Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to broaden the ability of the government that holds approximately, if everything was converted into Canadian dollars including our gold holdings, about $20 billion worth of our assets.

June 3, 1993

This would enable us to better manage those assets by investing them not just in the restricted way that currently is in the bill in assets of the United States. It would enable us to purchase securities more broadly of German or Japanese origin in order to increase the income from the exchange fund.

The exchange fund is a very substantial bit of money, $20 billion or so, and we have to borrow that money on markets. It is important that as far as possible the exchange fund carry itself. In that sense the government is getting considerably better investment potential from the exchange fund with the amended bill as now presented for third reading.

Two amendments were made in committee moved by the Official Opposition and supported by the government. The first amendment involves the publication in The Canada Gazette of currencies eligible for exchange fund investment and the designation of the criteria used for the government and financial institutions.

We believe that making this information public will underscore the point that Canada's reserves are invested only in the soundest of currency assets belonging to the strongest economies in the world. It will further show that the broadening of investment to include government supported institutions poses no further additional credit risks.

The second amendment involves publication in The Canada Gazette of the minister's agent and derivative products held in the fund. It should be noted in this context the Bank of Canada has been the agent for the government since the exchange fund was created in 1954. No change in this designation is contemplated nor do I say desired. This clause does however provide for public notice should there be any change in the future.

With regard to derivatives, a number of the main derivative products are already spelled out in the bill. However some additional flexibility is needed because the capital markets are evolving quite quickly. We believe it is important and appropriate to have a means of communicating the evolving strategy of the government in this area. I want to make it clear that in the case of derivatives the highest quality credit standards will continue to be maintained.

Government Orders

This is an important bill and should substantially increase the returns on the exchange fund. I think that is good for all of us.

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the special joint committee on Bill C-116, an act to provide for greater certainty in the reconciliation of the personal interests and duties of office of public office holders, to establish a conflict of interests commission, to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The special joint committee reports that Bill C-116 should not be further proceeded with.

I was the chairman of the joint committee studying Bill C-43 last winter and spring. That committee reported to the House last June. The unanimous report of that committee included a draft bill. The essence of that report was disclosure. The government received the report and the committee felt that the government understood the report.

Unfortunately Bill C-116 is a confusing bill that attempts to resurrect Bill C-43. The committee unanimously believes the philosophy contained in Bill C-116 and Bill C-43, indeed the nature of the bill in total, is so wrong as to create a situation where the committee unanimously recommends to this House that Bill C-116 not be proceeded with.

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):

Madam Speaker, during the spring and winter of 1992 a special joint committee of this House and the Senate held a number of meetings to determine the way conflict of interest legislation involving members of Parliament ought to be handled.

The committee totally rejected Bill C-43 on the Order Paper and recommended a bill involving the appointment of a jurisconsult and full disclosure of assets of members of Parliament as the best method of disciplining issues involving conflict.

The government has rejected the unanimous committee report in Bill C-116 by again insisting on the

May 27, 1993

Oral Questions

concepts of Bill C-43 that are contained in that bill. It is unfortunate the government cannot accept the unanimous report filed with this Elouse which was made by 21 members of Parliament.

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):

Madam Speaker, we have heard a great deal of drivel tonight from the other side. They would have us turn the clock of history back maybe 50 years or 100 years. They would have us go back to the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald. John A. Macdonald's national policies were important for the country 50 years ago or 100 years ago but they are not policies for today.

Today we live in a world where goods are produced with fewer and fewer people. The economies of mass production, the computer and robotics changed the production of goods and services to such an extent that tariff barriers are no longer barriers. The old policy of high tariffs to protect the domestic industries of Canada and keep the domestic employment up will no longer work.

If we had to go back to a high tariff policy we would have to go back to a policy of 100 per cent tariffs and 200 per cent tariffs. We would have to go back to a controlled policy that prevented goods from coming into the coun-

May 25, 1993

try and services from coming into the countiy based on nationality or based on whatever we might have. Such a policy would drive the standard of living in Canada down beyond all belief. Yet that is the policy recommended by the New Democrats or the new dinosaurs, to get down to the proper name for that party, or the Liberal Party.

The fact of the matter is that we are in a world economy. We have to produce our goods to world standards of quality and price. If we are not prepared to do that we are not going to be able to maintain our standard of living. We must organize ourselves to produce things efficiently and effectively at prices that beat anybody in the world.

Mr. Blenkarn:

My friend says: "At a Mexican standard". I want to tell him right now that I have just come back from the Far East. I talked with a number of entrepreneurs in Hong Kong who are hiring labour in south China, Bangladesh and Vietnam at 50 cents an hour. Mexican labour in their terms is just four times too expensive.

The fact of the matter is that Mexico is expensive compared to the world cost of labour. What we have to do is win and we have to win by using our intelligence, our confidence and our basic understanding of how things work to beat world competition. We cannot expect the world to give to us because we happen to be Canadians. We have to win our place in this world. Until opposition members understand that we will never get any sense out of them. They believe we can go back to the days of Sir John A., put up a big tariff barrier, make sure all sorts of uneconomic production exists in Canada and therefore people are employed in Canada to produce uneconomic results.

I am sorry. It will not work any more. The world is not like that any longer. That is not the world we live in. I am soriy we cannot have what we used to have. We used to

Government Orders

have a situation in Canada where we could have a whole series of manufacturers producing only for the Canadian market. We could sell as Canadians our raw resources to the world and make a profit. Raw resources today do not win. Any countiy that tries to win and create on raw resources will go nowhere.

We have a situation where the parties in opposition advocate a policy of not just yesterday, a month ago, a year ago, seven years ago, but 50 years ago. They are advocating a 50-year old policy. That is what they are, a dinosaur party of a long time ago.

Whatever we heard from the other side tonight it is the kind of thing that no longer works in the world. It certainly will not work in Canada. We cannot have a policy based on the new dinosaur concept that we can protect every job by a higher tariff, that we can protect every occupation with a high stone wall against the world.

We have to sell our manufacturers to the world. We have to sell our technology to the world. We have to sell our resources to the world. We have to sell them at prices the world will find competitive. If we do not we will not have the standard of living we have.

Until we are prepared to deal on a world economy basis then we had better understand there is no protection for any job, any position or any occupation in this country. We have to be competitive. Until we are competitive we have no future. The free trade agreement we have with the United States helps us dramatically in terms of our competition. It has given us the opportunity to be competitive with large American corporations on a world basis.

As we expand that free trade agreement with Mexico and hopefully Chile and Argentina, hopefully with all South America, we will be able to have a bloc of free trade countries in the world in which we can sell our expertise, our telephones, our commuter aircraft and our high-tech stuff. That makes sense. As long as we can do that we will be successful.

On the other hand we could go back. We could follow the New Democratic Party. It would keep policy tariffs up. It would make sure that we are a little country with little minds. We would have a lower and lower standard of living. The fact of the matter is that the objectives of the other side are such that they are a denial of where the countiy is going in the world. They deny globaliza-

May 25, 1993

Government Orders

tion. They deny the fact that people have changed and the productive systems in the world have changed.

We have to refute that denial. We have to support this bill. We have to deny the various foolish amendments that have been put before us at report stage. I think the amendments before us must be denied.