec, the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean, the Mauricie and the Eastern Townships will be silenced.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage. Since the recommendations of the Juneau report will likely result in the closure of Radio-Canada affiliates, will the Minister of Canadian Heritage categorically reject these proposals?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, contrary to the request of the Bloc, we will not reject all the recommendations of the Juneau report, because there are good things in them. I would like the member opposite to get involved in a good debate to find ways to provide long term funding for Radio-Canada instead of dumping on the Juneau report.
Gaston Leroux: Mr. Speaker, the three recommendations in the Juneau report are even identified by the report's author as the weakest ones.
Given that Radio-Canada's contract with its affiliates ends March 31, does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to calm the fears of the people in the affiliate stations by declaring a moratorium on the recommendations that affect them?
Sheila Copps: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's proposal is unreasonable. He is asking us to reject the recommendations of the Juneau report, when one of them was long term funding for Radio-Canada. Clearly I am not going to reject the recommendations of the report. I am in fact working to have it in effect shortly.
Canadian SovereigntyMr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Prime Minister has learned to keep his cool.
It is an election year in the U.S. and it has decided Canada is an easy target for its bravado and bullying. Not only have Canadians had to put up with the Jesse Helms anti-Canadian rhetoric, but today on CBC a U.S. congressman said Canada had violated international law by imposing fees on the inside passage, which puts us in the same category as Cuba.
When will the Minister of Foreign Affairs stop allowing Canada to be a patsy to the bravado and bullying of foreign politicians and forcefully defend Canadian sovereignty on trade and on our territory?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member had now spent sufficient time in politics to not get overly disturbed when the odd congressman, senator or other representatives find their way into the Canadian
media. They do not reflect the policy of the U.S. government or its administration.
Furthermore, we have made it very clear, as we have been doing for the past many years, that the inside waters are our waters and that there will be no payment to the United States of any compensation. Those waters are ours to determine what will happen within them.
Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, the government has caved in on softwood lumber. It has failed to stop the Helms-Burton bill and when the Americans unilaterally declared the B.C. inside passage to be international waters, the Liberal government, as we heard yesterday, simply sent a message. This is some defence of our sovereignty.
The Liberal red book said: "A Liberal government will end the Conservative's junior partnership relationship with the United States and reassert our proud tradition of independent foreign policy".
What happened between the writing of the red book and what we are observing now?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what seems to have happened is that the reform party was down holding hands and making sweet talk with the Republicans in the U.S. Congress and perhaps got the false impression that the entire Canadian public reflects the position of the Reform Party that there is no sovereignty in Canada.
The reality is that the Prime Minister has taken the lead in mobilizing Caribbean and Latin American countries. We have the European Union on our side. The Russians are on our side and countries around the world are on our side. We are leading the charge against the extraterritoriality of that bill. We just wish Reform would get on side.
Canadian ForcesMr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of defence.
Two days ago, the defence minister stated in this House that the suicide rate in the Canadian Forces is, and I quote: "about half the rate of Canadian society as a whole".
The reality is as follows: in the last four years on record, the Canadian average was 13.2 per 100,000 people, compared to more than 20 for the same number of people in the armed forces.
In light of these facts, does the minister still stand by the statement he made two days ago in this House denying any problem in the armed forces?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, knowing the hon. member, he has been quite selective with the information he has presented to the House. I stand by what I said.
Jean-Marc Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the minister that the information I have comes from Lieutenant-General Paul Addy and was published by Le Devoir in April 1995.
The minister is still trying to play down this scourge. Will he finally give this problem the importance, the attention it requires?
David Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the incidence of suicide in the Canadian Armed Forces is about half that of the population as a whole. I would like to see the hon. member's data because I am sure they have not been correctly presented to the House.
What concerns me is the motive behind the hon. member's playing on the whole question of suicides in the armed forces as they play against the general population. I can only suspect this is another measure with which the Bloc Quebecois wants to destabilize Canada's military.
The Speaker: Neither in the questions nor in the answers should we attribute motives. I ask members to keep that in mind.
Canadian SovereigntyMr. John Cummins (Delta, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1985 an American coast guard icebreaker transited Canadian arctic waters without our permission.
In response, the current Prime Minister said the government had been humiliated and that the whole nation had been humiliated by this challenge to our sovereignty.
What will the Prime Minister do now that once again the U.S. is threatening to, in his words, humiliate us by challenging our sovereignty?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I strongly recommend to the hon. member that before he uses that kind inflammatory language he look specifically at the so-called U.S. legislation, the fishermen's protective act. It does not authorize the United States to use the coast guard against Canadian fishing boats. That is called a finding. It has no legal impact or legal authorization.
I suggest to the hon. member that before he begins to beat the drums and raise the temperature he read the legislation and realize that Canada has full rights, which we have exercised and continue to exercise, and full sovereignty over our inside waters.
John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, the language is the same as in 1985. Yesterday the transport minister said: "You cannot win with the Americans with rash and foolish behaviour". He should have given that advice to Brian Tobin before he slapped a transit fee on the Americans.
Negotiations over salmon with the U.S. broke down yesterday. There is no sign of an agreement. Now the U.S. has turned a fish dispute into a sovereignty showdown.
When will the government wake up to the needs of the west coast and figure out some way to undo the damage done by Brian Tobin, damage that could result in a violation of Canadian sovereignty?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the former minister of fisheries, now the distinguished premier of Newfoundland, is one of the most ardent and effective representative this country has had in defending Canadian interests. We know full well that the present minister of fisheries from Newfoundland will follow in that tradition.
I want to point out a fundamental error in the hon. member's comments. Negotiations have not broken down. Both the United States and ourselves issued statements yesterday stating that negotiations will continue. We will continue to talk about a new fishing regime for this year's fishing season. We will continue to work out the criteria and the formula for a long term solution.
We believe in finding effective solutions to these problems, not engaging in wild rhetoric.
ImmigrationMrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
On February 12, the Bloc Quebecois demanded that the Canadian government suspend all deportations of refugee claimants to Algeria, a country on the brink of civil war. Yet, as recently as yesterday, immigration officials were still deporting people to that country.
Does the minister agree that it is unacceptable to continue deporting people to Algeria and essential to review the cases of all Algerian nationals in light of the explosive situation prevailing in that country?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as you know, there is an advisory committee that examines conditions in countries to which people are to be deported. Whenever this committee meets, it reviews the situation as a whole, what is happening inside the country, how past deportations went, whether the situation changes from day to day, and whether or not deportations should be temporarily suspended. In summary, every time someone is deported from Canada after having exhausted all avenues of appeal provided for in Canadian legislation, we assess the potential risks of sending this person back to his or her country. If we do send someone back, it is with the assurance that this person will be able to go home without facing persecution.
At this time-which does not mean that the situation will not change in a few days, next week or next month-we are still deporting people to Algeria.
Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, given the climate of violence prevailing in Algeria, does the minister recognize that Algerian nationals should benefit from a suspension of deportation measures just like the citizens of Rwanda, Burundi and Afghanistan?
Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, each situation is assessed on its own merits. Again, the situation is reviewed on a periodic basis. Even in the case of Burundi or Rwanda, the situation will be assessed regularly week after week. All deportation suspensions are temporary. In this case, there is no temporary suspension for the time being.
Mirabel International AirportMr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development.
Now that the firm Aéroports de Montréal has indicated what its plans are for the two airports, could the government tell us whether it is prepared to grant free zone status to Mirabel to promote and ensure its long term economic development?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
As you know, last December, we tabled Bill C-102 to enhance Canada's duty referral program.
This new legislation provides for the creation of so-called free zones, which are actually free trade zones. Businesses and regions looking to implement very innovative projects may request the designation of such zones. Officials of the Federal Office of Regional Development and of Aéroports de Montréal are currently
considering, in collaboration with Revenue Canada, whether or not a free zone could be created under the new legislation to help the Mirabel area.
Goods And Services TaxMiss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during the last election the Liberals quite clearly stated that they would scrap, kill, abolish the GST.
Yesterday the finance minister waved the red book around, somewhat like a white flag, and said that the government meant harmonize, not scrap. In fact it meant augment, not abolish. Canadians know what they heard from Liberals during the last election campaign. They simply will not forget it.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When will he live up to his promise and the promise of members of his caucus, to scrap, that is kill, that is abolish the GST, unlike what he says on page 22 of the red book?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a book that is quite well known across the country.
On page 22 it said: "A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenue, is fair to the consumers and small business and minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial co-operation and harmonization". That is the promise.
The Speaker: Members can quote directly from whatever books they like, but I would ask them to please not show them off. We are going to get into the use of props.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Red is dead, because here are some of the things they said during the election: "I would abolish the GST".
Mrs. Finestone: Take your jacket off, Deb.
Ms. Clancy: Time to be true blue.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would hate to think during International Women's Week that I was being undressed in the House of Commons by this government.
During the election-
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: One day we are being seduced; the next day we are being undressed. Before we go much further, would the member put her question.
Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, regardless of what was in the red book, the finance minister said: "I will abolish the GST". "We hate it and we will kill it," said the Prime Minister. "Scrap it," said the revenue minister. And of course there are those words that we have all come to love: "If the GST is not abolished, I will resign", said the Deputy Prime Minister.
Why is the government going to expand and hide the GST in a secret supertax, instead of just plain killing it?
Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have to deal with the bare facts.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Jean Chrétien: We have put in writing that the GST will not be there and will be replaced by a system that will be a better one.
As it is the tradition, I can table the red book and the hon. member can table the red coat and then she would be dressed in black which will show the future of the Reform Party.
Coast GuardMr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. When the Châteauguay River overflowed in late January, it caused approximately $3 million in damage and forced the evacuation of 1,063 residents. All experts agree that the damage would not have been as substantial had air cushion vehicles been available.
Does the minister agree that this situation could have been avoided if more Canadian Coast Guard air cushion vehicles had been available and could he confirm plans to procure two additional crafts for the Coast Guard?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we regret very much that this took place. The coast guard has only one air cushion vehicle, a Hovercraft, in the region and it was in refit at the time. It was January and that was the normal time to refit these kinds of crafts. I think the hon. member would agree that it was impossible for any other vessel to get there because of the depth concerned.
I will take into consideration what the hon. member has said. We will try to make that craft available as much as possible, given the contingencies that one would expect under the circumstances.
Maurice Godin: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, given that the St. Lawrence region has only one air cushion vehicle in operation at present, could the minister promise
in this House that the St. Lawrrence region will have two such craft in operation by next fall?
Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, the provision of emergency services in the tributaries of the St. Lawrence River, as in other rivers in Canada, is the responsibility of the province. The Canadian Coast Guard provides ice-breaking services in the tributaries at the request of the Quebec ministry.
I will take into consideration what he has said and we will do what we can with the resources that we have.
United NationsMr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canada has a long tradition of meeting its obligations to the United Nations in full and on time. It was $270 million last year. Thanks to political manoeuvring in the Security Council, Canada is going to be stuck with the full cost of sending additional troops to Haiti for four months, $24 million.
Under those circumstances, will the minister consider withholding $24 million from our other UN assessments in order to compensate us for this unjust cost?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much the attitude demonstrated by the hon. member.
The initiative taken at the United Nations a week ago to arrange for an agreement with the security council to continue and extend the UN presence is one of the most important contributions Canada has made to the UN for the rebuilding of that country. Haiti is desperately struggling to rebuild a democracy where there has been a dictatorship for the last several decades.
For the hon. member of the Reform Party to cast aspersions and say that we should find some way of denying the value of that contribution really demonstrates his misunderstanding of the value that Canada places in the UN, on the building of democracy in our hemisphere and in ensuring that we have a stable, orderly system in the world.
Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I hope you award prizes for irrelevant answers to serious questions because I sure heard one there.
Since the hon. minister wants to roll over and play dead on my first suggestion, in 1994-95 Canadian foreign aid to China was $162 million. Since it was China that blocked the security council's vote on the funding of the Haiti mission, would the minister at least consider withholding $24 million of aid from that country, which by the way has a vibrant economy and is in no way a legitimate target for our largesse?
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to my reply. First, if the hon. member took the time he would recognize that China has become in the last several years one of the most important trading partners for Canada. We have several billions of dollars engaged with it. Much of that has been generated by the fact that the foreign aid development budget has been used to help Canadian business with startup funds which will lead to much broader contracts at a later date. It has been one of the best investments we have made.
Second, the other part of that aid has provided major assistance in the development of institutions to aid women, children and judicial institutions in China and to help in exchanges for education and training.
The attitude displayed by the hon. member is the worst kind of isolationism that I have heard in this House in an awfully long time.
Health CareMs. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The largest petition in the history of the Alberta Legislative Assembly was presented last week. Eighty thousand Albertans representing 458 towns, cities and villages demonstrated overwhelming support for the five basic principles of medicare. They rejected two-tier health care and called for the maintenance of national standards.
What will the minister do to protect Canada's publicly funded health care system and to ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are honoured by all provinces, even Alberta?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. The House should extend congratulations to those 80,000 Albertans who signed petitions in hockey arenas, shopping malls and homes across that province to give support to what we know as medicare.
The members of Parliament from that great province realize fully that 75 per cent of its population support the five basic principles of the Canada Health Act. They do not support the two-tier system which is being advocated by the Reform Party of Canada. They support unquestionably the principles of universality, access, affordability and free access to all Canadians. It is high time that the Reform Party got on side with the general population of the province of Alberta.
Official LanguagesMr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the International Development Research Centre, which comes under the responsibility of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, apparently decided, recently, to stop publishing the French edition of its magazine Explore , which, for reasons of economy, would only be available in English, from now on.
How does the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain the fact that an agency for which he is responsible is contravening the Official Languages Act, and does he intend to reverse that decision as soon as possible? If he does not, it is clear that francophones will once again be the ones affected by federal cuts.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing that particular issue to my attention. I do not accept that an official publication issued by any agency of this government should not be distributed in both languages. I will look into it immediately and report back to the hon. member.
Interprovincial TradeMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the lousy deal on Churchill Falls probably will cost Labrador $50 billion over the life of the contract.
The ministry yesterday said that the internal trade document was going to settle the problem but that document is two years old. Last September it was supposed to have a draft agreement on the energy sector and that did not happen. Meanwhile $2 billion a day is going down the tubes and Labrador is being shafted.
When will the minister be prepared to move to help Labrador get what it deserves, which is reliance on its own natural resources?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
Let me assure him that as recently as March 5 the federal government, provincial governments and utilities involved have met to continue discussions in relation to this issue.
The federal government does not wish to usurp that which is the rightful authority of the provinces but it will continue to work with the provinces in a constructive fashion to reduce trade barriers wherever they exist.
ForestryHon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister has said that forestry will be transferred to the Yukon government on April 1, 1996. I would like to ask the minister if this is still the department's intention and if so, what kind of negotiations have been finalized with the Council for Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows we had a lot of difficulty with the forestry because the price was 20 or 30 cents per entity which would normally have cost $20 or $30 in B.C. or Alberta. Over a period of time we increased the stumpage rates and put some of it into what is called the Elijah Smith Sustainable Fund which was named for an elder in the Yukon, as she knows.
The problem is that the First Nations in the Yukon do not feel that they had been adequately consulted in the process of devolution, so I have slowed down the process. If I am going to err, I am going to err on the side of the First Nations in the Yukon.
Sports FisheryMr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Last year the federal government received $60 million in GST revenues as a result of the spending of sports anglers on the Great Lakes. At the same time the exploding population of sea lamprey in the lakes has the potential to eliminate sports fishing.
Can the minister advise the House whether his department is proceeding to decrease, maintain or increase Canada's contribution to the binational Great Lakes Fisheries Commission which controls sea lamprey programs?
Fred Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the hon. member that the government is very interested and concerned about the control of sea lampreys in the Great Lakes.
In this fiscal year we will be contributing $3.8 million which basically restores the level to that of earlier years. There was an increase last year but we are going back to earlier levels.
It is the view of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that in all fisheries the use of public resources, particularly those managed by public expense, should really command a licence fee. To that end, we are dealing with the province of Ontario to look for ways to further assist in the control of predators like the sea lamprey, for
more effective control in sports fishing and other kinds of fishing that are affected by these predators.
The Speaker: This brings question period to a close.

Routine Proceedings
Government Response To PetitionsMr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions presented during the first session.
Committees Of The HousePaul Zed: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and associate members of various standing committees.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this third report later this day.
Department Of Public Works And Government Services ActHon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, an act to establish the Department of Public Works and Government Services, and to amend and repeal certain acts.

Madam Speaker, I wish to state that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-52 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as provided in the special order adopted on March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-52 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, reported with amendments and concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
Controlled Drugs And Substances ActDavid Dingwall: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-8, an act to amend respecting the control of certain drugs, their precursors and other substances, and to amend certain other acts and to repeal the Narcotic Control Act in consequence thereof.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the standing orders and to the traditions of the House I wish to state that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-7 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as provided in the special order adopted by this House on March 4.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-7 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been adopted at all stages and to have been passed by the House.
Law Commission Of CanadaHon. Alfonso Gagliano (for the Minister of Justice): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-9, an act respecting the Law Commission of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I wish to state that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-106 of the first session of the 35th Parliament at the time of prorogation. I therefore request that it be reinstated as provided in the special order adopted March 4, 1996.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-103 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and reported with amendments.
Citizenship ActHon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.

Madam Speaker, I wish to move this bill to amend the Citizenship Act with respect to the oath of allegiance.
At present, those persons who present themselves to become new citizens of Canada must pledge alliance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. This is confusing to some and objectionable to others. Many individuals are ready and willing to pledge their allegiance to Canada and to the Canadian Constitution, but not to Queen Elizabeth whom they associate with the United Kingdom, another independent country.
