1987-03-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petitions Nos. 332-712, 332-721, 332-747, 332-748, 332-833, 332-834, 332-838, 332-840, 332-842, 332-883, 332-995, 332997, 332-998, 332-1016, 332-1129 and 332-1130.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 from a number of western Canadians who are concerned about the Government's intentions to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs which they believe will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to purchase those necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners call upon the Government to reject its program to implement these proposals which will result in changes to the Patent Act.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is also my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition from a number of eastern Canadians who are concerned that the Government plans to deprive fishermen of their right to collect unemployment insurance. They call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) to reject any recommendations that this be done and to enter into consultations with representatives of fishermen in Canada in order to improve the program offered to fishermen.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if my colleague might be kind enough to give us the date of certification on the Patent Act petition.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the date of certification on the Patent Act petition is October 1, 1986.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition certified by the Clerk of Petitions on December 15, 1986. I regret that it has taken so long to present it to the House of Commons but there have been so many petitions to present on this particular issue. I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary gave us the chance to point that out.
In their petition these Canadians have indicated their concern that the Government intends to change the Patent Act. They expect that this will result in higher costs, not only for provincial government plans, but for those people who because of their health needs are required to purchase prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They also believe that this is yet another example of the Canadian Government making concessions to the United States in the free trade talks at the expense of average Canadians. Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject those proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to present to the House hundreds of petitions from various regions all over the country, denouncing the new corporate plan of the Canada Post Corporation that creates two classes of citizens with the permanent installation of superboxes in urban as well as rural areas. The petitioners state that closing rural post offices deprives citizens of a unique federal presence and reduces vital postal services in rural areas, and the raise in postal rates, particularly on second-class mail, jeopardizes the distribution of numerous weekly and regional newspapers, magazines, and so on.
Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament will reject the plan of Canada Post and urge it to deliver mail to all Canadian citizens without distinction.

March 17, 1987
Introduction of Bills


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-45, an Act entitled an Act to authorize the disposal of certain assets in the Yukon Territory that are held or used by the Northern Canada Power Commission and to provide for other matters in connection therewith.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Minister have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 30, 64 and 71.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	(a) How many cars, for use by Ministers, does the Government own and how many are provided with drivers (b) what was the total cost of their purchase (c) what was the total cost in 1985 for their maintenance and operation (d) what was the total cost in 1985 for the salaries of drivers?
2.	How many cars, for use by Deputy Ministers and officials of Deputy Minister rank, does the Government own and how many are provided with drivers?


Philip Derek Lewis: 1. (a) All
Cabinet Ministers are provided with a car and a driver. All cars are owned by the Government except for three which are leased.
National Defence has special arrangements for their two Ministers (Armed Forces personnel).
Also, the RCMP owns a fleet of cars located in various regions within Canada. These vehicles are used to transport and/or escort members of the Canadian Executive, resident and visiting internationally protected persons, and persons designated by the Solicitor General.
Ministers' cars.
(b) The average original purchase price was $18,140. (c) In 1985, the average cost of maintenance and operation was $4,775. (d) In 1985, the salary scale of drivers was up to $28,500.
2. Of all cars provided to Deputy Ministers and officials of Deputy Minister rank, 55 are owned by the government. Of these, 43 are provided with an assigned driver/messenger.


Mrs. Sparrow: In (a) 1983 (b) 1984 (c) 1985 (d) 1986, in how many proposals and for what total sum of money have Calgary businesses been successful with the Canadian International Development Agency?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations):: These figures do not include the following services contracts which are not registered in MISD (Management Information Systems Division) network:
(1) all contracts with a dollar value of less than $2,000; (2) services contracts issued by Multilateral and Special Programs Branches; (3) Co-operants contracts.
Contractual Service Agreements Calgary
		Total
Fiscal Year	No.	$ Value ($000)1983-84	8	3,7001984-85	7	2,1001985-86	12	2,1001986-87*	8	21,200i April 1, 1986 to January 20, 1987	Procurement Contracts	Calgary	TotalFiscal Year	No.	$ Value ($000)1983-84	N/A	N/A1984-85	21	16,4191985-86	3	3,1341986-87*	6	3,325
* from April 1, 1986 to January 26, 1987


Mr. Blenkarn: Does the Government support the African National Congress (ANC) and has the ANC publicly endorsed the means of assassination called "necklacing" and, if so, is it the Government's intention to continue to support the Congress?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Government has contacts with the ANC because it is an important part of the opposition movement and would be part of any solution in South Africa.
To the Government's knowledge, the ANC has not publicly endorsed "necklacing".


Philip Derek Lewis: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



DELEGATED LEGISLATION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 51(2) I shall inform the House that the debate on the motion for concurrence in the third report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Thursday, February 19, 1987, will be held on Wednesday, March 18, 1987, between one o'clock p.m. and two o'clock.
I want to remind Hon. Members that this is a consequence of a new rule and I ask that Hon. Members convey to their colleagues that the debate will take place tomorrow between one o'clock and two o'clock.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the Government, and the amendment of Mr. Garneau (p. 3594).
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the very first time I have a chance to speak to the Budget, I have to admit the Budget is a big zero as far as Canadian taxpayers are concerned. When I say a big zero, I am of course referring to the quality of the Budget that was brought down and to the impact this Budget will have on the taxpayer's purse. And that is why the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), seconded by the Hon. Member
The Budget-Mr. Grondin
for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), proposed the following amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson):
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House condemns the government for:
-presenting a budget that increases taxes on individual Canadians for the third year in a row, totalling billions and billions of dollars;
-widening the gap between the rich and the poor by their ill-advised and heartless fiscal policy;
-cutting the crucial Regional Economic Development budget, for the third year in a row; and
-once again delaying the long promised essential tax reform program thereby postponing any attempt to create more fairness in our tax system which is being eroded under the present conservative administration."
Mr. Speaker, this amendment, which will be put to a vote today, in effect condemns the policies announced and the statements made before this House by the Minister of Finance.
It is often said that the Budget is a reflection of the Government's general policies, and on February 18 there was absolutely nothing in the Budget, so I think we must ask ourselves what the policies of this Government really are.
I was astonished, disappointed and almost shocked to hear the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) tell the House that with a Budget like this one, the Conservative Government knew where it was going. I have to say the Minister of Finance certainly did nothing to help the Conservative Members and Ministers who, so far, have been trying to justify the Government's position with respect to the Budget or so-called Budget that was brought down.
We of the Liberal Party also know where the Conservative Members and Ministers opposite are going. The people of Canada are judging them and will continue to judge them in the months to come, and we know where the present Progressive Conservative caucus will be after the next general election, and it will not be in Ottawa.
Actually, one wonders about the Minister of State for Youth who seems to go to considerable lengths to accept and even praise the performance of his Minister of Finance, especially when we realize that never at any time in his response or speech on the Budget did the Minister of State for Youth mention the word "youth" or the word "young", and why should he, since the Budget contains nothing for young people. That is perhaps why the Minister has tried to publish some very interesting-looking and nicely presented booklets that unfortunately contain information that has no connection with and does not reflect the policies of a responsible Government.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government has failed to live up to the promises it made in its previous Budget, the one brought down on February 26, 1986, in which the Minister of Finance said: "In my next Budget, I intend to propose further measures to reform our system of social expenditures and related tax provisions." Unfortunately, the Government appears to have reneged on this commitment to social program reform. We need merely refer to the many complaints and

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Grondin
expressions of discontent we are receiving from people who were promised this, that and the other, and in my own riding, during the campaign before the by-election to replace my predecessor in the House of Commons, during which the Government party was promising rose gardens right and left, among others that it would be possible to make them eligible for benefits under the Program for Worker Adjustment even if this were to require some stickhandling. After the elections, unfortunately these people find themselves in a situation where they cannot possibly be eligible for such benefits, and of course they are very disappointed and furious about the attitude of the Conservative Government.
And then of course there are the great many Canadians who had been told they could apply for unemployment insurance benefits if they opted for early retirement. Particularly in our region, quite a few people did apply under this program, looking forward to early retirement because they were convinced they would be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Many of these early retirees are quite disillusioned and upset because the Government has failed to live up to its promise.
1 doubt that the average Canadian is strongly opposed to some kind of reform of social programs, but they ought to be more effective and take current conditions into consideration. Like my colleague the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), our finance critic, I think a guaranteed annual income system should have been set up long ago. We passed a resolution to that effect at our November Party convention, so we will be in a position to do something about it after the next general elections when we are called upon to form the new Government.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall some of the points raised by my colleague, the Opposition finance critic, in the remarks he made recently. He was referring to the gap between rich and poor Canadians after the three Conservative budgets, and he went on to single out the situation of young people. There is nothing at all in this Budget to meet the needs of unemployed youths. Nor is there anything flowing from the commitment made by the Prime Minister of Canada at last year's provincial premiers conference in Vancouver when he promised to set up a child care program. Mr. Speaker, Canadian families will just have to carry a much heavier tax load than what they have been used to this far. Mr. Speaker, does it make sense that, as a result of the 1987 Budget, a working married couple with two children should be taxed $966 more than in 1984? Or that a married couple with two children and only one breadwinner earning $30,000 be asked to pay $1,020 more than in 1984? We could go on and on like this, but such figures are so depressing that we would rather not.
As could be expected, the Government did not dare tamper with the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption because this would have been a direct blow to Party supporters.
Nor did the Government do anything about big business because, here again, the friends of the Party would have been hard hit. As I see it, any Government should make sure that companies and businesses pay their fair share of taxes. Since 1984, unfortunately, 90 per cent of new taxes have been levied
against individual Canadians while corporations have had to come up with a little less than 9 per cent. The least I can say is that this is unfair to the average taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is facing a couple of problems: Canadians are not fooled, and this Government will not be re-elected two years from now. Again referring to what is generally happening to young people, throughout his Budget speech the Minister of Finance did not once utter the word "youth". As Young Liberals of Canada President Jonathan Scheiderman put it, it would seem that the Conservative Party solution to the unemployment of young people is to let them grow older. If we are to believe what the Minister of Finance said in his May 23, 1985 Budget speech, it is an ongoing priority of this Government to encourage a much-improved research and development performance in Canada. Unfortunately, since the Conservatives have been in power, the amounts allocated to the National Research Council have decreased from $520 million in 1984 to $398 million in 1986, and an additional cut-back of $20 million was announced in October 1986. How can we believe in research development when the Government is reducing the amounts allocated to this activity in its Budget?
The way the Government is treating the Ministry of Youth is a perfect illustration of the priority given to the problems of young people. The Government has cut back over $200 million from youth programs since 1984. It is hard to understand the self-sastisfaction of the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) when he is asked questions about these cut-backs. When the most important initiative aimed at Canadian youth is the new tax on chips and granola bars, how can young people have confidence in the Government? It has never shown the least concern for future generations, as Mr. Schneiderman said quite recently.
Since the Government did away with the Katimavik program, we have often been told that programs to solve the problems of young people will be introduced in due time. Yet, Katimavik was abolished over a year ago and the Government has yet to announce something to replace it, except for some minor programs which fall quite a bit short of Katimavik in giving real experience and training to young people. If the Budget is not the proper place to announce new programs, will the Minister of Finance one day tell young Canadians when it will be time to introduce the marvellous programs promised by the Conservative Government? Indeed, when will young people stop being treated like third-class citizens by this Government?
Quite recently, the Department of Employment and Immigration sent us information on the amounts allocated to job creation programs for young people. This information shows the amounts allocated in 1985-86 and 1986-87. According to this information, in 1985-86, $673.2 million were allocated to job creation for young people and 253,400 young people took part in the various programs. For the current fiscal year, 1986-87, the estimates show that $720.3 million will be allocated and that 230,000 young people will take part. This is according to the figures we have been given. It is difficult to reconcile the fact that, while the Government is saying that
March 17, 1987

