Bill Graham

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to present some 300 petitions signed by thousands of concerned citizens from across Ontario.

These petitioners call on Parliament to create an environment of justice and equality for all Canadians by amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions.

The first is signed by concerned citizens of my riding and across Ontario. These petitioners call on Parliament to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code which permits parents, teachers and guardians to use reasonable force in disciplining their children.

They are very concerned that the term, reasonable force, has been interpreted very broadly by the courts and permits severe physical punishment of children.

The petitioners feel that section 43 contravenes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and that children in our society must be protected from physical abuse.

[Reform Party, May 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the problems of racism and intolerance go beyond a few misspoken words. It is a matter of action as well.

Events of the past week cause all of us to examine our actions and positions as well as our words. I hope that members of the third party will take seriously the challenge to tackle the roots of racism and not try to paper it over by simply cleaning up some language.

Since the last election we have seen a pattern in the intolerant statements of members of the third party. Sometimes they are dismissed, like the slur on Chinese culture, or blaming blacks for crime. Sometimes there is an apology for the language, like the comments about Muslim veils, but no change in position or action.

This time I hope we will see some action and change in position to show that they have really learned something about the meaning of equality in this country.

The third party came here with a promise to do politics differently. So far, the differences it has introduced have not been very encouraging.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest for his thoughtful consideration of this issue. It is a consideration and a thoughtfulness one would come to expect from the member.

I hope he will not be hurt if I tell him my reaction to his comment is that it is the rankest sophistry to say that one is in favour of eliminating discrimination or against discrimination but against a measure which is destined to eliminate that discrimination.

What does he say to those who say it is okay under federal legislation to discriminate? Will he stand in the House when other measures are talked about which deal with discriminatory measures based on sexual orientation in federal legislation and speak out against them? Will he denounce them?

Should members of the courts and human rights commissions read the statement he made in the House today as the reasoned argument that those who voted against this measure are not in favour of discrimination but just have some trouble with this measure and therefore our courts can proceed with the work they are already doing to eliminate discrimination? They could say that, after all, the will of the House is clearly expressed by that member that even those who vote against it are in favour of eliminating all forms of discrimination.

Is the member advocating we should take all the other lists such as references to ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex from the bill for the reasons he suggested? Does he not subscribe to the point made by the hon. member for Halifax that there is a historic reason why these provisions are in the bill?

These provisions are in the bill because those were categories of people who were discriminated against by a dominant class. That is the position we find ourselves in with respect to sexual orientation today.

Given what he said about his wish to get rid of discrimination, he should embrace this concept. If we have to clean up the bill to make it better and more effective along the lines he suggested, let us work on that together.

At least let us address this issue in an efficient way at this time.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise and discuss the motion before the House today.

I would be tempted to review some of the factors that relate to the history of this measure. However, the minister in his introduction clearly indicated the importance of the measure, its historical background and origin.

It is worth remembering this is not the first time this matter has been debated in the House. It is not the first time we have had to concern ourselves with this issue, a matter which an all-party committee of the House recommended in 1985 be done. It is a matter which the government said in the speech from the throne would be done. It is a matter the Minister of Justice has on many occasions said in response to questions in the House would be done. It is a matter the Prime Minister said in the House would be done.

It is thus time that it be done. It is time because justice and humanity in communities demand it, because the laws of the country which are being interpreted by our courts demand it.

We as ordinary citizens recognize that if we are to live in a society based on understanding, compassion, tolerance and respect for one another, precisely the qualities necessary in today's society, if we are to confront the unease being caused by rapid social change, by circumstances difficult for many of us to grasp in our lives, these very qualities necessary for societal survival, for the survival of our communities and the survival of our countries are precisely the qualities that make it required for us as we debate in the House to adopt this measure.

There are consequences of discrimination of which we must be aware and which even in a country as privileged as ours we cannot afford to ignore.

There are other parts of this world where discrimination has led to terrible social consequences. I do not talk of the evils of the past. I talk of the world in which we live today. I talk of the Rwandas, the Bosnias. I talk of suffering countries like that. If we trace the underlying evil, which is man's violence unto man, it is largely from circumstances that have arisen from discrimination.