This bill would replace the present citizenship oath with a new oath which would read:

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Criminal CodeMr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-224, an act to amend the Criminal Code (arrest without warrant).

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce this private member's bill today on behalf of the request of a number of policemen throughout the country who at various times have witnessed and seen people on parole willingly and unconditionally break all conditions of the parole they have been released on.
This bill would authorize these peace officers to arrest without warrant, which would prevent a number of crimes. They know it will. There have been a number of incidents where that kind of intervention would have prevented some very serious things from happening.
We hope this will receive the full support of the House to give the police the power to protect those we are obligated to protect.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Canadian Human Rights ActMr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-225, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (Indian Act).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce for first reading my private member's bill, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The purpose of the bill is to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which reads: "Nothing in this act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that act".
Because of this section, a federal court judge in 1994 in his decision was unable, as he said, to uphold the human rights of a young Indian student from British Columbia to attend a Catholic boarding school away from her reserve.
The judge has termed the Indian Act racist and one of the causes is that the Indian Act is exempt from the Canadian Human Rights Act. The judge went on to say that if the Indian Act were not exempt from the Canadian Human Rights Act, human rights tribunals would be obligated to tear apart the Indian Act in the name and spirit of equality of human rights in Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Criminal CodePierrette Venne: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code (self-defence).

Madam Speaker, this is a bill on self-defence. At the present time, the Criminal Code allows the instigator of a fight to claim that he acted in self-defence, even if he kills his victim. That anomaly has resulted in a controversial decision being handed down by the Supreme Court on February 23, 1995.
According to the chief justice of Canada, the decision gives illogical and absurd results, since the worse the aggression is, the more the instigator can use the wider ground of defence. Under my proposed bill, the instigator of a fight would no longer be able to use that defence when the victim dies. Only individuals who do not start the fight would be able to say that they acted in self-defence.
(Motion deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Committees Of The HousePaul Zed: Madam Speaker, if the House gives its consents, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
PetitionsRose-Marie Ur: Madam Speaker, I table a petition signed by constituents in the riding of Lambton-Middlesex initiated by George Skinner on behalf of neighbours in Strathroy, Mount Brydges and Komoka, duly certified by the clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners state that whereas the Young Offenders Act fails to act as a deterrent, is abused by young people predisposed to committing crime and encourages them the manipulation of children who are too young to be subject to the act, that Parliament undertake a complete and thorough review of existing legislation and amend the Young Offenders Act to reflect the concerns of this petition.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have two petitions. The first has to do with the family.
Petitioners from Sarnia, Ontario draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to society. They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, the second petition is from Strathroy, Ontario. The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or impair one's ability. Specifically, fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Could hon. members please be brief in their presentations.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will be brief, since there are many wishing to speak today.
I take pride in joining with several colleagues in presenting a petition bearing 94,000 names, at least 2,000 of those from the riding of Gaspé. The petitioners are calling upon the government to take steps to enable Québec Téléphone to have access to a broadcasting licence. This is essential for the economic development of Quebec. Despite its foreign ownership, Québec Téléphone is managed by Quebecers and the language of work is French. Québec Téléphone is an needed agent of regional development.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière, BQ): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of presenting a 200-page petition.
The petitioners are calling for the grandfathering of Québec Téléphone. Québec Téléphone has always been a key figure in the economic and technological development of the regions it serves.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to deposit a petition.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House a petition provided by 1,000 people in the Lac du Bonnet-Pinawa area.
They draw to the attention of the House that the Canadian nuclear industry provides enormous benefits to Canadians for safe and environmentally sound power and research and development. Atomic Energy Canada is the government agency responsible for Whiteshell in Manitoba and Chalk River in Ontario. Whiteshell makes substantial contributions to the economy in eastern Manitoba.
Therefore the petitioners pray that the Government of Canada will not close or downsize the Whiteshell facility and make a public declaration of that support.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, duly certified, signed by 39 constituents from my riding.
The petition has to do with families and children of divorced parents. The petitioners call on Parliament to pass legislation incorporating rights of children and principles of equality between and among parents.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents as well as those from Assiniboia, Regina Beach, Pilot Butte, Riceton, Fort Qu'Appelle and Saskatoon, all in Saskatchewan. The petitioners are very concerned about the price of gas. They are very concerned because the increases have not been justified.
They are asking the House of Commons and the government to set up an energy price review commission to keep gasoline pricing and other energy products in check.
My second petition is also from many constituents in Regina-Lumsden. It pertains to the tax increases on gasoline. Fifty-two per cent of the cost of gas is taxes.
The petitioners are asking the House of Commons and the Government of Canada not to increase the taxes on gasoline in the upcoming federal budget.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of residents of Peterborough riding who call to the attention of the House that an innocent spiritual man, Leonard Peltier, has been wrongfully held a political prisoner by the United States of America under the guise of a dangerous criminal. Leonard Peltier has been denied appeals over and over again.
Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament lobby and advocate to the United States judicial system on behalf of Leonard Peltier for a new trial and that justice be done in this case.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce, Ind.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in tabling a petition with 94,000 names, 24,000 of which are from the riding of Beauce, asking the government to take action to allow Québec Téléphone to have a broadcast license.
This is essential to Quebec's economic development and, although foreign owned, Québec Téléphone is managed by Quebecers. French is the exclusive language of work, and Québec Téléphone is a major instrument of regional economic development in Quebec.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I join with my constituents in tabling a petition requesting the government to take the necessary steps to enable Québec Téléphone to have a broadcast license, as it is a major instrument of regional economic development in Quebec. To enable thers to present their petitions, I will stop there.
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have four petitions to present to the House.
The first two petitions state that the availability of a low cost energy source is a natural advantage Canadians have to oil. Over the past 10 years, the excise tax on gasoline has risen by 466 per cent. They request that Parliament not increase the federal sales tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.
John Maloney: Madam Speaker, the third and fourth petitions are on the issue of a potential taxation of health and dental benefits.
The petitioners state that our dental and health care has contributed to Canadians enjoying one of the highest standards of health care in the world. The petitioners call upon Parliament to refrain from implementing a tax on health and dental benefits and to put on hold any future considerations of such a tax until a complete review of the tax system and how it impacts on the health of Canadians has been undertaken.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on behalf of constituents in my riding I wish to present a petition that calls upon Parliament to consider the extension of benefits and compensation for veterans of World War II to the merchant navy wartime veterans.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Madam Speaker, were you to request it, you would no doubt find there is unanimous consent to extend the time usually allowed for petitions by ten minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Roger Gallaway: Madam Speaker, I would like to present to the House three petitions duly certified. The first deals with amendments to the Criminal Code for certain acts of violence.
Roger Gallaway: Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Roger Gallaway: Madam Speaker, the third petition deals with Bell Canada rate increases.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have a petition which I am presenting on behalf of the hon. member for Windsor West.
The petition deals with the issue of corporal punishment of children and more specifically with section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in tabling a petition bearing 94,000 names, nearly 3,000 of which are from my riding, asking the government to take the necessary steps to allow Québec Téléphone to be granted a broadcasting license.
Social and economic logic demands that the grandfathering Québec Téléphone was previously granted be now broadened to take into account modern technology. Preventing Québec Téléphone from keeping up with technology would significantly hamper Quebec's social and economic development.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker, on behalf of around 20,000 citizens in my riding and surrounding areas, I too present a petition asking that Québec Téléphone be granted a broadcasting license.
In order to give others a chance, I will now sit down.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in tabling a petition bearing 94,000 names, 4,000 of which come from my riding, demanding that the government take action to allow Québec Téléphone to be granted a broadcasting license.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present this petition. The petitioners rightly ask the government not to increase the excise tax on gasoline in the upcoming budget.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, the member for Champlain, I am pleased to present a petition signed by hundreds of petitioners praying the Parliament to recommend that Québec Téléphone be grandfathered under the Broadcasting Act to allow the company to join the world of convergence and competition.
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is with much pride that I join my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and table a petition bearing 94,000 names, including 7,710 from my riding. The petitioners are asking the government to take measures in order to grant Québec Téléphone a broadcasting license.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Madam Speaker, 1,828 people have put their names on the 250 sheets that I table today. These people argue that the grandfathering granted Québec Téléphone under the Telecommunications Act be extended to the Broadcasting Act.
Benoît Sauvageau: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by some 50 people from my riding who pray Parliament to ask the finance minister not to raise the tax on gasoline. The petitioners consider that they are already overtaxed since taxes represent about 52 per cent of the cost of a litre of gas at the pump and that over the last ten years, the tax on gasoline increased 566 per cent. I am pleased to table this petition.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of petitions on behalf of 28 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and the surrounding area.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to stop the use and sale of synthetic bovine growth hormone in Canada until the year 2000, or extend the existing moratorium until health and economic questions can be answered.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I hold in my hand the signatures of almost 7,500 people from my riding of Elk
Island who are bringing to this House a very sincere request to not increase taxes. Taxes on gasoline have gone up many times. The increase was 1.5 cents per litre last time. The petitioners are saying not to include another 2 cent per litre tax in the budget.