$47.1 million more will be allocated to these job creation programs, 23,200 fewer young Canadians will be able to participate in them.
In the list of federal, provincial and territorial programs Youth Affairs 1986-87, which is an official document distributed throughout Canada by Employment and Immigration and used regularly by the directors of Canada Manpower Centres, a whole section is devoted to federal job-creation programs. This document is used by job counsellors in campus employment centres and Canada employment centres for students, as well as by young people themselves. If we compare this official document and the Canadian Job Strategy information provided by Employment and Immigration, we note many differences both in the job-creation programs themselves and in the amounts allocated to these programs. How can there be any coherence in the youth policy of this Conservative Government? For instance, the Section 38 program appears in the Canadian Job Strategy table, but cannot be found in the index of federal programs. In the case of the Skill Shortage program, which is related to shortages of specialized workers, the index shows that the amount allocated for young people was $4.5 million in 1985-86, while the data provided by Employment and Immigration gives a figure of $24.7 million.
In the case of job development, in the index, the total budget shown is $239.4 million while the data provided by Employment and Immigration show the amount allocated to young people alone as $308.8 million. Where is the coherence, Mr. Speaker? Where is the transparency?
To return to the Hot 100 publication, an abridged guide to the Canadian Government's youth grants and services, that publication in itself is an excellent initiative. Young Canadians needed a guide to find their way around the programs and services set up by the Canadian Government. However, its content is highly questionable.
First, upon reading the guide, one very soon realizes that a very large majority of programs listed were already in force under the Liberal administration. New programs are very scarce, and, besides, it is clear from many of the listed programs and services that the Minister used this as some sort of a carryall to convey an impression that his Government's programs and services were very numerous, although many of them are seldomly used, of little interest to the young or have not really been designed for them.
Besides, program and service descriptions are so short that their nature and requirements are totally or partly left out. Among the programs and services listed in Hot 100 that were not really designed for the young, there is the Hotline services of the Small Business Secretariat, the FDB's management seminars, the business counselling, the video clinics on management, the FDB's information services, community development, the Federal Business Development Bank's booklet Minding Your Own Business, the Equipment Management internal officer and Probationer Program. Also included are programs of such a general nature as health insurance and
The Budget-Mr. Grondin
unemployment insurance, the Canada public insurance plan, family allowances, the missing children programs, the Canada Pension Plan, Federal assistance to post-secondary education, and so on and so forth.
This Government, Mr. Speaker, is constantly bragging about its youth employment policy and its funding. It would indeed be interesting to know about that policy. However, there is nowhere to be found a detailed profile of the policy explaining the details of the various programs, nor the specific budgets allocated. It is no surprise to me that over the weekend, the Minister of State for Youth should have announced, when promoting Hot 100, that according to a report in La Presse, he was shying away from a youth policy, since a youth policy never has been a feature, or a concern, or a priority of the Tory Government.
It would be important for the Government to develop a policy, and that such a policy be made available as one complete and explicit official document, if ever it comes to light.
Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to ask at which point would this Government consider the young for what they are and at their fair value? When will he give any priority to that major group, the leaders of tomorrow, that accounts for 22.6 per cent of Canada's labour force?
Research and development expenditures should increase by 4 per cent in 1986, as compared with 12 per cent and 11 per cent in 1985. Expenditures for 1986 amounted to 1.3 per cent of Canada's gross national product, which is much less than the 2.5 per cent spent in the United States and 2.7 per cent in Japan. However, during the 1984 election, the Progressive Conservative Government was committed to doubling research and development funding over the next four years in order to bring it to 2.5 per cent of the gross national product. It is that sort of statement and promise that has brought this Government to power but is today disheartening our people and driving them into rejecting this Government that has no respect whatsoever for its commitments and does not intend to honour them, if we are to rely on the figures that were published and that lead us to believe that this Government intends to follow along the same line it has been promoting since 1984.
Where employment centres are concerned, it is unfortunate to note that a drastic reduction in staff is expected, a staff that has proved to be very useful on campus in our colleges and universities but unfortunately the Government has decided to reduce the staff on duty in our various Canadian colleges and universities.
Surely, we could speak at length, Mr. Speaker, but I see that the time allotted to me is almost over but I would like to say that at the post-secondary level, by tabling such a budget the government is only fuelling the opposition shown not merely on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, but throughout Canada.

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Vincent
Those Canadians are voicing their views through Gallup polls and briefs, at meetings on social occasions, and they have all kinds of responses which indicate beyond any shadow of a doubt that they are getting ready for an outright firing of all the Tory Members who approved that budget and failed to take into account, at least as far as I am concerned, that extremely important segment of the population which represents 22.6 per cent of Canadians and which will in the years ahead take over from us, and I mean our young people. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that it is too late for the Government to reverse its action, but it is not too late to at least launch programs which would show that this Government still has a heart and that it can be truly concerned about our young people and not solely about the friends of the party.
[DOT] (M30)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Pierre Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the speech made by their elected representative the people in the Saint-Maurice riding must be very disappointed today in view of the fact that he spent half of his time saying that the Conservative Government would not be re-elected and the other half reading remarks made by other Hon. Members or quoting from this or that. I am very sad when I see my honourable friend from Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) behave this way.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring up again some of the points he tried to make. I honestly believed that the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice knew what a budget is. I realize now that he does not have the faintest idea of what it is. A budget is the financial statement of a country which must be tabled once a year.
As his deskmate the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice thinks that a budget should provide the Minister of Finance with the opportunity to announce what each and every department is planning to do during the forthcoming year. He mentioned what he felt should have been announced concerning the young people of this country, but he forgot to mention what my honourable colleague has done for women; he forgot to deal with regional development; he forgot all of that because a budget is based on detailed estimates of planned or expected expenditures.
The Department of Finance does not have to make announcements in the Budget. For instance, what would have happened last year, when Western Canadians farmers urgently needed assistance had the Government refused arguing that the Opposition did not want any announcements at that particular time but that instead they should appear in the Budget. Wait a while; in the Budget we will announce what in
fact you need now. I do not think that Western Canada farmers would have been happy, Mr. Speaker. That is what the Opposition does not understand. The Budget provides each and every Department with the funding it needs, and it is up to each Minister during the year to make the necessary announcements pertaining to their respective areas of responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to young Canadians. What had the previous Government done for them? We have reduced the unemployment rate among young Canadians by 3 per cent. We have still a long way to go, but at least we have done something, contrary to the previous Government which simply allowed the unemployment rate among young Canadians to rise. He referred to the very good booklet published by the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest). This booklet has been very well received everywhere in Canada, except in the ridings held by the Opposition. So, Mr. Speaker, you can see how that works.
As far as the social programs reform is concerned, a few things have been accomplished. The Hon. Member failed to mention the Federal sales tax credit which the Government has implemented to help low income people. The promise which the Prime Minister made last week concerning day-care centres will become a reality. Please, be patient.
The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice did not mention- which surprises me, for I know him to be straightforward and honest-the minimum income tax which was established in January 1986, although his leader was definitely against imposing a minimum tax on high income people. He did not mention that, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, he talked a lot about corporations which do not pay a cent in income tax. Mr. Speaker, we owe this income tax system to the Liberal Party which governed this country for 20 years, but the Hon. Member failed to mention the changes we have made and the steps we have taken over the past two years to eliminate a great many tax loopholes. He mentioned the cuts concerning the National Research Council. It is those people who made up the previous Government and who are now sitting in the Opposition who set up the scientific research tax credit which caused billions of dollars to be wasted, an abused tax credit we had to get rid of. Billions have been spent under their policy, and you have seen the magazine Actualite . . . when he speaks about friends of the Government, we should not forget either all these lawyers of Liberal allegiance who profited from that scientific research tax credit, or all the companies which also benefited from it. Now, he is accusing us of not taking our responsibilities as far as research is concerned. Mr. Speaker, they cleaned out the Government coffers; billions have been spent needlessly for the benefit of friends of the Liberals, rather than for our researchers-


Mr. Gauthier:: This is not true. Stick to the facts.


Pierre H. Vincent: Look, Mr. Speaker, how much the truth hurts. It is well known that billions were spent, and you know it too.
March 17, 1987

So, Mr. Speaker, we cut that out, and nobody should be accusing us today.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The truth!


Pierre H. Vincent: We do not have any money, you spent it all. We have nothing left.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Hell! You are taxing enough! More than $25 billion.


Pierre H. Vincent: Despite all the problems we inherited from them, Mr. Speaker, we managed to create 675,000 jobs. We lowered the inflation rate. We are second, behind Japan, in terms of economic growth. These, Mr. Speaker, are the achievements of the Conservative Government. But that is never mentioned!


An Hon. Member:: We have a million or more unemployed.


Pierre H. Vincent: Look at that, Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts. It is really worth seeing. They are shocked by the truth. That is their problem.


Alfonso Gagliano: Only 18 per cent of the population would vote Conservative.


Pierre H. Vincent: Really.
Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) to come to my riding.


Mrs. Pepin:: I went there.


Pierre H. Vincent: Yes, how many people did you get? You had 75 people between 5 and 7 p.m. There has been-
[DOT]	(1140)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):: Order, please. Hon. Members should listen to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) while he is speaking. Following his remarks there will be time for questions and comments.
[DOT]	0150)


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote a few figures but the Hon. Member has just said that she came in my riding. It is true, Mr. Speaker. They had 75 people for a fund-raising supper and 15 days earlier, 900 people attended a fund-raising supper of the Conservative Party. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, whatever anyone might say, I think that facts speak for themselves and that the people of Trois-Rivieres are proud and happy with the Conservative Party.


Mr. Bernier:: And with their M.P.


Pierre H. Vincent: And with their M.P., thank you, Mr. the Hon. Member for Beauce.
The Budget-Mr. Vincent
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, here lies the difference between the Conservative Government and the previous Liberal Government: we work at the national level, we work to help people throughout the country and each and every Conservative Member in this House is working for the people of his or her riding. We do not work only to be re-elected, and our policies in particular are designed to improve the well-being of Canadians and not just to win the next election, as the previous Liberal Government used to do. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that they did succeed on that point. One cannot hold it against them, since their image was not too bad and they succeeded in being re-elected. But that is not what is important. What is important is that nationally and internationally, Canada take the place it deserves, and this has happened only since 1984.
Let me refer to other comments of the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice. He spoke about the capital gain tax exemption.
Mr. Speaker, that is a good provision which has proved itself up to now as far as the economy and job creation are concerned. When 1 am told that it is meant to help the Government's friends, I think there are more wealthy people on the Liberal side than on the Conservative side. So let them not tell me this kind of story. They have been in power for 20 years and have made the most of it. Let them not tell me that wealthy people are only on the Conservative side. Mr. Speaker, this I suggest is only playing politics and in so doing, my colleague from the riding of Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) has somewhat disappointed me.
He spoke as well about youth programs. The Challenge Program has created more jobs with less money because it has been carried out efficiently. But what is still more important, young people in 1985, 1986 and again in 1987, will have had during the summer months the opportunity not just to work but also to work in their own fields of endeavour, as against the former Summer Canada programs, or whatever their name was, under which summer work for students meant lawn mowing and house painting and all that sort of informative activities. No, Mr. Speaker, since 1984 young Canadians have been working during summer in their own fields, and I could quote testimonies from people in the Trois-Rivieres riding, from young people in my riding, who think the program is great because it gave them a chance to work for four months in their respective areas of competence, and that is something new because it never did exist under the former Liberal regime.
So we need no lessons from anybody in that regard.
The Hon. Member said that the Conservative Government was elected on its promises. No, Mr. Speaker, this Government was elected because Canadians were fed up with the policies, not to say the petty politics, of the former Liberal administration. It must be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that they were elected in 1980 on the promise that they would not increase the tax on gasoline by 18 cents a gallon. One year later we had twice that increase, Mr. Speaker. When we came to power in September 1984, the price of gasoline in Trois-Rivieres was 60 cents a litre, Mr. Speaker, whereas it is now 50 cents. The price of

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Vincent
gasoline has been reduced thanks to the energy policies of the Conservative Government. And in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the price of gaz has also decreased. I have the opportunity to go there once in a while, and I know it, Mr. Speaker.