The learned Judge Goldstone who until recently was prosecutor at the Hague tribunal for the Bosnia war crimes had this to say about discrimination, learning how discrimination leads to genocide. I do not suggest the conditions are the same in Canada. He had this to say, which it behoves us to remember if we wish to avoid the lessons other peoples have to teach us: "This kind of brutal ethnic or religious warfare is just discrimination taken to a violent phase. The victimized group must be dehumanized or demonized. Once this is done, it frees ordinary people from the moral restraints that would normally inhibit them from doing such terrible things".

There is a concern in this country that such moral constraints can be loosened. There are voices out there. I could bring items into the House items I have pulled from the Internet that incite people to violence based on other people's sexual orientation, race or religion. These items incite people to eliminate homosexuals from the face of the earth. We are not free from these influences. They are prevalent. They are here and we can find them.

That is why it is most important this measure be adopted. That is why it is supported by the National Association of Women and the Law, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith, the Canadian Foundation of University Women, the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies, among others.

I have the privilege of representing a riding in which it is said there is the largest gay and lesbian community in Canada. This in many ways does not make us remarkably different from other ridings.

We are an urban riding with all the attributes of that. In that sense we are unlike many of our rural counterparts. There are other ridings across the country where similar conditions prevail.

My riding is particularly fortunate to have within it a large section of the gay and lesbian community, at least in the city of Toronto, and in Ontario.

There are two faces to this community in my riding. I invite members concerned about this issue and who would like to learn more about it to come to my riding and examine with me those

different faces. There is the positive face of people who are making their lives, carrying on their lives and making contributions to our society. There is another face, a face of unhappiness, of worry. Particularly, it is the face of youth who come to downtown Toronto, youth who have been discriminated against.

They have been driven from home by perplexed or unsympathetic parents, from school where they have been treated like outcasts, where it is permissible to be discriminated against because of one's difference. It is legally permitted in a way that would not be tolerated if one were of a different religion, race or colour.

In my riding we have organizations like the gay and lesbian youth hotline. It deals with the crises in these young people's lives. They are suffering and unable to cope with the discrimination they have to face at a young and extremely vulnerable age.

We have institutions such as 519 Community Centre directed by Alison Kemper, a dedicated board and many volunteers who have given years of service to bring together all the elements of our community, those who are well off and those who are not so well off, to deal with the issues and the fallout that discrimination produces in people's lives.

I am proud to report there are some 600 organizations similarly spread across the country dedicated to bringing people together, to making society work not to discriminate, not to divide, not to make one group feel inferior to another, but to bring us all together.

There is another face in my community. It may be contrasted with that. It is the face of a gay and lesbian community of people who have established themselves, who have overcome discrimination, who have established healthy, productive lives in our communities, who work hard and who contribute to society, living stable lives, who contribute to the well-being of our city where often we face crises and breakdowns of social values.

This produces crime, violence and problems that often result from poverty and an inability to take advantage of what our society and our economy can offer. Many who argue against this measure base their case on a sincere belief that social stability is based on the family.

I subscribe to the view that the family is the cornerstone of social stability. If we threaten that in any way, we will be contributing to the lack of stability in society.

If those people were to come to my riding of Rosedale they would find that exactly the contrary prevails. If we are interested in a healthy, stable community, how can we tolerate a situation where discrimination is tolerated? It puts a part of our citizenry in a disadvantaged position and creates all the problems that entails.

Some people have said this measure is directed toward a small proportion of our population as if we were trying to give special rights to a small group and therefore this should not be important. The academic literature estimates this proportion of the population as ranging from anywhere as low as 3 per cent to anywhere as high as 10 per cent. If we believe the 3 per cent figure, we are still talking about 900,000 people in a country of 30 million. If we subscribe to the 10 per cent figure we are talking about three million of our fellow citizens against whom we say we are entitled to discriminate because of their sexual orientation.

The family is threatened in today's society not by measures which extend justice, tolerance and respect to others but by serious social problems which have led to high divorce rates and other problems. These are issues which we must address. We cannot persuade ourselves that these issues will be resolved and addressed if they are done so at the expense and the sacrifice of the rights to justice of our fellow citizens; citizens who are making an effort to make a contribution, who have been recognized already by eight provinces which have sought to eliminate discrimination in areas covered by their jurisdictions.