I am pleased to present this petition.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on behalf of 63 constituents and backed by an overwhelming feedback from many more, on this the day the government presents its budget I would like to present a petition which requests that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline. I trust the government will heed the petitioners' sincere request.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I too have a petition concerning the price and the taxes on gasoline. Given that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is composed of taxes and that taxes have increased by 566 per cent over the past decade, the petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gas and that the government strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling highway system.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to add another 4,000 names to the larger petition presented by myself and others asking the government not to further increase the excise tax on gasoline.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on budget day on behalf of my constituents. They want to remind the finance minister that he still has time to change the text of his budget. The petitioners are upset that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is composed of taxes and that the federal excise tax on gasoline has already increased by 566 per cent in the past decade.
The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and that the government strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's national highways.
Questions On The Order PaperPaul Zed: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders
Judges ActAnne McLellan: 
moved that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak to the House on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Judges Act.
I wish to express my very sincere thanks to the member for Saint-Hubert and the member for Crowfoot for their approval of the amendment to the act and their facilitation in assuring its passage through the House.
As members of the House are aware, under the Constitution of Canada it is the duty of Parliament to fix and provide salaries, allowances and pensions of federally appointed judges. To assist Parliament in exercising that responsibility a process was established under the Judges Act in 1981 for the review of salaries, pensions and other benefits payable to these judges.
Every three years a commission is appointed by the Minister of Justice to enquire into the adequacy of judicial remuneration. These triennial commissions are currently under statutory obligation to report to the minister within six months of appointment. The Minister of Justice in turn is under a statutory obligation to table a report in Parliament within 10 sitting days after receiving the report.
The rationale of having such commissions is obvious. Triennial commissions provide the government on a regular basis with non-binding advice which is objective and independent in nature with respect to determining fair compensation for federal judges. The process respects and enhances the independence of the judiciary according to our constitutional traditions. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that this independence of the judiciary is grounded on both security of tenure and financial security.
The six-month reporting period has proven to be a very short time for the triennial commission members, who serve part time, to complete their onerous responsibilities. They need to invite and receive briefs on behalf of the public from judges' groups and others. They need to publish notices in the press. They need to acquire and study highly technical information. They need to await and study written submissions. They need to conduct public hearings. They need to prepare and translate the report. All of this is within six months of appointment. This puts undue pressure on the commissioners and barely allows them the time necessary to approach the job methodically and produce a well considered report on compensation issues.
The judges' organizations, the Canadian Bar Association and others making submissions to the commission have generally found the present six-month reporting period to be insufficient. The chair of the commission which is currently under way, Mr. David Scott, Q.C., as well as the main judicial organizations and the Canadian Bar Association are in favour of extending the reporting period by six months.
Bill C-2 would do just that and nothing more. It would merely extend the reporting period for the triennial commissions from six months to twelve. The cost of this amendment would be nil. The bill would have no bearing on judges' salaries, which continue to be frozen like those of everyone else in the federal public sector.
I urge honourable members to approve the quick passage of this minor amendment to the Judges Act. I once again wish to extend my sincere thanks to the member for Saint-Hubert and the member for Crowfoot.
Pierrette Venne: Madam Speaker, I will be brief, since we have already given our consent for this bill to be pushed through the various stages as quickly as possible and since there is no disagreement. I think the House has other meaningful things to do, which is why we should focus on really significant and debatable issues.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Reform Party caucus and its justice critic, I too see no opposition whatsoever to this minor amendment to the Judges Act. To expedite the process of the House, I have nothing further to add.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, the indication from the Chair was that the bill was referred to the standing committee. I had been led to believe that there was some agreement to doing all stages of the bill in the House by unanimous consent this afternoon as opposed to the reference to the committee. Perhaps the Chair could clarify the matter for us.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent for the bill to go to committee of the whole?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(House in committee of the whole on Bill C-2, an act to amend the Judges Act-Madam Ringuette-Maltais in the chair.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee of the whole on Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Judges Act.
Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1
Pierrette Venne: Madam Chairman, can the parliamentary secretary tell us if this extension from six to twelve months would increase the expenditures and emoluments of the members of the triennial commission. And if so, by how much?
Gordon Kirkby: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that there will be no increase in costs in regard to this extension.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Are there any other questions on clause 1?
Shall clause 1 carry?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported, concurred in, and by unanimous consent, read the third time and passed.)
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to suspend the sitting of the House until 4.20 p.m., at which time hon. members will be called in for the budget speech. We will not proceed to the consideration of the next bill on the orders of the day.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed to suspend the sitting until 4.20 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 3.51 p.m.)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 4.30 p.m.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): moved:

That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the budget documents, including notices of ways and means motions. The details of the measures are contained in the documents.
Pursuant to an order of this House, I will introduce today a bill seeking borrowing authority for the 1996-97 fiscal year. I am asking that an order of the day be designated for consideration of these motions.
It is as clear today as it ever has been that Canadians do not want rhetoric from their government. What they want is action, real progress. These are the standards that Canadians have set, and these are the standards by which this government wants to be judged.
Seldom in our history have so many experienced such anxiety. Canadians feel our very way of life is at risk. They look at medicare and feel it is threatened. They look at the pension system and wonder if it will be there for them in the years to come. They consider the economy and they worry that the gale force winds of competition and change will carry away their jobs. Canadians think about their children, our youth, and ask what kind of opportunities will be left for them.
If there is one obligation before government today, it is to do its part to address these deep concerns. It is to do what we must so that confidence can overcome anxiety and hope can replace despair. In short, we must act now to help Canadians secure their future.
In short, we must act now to help Canadians secure their future. We all have our part to play in this undertaking.
It will require the concerted efforts of individual citizens, their governments, business and others for our country to tackle these challenges effectively.
What Canadians want from their government is for it to set the goals, to have a plan and then to work as hard as it can and as long as it must to help get the job done.
This budget is our third in a comprehensive and determined drive to restore fiscal health to this country. In this budget we are keeping on course. We are maintaining our pace. We are not letting up. Indeed, this government will never let up. The attack on the deficit is irrevocable and irreversible. Let there be no doubt about that. We will balance the books. Furthermore, we will put the debt to GDP ratio, what we owe as a percentage of what we produce, on a constant downward track year after year after year. Nothing, I repeat nothing, will cause this government's conviction to change.
We announced in November that we had bettered our deficit target for 1994-95. It is now clear that our target for 1995-96 will be achieved or bettered and that we are on track for our 3 per cent target for 1996-97. This is proof of the profound impact of the actions set in motion in our first two budgets.
Moreover, today, we will make it clear that our deficit target for 1997-98, $17 billion or 2 per cent of GDP, is also secure.
We will hit the 3 per cent deficit target. We will hit the 2 per cent target announced last November. Indeed, we are announcing the actions today which will enable us to go beyond these targets to keep us moving toward budget balance.
To that end, we are cutting our own departmental spending by almost $2 billion to take effect in 1988-89, I mean 1998-99. I am going backward; I sound like the Reform Party.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Paul Martin: This is over and above the substantial savings secured in our first two budgets. Most departments will have their budgets cut by at least a further 3.5 per cent in 1998-99; some are cut much more.
Spending on defence and international assistance will be further reduced. The growth of spending on Inuit and Indian programming will be restrained. The dairy subsidy will be phased out over five years and the postal subsidy program reduced.
This budget, together with our last two, will contribute $26.1 billion in savings to secure our 2 per cent target for 1997-98 and a further $28.9 billion of savings for the following year 1998-99 to continue the downward deficit track and to give the debt to GDP ratio the downward thrust it needs.
In 1993-94 government spending on programs, that is to say spending on everything but interest on the debt, stood at $120 billion. By 1998-99 we will have reduced that to $105.5 billion. This will mean six consecutive years of absolute decline in program spending.
Measured relative to the size of the economy, the decline is even more dramatic. By 1998-99 program spending will have been reduced to 12 per cent of GDP. This is down from close to 20 per cent just over a decade ago. In fact, it will be at its lowest level in over 50 years.
Because we are focusing on spending cuts, not tax increases, over the three budgets taken together, we will have cut seven dollars in spending for every one dollar in new revenues. Let me say that in this budget we are not raising excise taxes. We are not
raising corporate taxes. We are not raising personal taxes. In fact, we are not raising taxes.
We are pleased to announce that, in this budget, we are not raising taxes. In fact, this government has never relied on tax increases to hit its deficit targets. Nor has it relied on rosy forecasts. We are maintaining the prudent approach we have adopted from the very beginning.