Alfonso Gagliano: The price of gas has decreased, but no thanks to you.


Pierre H. Vincent: And once again, 1 suppose that if interest rates have gone down, it is not because of the judicious policies of the Conservative Government. A mortgage of $50,000 over five years costs nowadays each taxpayer $ 1,500 less per year. That means that each Canadian with a mortgage of $50,000 has $1,500 more in his pockets each year.


Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, but he pays more taxes.


Pierre H. Vincent: And the small- and medium-size businesses . .. You can see Mr. Speaker, that the truth hurts. Lately, I had the opportunity to visit in the riding of Saint-Maurice some small- and medium-size businesses which are doing very well. In Trois-Rivieres also, they are doing quite well, small- and medium-size, they are expanding and people are proud of our policies. In Trois-Rivieres our small- and medium-size business people realize that with a Conservative Government they save $1,000 in interest a year. These are tangible achievements the people can see when they get money in their pockets.
Mr. Speaker, personal income has increased by 5 per cent since we have been in power. These are positive achievements. The number of small- and medium-size businesses has increased by 13 per cent. It is not only job creation. Canadian entrepreneurship, now aware of its potential, is moving ahead with the help of the Conservative Government. After being crushed as a result of Liberal policies, as you know, Mr. Speaker. All these achievements are the reason why we have a Budget that everybody, except the Opposition, considers excellent. We are only criticized for not having reduced the deficit further and I can understand that. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, you know that 50 per cent of the expenditures in this budget have to do with social programs. Twenty-five per cent are for interest payments on their debt. Twenty-five per cent of public expenditures in 1987-1988 go towards interest payments on debts incurred by the former liberal administration. We have to live with that, Mr. Speaker. We have no choice.
They spent carelessly and haphazardly, without regard for the proper use of funds. I spoke earlier of scientific research. I could mention a multitude of job creation programs which were a farce, which were tailor-made for friends and acquaintances, which provided temporary jobs, Mr. Speaker, if any at all. And I could go on at length.
With regard to Quebec, Mr. Speaker, what this Government has accomplished over the last two years is tremendous. Worthy of note are the CF-18 contract, the Hyundai plant, the step forward in agricultural policy, Mr. Speaker, amounting to a billion and a half dollars over five years. For five years, the former administration had denied our dairy producers what they rightly deserved. We came up with a solution in 1985, Mr. Speaker, less than one year after having been elected. And I know for a fact that the Hon. Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) was totally in favor of this initiative. The unemployment rate has declined.
A record number of agreements have been signed between the federal Government and the Province of Quebec in the fields of science and technology, regional development, transport, to name but a few, Mr. Speaker, agreements which have notably benefited Trois-Rivieres-in the area of transport, Mr. Speaker, since $18 million are to be spent to renovate the Trois-Rivieres bridge. These positive accomplishments have been brought about by the Federal Government, in co-operation with the Government of Quebec. The press mentioned this morning that the time for bickering between the Federal and Provincial Governments had ended, Mr. Speaker. Prior to my entry in the political arena, there was a time when the provincial member and federal member never spoke to one another other than through the press. The Member for Trois-Rivieres and the Member for Saint-Maurice did not speak to one another except through the press. That is not the way things are done today, Mr. Speaker. We work in co-operation with the province. I work in co-operation with my two provincial colleagues, and it works well in the area. This is what I call team work, this is what I call the national reconciliation the Prime Minister had promised and we have brought.
Mr. Speaker, there is one question to which I would like an Hon. Member on the other side of the House to answer. In 1983-84, we had a deficit of $32 billion. We came in power in 1984, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and we said in the November 1984 Economic Statement: we cut a bit everywhere, because we have to put some order in our own house and then see where we are going. We still had a $38 billion deficit. Mr. Speaker, $6 billion were spent before the election. Where did that money go? I could give you examples, I have some in my own riding. They sprinkled a little bit of money just about everywhere in order to win. But the Canadian people did not go along this time. They understood in 1984 that you do not win the heart of Quebecers by spending a lot of money; in the riding of Trois-Rivieres, in the riding of Beauce, in the riding of Labelle, it is won over by the Conservative Government-


An Hon. Member:: And in the riding of Rimouski.


Pierre H. Vincent: In the riding of Rimouski too, of course. And I feel sorry for you, Liberals, in the next election; you are going to try to win those ridings, but because people are proud of their Hon. Members and work with them, and because they acknowledge that their Hon. Members fight for Quebec and for their ridings-
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would like to say that this is the first time in 30 years that the federal deficit will be reduced for three consecutive years, the first time in 30 years, Mr. Speaker. That is to say, the last time it happened, I was one year old. That was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to whom? Again, thanks to the great policies of the Prime Minister, of the Minister of Finance and of the whole Conservative caucus.
March 17, 1987

Mr. Speaker, I could say a lot more about this excellent budget, and I would ask Hon. Members to support the motion put forth by Minister Wilson, and of course reject the Opposition motion.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I will start with one, in order to give a chance to other Members. And anyway, this is a question I had already asked during the debate on the borrowing authority legislation. He stated that the Liberals wasted $6 billion before the elections, because when they came to power they found themselves with a S38 billion deficit, and that this Conservative Government has been reducing the deficit year after year. First, I would like to tell him that this is not quite the truth, because, last year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had proposed a $29.5 billion deficit and we now get a $32 billion deficit that is equal to the last budget's last deficit, the last full deficit under the Liberal administration, that is $32 billion in 1983-84. So there is no reduction from three years ago. But in 1984-85 and 1985-86, there still was an increase of some $6 billion in tax receipts. Yet, the deficit at the end of 1986 is the same. Now, could he tell me-I believe he has had the time to figure it out and look at it-where those $6 billion have gone and how it is that after increasing taxes by $6 billion since they came to power, the deficit at the end of 1986 is $32 billion, just as it was in 1984?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) for his question. When we took over, the deficit reached $38 billion. The first year, we brought it down to $34 billion, the following year to $32 billion, and this year to $29 billion. I suggest we have done a very good job.
Unfortunately, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou does not seem to know that the cost of social programs increases every year. For instance, Mr. Speaker, Old Age Security Pension benefits, family allowances, and transfer payments to the provinces are increasing. While it is true that Government revenues have increased, so have expenses. This is simple mathematics and if my hon. friend wants to be honest, he will have to admit that transfer payments to the provinces and social program benefits are responsible to a large extent for the increase in Government spending. He should not forget the debts incurred by the previous Government and which we must pay back. Interest payments on a debt do not go down when the debt is increasing; they grow and must be paid. They are responsible for the increase in our spending.
The Conservative Government currently administers the country with approximately 25 per cent of the overall government budget. International agreements which were signed before we came to power and which we all agree have to be adhered to, namely those concerning National Defence and CIDA. There are increases there too. There has been very little increase, if any, in the expenses which the Government
The Budget-Mr. Vincent
controls. That is not where the increase is occurring. Revenues must increase, because the remaining expenses are increasing.


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to tell my colleague from Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) that he is right to say that we see budgets differently. That is obvious. First, the Budget was brought down in the House, and then we were told about the expenditures projected by the Government for the coming year. We were then able to see that there is a relationship between the Budget and the Main Estimates for 1987-88, and this relationship gave us food for thought. Of course, everything that we had expected after the Budget was brought down was later confirmed by the Main Estimates.
Where I disagree with my colleague from Trois-Rivieres is when he says that I simply read what had been written by other people and spent my time saying that the Government would not be re-elected. I think there is some truth in the latter, and as for his claim that what I said was written by others, we could hardly be expected to speak to a variety of issues since the Budget failed to reflect any specific policies or make positive forecasts for Canada's future.
And I don't think that my answers to questions or what I was able to contribute on the youth problem and the total absence of any policies or forecasts in this respect, I don't think this was mentioned by anyone else, Mr. Speaker, since even the Minister of State for Youth, in his speech on the Budget, never mentioned the word "young" or "youth". And why should he, since there was absolutely nothing in the Budget for young people.
As for Hot 100, I simply want to say to the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres that the layout is very good, and I said as much in my speech. The booklet is put together quite well, but unfortunately, aside from certain programs that existed before, if we look for programs that were introduced by the Conservative Government since 1984, I'm afraid the Hon. Member will have to admit they were conspicuous by their absence from this publication.
As far as Challenge '87, Challenge '86, or Challenge '85 go, I do not think my colleague can accuse me of ever having spoken against this program. What we denounce is the Challenge program funding, in light of other increases. Among other things, I am referring to minimum wage levels in the various provinces, particularly in Ontario and Quebec this year, and to the difficulties we experienced when attempting to obtain additional funds to compensate for the extra $30 million which had been earmarked for the 1986 census summer program. These $30 million have been cut back this year and, no matter what my colleague from Trois-Rivieres may say, it translates into so many fewer jobs. Fewer jobs will be available this year, unless they plan to reduce the salaries to be paid to young people hired under the Challenge '87 program.