Private firms such as Bell Canada and the Toronto Sun ensure that in their employment practices they do not discriminate. The federal government has recently announced, to its credit, that it will ensure in its employment practices it too will not discriminate against its employees based upon sexual orientation.

Why is this? The answer is simple. It is an answer that should appeal to my colleagues in the Reform Party who search for an economic rationale, quite often wisely, in the social measures we seek to achieve in the House.

Why is it that private firms would remove discrimination? Why is it that universities would remove discrimination? They give pension rights even though they pay extra taxes and are not given the same tax break, although the people who pay into them pay the same taxes. Why is it that these private firms and other individuals do this? They do it because they recognize it is in their economic interest to do so. It is to their advantage to do so.

Discrimination whether based on race, religion or on any other ground is counterproductive. It denies opportunities to qualified people for a reason that is totally extraneous to their qualifications and thus is counterproductive. It impoverishes a firm, it impoverishes a nation, by putting a barrier between the way of qualified people and their access to opportunity. Thus, it impoverishes us all just as I suggest to members of the House that its elimination will enrich us all.

Cannot this Parliament, this federal government, enact into law this measure which is justified not only on the basic grounds of decency, justice and humanity, but on the economic and social health of the nation as well?

We are not alone in grappling with this measure. Other countries, other societies, are also concerned with this. It is a complicated issue. It arises out of our evolution as a society, as a democracy and as individuals. It must be treated with great respect. If we look at what other societies are doing, we see that they too are adopting similar measures.

I had the great privilege of teaching public international law before I was elected to the House. I had occasion to look at what the European Community is doing. The European Convention on Human Rights, which to some extent is the inspiration of our own charter, prohibits discrimination. The European courts have interpreted those prohibitions in a way which strikes down national laws which discriminate.

I recommend to members of the House the Dudgeon case before the European commission and the European court on human rights, which examined this issue when it put into question the criminal laws of Northern Ireland. It came to the conclusion that in spite of the fact these laws were rooted in centuries of practice, they could not stand in the face of a modern view about discrimination.

The European commission covers a vast range of societies, from Greece and Spain in the south right up to the Nordic countries of Europe. It covers Protestant and Catholic societies. It has examined a whole host of complexities of modern societies and has come to the conclusion that discrimination of the type we are discussing today cannot be permitted in an enlightened, tolerant and modern society if we are to go into the 21st century in conditions which will be socially productive. I recommend that model to the House. I recommend the literature from Europe and I recommend the cases to members who are troubled about what this measure is about.

We have talked about what this measure is designed to do, but what about what this measure is designed not to do? It is not, as was suggested by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, designed to create a new form of marriage. That has never been and the minister never suggested that that would be. In fact it is clearly said in the preamble to the bill that it will be preserving our traditional family. It is not designed to confer special status or confer special rights on anyone.

There are still concerns about it but there are also some wildly exaggerated ones. I have heard it said by some that this will lead to a problem of pedophilia. Pedophilia is properly condemned in the Criminal Code of Canada. This was said by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It is fantasy to suggest that a measure like this could be interpreted in a way that would overrule the criminal law provisions of this country.

In no case reported in this country has it ever been suggested that an assault or other form of criminal act could be justified because of a religious, racial or other characteristic of a person who has committed that act. Why would it be extended in these circumstances? As a lawyer by background, I find such suggestions fanciful and designed to mislead.

We have also heard some comments based on psychiatric evidence that was rooted in the fifties and led to the most atrocious conditions being perpetrated on people. People were given lobotomies in the fifties on the basis that they could be cured of their sexual orientation. The psychiatric community of those days believed what today would be considered values that are totally out of the middle ages. That is not modern psychiatry. Lobotomy practised on people is something rooted in a misunderstanding of human nature and a misunderstanding of the nature of humanity.

Similarly, we are told that the family will be threatened by the existence of such legislation. That matter was addressed by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. My parents' generation believed the family would be threatened if people who were not married lived together. Today many people who are not married live together and we do not discriminate against them. In previous societies they were discriminated against. The laws in respect of heritage for a long time discriminated against those who were born out of wedlock.

