Oh, oh.

Mr. Valcourt:

To stand on the floor of this institution and tell Canadians that now because of a bill that has

nothing to do with just cause a person cannot quit a job when in danger of imminent death.

It takes only a socialist in a necktie to make a statement like that.

Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.

On Sunday, 50,000 people marched in the streets of Montreal. The government sees it as a separatist plot. I was there, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you these people were not there to talk about independence. They were there for one reason: they want to contribute to the system and not be the eternal victims of that system.

My question is this: when will this government finally understand that the best way to reduce the cost of unemployment insurance is to create jobs, permanent jobs?

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised to see the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, who claims they are going to change the world, object to a measure whose ultimate goal is to break the cycle of dependency that our social security system has generated in this country.

Yes, it is a fiscal measure, but it will also make people more responsible. People who quit their job for a valid reason will be protected. I thought the hon. member would at least admit that and tell these people who were out on the streets that anyone who quits his job with just cause will have all the protection he needs and more, because these people will no longer be penalized as they were before. They will get their full benefits.

Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):

Mr. Speaker, the minister said he was surprised to see me there. Well I was surprised that none of his colleagues who opposed the bill had the courage to be there on Sunday.

I ask my question of the Minister of Finance. The problem with unemployment insurance is that this government has no long-term plan to create jobs. Its only policy is to hope against hope that prosperity will spill over the border from the United States.

Just yesterday the Minister of Finance said that he could not proceed with his budget until President Clinton had proceeded with his.

February 9, 1993

Shame.

Mr. Martin:

Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. This minister is supposed to be the Minister of Finance for Canada, not the governor of the 51st state.

My question is this. Trickle down meant the end of the road for the Republicans. When will the members-

Mr. Speaker:

The hon. member must please put his question.

Mr. Martin:

Mr. Speaker, when will the members opposite realize that trickle north is going to be end for the Tories?

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's assertion is absolutely wrong. He knows very well the December 2 economic statement outlined a number of initiatives: investments in people, investments in infrastructure, further investments in international trade, positive steps toward encouraging small business which generates 80 per cent of the new jobs in Canada.

That is reflected in Ottawa Business News, a small business publication which indicated it has become increasingly clear that small business has emerged as the big winner.

This is what Mr. Bulloch had to say about the UI measures. "The UI measures were very significant", Bulloch affirmed, "I've been in the office of Liberal ministers in the seventies and there was agreement that the major area of UI abuse was voluntary quitters. The Liberals didn't want to touch it because it was politically unpalatable".

Well, Mr. Speaker, we did it in the name of fairness.

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Finance.

I want to ask the minister why is he telling the Canadian provinces to go ahead, prepare and present their budgets now and not wait until after he presents his next budget, when he is saying to Canadians that he has to wait until after President Clinton presents his state of the union message and his first budget to Congress?

Oral Questions

Why does he follow this policy which suggests, like my colleague said, he is acting like the governor of the 51st state instead of the Minister of Finance for Canada? Why will he not present a budget now that will help 1.5 million Canadians get back to work?

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, what a bunch of nonsense. The provinces can bring in their budgets any time they like. The previous administration used to bring in its budget any time it wanted.

We try to bring in the budget in the spring. We brought down an economic statement in December to keep Canadians and the provinces up to date with respect to the fiscal and economic outlook.

Yes, we will be bringing in a budget. We are listening to some suggestions from across the way as to what might be done and what we might be able to incorporate. So far we have received absolutely nothing in the way of positive recommendations.

I assure the hon. member that I am getting a lot of suggestions from the Canadian people. We will build on the budget of February 1992 and we will build on the economic statement of December 1992.

Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. He is quoted as saying, after he met with the U.S. secretary of the treasury Bentsen, that they are talking about "providing some stimulus to create renewed economic activity and jobs" and the Minister of Finance then said that it will certainly help Canada.

If the minister thinks that approach is right for the United States, why will he not follow that approach of economic growth for this country? Why does he not present a budget now that will help this country move forward, not backward like his previous budgets?

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, welcome to the wonderful world of reality. The United States is our biggest trading partner. As its economy goes, so goes ours. That is a fact of life.

I can tell the hon. member, in case he might be interested, that there was a great deal of interest in the economic statement that I brought down in December. As a matter of fact, I ran out of copies because they were very interested.

February 9, 1993

Oral Questions

Oh, oh.

Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):

It was a best seller.

Mr. Mazankowski:

They were very interested in the balanced approach.

There was the need to contain the deficit and the need to inject some stimulus into the economy. We did both in the December statement.

I remind the hon. member it contained $2 billion worth of expenditure on infrastructure, on training, on the small business sector. Second, it contained $1.8 billion in reduced taxation, something that the Liberals would not recognize.

Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Brome-Missisquoi):

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. As you know, violence is seen and experienced eveiy day on television, in the streets, in schools and even within our own homes. Recently, one of my constituents was sexually assaulted by an inmate who was out on a day pass. The victim asked for a court order that would oblige her attacker to provide a blood sample, in order to determine whether he was HIV positive or had any other sexually transmitted disease. The judge rejected the application on the grounds that he could not legally accept this kind of application. The judge also indicated that it was up to the legislature to fill this legal vacuum.

I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he and the Solicitor General would be willing to make certain changes in the existing legislation in order to give more rights to victims of sexual assault.