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. de Jong
All things considered, Mr. Speaker, that is a sharp reduction and we cannot accept that young people be penalized by a Government which could not care less about this group that makes up 22.6 per cent of the Canadian population.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I will try again. It doesn't seem to sink in. The Budget is not an instrument for giving away goodies to certain groups in our society. The Budget provides certain sums of money for each department, and it is up to the responsible Minister to spend that money in the course of the year. The Minister of State for Youth will make his own announcements when appropriate. It is not up to the Minister of Finance to announce in the Budget what is going to be done for our youth this year. And I see my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight). There was nothing in the Budget about Indian Affairs. However, in the months to come, the Minister will be making announcements that concern Indians. That is what the Hon. Member fails to understand, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to point out that for the first time in twenty years, a Government has given a forecast of its expenditures and at the end of the year, the forecast has proved to be correct, and we have been doing this for three years running. It is the first time, Mr. Speaker. It involves administering the country like Canadians administer their family budget and like companies administer theirs. When they say: We are going to spend X thousand dollars this year, they spend X thousand dollars. For twenty years, the Liberal Government failed to balance its budget. We, Mr. Speaker, have done so, and I think that is important.
Finally, I can assure the House that the Minister of State for Youth is doing excellent work for our young people and that he has the support of the Quebec caucus and the national caucus in this respect.
[English)


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on the Budget presented earlier this year by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I rise in opposition to the Budget for what it did and did not do. It extended the federal sales tax to snack foods, such as granola bars, frozen yogurt, peanuts, health food mixtures, popcorn et cetera. The snack attack is a tax on food eaten mostly by children. That is why some people have called this tax the kiddie tax. As well, the Budget increased excise tax on gas by one cent a litre and it increased the tax on tobacco products by another 4 per cent. This means that for middle and low-income families taxes are up another $60 to $100 a year. When you pile this tax increase on other tax increases which the Government has introduced since it came to power some two and a half years ago it means that for middle and low-income families taxes are up by $1,350 over that period of time.
Let us deal with what the Budget did not do, Mr. Speaker. It did not address the problem of regional disparity. Since
January, 1986, 137,000 new jobs have been created in Canada yet 132,000 of those jobs are in southern Ontario. Only 5,000 new jobs were created in other parts of the country. The problem of regional disparity is tremendous. Yet the Government since it was elected has cut back by some $3 billion the money previously spent on regional economic development, so we can see why regional disparities are increasing and we can see why most of the economic activity and jobs are centred in southern Ontario.
The Budget did not deal with the crisis facing agriculture. Farm net income went down 27 per cent in Saskatchewan last year. Projections are that farm net income will be reduced by a further 10 per cent to 20 per cent this year. There is a crisis occurring in western Canada. There are thousands of farm families on the brink of bankruptcy. The whole way of life of the family farm in rural western Canada is on the brink of disappearing. Yet there was nothing in the Budget to indicate that the Government recognizes the tremendous problem that exists in our region of the country. There was no commitment, not one word by this Government on any program it might have in mind to offer some assistance to those farmers to ensure that family farming as a way of life will be preserved in western Canada. There was no acknowledgment whatever of the problems we face back home. In addition, the Budget does nothing to create jobs and assist the poor.
As I was preparing for my remarks in this debate I received a study that was done in my home city of Regina by the food bank. It is called "On the Bread Line-Hunger in Regina". I would like to enter for the record some of the findings of this study. It states:
Hunger is a significant problem in the City of Regina.
People are hungry when their regularly monthly income is inadequate for the purchase of sufficient quantity of nutritious food for themselves and members of their families.
Our best conservative estimate is that there are at least 3,000 hungry people in the City of Regina. Three thousand and five men, women and children used the Food Bank in January 1986.
More than half of those are children. The study also shows that hunger is primarily a family matter in Regina with the majority of food bank users being children. Some 59 per cent of food bank children have both parents, while 35 per cent lived in households headed by single women. The ability of food banks to provide this service is also under stress and strain. For example, in 1985 the Regina Food Bank received and distributed more than 1 million pounds of food to hungry people. However, the amount contributed per person has fallen from approximately five pounds per day in 1983 to 2.3 pounds per day in 1986.
The study goes on to document the problems hunger creates, particularly among children. It shows that school nutritionists say that children in school meal programs are underfed, undernourished and hungry. They suffer from hindered motivation, reduced attention and awareness, restlessness, and
March 17, 1987

turn in on themselves. Elungry children are exhausted and have circles under their eyes.
There is nothing in the Budget that would help alleviate that problem. In fact, those families were given a further kick by the Government when it increased taxes on snack food and extended the reach of the federal sales tax. It means another $60 to $100 taken from their pockets. The Government says it is aware of the difficulties of the poor at the same time as it increases sales taxes. The Government says it introduced the sales tax credit giving $150 back to the family earning $15,000 or less a year. Yet the Budget of the Minister of Finance this year took approximately half of that away again.
There is nothing in the Budget that will do anything about the high unemployment we have in this country. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment among industrialized countries. Those people are the victims of past government actions. Remember the 1970s when inflation was rampant? That inflation was bred by the greed of the oil industry and many other corporations around the world. We were caught in this cycle of ever-increasing inflation. Governments decided to wrestle inflation to the ground, and well they should have. High inflation does no one any good. However, the method they used, tight monetary policy, threw millions of workers around the world in industrialized nations on the unemployment rolls. All at once millions of men and women lost their jobs. So it was in Canada. Thousands of workers with meaningful employment and income were thrown all at once on the unemployed heap. Many of them have been unable to get back into the workforce, not because they are lazy or lacking motivation, but simply that the economic policies decided upon by Government meant there were no jobs for them. Those who have remained unemployed can no longer collect unemployment insurance and have moved down to the welfare rolls. There they have remained.
In addition, governments in this country, especially Conservative Governments at the provincial and federal level, have continued to kick them. The Conservative Government of Saskatchewan has steadfastly refused to increase welfare allotments to keep pace with inflation. Before that Government was elected, welfare recipients were receiving approximately 70 per cent of the amount considered to be the poverty line. A single person now collecting social assistance in Saskatchewan gets only 40 per cent of that amount. They have as well been hit by taxes from the federal Conservative Government. When we look at our income tax form for last year we see that $1,400 was the point at which a person started paying income tax. The level is now so low that the taxable income starts at $10.
So we can see that the victims of the economic policies which were pursued in the 1970s to wrestle inflation to the ground are still with us. They are still suffering, and more today than they ever did before. That is why we have hunger on the streets of Regina today. In fact, it is not just in Regina, it is in every major metropolitan centre across this country. There are kids going hungry. There are kids whose opportunity
The Budget-Mr. de Jong
to learn is being affected because of forces beyond their control. There is nothing in this Budget and nothing the Government has done that would indicate it has any awareness of the problems and realities which exist on the streets of the cities of this country. It turns a blind eye and is in fact quite willing to kick these people some more and squeeze an extra $60 out of their hides. This is certainly not a Government of compassion.
The Budget does nothing to begin to address the question of fairness in our tax system. Let us examine the record since 1984 when the Government was elected. There has been a 48 per cent increase in the amount of money collected from personal income taxes, totalling $43.3 billion. In the same period, 1984-1986, the tax increase for corporations was only 4.3 per cent or some $10 billion. Federal sales and excise taxes have risen some 62 per cent to $22.83 billion. I would like to put on the record a comment by Bob Couchman, Executive Director of the Family Services Association of Canada and Director of the Vanier Institute of the Family. He says he is extremely concerned over what this means to his clients. If you are hitting people at the lower end of the spectrum you are talking about taking food off the tables and clothing off the backs of these children.
We have also seen that corporations in this country have not been paying their fair share. In 1983, 79,196 corporations paid no taxes on total profits of $13.3 billion. That is $13.3 billion of profits which did not produce one cent of tax for the public treasury. In 1983, 64 corporations with profits of over $25 million paid no taxes. Is it fair that an old age pensioner living in Vancouver receiving $9,312 per year from Old Age Security and Canada Pension has less than $1,000 a month to pay for the basic necessities of life; food, rent and clothing, and still pays tax? As an example, Scott Paper, with profits of over $25 million in 1982, 1983, and 1984, did not pay one cent of tax.
Is it fair that a family of four living in Regina, Saskatchewan, at around the poverty level pays about $2,364 in income taxes per year while TransCanada PipeLine, which made over $256 million in profits in 1980-81, did not pay one cent of tax? Is it fair that a single parent trying to support two children living at the poverty level pays income tax to the federal Government? In fact, in 1985 they would have paid $775 in federal taxes and for 1986 that same family will pay $875 in income taxes. At the same time, in 1980 on profits of $23.7 million and in 1981 on profits of $29 million, for a total of $52.7 million, Union Gas did not pay one cent of tax.
Is it fair that a teller at the Royal Bank of Canada in 1982 paid more in taxes in actual dollars and cents than the Royal Bank of Canada paid, even though in 1982 the Royal Bank of Canada had pretax profits of over $330 million? In fact, in 1982 the Royal Bank got a tax credit of $28 million. The Government actually gave it back $28 million. That is not fair.
There is nothing in this Budget which begins to address the question of fairness in our tax system. We have a tax system in

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. de Jong
which the middle class and the poor are carrying the load. The well-to-do and the larger corporations have not been carrying their load and, at the same time, the very poor have seen their services and support programs cut.
What I find most obscene is the type of lecture which we, Members of Parliament, have received from the corporate elite of the country. For example, last year I received a letter from the President of the Royal Bank of Canada at that time, Mr. Frazee. Mr. Frazee told us that we have to bite the bullet to bring the deficit under control, that we are spending too much money on our social programs. Mr. Frazee was suggesting that the kids in Regina who go hungry every night are taking too much out of our social programs. He suggested to us that in order to reduce the deficit we have to start cutting our social programs. Yet, in 1982 the bank of which he was president did not pay one cent of tax on $330 million. Who is having a free ride?
There was nothing in this Budget which began to address the question of fairness in our tax system. The Minister of Finance tells us to wait, that he is going to introduce tax reform. I asked him in committee when he will be ready to give us his White Paper. He said he would be ready some time this spring. He told us last year that he would have a paper ready on some aspects of tax reform some time this spring. Now we have to wait a little longer.
The truth is that the Government is asking the poor and the middle class to wait so that it can drop an election goodie on them in time for the next election. Meanwhile, the rich and the large corporations continue their free lunch. This is not right. It is disgusting. No wonder the Canadian public has become cynical with the Government and has expressed that in the public opinion polls. No, Mr. Speaker, in no way can I support this Budget and the action of the Government.


Mr. Hockin:: Mr. Speaker, I will give the Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) a chance to catch his breath while I ask him two questions. First, with regard to his comments about those who live below the poverty line, is he aware that the Government of Canada made it clear in the Speech from the Throne and also in the Budget that announcements affecting low income Canadians will flow throughout this year? All of those announcements do not have to be made in the Budget Speech.
Also, is he aware that because of the prodigious job creation of the last two and a half years fostered by the low interest rates and the fiscal discipline of the Government over 200,000 Canadians who were below the poverty line are no longer below the poverty line?
I would like to ask the Member about his peroration about corporations and their lack of production of tax revenue compared with the personal income tax sector. Is the Hon. Member aware that we have done away with a number of tax exemptions and reductions in the last two years, including carve-outs and limited partnerships, and that we are now moving on a whole host of others? Prominent among these are
a number of opportunities for corporations to diminish their tax which are complex and must be properly dealt with. Prominent is the large loss overhang which flows out of the recession period. The Hon. Member knows that that has been a major contributing factor to the lower revenue from the corporate sector. The way preferred shares are structured and so on has also contributed to this, all of which is to be looked at in tax reform.
Is the Hon. Member saying that because he is in such a hurry to have these changes, rather than get all these things right, in order that the corporate sector pays its proper amount, we should rush in with a proposal prematurely? The Hon. Member knows that we will be bringing our proposals forward in the spring which is quite soon. I have those three questions for the Hon. Member and I would appreciate if he could answer them directly.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I will with great pleasure, Mr. Speaker. First, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) mentions all the good things which flow out of this and other Budgets to help the poor. The fact is that the poor are being taxed at a new level every year because of the measures which the Government has taken. Since the provision of below 3 per cent for inflation for income tax purposes was taken out, more and more people are being brought into the income tax regime.
I saw no mention whatsoever in this Budget of poverty. The word was not used once. The Minister of State tells us what the Minister of Finance has told us, to be patient, that we should not rush into tax reform, that we have to think it through. They did not think it through when economic policies resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being thrown out of work. There is no thinking through about the results of economic policy when it affects ordinary Canadians, but we have to think it through and be careful when it comes to taxing the corporations and stopping the haemorrhaging of funds which is occurring.
The Minister is right that there are up to $35 billion of business losses still on the books. If the corporations use these business losses they do not have to pay any tax at all in the next two or three years. Yet the Minister and the Government tell us we must be very careful when we deal with that.
Why do successive governments, whether Fiberal or Tory, tell us to be careful when we deal with corporations but do not have the same consideration when dealing with human beings? The kids going hungry in the streets of Regina today can wait regardless of the social and economic cost it will produce for the country. They can wait until the Minister of Finance gets his act together and introduces some form of tax reform. In the meantime, the large, the powerful and the mighty of this country continue with their free lunch. I say that is obscene.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, that last exchange reminded me that the Government had not really thought through the implications of the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption
March 17, 1987