Can anyone imagine we would permit such discrimination in society today? We have moved. We have evolved. We will always move. We will always evolve. We recognize common law marriages today which is completely different from the situation that prevailed in my parents' time.

I am not suggesting that all the solutions we have found are perfect. But I am suggesting the solutions that we have found which are rooted in tolerance, mutual respect, and decency and a removal of discrimination are far more likely those that will aid in the resolution of social problems than others.

I have referred to the provinces. Eight have passed legislation eliminating discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Quebec adopted a similar measure ten years ago, and I asked the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve whether he has noted any threat to the family as a result. I believe his reply was clear and convincing. There is no evidence, not even a hint, that there has been any cause and effect relationship between that measure and the status of the family.

The same can be said about other provinces. No doubt that is the reason the Bloc supports this measure and indicates that we can go

beyond the deepest political differences that separate us when human rights in this wonderful country are at stake.

I congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, as well as the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, for all of their efforts over the years to advance such measures and to ensure that each and every Canadian citizen can enjoy the same dignity and independence.

In conclusion, it is a great privilege to be a part of this House. It is always a privilege to debate measures which relate to the well-being of our country. There are times when I have been in this House and have wondered how serious the things are that go on here. There are days when one wonders what we are doing here. I suggest to those of us who are here today that we are here debating our society, ourselves and our notions of respect, tolerance and the dignity of mankind. There could be no greater calling or privilege for us than to address these measures.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 30th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, further to the last question, I would like to ask the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve whether, in the province of Quebec, since measures were adopted to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, that has posed social problems for the traditional family?

Can one say that, in the province of Quebec, the situation of the family-let us leave aside the marriage certificate, which is after all a formality-is worse since the passage of legislation promoting tolerance and respect for others?

You have spoken about causality, and I recognize that, in the circumstances, it is very difficult to draw hard conclusions, but could you perhaps help the hon. members sitting in this House by telling them whether people in Quebec are saying: "Well, for ten years now, Quebec has had a measure to eliminate discrimination against gays and, ever since, the family in Quebec has deteriorated, there is a clear deterioration of the traditional family in Quebec"?

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have two comments for my hon. colleague. First of all, I too am delighted to be living in a system in which the human rights commissioner can raise such issues and bring them to our attention. I agree with the hon. member when he says that we Canadians still a long way to go. Instead of always pointing an accusing finger at others, we should start by dealing with our own problems. I am very pleased to be sitting in this place, because I look forward to be doing just that with him and the other members of this House in the near future.

Regarding the relationship between international trade and human rights in other countries, do we really want, given the total system we live in, to condemn others? Does condemnation foster understanding and behaviour modification in other people or not? That is what we must ask ourselves.

It may well be that, in some cases, condemnation is absolutely necessary, while in others, maintaining a relationship with the people in question will give us the opportunity to convince them to change their minds. This must always be decided on a case by case, or ad hoc basis.

This is why I find that the amendment moved by the minister is more in keeping with today's needs than the wording of the original motion. This is why I support these amendments and hope that they will receive the support of all members of this House, because it is in that spirit that we will be able to change people's ways. This should be our aim. W should think ahead, and have the future of mankind in mind. I think that this is what we are trying to do with these amendments.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

We must see the debate we are having today in its historical context. I am supporting this motion and I am supporting the amendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary.

The amendment seeks to place this human tragedy within its historical context and at the same time to place it in the context of what we as Canadians must do to recognize the historical reality of what has happened in this world in light of today's interdependent world in which we live and what we must do as active politicians both nationally and internationally to ensure these events do not occur again.

That is the purpose of the government's motion. That is the purpose of the debate. I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois on bringing forward this motion because I think it is important.

However, it is unfortunate the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has suggested the government in proposing this amendment is trying to mix up this issue with commercial relations and other interests with Turkey. That is not the purpose of this amendment, as I read it. Before I consider this issue I will provide some general observations on this matter.

This was an enormous human tragedy. It fits within the context of other great tragedies, of killings of populations. There were those in Germany, Cambodia, Rwanda. Unfortunately the list in this century is all too long. For that reason it is important to have this recognition. A question we all must ask in the complicated world in which we live, a question posed in the New Testament, is who is my neighbour?