Our economic assumptions are once again deliberately more cautious than those of most private sector forecasters. As in both previous budgets, we are backing up our economic assumptions with substantial contingency reserves. These reserves do not exist to be spent on new initiatives, or new programs. They are there to handle unforeseen changes in the economy. If we do not need them, they will not be spent. They will go to reducing the deficit even further.
As we have always said and as we have now proven, meeting our targets is the least we can do. It is not the best we will do.
One of the payoffs in hitting our deficit targets is the dramatic decline in the amount of new money the government must borrow on financial markets each year. This indicator, financial requirements, is the way most other major economies, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, France and Germany, calculate their deficits.
In the year 1993-94, the year we came to office, Canada's financial requirement stood at 4.2 per cent of gross domestic product, or $30 billion. By 1997-98 our financial requirements will drop to only 0.7 per cent of GDP, or $6 billion. Relative to the size of the economy, our new borrowing requirements will be at their lowest level in almost 30 years. Measured on this basis, Canada will have the lowest fiscal shortfall projected of any G-7 central government.
Today's fiscal progresses do not result from a federal effort only, they are due to a national effort supported by Canadians from across the country and from all political affiliations.
One of the primary goals of all provinces and territories is to return to fiscal health. In fact, eight provinces are expected to report a balanced budget, or even a surplus, for the fiscal year ending this month.
The results are striking. For instance, in 1993, Canadian businesses and governments borrowed $29 billion abroad. That was reduced to $13 billion in 1995, and it will be reduced again next year and the year after that. In short, Canadian economic sovereignty is being restored.
In comparison with most other countries and in the arcane world of statistics, we are doing quite well. However, that being said, in the real world where we all live we know that despite gains being made, Canadians continue to worry very deeply. The reason is not hard to identify.
Whatever the numbers might say, many do not see evidence of improvement in their own lives. They see sacrifice. They want to know whether their sacrifice will bring positive results and when it will end. Therefore the job before us is clear. It is to build on the progress we have made, to see it translated into good jobs, into sustained growth and social programs suited to the millennium that lies ahead.
This budget is about consolidating the gains we have made. It is about addressing problems before they arise. It is about managing ahead, continuing to put in place new building blocks for security and prosperity. It will show how we will sustain the federal government's commitment to health care and our social programs into the 21st century. It will put forward a plan to restore confidence in the public pension system. It will enhance the protection of the most vulnerable in our society and it will reallocate spending to invest in the economic future of the country. In short, as all budgets must be, this is a budget about the present; however, it is also a budget for the future.
Canadians want to know that the principles guiding government are the ones they share. Here are our principles. First, governments created the deficit burden and so governments must resolve it first by focusing in their own backyards by getting spending down, not by getting taxes up.
Second, our fiscal strategy will be worth nothing if at the end of the day we have not provided hope for jobs. We must focus on getting growth up at the same time as we strive to get spending down.
Third, we must be frugal in everything we do. Waste in government is simply not tolerable.
Fourth, we must forever put aside the old notion that new government programs require additional spending. They do not. What they do require is the will to shutdown what does not work and focus on what can. That is why a central thrust of our effort is reallocation. Whether on the spending side or on the revenue side, every initiative in this budget reflects a shift from lower to higher priority areas.
Finally, we must always be fair and compassionate. It is the most vulnerable whose voices are often the least strong. We must never let the need to be frugal become an excuse to stop being fair.
Let me now address the issue of the pace of our efforts. This pace has been constant from the outset. It was established deliberately. We will not alter it. It is our view that chronic deficits constitute a clear and present danger to this country, to our way of life, to our future. Chronic deficits put the disadvantaged at risk. It is they who suffer when the financial strength of government is so weak it can no longer reach out to those in need.
However, this does not mean we share the view of those who think we should be going to a zero deficit overnight. Draconian budgets are not difficult to write; the arithmetic is painless but the human consequences are not.
In our view, durable progress requires adaptation, adjustment and understanding. A measured strategy lets that happen. A measured pace ensures that short term savings will become long term savings -à a downpayment towards restored fiscal health. Indiscriminate cutting, on the other hand, raises the real risk that short term savings will become long term costs.
Our goal is clear and firm: to get the deficit down permanently -à not temporarily. We want to solve the problem once and for all. This requires considered and careful reform.
We will balance the books and we will do so in a way that is measured, deliberate and responsible. That is our plan, that is our course. This is a question of costs, it is a question of consequences; but so too it is a question of values. We simply do not believe it is necessary to toss aside fairness in the quest for fiscal success. That has not been the hallmark of this country and it will not be the legacy of this government.
We have always made it clear that while fiscal progress is crucial, equally important is the redesign of government itself. What we need is a government that not only spends less money -à but spends more wisely. If there is one area where we must never let up, it is the effort to root out waste and inefficiency.
Government should be focused on the needs of citizens -à not the needs of bureaucracy. Canadians want their governments to co-operate, not compete. And they want better service delivered at lower cost. Duplication wastes businesses' time and government resources. We want to put an end to such waste.
Therefore, legislation will be introduced that will allow for the creation of fewer, more effective government agencies.
One of the best ways to reduce costs is to reduce overlap and duplication. This was one of the goals inherent in our program review exercise led by the current President of the Treasury Board. Surely we can all agree in the House that it is simply silly for a food processing company to have a federal meat inspector, a federal health inspector, a federal fish inspector, not to mention a provincial health inspector and a provincial food inspector, tripping over themselves on the same day in the same plant doing essentially the same things.
What small business has not had the experience of a federal income tax auditor, followed by a federal sales tax auditor, followed by a provincial corporate tax auditor, followed by a provincial retail tax auditor, all asking for the same material organized in a slightly different way? This is why we are proposing, for instance, a single food inspection agency that will consolidate the activities currently spread around several federal departments. This in turn will allow us to offer a new partnership with the provinces which would lead to a more efficient joint food inspection system.
For the same reason, the Minister of National Revenue will also create a national revenue agency, the Canada revenue commission. The creation of this commission will facilitate the development of a closer partnership with the provinces in revenue administration. Canadians know full well that there is only one taxpayer. A number of provinces have asked us with justification why should there not be only one tax collector as well.
In the same vein we are working very hard to replace the federal sales tax. We believe this is crucial to increase fairness for consumers and respond to the concerns of small business while saving taxpayers money through more efficient administration. We are working with a number of provinces to achieve this end. If successful in getting provincial agreement, the government will take such steps as are necessary to implement harmonization. In addition, a significant package of measures is being readied to streamline and simplify the federal sales tax.
Fiscal health is not an end. It is a means to an end. It gives us the strength to move forward on everything else. As we continue to address the anxiety of Canadians over the fiscal health of their country, we must also look ahead to address other problems before they arise.
Clearly, one of these priorities must be to preserve and strengthen our social programs for the next century.
These programs -à support for health care, for post-secondary education, for assistance to the poor speak to the spirit of our country.
In last year's budget the Canadian health and social transfer was created. It was designed to put federal transfers for these important areas on a sound footing to allow the provinces more flexibility to better deliver these programs. In 1997-98 the CHST will be a $25 billion transfer composed roughly equally of tax points and cash.
Since transfers to the provinces and territories represent an important part of our total spending, we could not put federal finances on a sustainable basis without addressing them. That is why in last year's budget we announced funding arrangements for the new Canada health and social transfer covering the fiscal years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Those arrangements will remain unchanged.
With the framework of the CHST in place, our challenge and commitment is clear. It is to provide, as the Prime Minister promised, a long term funding arrangement with a CHST transfer that is stable, predictable and sustainable.
To this end, we are announcing today a firm funding commitment for the CHST to cover the five-year period from fiscal year 1998-99 through to 2002-03. For the first two years of that period we will maintain the overall CHST entitlement, that is the value of the tax points and cash combined, constant at its 1997-98 level of $25.1 billion. For the remaining three years of the framework, total transfer entitlements will grow each and every year at an increasing pace.
In addition, we will provide a legislated guarantee that the cash component of the transfer will never be lower than $11 billion at any time during this period. This will put an end to the decline of cash that occurs automatically as the value of the tax component grows. The provinces will benefit, not only from the growing value of the tax component, but from the cash guarantee as well.
Based on an evolving formula tied to economic growth, overall CHST entitlements will increase over this period from $25.1 billion in 1999-2000 to approximately $27.4 billion in 2002-03.
As a result of these assurances, Canadians can have confidence that as we enter the next century the commitment of their national government in support of health care, post-secondary education and assistance to the poor will be intact and will be strong. As part of that, we will remain opposed to the imposition of residency requirements on social assistance recipients who move from one province to another, and we will be steadfast in upholding the principles of medicare.
This budget also addresses our commitment to provide a new approach to allocating the CHST among provinces, one that addresses the funding disparities resulting from the limits on Canada assistance plan transfers imposed on certain provinces by the previous government.
The new allocation will be phased in during the course of the new five-year transfer arrangement. As a result, current disparities and per capita funding levels among provinces will be reduced by half. We are willing to examine with the provinces further refinements to the allocation that may be appropriate beyond this framework.