before it introduced it and gave a free ride to some people while also giving away money that should have been used to reduce the deficit.
I appreciate the Hon. Member's emphasis in his speech that the Budget should have concern for its effect on people. He especially targeted the needs of children. The Budget errs not only in adding extra taxes that impinge on children, primarily it fails to address their needs and even recognize their poverty in many parts of this country. I think that is shameful. I appreciate the Hon. Member bringing that to our attention.
We also live at a time when children are hungry throughout the world. We live in a world that is spending $1 trillion a year on armaments. Canada is making its contribution to arms through our military expenditures. How does that affect Canadians and what should be our position? How should the Budget address that issue?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question. Indeed, it would be a progressive step if Ministers of Finance begin to acknowledge the cost of the arms race and the effect of that on the budgets of governments throughout the world. It is not possible to remove almost $1 trillion from the world economy without everyone suffering.
A peace institute in London estimates that the cost of the arms race is equivalent to two years of employment income for every working person in the world. If there was a process of disarmament which released that SI trillion for useful production, countries throughout the world would have the hard currency to afford our wheat. There would not be this obscene situation in the world today where there are surpluses and hunger existing side by side. It would help our farmers and certainly help those in need throughout the world if $1 trillion was available for productive purposes, such as building homes and schools, providing decent day care and creating employment in social areas. There would be much less unemployment today, our books would be balanced and we would live, not in a world of scarcity and cut-backs and deficits as we are today but in a world of plenty. Surely humanity has reached the stage where there are enough resources and enough technology to produce an abundance for us all. Yet $1 trillion a year is sucked out of the world economy in the production of equipment that is only used to kill human beings. It distorts the international economy and turns our society into one where resources are scarce, the poor are ignored, and unemployment is high.
I believe it would be a progressive step if Ministers of Finance included a paragraph in their Budgets noting the economic cost of the arms race and expressing the hope on behalf of all Canadians that some day soon we will have a new international atmosphere in which disarmament and the reduction of expenditures on arms can occur. Humanity could then begin to realize the tremendous potential we have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Johnson):: Resuming debate.
The Budget-Mr. Reimer


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on February 18, 1987.
In 1984, Canadians gave the Government a mandate to bring the Canadian economy back on track. When we were elected as a government in September, 1984, we knew as a government and a party that it was time to get back to economic basics and get at the source of the country's economic difficulties. Therefore, in the November, 1984, Economic Statement, the Minister of Finance introduced a comprehensive plan for economic renewal. That plan consisted of four fundamental items on the agenda: first, deficit controls; second, job-creation; third, increased investment and international competitiveness; fourth, the realization of these three goals while maintaining socio-economic justice and compassion.
Following that statement, in May, 1985, and again in February, 1986, two budgets were brought in consistent with these four principles. Now, in this most recent Budget, the central message of the Minister of Finance is that our economic renewal program is working. The Minister stated at page 3579 of Hansard on February 18:
The results tell the story. We are on the right track. Our program of
economic renewal is working.
That is good news for all Canadians. Measured against each item on the 1984 agenda, our economic performance during the past two and one-half years has been nothing short of remarkable.
First, let us look at deficit control and reduction. The facts on deficit control and reduction speak for themselves. When we came to office the annual deficit was more than $38.3 billion and rising. For 15 straight years annual deficits had swollen the accumulated national debt to $200 billion. In fact, the national debt had doubled in just three years prior to our coming into office. The private sector was being stifled by over regulation and wasteful government intervention in its affairs and a lack of spending control over government funds.
What did we do? We abolished the destructive programs such as the National Energy Program and the Foreign Investment Review Agency. We removed distortions in the tax system. We are now privatizing Crown corporations and have privatized 13 to date. We are actively encouraging research and development and investment.
Let us look at some of the results of our actions which we began after the November, 1984, Economic Statement. The deficit is down from $38.3 billion in 1984-85 to $32 billion in 1986-87, with a projected further reduction to $29.3 billion in the 1987-88 fiscal year. That is a three-year decline of 23.5 per cent. The three-year successive decline in annual deficit is the first time that has occurred in 30 years. In other words, one must go back to 1957 to see an equivalent three-year successive reduction in the deficit.
Let us look at a second fact with regard to annual deficits. It is that 67 per cent of the decline of the deficit since we have

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Reimer
taken office is due to cuts in government spending, and 33 per cent is through new taxes. Third, in real terms-that is, after inflation-program spending has declined by more than 1 per cent per year over the three years ending 1987-88. Fourth, these measures of deficit reduction and spending control, the elimination of FIRA and the National Energy Program, and the creation of Investment Canada, have all played a large role in restoring confidence in the Canadian economy, and will be continued to ensure even greater economic renewal.
Finally, we look at the job-creation figures. Actions, taken together with world-wide events, have permitted the creation of some 675,000 jobs in 28 months. That is compared to 424,000 jobs created in the previous Liberal administration in 55 months. There are those who say that deficit reduction hurts the economy. They have it exactly wrong. Rising deficits mean higher interest rates and lower economic confidence. This translates into lower growth, fewer jobs and higher Government deficits, along with less flexibility for the Government to deal with the external pressures on our economy and with urgent domestic needs. Perhaps no single obstacle threatens Canada's economic well-being more than the national debt. True to our intent to rectify the fundamental problems of this country's socio-economic life, the Government has achieved a tremendous program in this area even though there is still a long way to go.
Let us look at the second fundamental principle of job-creation. The job-creation figures continue to get better with each passing day. As of February 18, 1987, 675,000 new jobs have been created. That is an average of 24,107 jobs per month as compared to 7,709 jobs under the previous Liberal administration. That is more than three and a half times as many jobs created per month. Seventy-six per cent of these jobs have been full-time jobs and that is almost the exact reverse of the Liberal record.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) stated in his comments on the Budget that there is not one new single job contemplated in this Budget. He is dead wrong. If we look at what has taken place because of the comprehensive economic program the Government has initiated, we can see why these jobs are being created. I would remind Hon. Members of what took place when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was Minister of Finance. What did he do in order to create jobs? He took a $481 million surplus and turned it into a $4 billion deficit. Under his leadership, spending rose by an average of 23 per cent per year, the gross national debt grew by 50 per cent and debt service costs grew by 85 per cent. The inflation rate doubled from 5.1 per cent to 10.6 per cent. The Bank of Canada rate rose by 4.25 percentage points. Under his leadership the unemployment rate rose by 1 per cent and youth unemployment rose by 2.5 per cent. What is his answer? He says we must create more jobs. Let us look at his record. What did he do? What he did was spend, and spend more, and print, and print more money. Therefore, we had higher inflation and higher unemployment. I cannot
understand why the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, with that kind of record, should now have his Party leading in the polls. I find that just too incredulous to understand.
Canada's unemployment growth has been stronger in Canada than in any other major industrialized country. Since September, 1984, employment growth in Canada has outpaced the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Japan. The unemployment rate has dropped by two percentage points from 11.7 per cent to 9.7 per cent. The youth unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest level in years, from 18.3 per cent to 14.4 per cent, or a decline of almost four percentage points. Those figures are still too high, but at least they are starting to go in the right direction because of the actions of the Government.
Let us look at the third principle announced in the Economic Statement of 1984, that of economic growth. Over the past two years growth in the Canadian economy has outpaced that of every major industrialized nation with the sole exception of Japan. This growth is evident in all of the economic indicators; lower personal, business and mortgage rates, housing starts at an eight-year high and a continued low level of inflation. The economic outlook for 1987 is also very encouraging. Canada's employment growth is expected to again surpass all other major industrialized countries. The unemployment rate should continue to decline reaching 9 per cent by the end of the year. Canada should enjoy real output growth of 2.8 per cent, making this economic upturn we are enjoying now the second longest since World War II. Interest rates should remain stable. Consumer confidence should continue to fuel growth and job creation. The inflation rate is projected to average less than 4 per cent. The international environment for Canadian exports should improve as a result of recent interest rate declines, exchange rate realignments and better commodity prices. That is a very encouraging prospect for Canadians to enjoy. That is why I think the directions of the Government are so important for the Canadian economy today.
Let us look at the fourth pillar announced under our economic program in November of 1984, that of socioeconomic justice and compassion. I think it is all the more remarkable that deficit reduction, job creation and economic growth have all been achieved with the continued concern for socio-economic justice and compassion for those in need. For example, social assistance recipients have a better employment prospect now due to a special three-year federal-provincial cost-shared training and improvement program. Another initiative is that low-income families are benefiting from significant increases in the Child Tax Credit and from the advance payments of that credit. Over a period of three years, the Child Tax Credit is increasing by 36.5 per cent or $140 per child, from $384 in 1985 to $489 in 1987 and $524 in 1988. Under an innovative new program, four million low-income families and individuals are now receiving a refundable federal sales tax credit of up to $50 per adult and $25 per child, to a maximum of $150 for a family of four. Another program which shows the compassion of the Government for those in
March 17, 1987