The neighbour of yesterday were Armenians and the neighbour of a nearer yesterday was the Jewish population of Europe. The neighbours of a recent time were those in Cambodia. The neighbours of a more recent time were those in Rwanda and in Bosnia.

If we lose sight of our common humanity we lose sight of what we are here to do as politicians. In so doing, we must not lose sight that we operate within a historical continuum, a historical framework and an institutional framework. It behoves us as members of Parliament to ensure it operates in this modern world. That is the reason I support the amendment.

We need international institutions. We need a United Nations system, which the parliamentary secretary spoke of. I am proud to support the government, which has been actively pursuing a United Nations system which will ensure this does not happen again. Our troops are in Bosnia in support of the reason the government believes genocide should not be allowed to occur.

It is not right for the Bloc Quebecois to say the government does not wish to address the issue of genocide. We are committing the resources of Canada, much to the criticism of the Reform Party, to ensure the stability of places in the world, to ensure this type of event cannot occur again. We have committed troops to Haiti to ensure this will not happen again. These are concrete measures which address this problem and which we must deal with. That is one aspect of the problem.

Another is the aspect of an institutional framework of world government. We lack a legal system which would enable us to say that such and such a group is guilty of genocide and the ability to punish and deal with it. We are reaching toward that. It is still in an embryonic position.

This issue was debated at Nuremberg. When I taught public international law I taught the Nuremberg trials as establishing principles of international law. One must recognize those principles were forged at the end of the second world war by the victorious parties and imposed on the losing party in the conflict and as a result lack that universality which has subsequently developed since the second world war. We in Canada have played

our part in developing those principles which we can now look to for protecting human rights.

My colleague, Professor Humphreys at McGill University, was one of the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thousands of Canadians have by their actions, in military actions such as IFOR and other military actions I spoke of earlier and in less dramatic situations, working at the United Nations, working in international commissions, sought to develop rules of law which will enable us to deal with the issue before us today.

We must develop that issue. We must develop an international criminal court. I wish the Bloc Quebecois would address that issue. What lesson can we take from Armenia? The lesson that we must take is that we need international institutions, legal institutions which can deal with these issues.

These are the things which modern Armenians and modern Turks and modern Canadians will thank us for, not seeking to condemn and turn a question of language into something which looks like a form of a political manoeuvre when what we all are trying to do is address an issue which is of real distinct importance to every member of the House, which is how to craft modern institutions which respond to the needs of a modern world and can assure that this type of event can never happen again.

I hope the criminal court which has been established in respect of Bosnia and which a learned judge from my province has joined as a prosecutor will contribute toward that process. I hope we might in the House one day debate the possibility of having similar laws as they have in the United States where civil actions may be brought in the courts of the United States based on human rights violations elsewhere.

We have much work to do as parliamentarians. We should attend to that work. The parliamentary secretary said in all frankness to the question asked of him about Turkey that he could not answer what Turkey would say on the issue of genocide. That is for Turkey to answer.

We can answer for ourselves about what we believe in terms of the institutional framework of the world in which we operate and what we can do as politicians to ensure terrible tragedies of this nature do not occur.

That will be the greatest contribution we can make to our fellow Armenian citizens and those Armenians living in Armenia today. That is the greatest means whereby we can show our respect for the meaning of this resolution, by not seeking to argue about the terminology of it, recognizing it as a fact and turning our attention to ensuring this can never happen again, or at least if it does happen that there is a world order in place which will enable us as Canadians to participate in that and prevent it.

There is a complicated subject to raise, but something I think is worth saying in the House. Every issue of this nature has a resonance within ourselves. We are not perfect in this country. We have had our problems, human rights problems. We have evolved and will continue to evolve in respect of it. We have developed a country with a charter of rights which guarantees individual rights. That is an extremely important part of our tradition and our contribution to the international framework of which I spoke.

We have developed federal institutions which respond to the needs of collectivities in different parts of the country which have control over those events which are close to them and at the same time a federal government which assures the charter and general rules and principles may be applied equally and fairly across this land.

I look at that and at what we have crafted over the years. Our federal institutions are among the best guarantees Canadians have that this type of event could never occur here. Remember, this occurred in a unitary state that lacked the checks and balances of many jurisdictions which could deal with this type of issue.