Finally, on the issue of health care, this budget takes additional action. The Minister of Health will be announcing the establishment of a health services research fund under the auspices of the Medical Research Council of Canada. The federal government will provide an unconditional $65 million over five years. The goal is to bring together governments, health institutions and the private sector to fund research identifying what works best in our medical system, what does not and what possibilities might exist to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of our health care system.
One of the greatest pride and achievements of this country is to have provided a decent level of retirement support for our seniors. As a result of our public pension system, millions of seniors today enjoy a standard of living that is substantially higher than was the case for their parents. Our obligation today is to take the action necessary to safeguard that achievement for our children.
There is widespread anxiety, particularly among the young, that the public pension system will not be there for them when they retire. Confidence in the pension system must be restored. The party that put pensions in place for this country must now act to preserve them. The challenge is clear: It is one of sustainability.
First, the Canada pension plan must be put on a sound financial footing and done so in a way that is sustainable, affordable and fair. This government does not share the view of those who believe the CPP cannot be fixed, that it should be abandoned. We believe that the right to a secure retirement should be available to all and not become the preserve of only those who are well off.
However, the findings of the chief actuary make it clear that changes are needed to restore the CPP to health. Clearly, governments should have acted some time ago to address this problem. We believe the role of government that is responsible is to act to
prevent problems rather than letting them become crises. And so, together with the provinces and the territories, we are acting.
The second pillar of the pension system à- old age security and the GIS -à is funded out of general government revenues. Here too, rising costs have led to concerns that these public pensions are at risk. Our obligation is to put those concerns to rest.
In our last budget, we set out the principles of reform. Today, we are proposing a new seniors benefit to take effect in the year 2001. This benefit will be a central element of fulfilling our commitment to Canadians to ensure they have a secure and sustainable pension system now and into the future. Such was our commitment to Canadians.
As the Prime Minister said many times, today's seniors have the right to know that their retirement is secure. They have the right to know that they will always get at a minimum what they receive in pension payments today. Our proposal guarantees that. In fact, many seniors will get more.
Furthermore, younger Canadians have the right to know that, in the future, government pensions will be there for them. Our reform guarantees that as well.
This reform will make the pension system sustainable. We will do so by targeting help to those who need it most. By slowing the rate of growth of public pensions, the danger of crowding out other essential programs and services is being addressed.
The new seniors benefit will be fully tax free. It will be completely separated from the tax system. It will incorporate the OAS, GIS, pension income credit and age credit.
Furthermore, under the new system, the benefit and the threshold levels will be fully indexed to inflation. This is an important improvement for all seniors who worry about eroding benefits. Thus, the partial indexing of the clawback threshold will cease to be an issue.
The new seniors benefit will be paid monthly. In the case of couples it will be divided equally between each spouse. Each will receive a separate cheque.
This will be a fairer system. It will be based on total income, as the GIS always has been. We believe that since the incomes of low income couples are currently combined to determine eligibility for additional help, it is also appropriate to combine the incomes of higher income couples to determine their level of government support.
The new benefit will be designed to fully protect low and modest income Canadians. Almost all of them will receive slightly more. In fact, all those who currently receive the GIS will receive $120 more per year.
Overall, our reform will ensure that 75 per cent of seniors will be at least as well, if not better off than they are today.
Under the new seniors benefit, 75 per cent of seniors will be as well or better off; in fact most will be better off. For instance, nearly nine out of ten single senior women will be better off under the new system. High income seniors will receive somewhat less. The more income they have from other sources, the less they will receive. The very highest income seniors will no longer receive government benefits.
In this House the Prime Minister has promised Canadians that no current seniors will have their OAS and GIS payments reduced as a result of this reform. In fact, our proposal goes one step further. Not only will the pension benefits of every senior over age 65 today be protected, but so too will the pension benefits of every Canadian who reached age 60 before January 1 of this year and their spouses no matter what their age. The government will give these Canadians a choice of whichever system is more advantageous to them: moving to the new seniors benefit five years from now, or maintaining their existing OAS-GIS pensions.
The purpose of this reform is to assure Canadians that the pension system will be there for them in the future as it has been in the past. Fairness, sustainability and security: that is what Canadians seek and that is the hallmark of this new public pension system.
The next issue concerns children. There are many more single parent households today than ever before. Canadians know that too often the needs and the rights of children following family breakdown are not being protected. The fact is there is too much hardship, tension and distress resulting from the current child support system. It has added to the uncertainty and anxiety that many Canadians feel.
Our view is that children should be first in line. Child support is the first obligation of parents. It is not discretionary.
The government promised to improve the child support system. Today, that action is being taken. The Minister of Justice will be elaborating on these measures in the days ahead. The first change we are making in this regard concerns the tax treatment of child support payments.
Currently, child support payments are taxable for the recipient and tax deductible for the person paying. In our view, this is
wrong. We believe these payments are there to provide support for children. They are not income for parents.
Therefore, for all new child support awards and all existing awards that are varied on or after May 1, 1997, support payments will not be included in the income of the custodial parent for tax purposes nor be tax deductible for the payer. This approach will ensure that the children who need support the most get it, and eliminate the need for complex tax calculation and planning by parents.
Second, the method used for determining levels of child support is being improved. This will result in settlements that are fairer and more consistent. It will reduce conflict between parents and keep money now spent on lawyers and courts in the hands of the parents for the benefit of the child.
Third, a wide range of measures is being introduced to help ensure that child support orders are enforced -à that support is paid in full and on time.
We are targeting chronic, wilful defaulters. Because enforcement is primarily a provincial-territorial responsibility, these measures are designed to complement and bolster their efforts.
We believe more should be done to support children. Therefore we are increasing the working income tax supplement under the child tax benefit. This supplement assists low income parents to meet some of the expenses resulting from work such as child care, transportation and clothing. It also helps to make up for the benefits lost by parents who leave social assistance and re-enter the workforce. Therefore I am pleased to announce that the maximum annual benefit is being doubled in two steps. It will increase from $500 to $750 in July of next year, and to $1,000 in July of 1998.
When fully phased in this will result in an additional $250 million in support annually to some 700,000 low income working families, one third of which are headed by single parents.
Finally, we believe the current age limit of 14 on the child care expense deduction should be raised to 16 to provide more support to parents, in particular to single parents whose jobs require them to be away from home at night.
Increasingly large numbers of Canadians are providing in-home care for adult children and other relatives with disabilities. This work is both invaluable and difficult. Therefore this budget proposes to increase the value of the infirm dependent credit from $270 to $400 and to raise the income threshold for the reduction of this benefit from $2,690 to $4,103.
A number of groups including the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons have asked that we examine measures over the course of the next years, including those in the tax system, that have an impact on people with disabilities. I am announcing that we will do so because we believe it is important to constantly assess the mechanisms through which we provide assistance to persons with disabilities.
Every day in every community Canadians give freely of their time and money to support the work of non-profit voluntary and charitable organizations. These countless acts of individual commitment are a powerful collective response to meeting pressing human needs, especially in this time of fiscal restraint.
Governments must support Canadians in their effort. Therefore we are adopting the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Canada Council that the annual limit on charitable donations be raised from 20 per cent to 50 per cent of net income. That limit will be increased to 100 per cent for gifts willed to charities in order to encourage charitable bequests. In addition, to encourage donations in forms other than cash, the same limit will be raised to 100 per cent on the portion of a donation of appreciated property that must be included in a donor's taxable income.
Clearly the case has been made that more can be done. Therefore over the next year and in consultation with the charitable sector we will examine ways to further encourage charitable giving and charitable activities. We will focus on ways to ensure that increased government support leads to activities of direct benefit to Canadian society.
One of the greatest challenges facing Canadians and their governments is the changing nature of work. Around the world on every continent we are facing a revolution whose scope and depth rival that of the industrial revolution itself. The contours of that revolution are clear. Distance is losing its meaning as barriers to trade and investment collapse and communications become instantaneous. The pace of change is accelerating as technology makes possible daily what once was only the substance of dreams.
Some see this as a revolution about new opportunities. Others fear it is a revolution about opportunity lost. We must ensure Canada is on the vanguard of this revolution, not one of its victims. We must now work together to make sure the new economy is also an economy with new jobs.
Canadians understand that the jobs of today and tomorrow will come from the thousands of Canadian businesses created every year, and we agree. Therefore the question is what is the role of government? We believe it is to provide the private sector and all Canadians with a framework for growth, the kind of growth on which job creation depends.
Clearly, despite our problems the economic climate in this country is getting better. The nation's balance sheets are improving. As a result interest rates have come down by 3 percentage points in the last year. Inflation is the lowest it has been in 30 years, and Canada's economy is more competitive than ever.
The point is in this world of globalization, of competition, of rapid change, focusing on getting the fundamentals right is absolutely necessary but by itself not sufficient. It is in this context that one must view the numbers on job creation. This is the most important statistic of all. In the last 13 months 263,000 private sector jobs have been created. Since November alone 123,000 such jobs were created, the majority of which were full time. These are good numbers but they are not nearly good enough.