need is that all widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 years who are in need are now eligible for the spouses' allowance which was introduced in 1984-85. Veterans and their surviving spouses are now receiving improved benefits. Therefore, as the Government continues to work at reducing and controlling spending, reducing the deficit and stimulating economic growth, it is demonstrating that it has a real concern for those in need.
The Budget also indicated there are many challenges ahead. One of those challenges is international competitiveness. We obviously cannot sit back and relax just looking at what has been achieved so far. We must go on. Canadians must make their way in an increasingly competitive world economy. There are a number of other international challenges which confront us such as the serious imbalances in trade positions among industrialized countries. The American budget and its budget deficit continue to create problems. Many developing countries continue to face serious debt problems together with very low commodity prices. The threat of trade protectionism still hangs over many sectors of our economy. In the face of some 300 protectionist Bills in the American Congress, the Government has taken bold action in seeking a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States.
Canada's trade initiatives are crucial to our efforts to build an economy which can continue to grow and create jobs over the long term. We must improve and secure our access to the richest market on earth right next to us, the United States, while at the same time increasing our trade with all other countries, particularly in Europe and the Pacific Rim.
A second challenge ahead for the Government is to continue to control Government spending. The 1987-88 Main Estimates which were tabled right after the Budget by the President of the Treasury Board indicate that the Government intends to pursue the ongoing challenge of controlling and reducing spending in order to encourage further economic growth. For example, in those Estimates the budgetary Main Estimates increase at 2.9 per cent over the 1986-87 Main Estimates. This marks the third consecutive year that the Government has presented budgetary Main Estimates in which the growth rate has declined. That has not happened in almost 20 years. The basic operating costs of the Government will be approximately the same in 1987-88 as they were in 1984-85. With prices rising by some 4 per cent annually this is a reduction in real operating levels of some 12 per cent since we took office.
The third challenge ahead announced in the Budget Speech by the Minister of Finance was with respect to tax reform. The Minister of Finance stated:
The central objective of tax reform is to reduce tax rates. There can be no better incentive for growth, investment, savings and job creation.
The Minister expressed in his Budget Speech his intention to release the proposed tax reforms later this spring. He has already begun to provide us with a clear indication of some of the changes that we should expect within that tax reform
The Budget-Mr. Reimer
proposal. One of them is lower personal tax rates with fewer tax brackets. The Government is also considering greater emphasis on tax credits rather than on tax exemptions, which would benefit lower income taxpayers much more than does the present system of exemptions. The third proposal is with respect to an increase in the frequency of payments of the refundable sales tax credit. Further, there is the elimination or modification of a wide range of tax preferences which now largely benefit corporations and high-income recipients.
I am always intrigued by the fact that members of the NDP get up in the House and give us long dissertations about all the evils and ills of the large corporations of Canada. I am always amazed that a socialist can be an expert on corporations. I can never quite reconcile that with what they say they are in favour of, and yet they always want to attack these people. Yes, it is true that if one looks at the budget statements and the papers that came to us and considers what has happened with respect to corporation tax compared to personal income tax, one will see that corporation taxes have been declining, whereas personal income taxes have been increasing over a period of four or five years. That is why I hope when the Minister introduces his tax reform proposals that members of the NDP will stand and applaud, since they are the ones who are saying that we have to act. I hope that they will listen carefully to the tax proposals and watch what they will do. I think they will see the Government acting with real compassion, real concern and good fiscal discipline to bring in tax reform as it should be, and not repeating the simple slogan "tax the rich" which the NDP espouses.
In conclusion, our agenda for economic renewal is a coordinated, cohesive plan. It involves action on a wide number of fronts, such as reducing the deficit, controlling spending, improving our trading position with other countries of the world, in particular the United States, developing a more fair and more effective tax system, and improving Canada's international competitiveness while at the same time assisting those in greatest need.
I submit that if one looks at what the Government has done in its economic program from September of 1984, which began with the economic statement in the fall, through to the present time, one would see that there is a plan of action for the present and for the future of Canada. We are sticking to that plan.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member talked about the tremendous economy and the tremendous record of the Conservative Government. I realize that he comes from southern Ontario. He does not come from a region such as yours, Mr. Speaker, or from a region such as mine. When constituents of mine hear the kind of speech that we just heard they become even angrier with the Government, and the Conservative Party becomes about as popular as a skunk in a hen-house. The people in my riding are going through a depression the likes of which they have not seen since the 1930s.

March 17, 1987
We have two Canadas. Some 95 per cent of the jobs created in the last year in Canada were created in southern Ontario. I am happy for southern Ontario. But we are not all from Toronto. Why does the Hon. Member not get up in the House and talk about more assistance for regional development so that there can be more jobs created in northern Ontario where the unemployment rate is 15 per cent, and in western Canada, in the Province of Quebec and in Atlantic Canada?
Prairie farmers are now receiving less for their product than they received at any time since the Great Depression of the 1930s. When one talks about tremendous prosperity in the country, it is no wonder that people in western Canada rebel against the Conservative Party. The Party will soon not be the third but the fourth, even behind the WCC in western Canada, which is a sad commentary on the future of our country. Speeches such as the one made by the Hon. Member from southern Ontario make western Canadians very angry. The Hon. Member does not recognize that we have regional differences in the country.
Last year there was a 20 per cent drop in the price of grain. Last week we heard rumours that there would be another drop of about 20 per cent. The farmers of Canada, even with the $1 billion which the Hon. Member mentioned, received $3.50 maximum per bushel of wheat last year. Across the border in the United States farmers received $4.80 American, or $6 Canadian, per bushel of wheat. In Europe, farmers are subsidized even more than that. With a drop in price this year the farmers of western Canada will be lucky, even with another $1 billion payment, to get some $3 per bushel for the best quality wheat produced in the country. Most farmers, particularly those in my area, do not grow the best quality of wheat.
Will the Hon. Member opposite stand up and talk, not just about southern Ontario, about which he spouts his baloney, but for real regional development equality for northern Ontario, western Canada, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces? If the Hon. Member does not believe me then he can talk to Brian Peckford.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) asked me to get up and not spout more baloney. The figures I quoted are true in southern Ontario, as they are right across the country. When I said interest rates are lower that means that a person with a mortgage anywhere in Canada enjoys that same lower interest rate. I think the Hon. Member forgets that. He wants to play with these figures in his own way. Sure, southern Ontario is doing very well. There is no question about that. There is no question that the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville wants to play with these figures.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It's reality.


John Henry Reimer: Yes, the regions of Canada, some of them, are facing great difficulties. But when we talk to people from British Columbia we talk about the fact that they want to sell
their lumber to the United States. I am glad the Hon. Member has said what he has said because I assume he will now vote in favour of the motion the Government introduced yesterday with respect to trade negotiations with the United States. Those people want to sell their products to the United States. They do not want artificial barriers preventing them from doing that. I assume you will help the Government tonight and vote with us.


Mr. Boudria:: The Speaker has nothing to do with this.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, an Hon. Member across the way is telling me that you have nothing to do with this. He is correct. I am speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville. I stand corrected in that regard.
The Hon. Member mentions prairie farmers. It is true that the subsidized prices in Europe and the United States are hurting our farmers. The Government has reacted, at least in part, with the payment of $1 billion.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In part!


John Henry Reimer: Yes, in part. It is not the whole solution. It is at least better than nothing. Is the Hon. Member saying that we should do nothing?
Let us consider the trade negotiations in which Canada is taking part. Let us look at starting to tear down these artificial barriers and subsidy programs. In that way we will start to enjoy a greater prosperity across Canada. Let the Hon. Member listen to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who has said that just as the Auto Pact and the auto parts industry, which my riding enjoys, have tremendously helped southwestern Ontario, let us have a lumber pact in the west and a fish pact in the east with the United States. Let us start to move our products from all regions of Canada, to the benefit of us all, just as southwestern Ontario has benefited.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call upon the Minister of Fisheries and
March 17, 1987

Oceans (Mr. Siddon) to increase significantly spending on the maintenance of Canada's small craft harbours. The Government of Canada has continued to ignore the worsening condition of many harbours and wharfs throughout the country.
The situation is particularly desperate in Atlantic Canada. In many harbours conditions have deteriorated so much that the safety of fishermen and boaters is being seriously threatened.
The federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a responsibility to ensure that harbours and wharfs are adequately maintained. There is now a growing concern that he will not live up to this responsibility. It is high time the interests of Canadians are protected instead of being attacked by the Government.
I call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to increase spending immediately on small craft harbours and to end this growing threat to the safety of Canada's fishermen. It is high time that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of the day lived up to their responsibility to primary producers in Canada.



THE PRESS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I answered a few questions by Canadian Press reporter, Allan Bass, as I left the morning meeting of the legislative committee on Bill C-37, the softwood lumber tax, which I chair. The resulting story bore so little resemblance to my comments as to be unbelievable. Simply put, Mr. Bass fabricated outrageously.
Some hours later a changed story, which was a little better, and a retraction went out on the CP wire. However, many newspapers and radio stations had already carried the original story. Not one person with whom I spoke who saw the original story saw either the corrected story or the retraction, nor will they have seen the apology which I received from the CP editor.
No free democracy would ever want to censor the press, but surely there should be some redress when a reporter for a usually responsible agency exaggerates so blatantly and causes international problems in so doing.
5. O. 21 WELFARE



EXISTENCE OF FOOD BANKS IN TORONTO AND OTHER CITIES

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn last week that in booming, prosperous Toronto there are 180 voluntary agencies providing food hampers and meals to over 60,000 people, more than a third of whom are children. The same situation of voluntary agencies establishing food banks exists in many prosperous cities in the Province of Ontario, including Windsor, Hamilton, and others. That is true in virtually every province.
It is obvious that the system of social security and the system of providing welfare, which many of us thought had been developed to the point where people no longer had to depend upon charity, have now broken down.
I believe, as do most Canadians and certainly the major churches involved in providing this service, that it is a disgrace. The country is wealthy enough for the state to provide people with at least a minimum standard of living.
I call upon the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to meet with his provincial counterparts, to examine the situation, and to devise plans which will eliminate the need for charity in this important area.



DEMAND FOR PUBLICATION LISTING GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, on March 11 in the House the Hon. Member for Windsor- Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) attacked the Hot 100 booklet issued by the Ministry of Youth. He suggested that the Hot 100 contains programs which are not run by the Government.
On the contrary, the Canadian Federation of Students' Work and Travel Program has significant involvement from the Department of External Affairs, without which it could not function. Surely the Hon. Member would not want to suggest that the Missing Children Program of the Department of the Solicitor General, the Canada Assistance Plan of the Department of Health and Welfare, and the Community Futures Program of the Canadian Jobs Strategy are not federal programs.
Granted, the Hon. Member caught us on OHIP. That certainly is not a federal program. It is not in the Hot 100 booklet, either.
Here are the facts. Over the past 2.5 years our Government has reduced the youth unemployment rate by 4 per cent. As for the Hot 100 booklet, the Hon. Member should know that 50,000 copies have been snatched up in the past month alone. Canadians across the country applaud the booklet. Even Senator Jacques Hebert approves of it.

March 17, 1987
I would suggest that NDP Members, who are so supportive of Canadian culture, should first learn how to read a book properly.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment upon the latest labour force report which, coincidentally, was issued last Friday, March 13. The contents of that report would indicate a drop in the unemployment rate for the economic region in which the riding of Restigouche is located. Is this a sign of good luck or bad luck, Mr. Speaker?
[DOT] (M05)
There are several factors that we must keep in mind. First, the rate is now at 16.1 per cent. By all accounts this is still unacceptably high. Second, our participation rate is the second lowest in the entire country. This means that a great many in my region have simply given up on trying to find work. These people are no longer counted in the ranks of the unemployed. They are the ones whose unemployment insurance benefits have expired and now they have been forced to turn to the province for welfare, or worse yet, to food banks and other voluntary organizations. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this any way to decrease the unemployment rate? If all the people in Restigouche who are presently out of work were added to the official list, our unemployment rate would be over 50 per cent. I know it is hard to believe, but it is true.
We need real help and we need it fast. We need jobs, and we need them now.



LAPRADE FUND


Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I wish simply to reassure my colleague the Flon. Member for Trois-Rivieres by saying that I agree with him on the criteria made public last November as to the conditions a project should meet to become eligible to the Laprade Fund provided they are adhered to in practice. Flowever, after a project has been deemed eligible to the Fund, there must be a follow-up. Well, since last November, the Government has been quite silent on this matter. Nobody knows the deadline for applying to this Fund, and nobody knows how to fill out the application.
The municipalities, industries and organizations do not know how to proceed. Treasury Board and DREE officials are passing the buck. Some claim that someone is working on a
form; others say that no form is being prepared. I was told a month ago that a press conference would be held in the near future to announce, among other things, the deadline for the submission of projects and forms, etc. That was a month ago.
Meanwhile, we hear that a number of projects have been submitted. How? Nobody knows. To whom? Nobody knows. Who are the resource people? Nobody knows. It reeks of patronage.
Mr. Speaker, $87.3 million are at stake. If the Government wants to regain some credibility, if it wants to demonstrate a certain openness on this issue, it must set the rules of the game quickly. It should seek the participation of all Hon. Members in the 04 area, including those in the Opposition.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) has announced the construction of five new airstrips in the North to let interceptors operate in the Arctic. This is supposed to enhance Canadian sovereignty, but will it? The Americans helped select those sites. They are picking up half the cost of constructing the airstrips. American F-15s will share these strips and operate from Canadian soil. How does that enhance Canadian sovereignty? What will happen when an American fighter takes off from Canadian soil and spots an American submarine sticking up through the ice in our waters? Will the pilot report the sighting to Canada or just wave as he flies over the Polar 8 icebreaker?
We should be looking after our own airspace with our own aircraft. But the Government refuses to live up to this responsibility. Instead, it is content to pay lip service to Canadian sovereignty and let the Americans use our territory as they see fit.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, today in Canada we have the economic paradox of falling interest rates and a rising dollar. The Canadian dollar is at its highest level since 1984 and the bank rate is at its lowest level since March, 1974. What better demonstration of the world's growing confidence in the Canadian economy and policies of our Government?
March 17, 1987

Investment counsellors throughout the world are saying that once again Canada is a good place to invest. I hope that will encourage the Bank of Canada this week to cut interest rates again, both to stimulate our economy further and to produce more jobs, and I hope that such a reduction in the rate will at last shame our major chartered banks and trust companies into cutting their credit card rates.