Therefore, I suggest to members of the Bloc Quebecois that when they bring forward a motion like this and want to know the lesson of the Armenian tragedy, that one lesson is the creation of modern political institutions with human values and with sufficient responses to the needs to deal with them. That is what I suggest has been done in our federal institutions and it is one reason why this country is so respected and why it is a great country in which to live. It is respected by everyone.

I know that my time is limited. I would like to say in closing that the amendment proposed by the government is not only consistent with the Bloc Quebecois' basic motion but it also introduces the much broader notion that respect for human rights must enjoy universal recognition. This respect also introduces the notion that our country is based on tolerance and multiculturalism. It is a federal state that guarantees respect for all its citizens, whether they come from Armenia or any other country.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River is very knowledgeable about the mining industry. I preface my question by pointing out that I understand the city of Toronto is now considered to be the financial mining capital of the world. That is where corporations and individuals from all over the world finance mining activities which are not necessarily located in Canada. By doing that they enhance the richness, the wealth and knowledge of Canadians and of the Canadian mining industry.

I wonder, in that context, whether his view of the flow through share operation which he described recently in his speech would also be contributing to the development of not only the mining industry itself but to the very important securities industry which surrounds the mining industry and which is developing more and more in Canada.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to address this motion. Today I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River.

I am proud to be a part of this government which has reined in the deficit while at the same time contributing to ensuring the collective necessity in this country of sound social policies. We have managed to do this in three years. This budget is an important

contribution to that and to ensuring that the collective financial future and deficit reduction plan remain intact.

Last November the government announced that it had surpassed its deficit target for 1994-95. It now looks like the target for 1995-96 will also be achieved or even surpassed. The deficit will be reduced to 3 per cent of GDP as announced and to 2 per cent of GDP in 1997-98.

The growth rate of the debt will be lower than the rate of economic growth. This is the first significant improvement in the debt to GDP ratio in over 20 years. As a result of this, there is a dramatic decline in the amount of new money the government has to borrow from financial markets.

In 1993-94 Canada's financial requirements stood at 4.2 per cent of GDP or $30 billion. By 1997-98 the financial requirements will have dropped to 0.7 per cent of GDP or $6 billion.

As the Minister of Finance pointed out, relative to the size of the economy, Canada's borrowing requirements will be at the lowest level in almost 30 years. Measured on this basis, Canada will have the lowest fiscal shortfall projected among central governments of all G-7 countries.

As a result of this, international markets are responding favourably to the progress in deficit reduction. In fact, short term interest rates have fallen below those in the United States. For the first time the Government of Canada can actually borrow money for a short term at rates lower than those prevailing for United States securities which are the bellwether for all government securities in the world.

When the government was first elected there was a spread between Canadian and American interest rates of approximately 3 per cent. That spread represented the international market's view of the risk of investing in this country as opposed to that of the United States. I think we can take it from the fact that our securities are presently quoted at lower rates of interest than those in the United States that the international marketplace is putting on our securities a lower risk than that which would prevail on similar American securities.

Canadians know and accept that restoring public fiscal health is essential for job creation and economic prosperity. The government's job is to help create the appropriate economic climate, one in which private sector activity will flourish. Economic indicators support the claim that the government's approach is well advised.

As I pointed out, short term interest rates are down 3 per cent since March 1995. Inflation is at its lowest point in 30 years. Two hundred and sixty-three thousand private sector jobs have been created since 1995. The merchandise trade surplus has reached record levels and the current account deficit as a share of GDP is at its lowest level in 10 years.

In my view that demonstrates the wisdom of the government having rejected the slash and burn approach to deficit reduction urged by some of the parties in this House.

Our approach is a sensible, balanced, fair and compassionate approach, and the 1996 budget continues on that track. It recognizes there are sacrifices Canadians are willing collectively to make to reach the point we now have. There are sacrifices that are being made today by constituents of mine in downtown Toronto who recognize this is the track we must be on if we are to achieve greater prosperity in the years ahead.

While saying this, we recognize as well that fairness and compassion are deeply held Canadian values. The Canadian commitment to helping the most vulnerable in society is an important factor in the government's philosophy. As a result, there will be no further cuts in transfer payments to the provinces.