The proof lies not simply in the numbers of unemployed but in the increasing length of time it takes the unemployed to find new work. The effect of change is being felt by every segment of society in every part of the country from our biggest cities to our smallest communities.
For instance, it is clear that rural Canada faces a particularly acute challenge of adaptation. While major metropolitan areas are often the focus of attention, it is absolutely essential that we continue to pursue policies to address rural anxiety as well, that we develop policies designed to meet the diverse needs of both urban and rural Canada, needs which remain essential to our economic well-being, our way of life and our future.
In other words, if our future is to be brighter, we must invest in it. And so, in addition to consolidating our fiscal gains and securing the future of our social programs, we are strengthening three areas of government emphasis that will help Canadians manage toward the future.
Following the recommendations of the cabinet committee on jobs and growth headed by the minister of agriculture, we are making strategic investments in our youth, in technology and in trade.
Let me emphasize that while we are announcing new initiatives, none of the funding required represents new money. All of it is sourced from a reallocation of existing resources.
The economy of the future will belong-
Mr. Speaker, this is the third budget in a row in which the Solicitor General has been drinking my water.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Jean Chrétien: Be happy it is not gin.
Paul Martin: Can I talk to you before the next cabinet shuffle?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Paul Martin: Mr. Speaker, the success of our economy will very clearly depend on our young people, just as their success will depend on their ability to participate fully in all the economy has to offer. There is a clear role for government in helping our young people to prepare for a rapidly changing economy through the acquisition of the right skills and the provision of opportunities to gain work experience.
And so in this budget we are providing an additional $165 million over three years to be funded through reallocation within the tax system so that students and their families will be better able to deal with the increased costs of education.
First, to recognize the non-tuition costs of schooling we are increasing the education credit from $80 to $100 per month. Second, in order to support parents or spouses who help underwrite the education costs for students we are raising the limit on the transfer of tuition and education credits from $680 to $850 per year.
Third, to encourage parents to save for their children's education over the long term we are proposing to increase the annual limits on contributions to registered education savings plans from $1,500 to $2,000, and the lifetime limit from $31,500 to $42,000.
Fourth, as we have said, we are broadening eligibility for the child care expense deduction. This measure will assist parents to undertake education or retraining. Single parents will be allowed the same deductions that today are only available to couples. And for the first time, the child care expense deduction will apply to those completing high school, not only post-secondary education.
For our youth, learning is the first step. But increasingly, education alone is not enough. What is required is the opportunity for them to gain experience on the job. To help reach this goal, the government is reallocating $315 million over the next three years from other spending in order to help create youth employment opportunities. This is in addition to our existing funding provided through such programs as youth internship Canada and youth service Canada.
Some of these additional funds will go to substantially increasing our support for student summer employment. Summer employment not only provides young people with the opportunity to earn the money they need to complete their education, it can also supply critical job experience.
Therefore, we are doubling our assistance for summer employment for 1996-97, from $60 million to $120 million.
Another part of the $315 million will be used to assist young Canadians who have left school to find work. The details of all of these youth initiatives will be provided in the near future by the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In summary, we are eager to enter into a new partnership between the public and private sector to create entry level jobs for the young. Government and business have worked well together on trade as Team Canada abroad. Let us now, business, labour, educators and government work together even harder at home for jobs for our youth.
Our ultimate challenge is to change the very economic culture of the nation, to make Canada one of the most innovative countries in the world. Some may think that innovation applies to only one small sector of the economy, to those who write software, who surf the net. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is not about part of our economy. It is about all of our economy. From small business to large business, from coast to coast to coast, from mining and oil and gas, from agriculture and forestry the application of technology has become essential.
Clearly it is the job of the private sector to innovate because it is its survival and growth that are at stake. But government too has an important role, in levelling the playing field against foreign competition, in forming partnerships to invest in areas of basic research of high risk, and where the scale of investment is simply too large for the private sector itself to carry alone.
To that end, the Minister of Industry will be announcing the creation of technology partnerships Canada. This program will encourage the development of environmental technologies, advanced manufacturing and materials as well as biotechnology. It will also help maintain jobs in the aerospace sector, which is subject to very heavily subsidized foreign competition.
This marks an important departure from past practice. Both the risks and the rewards will be shared with the private sector. The government's investment should not exceed one-third of the total. The emphasis is on partnership, not unilateral federal action. The reallocated resources provided in this budget, together with the existing Industry Canada funding, will enable Technology Partnerships Canada to grow to about $250 million by 1998-99. This will lever substantial additional investment by the private sector.
In addition, the government is injecting $50 million into the Business Development Bank. This equity will in turn allow the bank to provide an additional $350 million in loans to knowledge-based, exporting and growth businesses that would not otherwise have access to the commercial banks.
The Minister of Industry will also accelerate efforts to bring the benefits of information technology to the whole country. By 1998 through school net we will have connected every school and library in the country to the information highway. By the same year 1,000 rural communities will also be connected through the community access program.
In order to bring to small business the advantages of access to the information highway, we are instituting a program in which 2,000 computer students will connect some 50,000 small businesses to the Internet, not only installing those systems but advising their owners on how best to use them.
Our financial institutions have a key role to play in facilitating the growth of Canadian business. Over the past year, the banks have made progress in dealing with the concerns of small business. More needs to be done.
To ensure our financial institutions provide the best possible financing for growing export and knowledge based businesses, the government will work with business and all financial institutions, including the banks and the insurance companies, to ensure that further progress continues.
Finally, we are currently reviewing the legislation governing financial institutions. We are doing so with a view to improving the framework that was established in 1992. We have concluded that the financial sector has yet to fully adjust to this framework. Therefore, the present restriction on banks selling insurance will be maintained.
The present framework for selling insurance through agents and brokers will be preserved. The white paper covering this and all other aspects still under review will be released in the coming weeks.
Let me conclude this section by discussing trade. Canada's trade performance has been extraordinarily good. No one can deny that. The export sector has been the fastest growing sector of our economy, expanding at an average 8 per cent per year over the past decade. Our merchandise trade balance has soared, reaching a record surplus of $28.3 billion. And as a share of the economy, our current account deficit is at its lowest level in ten years.
Trade will continue to be a major thrust of the government's economic policy. The Team Canada approach established by the Prime Minister has proven to be a major success and will remain a centrepiece of our strategy.
The Minister for International Trade will continue our determined drive to secure new agreements for more open markets around the world, building on the exemplary work of his predecessor, the Hon. Roy MacLaren.
Export financing is critical to ensure that Canadian companies can fully realize the opportunities before it. And so in this budget we are providing $50 million of new equity to the Export Development Corporation in order to support new export sales financing vehicles and new partnerships with exporters in the commercial banks.
In addition, we are reallocating resources from subsidized loans for foreign borrowers to non-subsidized loans under an improved system to manage risk. This measure will increase the amount of financing available for Canadian exporters by as much as $500 million per year.
I would now like to deal with the question of government revenues.
No one is ever happy with the tax system. That is why we must do everything we can to ensure that it is fair and that the system as a whole is as effective as possible.
Taxes are clearly higher than any of us would like, but the issue is not simply one of rates. Il is also important to ensure that the system is supportive of the nation's goals. To this end, the budget announces the following additional revenue measures.
This is to announce the following revenue measures. The revenue we realize from many of these has been reallocated to provide tax incentives that will assist students, help the infirm and support charities.
Let me begin with the provision of tax assistance to encourage Canadians to save for their own retirements through RRSPs and RPPs. We are proposing a number of changes that will better target this assistance to modest and middle income Canadians while limiting the cost to taxpayers.
First, we know that many younger Canadians have a difficult time finding the money to make full RRSP contributions. This is often due to other pressing obligations, including education or raising a family. We want to give them the maximum opportunity later in life to help make up for that lost time.
Therefore, we will allow Canadians unlimited time to make up for any years when they were unable to make their full contribution. Thus the current seven year limit on carrying forward any unused contribution room is eliminated.
Second, the contribution limit for RRSPs is being frozen at its current level-$13,500-until the year 2003. The limit will then increase to $15,500 by 2005.
Third, we are reducing the age limit for contributing to RPPs and RRSPs from age 71 to 69.
In order to improve the effectiveness and the fairness of the tax system, a number of additional measures are being announced. In order to see them established, the government put in place incentives for investment in labour sponsored venture capital corporations. These incentives have worked. These funds are now very well established. Therefore, we are proposing several measures to reduce the unique incentives in place for these funds.
Next, the budget provides a variety of measures related to the resource sector. In relation to oil, gas and the mining industries, we are clarifying and tightening rules related to the resource allowance following the review announced in our last budget. While revenue neutral, this will result in a more consistent and stable tax structure.
We are announcing as well changes to the accelerated cost allowance rules for new mines, including oil sands, so that all types of oil sands recovery projects are treated more consistently.