THE ARTS


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, the management of the National Theatre School is in its death throes.
The management of the National Theatre School is a daily source of dissatisfaction; no new program can be undertaken because of a lack of financial resources; the teachers are underpaid; there is a $400,000 deficit... soon, if the liquidity problems come to a head, it will be too late to save the institution.
These are the words of the school's resigning President, Mr. Jean-Louis Roux. A few weeks ago, wardrobe master Frangois Barbeau resigned as director of the technical section after 25 years with the school. Naturally, it has even been recommended or suspected that the English section of the school, which is a unique institution, move to Toronto, and I believe that this could mean the end of the school as such.
I therefore ask the Minister responsible for this sector and all of the ministers from Quebec to urge the Government to find a solution as quickly as possible. I know that the Federal Government is generous with its subsidies, but I would also like it to show some leadership to breathe new life into a school which has done Quebecers and all Canadians proud, both in this country and abroad.



WAR CRIMINALS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, during the past several days I have paid particular attention to the reaction of Canadians to the Deschenes Commission Report and the Government's response. I think it fair to say that it was widely praised by the eastern European community and the Canadian Jewish Congress, knowing the issue was finally addressed and discovering the number of war criminals was fewer than expected. They applauded the "Made in Canada" solution to the problem of dealing with suspected war criminals by the Canadian justice system and the RCMP. To quote the President of the Ukrainian Canadian Committee from his
home in Saskatoon: "We agree with the Government that rather than having these people denaturalized and deported they should be tried in Canada using Canadian rules of justice".
I congratulate the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) for his excellent work. Because the Government had the courage to address this difficult issue future generations of Canadians will be proud that our justice system finally put this issue to rest.



APARTHEID


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, Norm Wallace and his South African foundation are sending four Indian chiefs to South Africa to dramatize the plight of Canadian Indians. It is a nice touch. The chiefs will certainly be noticed, perhaps even praised as freedom fighters by a white regime which denies freedom to its own citizens in a land where freedom, if uttered too provocatively, can bring death.
Racism is a common enemy shared by both Indians and Africans alike. However, it is a weakened adversary in Canada while in South Africa it is mightily armed. Those who make common cause with that enemy will have found their worst enemy, themselves. The Assembly of First Nations understands that. Perhaps the chiefs will learn.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and commend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for the bold initiative he took in bringing the free trade debate to the House yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: The Prime Minister has a clear vision for Canada and hopefully this will put the political rhetoric of the Opposition and the negative media hype to rest for good.
As we enter the final half of our Government's first mandate it would be so easy for the Prime Minister and our Government to avoid any initiatives which would leave the Government politically vulnerable. However, the Prime Minister and our Government have faith in Canadians and the entrepreneurial spirit to step boldly into the new frontier by negotiating a new trading arrangement with the U.S. This will not only protect but create thousands of new jobs which will ensure the future of Canada's younger generation. Leadership

March 17, 1987
clearly must come from the top and I commend the Prime Minister for acting in such a decisive manner, whereas the opposition Parties are clearly confused and divided on this most important issue.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, this morning I received a letter from a citizen concerned about the closure of Postal Station "A" on Front Street in Toronto. I would like to read the letter to the House.
It says:
I contacted the station manager, who did confirm that the station, one of the largest in the country, was being permanently closed March 28. I asked him when we would be getting notice of this in our postal boxes and he said we wouldn't, that the only notice would be on the outer doors of the station and they wouldn't be going up until the day of March 28.
I told him I thought this lack of previous notice was somewhat unfair and he replied that he only carries out Canada Post Corporation policy, he neither sets them nor offers opinions on them.
What kind of policy is that? Now the Canada Post Corporation does not even give notice of a closure. Shame on the Post Office!



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as unbelievable as it may seem, it is possible for a deaf-mute to work in a radio station. To wit, that young resident of Lourdes-du-Blanc-Sablon on Quebec's lower North Shore, who chose that kind of work to earn a living despite his lifelong handicap. He is a unique case in this country's radio broadcasting community.
Roland Jones is 24 and has been attracted to radio for a long time. When he learned that he could be gainfully employed at the Blanc-Sablon community radio station, thanks to a Canadian job development program, Roland Jones took that chance. The station manager, Mr. Alain Vaillancourt, had given his word that he would take him on his staff at the end of that program.
So Mr. Jones is now hosting a radio program between 1 and 4 p.m. Since he has been at his job, reports Mr. Alain Vaillancourt, Mr. Jones has brightened up to a surprising degree. His parents can hardly believe the extent to which he has evolved. His general behaviour has changed, all due to his job.
On behalf of the Prime Minister and Hon. Member for Manicouagan, (Mr. Mulroney) and on behalf of all of us, 1 say: Bravo, Roland Jones!

[DOT] (M15)



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Government's decision to close the Canadian Embassy in Finland has aroused much reaction. My friend, the Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and I raised questions about the decision with the Minister the day after it was announced. The Finnish- Canadian Cultural Federation expressed feelings of indignation and shame over this seemingly arbitrary decision which ignored vitally important political and diplomatic considerations.
I explored these considerations in the adjournment debate on February 9 of this year citing reasons why the decision to close our Embassy in Helsinki is a mistake. The Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association responded to these concerns last Wednesday evening with a unanimous motion asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to reverse his decision.
I express the pleasure of many Canadians, especially my Finnish-Canadian constituents, at the news that the Minister is reconsidering the decision. I urge him to reassert Canada's support, in the words of the Finnish-Canadian Cultural Federation, for "little powers such as Finland" by announcing that the Canadian Embassy in Helsinki will continue to work for Finnish-Canadian friendship and good international relations generally.



AQUACULTURE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, you do not hunt cows any more, you farm them, as people have done for thousands of years. However, we still hunt fish. Fish farming is a better idea. It is more productive and will, in the years to come, provide a better quality, lower cost food product.
World-wide about 9 million tonnes, or 12 per cent of over-all fish production, is farmed rather than hunted. Canadian entrepreneurs and investors are to be applauded for recognizing the natural advantages which exist in Canada, especially British Columbia, for aquaculture. By 1990 it is expected that
March 17, 1987

British Columbia farmed salmon production will reach 25,000 tonnes valued at $200 million. On the East Coast cultured shellfish production is important. Let us, Sir, encourage this trend and do everything possible to facilitate this exciting new industry.
* *
*



POSITION OF LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte Marie):: Mr. Speaker, we had another example yesterday of this Government's and the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) crummy behaviour. Imagine, the chairman of a labour union summoning its members to report on their collective agreements negotiations. And once the meeting is opened, imagine the union chairman telling the members: "Now that you are here, I am sorry, but I cannot give you any explanations as to the contents of the negotiations because this could be prejudicial to the process." Mr. Speaker, such naive behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister and the Government is unacceptable in my view, and yesterday we heard about our leader's position. The Liberal Leader was clear, accurate and specific as to our position concerning the free trade negotiations.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. In his remarks on free trade yesterday the Prime Minister did not deal with the question of Canadian sovereignty, our sovereignty, our national independence.
Now it is clear that United States President Reagan knows full well what he wants from these negotiations on free trade and acid rain-that Canada sacrifice its independence in defence matters. Does the Prime Minister know that Canadians will never let the United States dictate our defence policy in exchange for a free trade agreement?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just made two inaccurate statements. First, he is saying that I did not deal with the national sovereignty issue yesterday, while in fact my colleagues and I talked about it at length and said that the whole process was aimed at protecting and strengthening our national sovereignty.
Oral Questions
Second, with respect to his suggestion concerning President Reagan-


An Hon. Member:: That is false.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There again it is false. There is no link whatsoever between our national defence commitments and any other aspect of our national life. With respect to the Government of Canada, there has been no reference to this under any circumstance by anybody whatever.


INTRODUCTION OF WHITE PAPER ON DEFENCE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns the link between free trade and defence. The responses this morning by the Prime Minister's Ministers and officials were very cautious. We have been promised the Government's White Paper on Defence for a number of months. Will the Prime Minister be revealing the defence policy to Members of the House of Commons before his meeting with the President of the United States in early April, or will the President be bringing the document with him?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, let me say for the record that there is no link, nor has any link ever been sought or mentioned, between a question of national defence and any other question on the bilateral agenda. No linkage has ever been suggested in my presence or in the presence of any of our Ministers or government officials.
In regard to the White Paper for which the Minister of National Defence is responsible, my hon. friend knows that since we came to office we have already increased our conventional commitment to NATO, we have already sent 1,200 more men and women to NATO, and we hope to do more. This is not a neutral country. Under this Government, this country stands clearly on the side of the allies and freedom, and the White Paper will reflect precisely that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a further question on free trade and sovereignty. Yesterday in the House in their speeches on free trade, the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade in effect confessed a total lack of a regional economic equality development policy. What the Government has done is slash our own programs. Yesterday the Prime Minister called on the free trade agreement, if he obtains it with the United States, to rescue our disadvantaged regions. If Canada's policy of regional development is not on the negotiating table, as the Prime Minister undertook yesterday, why, in the motion on free trade before the House this afternoon, is there not one line or one word on regional equality and regional development?

March 17, 1987
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman says that yesterday we confessed a lack of regional economic development policy. That statement is utterly false and my right hon. friend knows it. I referred to the desirability of a free trade agreement with the United States precisely because it was instrumental in helping us correct some of the historic regional disparities in Canada. I do not know why the hon. gentleman persists in trying to mislead the House and mislead Canadians.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, there are many serious questions about yesterday's statement that we want to pursue, but first I would ask the Minister to clarify reports that have been issued this morning about irregularities in her office. Will the Minister confirm or deny the report that a member of her staff is now under RCMP investigation? Will she tell us if, in fact, that report is true?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that from a routine internal audit there was some suggestion of possible irregularities. That has been turned over to the RCMP for investigation. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.


QUERY CONCERNING NATURE OF INVESTIGATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I respect the Deputy Prime Minister's answer, but could he give assurance to the House that the actions which are being investigated have no bearing whatsoever on the official functions, duties, and responsibilities of the Minister's office, considering the important and sensitive responsibilities in relation to the international trade issue before the House? Can we have those assurances this afternoon?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's comments are somewhat unrelated to the issue at hand. I can assure the Hon. Member that the RCMP will investigate the matter thoroughly and any recommendations which are brought forth, I am sure, will be taken under serious consideration.