Provincial entitlements will eventually increase. The Canada health and social transfer will provide secure and stable federal support for medicare, post-secondary education and social assistance. For the first time there will be a cash floor for transfers. The CHST is designed to give provinces more flexibility in program delivery.

Of course we would like to see more, particularly for post-secondary education. The government recognizes the importance of these issues, but the point is we must get our house in order after eight years of Tory mismanagement before we can build again. The beauty of this budget is that it lets us see that possibility clearly within the realizable near future.

The new seniors benefit to replace old age security and the guaranteed income supplement is designed to help those who need it most. The benefit level of 75 per cent of Canadian seniors will remain at the same level or even increase. Certainly low income seniors will receive more under the new system and the income tested approach will help to ensure the sustainability of the pension system for our children and grandchildren.

I take this opportunity to address an issue which is very much a concern to many people in my riding, social housing. Rosedale has a considerable amount of assisted social housing. It takes the form of straightforward government assisted housing and co-operatives.

This social housing contributes a great deal to the social stability of our inner cities. It recognizes there are many people living in our cities, particularly in inner cities, with a high cost of living, who do require some form of government support.

There have been misconceptions as a result of the budget. There were some suggestions in the province of Ontario that because of the approach of the present Conservative government social housing is under serious attack. The federal government has indicated

in this budget that it will continue its support for social housing and as a result for social stability in the inner cities. It will continue with $2 billion in support to provincial governments, $600 million of which will go to the province of Ontario.

The minister has made it clear that while there will be changes in the way in which this service is delivered, national standards will be required. I urge the minister that when she is dealing with the provinces no federal money should go to private housing schemes. Social housing should be recognized as public housing and the administration of housing should not be turned over to provinces that indicate they do not have a commitment to publicly owned social housing. There are alternative competent partners the federal government could choose such as the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada.

This is an extraordinarily important issue which the government has indicated it intends to approach with sensitivity to the need for appropriate social policy while recognizing the need for deficit reduction. I am confident it will realize this goal in the way it has managed in other areas.

When we look at the core of this budget we see the notion of the economy, of jobs and of growth. There are three priority areas in the budget: youth, technology and trade.

The importance of investing in the country's future lies in investing in young people. We must give them the tools with which to recognize their aspirations. The creation of new youth employment opportunities, for example the Department of Human Resources Development summer student job action program, will help tens of thousands of young people to get summer jobs this year.

Also, we will be helping students and their families deal with the higher cost of education by increasing education tax credits, raising the limit on transfer of tuition education credits and increasing limits on the contributions to registered education plans.

My riding of Rosedale is home to three post-secondary institutions, the University of Toronto, Ryerson and George Brown College, and numerous high schools and youth groups.

I have fairly frequent contact with young people in my riding who relate to me the special challenges they face in trying to find suitable employment in the new economy.

Often suitable job experience is what they require but lack. This initiative in this regard should go some way to providing opportunities in my riding and across the country for youth who deserve an opportunity to participate in the challenges the new economy offers us.

In addressing the issue of the new economy, this budget addresses the issue of technology. Existing moneys will be reallocated in order to encourage technological developments in key fields such as the aerospace sector, environment technologies and biotechnology.

The Business Development Bank will be given the resources to provide more loans to knowledge based, exporting and growth businesses. Equity injection of $50 million will allow banks to provide an additional $350 million in loans.

We will accelerate our efforts to increase access to information technology for all Canadians, especially for small and medium size businesses. This is a true recognition by government that technology is the way of the future and that we as a country cannot afford to be left behind in this important contribution to the global economy.

Similarly, in terms of international trade, the budget has indicated that the Team Canada approach which has been so extraordinarily successful in international marketing of this country will remain a centrepiece of our strategy.

Canada's trade performance has recently been excellent. The export sector has been expanding at 8 per cent per annum on average over the past decade.

Our merchandise trade balance has reached a record surplus of $28.3 billion. To encourage the continuation of this success, government will provide $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. This and other measures will increase the amount of financing available for Canadian exports by as much as $500 million a year.

As the foreign affairs and international trade committee has realized, international trade is at the core of what this country is about. Small and medium size businesses are dependent more and more on international trade.

This budget will contribute to enabling our country to prosper in its international trade and achieves a balance in respect of our social programs.