For mining flow-through shares, the current 60-day rule is being extended to one year while the eligibility rules for these shares are being tightened for the mining and oil and gas sectors.
We believe that environmental health and economic development should be complimentary not contradictory concepts.
To that end, this budget announces income tax changes that will provide an essentially level playing field between certain renewable and non-renewable energy investments. This is part of the base line study of possible barriers and disincentives to sound environmental practices initiated earlier.
One measure is to create a new Canadian renewable energy and conservation expenses category in the tax system. A second measure is to extend the use of flow-through share financing, currently available for non-renewable energy, to similar costs for certain renewable energy and energy conservation projects.
A temporary tax on large deposit taking institutions, including the banks, was included in last year's budget. It will be extended for a further year.
Finally, and of import, an effective business tax system should not only raise revenue, it should be designed to help create jobs. We believe that it is time for a comprehensive look at this issue.
In order to identify any obstacles to job creation currently contained in the tax act and to suggest needed reforms, we are announcing today the establishment of a technical committee of outside experts who will report to me later this year to be followed by public consultations. If the creation of secured jobs is our objective, then every effort of government, including the tax system, must be directed toward that end.
That concludes our description of the measures contained in this budget. They reflect our desire to put in place the strongest economic framework possible for sustained growth and jobs.
We spoke at the outset about the anxieties that grip our country. This budget is about doing what we can to help Canadians put those anxieties to rest. But let us be clear. A budget is only a small part of the answer. The full response lies in recognizing where we are in the evolution of a country and where we are in the evolution of the world beyond our borders.
It is time to turn the page. Because the fact is that success for countries is no different from success for families or communities or individual citizens. It is based, above all, on one thing: the constant setting of goals and the meeting of new challenges. Successful countries do more than occupy a place on the map. They live in the souls of their people because they are relevant to the betterment of their lives.
And so for Canada it is time to set goals anchored in our shared values and our shared aspirations. We have done that throughout our history, in the days when we dared speak of a national dream and then built it; in the days when we aspired to a kinder society and then created it.
Now it is time to move forward once again, to arrive not simply at a common understanding of what we are, but a common vision of what we can be. Our challenge today is to make Canada a place of great expectations, a country once again where our children believe that they have the opportunity to do better than their parents.
We must set great national challenges, not small ones, because it is only by reaching as high as we are able that we will discover how far we can go.
The issue is, why can we not decide together in the House and in this country that 10 years hence, Canada will be regarded as the world leader in the new industries of the new economy, in biotechnology, in environmental technology, in the cultural industries of the multichannel universe? Why not decide together that 10 years hence, increasing child poverty rates will be a thing of the past, that illiteracy will be erased from our communities, and that when it comes to international tests, our students will not simply do fine work but in fact will be the very finest.
Why can we not decide together that medicare, ten years hence, will not simply survive, but be the most successful system in the world, a system that is second to none? Why not decide together that ten years hence our streets will be the safest they can be -à not because we have the largest number of prisons or police, but rather because we have faced squarely the sources of crime?
If we want to open new doors for our children, there is literally nothing standing in our way. We are a society that mirrors the diversity of an entire planet. We are already building on a great foundation. Now it is time to draw on that foundation, to write a new history ourselves.
And so I would ask, let us act, not as special interests, but as stewards of the national interest. Let us follow in the footsteps of those who came before, who saw challenge as a rallying cry to move forward, never as an excuse to give up.
Let it be said by those who come after us that we set the goals, that we met them together, that we propelled Canada forward into the new millennium, still and always among the front ranks of the nations of the world.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's 1996-97 budget tells us nothing except that last year's bad news will apply this year as planned, and that all of the negative measures will continue, and will be even worse.
The government will continue along the same path. As far as dumping the deficit on the provinces is concerned, the government will continue its drastic cuts to social programs, to the tune of $7 billion over the next two years.
The government will continue to make use of the surplus from the unemployment insurance fund, $5 billion yearly, when it has not contributed to that fund for a number of years.
The government will keep on going without any significant measures for job creation. That is what it has told us today.
The worst part of all this is that the Minister of Finance is patting himself on the back for having restored healthy public finances. He is patting himself on the back for having applied the precepts of sound public financial management when, during his time at the helm of the Department of Finance, he has managed in two years to add over $113 billion to the cumulative debt of the federal government.
Not everything in this budget is bad, however, and I would like to start by pointing out one positive element, the measure concerning child support payments. I would like to take this opportunity to express my personal appreciation and that of my colleagues to Mrs. Thibodeau for her monumental battle to gain equality for women.
Since this measure will bring in tens of millions of dollars in new taxes, I cordially ask the Minister of Finance and the government to consider the following proposal: he could use these funds for transfers to the provinces, transfer part of it to the Government of Quebec, which has family policy levers to help the most disadvantaged families and children in Quebec and Canadian society.
My congratulations, however, stop here, because a closer look at the budget reveals that the minister deserves no congratulations.
It reveals first and foremost that the minister has given up in the fight against waste, duplication and overlap, because this budget contains no new measure to trim government machinery. We have been looking at this government for two and a half years, and God knows there is an enormous amount of wastage. On the basis of the report by the Liberal majority on the finance committee the government is abandoning its fight against waste.
Our second criticism is that the Minister of Finance did not speak the whole truth about the old age security system. The minister's proposals run headlong into 50 years of women's struggles for equality and financial independence, since the family income will now be the basis for determining old age security benefits and all the credits for seniors. It is disgraceful.
As regards taxation, we are pleased to some extent that the minister gave in to arguments about the unfairness of the tax system, particularly corporate taxation. After two and a half years it was high time he did. It took him two years and a half to realize that the tax system was giving undue preference to big business, which makes good use of outrageous loopholes, and to accept a forceful argument from the official opposition for an in-depth review of our tax system.
But, as I said, the minister only went part of the way, because he is now calling for a closed review of the corporate tax system, a process which is open only to great tax experts, great corporate tax lawyers who, at this very moment, are advising big corporations on the means to avoid paying their fair share of taxes to Revenue Canada.
But there is more. Some of the members on this new technical committee represent companies which also have affiliates in countries considered as tax havens. That takes some nerve. Among the members of this committee will be representatives of companies that have affiliates in countries considered as tax havens, companies that benefit from special tax rates and avoid paying what they would normally have to give Revenue Canada.
That is not what we were asking the government to do. We asked for a more open process. We asked for a special parliamentary committee made up of government members, members of the official opposition and members of the second opposition party who would have to be accountable to elected representatives, to the public, to all those who expect us to be responsible and to disclose the inequities in our tax system. Instead, the Minister of Finance opted for a process behind closed doors.
We are also deploring the fact that, after announcing in the throne speech that a Canadian Securities Commission would be set up, a commission that would interfere in an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, the Minister of Finance now wonders "Why should there not be only one tax collector in Canada? Why not set up a national revenue agency?"
Is it not a way of isolating Quebec once again? Is it not a way of forcing Quebec to fall back into the line? Is it not a way of telling Quebec that it must let go of all the financial and tax leverage that it has been fighting for for 35 years to make way for a national entity? Is it not a way of establishing an institution to manage the proposal made by the government regarding a single, Canada-wide, sales tax to replace the GST? That proposal is unacceptable.
When we are talking about eliminating duplication and overlap, it is funny to see how the government is always willing to take away some of Quebec's powers and keep them for itself. That is easy to do.
It is also easy for the government to go after small investors, those in Quebec in particular, with the kind of measures proposed in this budget that will weaken one of the instruments we are proud of, namely the Fonds de solidarité of the FTQ.
The government prefers to go after small investors, to go after tools which primarily serve to create jobs, rather than taking on big business taxation.
Here is another measure against Quebec: the government speaks of eliminating the milk subsidy even if it knows full well that 40 per cent of the subsidy goes to Quebec. Attacking Quebec is easy.
In conclusion, the 1996-97 budget of the Minister of Finance is only cosmetic, it is rather election-minded. It glosses over the negative effects of the last budget. It glosses over the government's inability to reduce its rate of expenditure. It glosses over the government's true intentions as regards taxation reform. It glosses over the government's inability to give a boost to the job market. It glosses over this government's desire to make Quebec toe the line. For these reasons, I will advise my colleagues to vote against the budget.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. When the Minister of Finance tabled a pile of documents, among those documents was a set of borrowing bills which it had been the intention of the Minister of Finance to seek leave to introduce for first reading.
I am asking the unanimous consent of the House, which I believe is there since there were consultations, for me to move the appropriate motions on behalf of the Minister of Finance for first reading of the customary borrowing bill.
Copies of the bill have already been submitted to the table along with the other material the Minister of Finance tabled at the beginning of his budget address.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Borrowing Authority Act, 1996-97Herb Gray: 
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-10, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning April 1, 1996.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
On motion by Mr. Loubier, debate adjourned.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.04 p.m.)