AGRICULTURE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade or to the Minister of Agriculture. This morning all Members of Parliament received an urgent note from the National Dairy Council of Canada. I would like to ask whether or not the Minister agrees with what the National Dairy Council said:
-in spite of commitment by the Government to the farm marketing boards and to supply management, free flow of dairy products from the U.S.A. into Canada will result in:
1.	Substantial threat to Canadian manufacturers of dairy products
2.	Probable destruction of the dairy farming industry
3.	Serious loss of employment and employment opportunities for Canadians.
Does the Minister agree that this would be the consequence and impact of an across-the-board removal of tariff and nontariff barriers on the dairy industry of Canada as the National Dairy Council is saying to us this morning?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have dealt with this issue on numerous occasions across the country and, indeed, in quite detailed responses to questions yesterday during the Question Period and to a greater extent, perhaps, in a speech yesterday. There is a very clear commitment on behalf of the Government that the supply management systems which exist in this country will remain in place, and attached with that, if one understands the reasons and the history attached to the various marketing boards we have in this country, in order for them to continue to function in an efficient and effective manner as they have in the past, they would require the retention of certain underpinnings which are attached to them. So when I make those comments it is in recognition that if they are required to maintain a marketing board's efficiency and continued use on behalf of the producers, processors and consumers, then, of course, they will have to remain.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS-IMPACT ON DAIRY INDUSTRY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But, Mr. Speaker, this letter was written after the Minister made his speech yesterday. He did not respond to the question of the council. Even though he did not agree with dairy industry officials and milk producers, I should like to know whether the Minister is now prepared to give the House of Commons the proof that free trade will benefit dairy producers and the dairy industry. Can he prove this? Otherwise, why negotiate a free trade arrangement concerning Canada's dairy industry?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we are not negotiating that particular issue. We made it clear in the contents of the motion, we made it clear in this House and across the country on numerous occasions, and we will
March 17, 1987

continue to say so. One of the problems is that a number of people, for some reason which I fail to understand, seem to take great amusement in continuing to build anxiety among a community which does not need it. They are prompted by comments which are made from time to time in this place. It is further complicated and egged on by questions we are receiving from across the floor today.


CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY FORECAST
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it is the National Dairy Council of Canada which is concerned, not just the Opposition, and this letter was written after the Minister spoke in the House of Commons yesterday. I want to know the answer to the question I put and I also want to know whether or not the Minister agrees with CEMA, the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency, which wrote a few days ago to all Members of Parliament that if we had free trade on eggs and egg products, our economy would lose about $124 million and 3,000 jobs per year and our industry would lose between two-thirds and three-quarters of our producers? Does the Minister agree with this since the Minister for International Trade said herself that non-tariff barriers are now on the table? Does he agree or does he not?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, there are an awful lot of "ifs" there. May I add one more? If the Canadian Dairy Commission, the dairy farmers of Canada, CEMA, and some of the other people would spend a little more time listening to what we have been saying in this House and what we are putting into the record, we might be better off.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH QUEBEC ON CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, this morning the Government announced that a First Ministers' meeting will be held on April 30 to discuss the Constitution and Quebec. However, we are struck once again by the lack of any specific commitment on the part of the Government. This morning, Senator Murray said: "We are still in the preliminary stages, and discussions will be informal". I would like to ask the Prime Minister how this Government, after two and a half years of promises and hedging on those promises, can announce another informal meeting without putting its own proposals on the table.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may know, or perhaps he has forgotten, that it is not up to the federal Government to conclude a bilateral constitutional agreement with the Government of Quebec. Under the constitutional accord, it
Oral Questions
takes the approval of seven Governments with 50 per cent of the population. With the co-operation of the Government of Quebec, we have started a series of consultations that have led to increasingly valid and important definitions. Since the First Ministers, in the circumstances, have had to spend more time on the issue of trade with the United States, we have met four times so far to discuss the issue, and two more meetings are scheduled. I repeat, because of the circumstances, there has been less emphasis on getting ahead with the constitutional issue. Considering yesterday's debate and this evening's vote, I thought that, since the constitutional question as it affects aboriginal peoples will be dealt with in two weeks' time, it would be a good thing to call a meeting of First Ministers in order to get some views on the constitutional question as it concerns Quebec. I think the time is ripe for the Premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada to give this matter further consideration.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I think we have to admit there is a question of leadership here. Mr. Bourassa has made his proposals known. The Liberal Party got into the act last year, and even the NDP announced its position recently. It is certainly high time Canadians knew where the federal Government stands.


Mr.   La Salle@: They remember your position.


Jacques Guilbault: I want to ask the Prime Minister, who today seems to be full of good intentions: Could he commit himself now to tabling his own proposals at the meeting on April 30 with the Premiers?


Mr.   La Salle@: I remember.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have some very specific ideas about the formula we would like to see in connection with Quebec's approval of the constitutional accord. To me and my colleagues, it is very important for our national unity that Quebec be able to give its approval as soon as possible to the constitutional document. However, under the constitutional agreement concluded by the previous Government, it is not enough for the Parliament of Canada to agree with the proposals. We need the approval of the provincial Premiers. We are meeting with and trying to persuade the Premiers, including for instance the Premier of Ontario, who is-


An Hon. Member:: What is your position?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is asking what our position is. The important thing is to find out whether the Premiers will endorse a joint proposal. The Government of Ontario, for instance, in the absence of Quebec, and I'm just naming one province, has a very important role to play. We want to know, and the provincial Premiers want to know, whether we can agree on and then ratify, a document that will finally make it

March 17, 1987
Oral Questions
possible for Quebec to become a member of the great Canadian family once more.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION
Mr. Robert Toupin (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates as well to the constitutional propositions concerning Quebec. Can the Prime Minister reply to the previous question? Can he be more specific and tell the House what specific constitutional propositions he intends to make to Quebec? We would like to have an answer to that question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of tabling specific proposals today. It would be up to me and the provincial premiers to discuss them, as agreed within the process ratified by my provincial colleagues in Edmonton. We will discuss this during a meeting at Meach Lake.


BASIC GUIDELINES CONCERNING CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS
Robert Toupin: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister at least let us know the basic guidelines concerning these constitutional discussions, basic guidelines which would make it possible for Quebec to adhere to Canada with honour and enthusiasm? Is the Prime Minister prepared to follow the example of the New Democratic Party and acknowledge the uniqueness of Quebec?


An Hon. Member:: And why not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would do would be to follow the example of the New Democrats. If my friend . . . We know what that brought the New Democrats in the past, and we know exactly what is going to happen in the next election. Just wait and see what the people of Quebec have in store for you. You will have nice surprises in the next election. If you want to know more about our basic philosophy, read my Sept-Iles speech and you will see there is a possibility of agreement between Quebec and Canada.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of Members to the presence in our gallery today of General John L. Piotrowski, Commander in Chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have in my hand a Statement of Claim filed in the Federal Court of Canada alleging interference by the Minister in a departmental investigation of tobacco as a hazardous product. Can the Minister honestly tell the House that tobacco is not a health hazard? If he cannot, then why did he stop his Department's investigation?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first, I do not know how I could fulfil my responsibilities as a Minister without interfering in the operations of my Department. Second, there is no investigation in which I could have interfered in this particular case had I been so inclined. Third, I wrote to Dr. Pipe, head of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, stating that I am willing to consider the use of the Hazardous Products Act to regulate tobacco products but that a comprehensive tobacco policy is being developed under the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and that if the Hazardous Products Act is to be used to regulate tobacco advertising then we are certainly ready to participate in that way.


REQUEST FOR TOBACCO INVESTIGATION UNDER PROVISIONS OF HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering that he also has the right to invoke the necessity of an inquiry and reverse the decision made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs under the Hazardous Products Act, is he willing today, after all his rhetoric about the tobacco issue on television all across the country, to reverse the unfortunate decision made by his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to launch an inquiry on the use of tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member did not hear what my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, said. First, there is nothing to reverse if no action had to be taken. We have said many times in the House that we are working as a Government on a plan regarding the reduction of smoking and the health hazards that are obviously related to smoking. We have said that we will come forward with a comprehensive plan.


Mr. Marchi:: All smoke and no fire.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We might even smoke the Hon. Member out.


Sergio Marchi: Make my day!
March 17, 1987


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Make your day-it would be an improvement on anything we see across the way now.
In all seriousness, and coming back to the point, the Government obviously wants to come forward with a comprehensive plan. Part of that plan is to look at the matter of agriculture, which we will be doing shortly.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-EFFECT OF TARIFF REDUCTIONS ON AUTO PACT
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. It arises out of yesterday's debate on free trade. In the debate the Minister confirmed that it was the Government's intention to reduce tariffs to zero on Canada-U.S. trade over a period of 10 years to 15 years. Can the Minister say what will be left of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement and its provisions which provide for production in Canada, if tariffs on automobiles are reduced to zero over the course of the next 10 years?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear in the House that the Auto Pact is not on the table. Again, one more time, the NDP is trying to do Peter Murphy's job for him, trying to drag the Auto Pact on to the table. May I remind the Hon. Member that tariffs have been steadily reduced within the framework of the Auto Pact over the last 22 years? As I said yesterday in debate, tariffs have come down markedly over the last few years, and the Auto Pact has still generated a great deal of production and jobs for Ontario.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It does not matter whether or not the Auto Pact is on the table, because the Government, in the free trade talks, is pulling the rug out from under the Auto Pact in that it intends to reduce the tariffs to zero.


INCENTIVE FOR FOREIGN AUTOMOBILE PRODUCERS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister. What incentive do foreign automobile producers have to abide by the provisions of the auto agreement and to ensure a substantial proportion of Canadian content in production in Canada, if there will be no tariff barriers between the two countries because the Government is reducing automobile tariffs to zero and leaving no incentive for companies to abide by the Auto Pact?


Pat Carney: I am
really surprised, Mr. Speaker, by the insensitivity of that question. The incentive which will exist for the automobile industry is secure and enhanced access to the wealthy, rich North American market.
Oral Questions


PUBLIC WORKS
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for the Canada Lands Corporation in Mirabel. The expropriated owners and occupying tenants in Mirabel are very concerned following the Public Works officials, visit to Mirabel about rumors that the latter would review the draft agreement signed in March 1985 by the former Minister, the Hon. Member for Joliette. Can the Minister assure my electors that the draft agreement signed by the former Minister on behalf of the Government will be honoured to the letter and that the estimates earmarked for a new agricultural impetus will not be slashed in order that the last group of former expropriated owners and tenants will be dealt with as the first one was?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to point out that business is going on as usual. I should like to say to the Hon. Member for Argenteuil-Papineau that there is no way that the draft agreement signed by the Mirabel expropriated owners and the Department of Public Works in March 1985 could be changed. Since 1984, that is within a short two and a half years, this Government has signed 1,100 purchase bids representing 80 per cent of the whole operation. We expect that this operation will be completed before the end of this year.


AIRPORTS
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, this penny wise and pound foolish Government has ordered Transport Canada to take the unprecedented move of lowering the safety standards for fire-fighters at Canadian airports to save $1.5 million. There will be no overtime or no replacement of anyone who is sick for fire-fighters at Canadian airports. Does the Minister of Transport think it is worth it to smudge our superior safety record at Canadian airports, all for the sake of $1.5 million, to violate our own safety standards, and to threaten the safety of the travelling public in Canada?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: I certainly do not want the Hon. Member to have an attack of anything, Mr. Speaker. There were 657 fire-fighters or persons in the CFR service in Canada six months ago. There are 657 there now, the same number as before. Some have been relocated in areas where they were needed. There has been no reduction in the numbers.

March 17, 1987
Oral Questions
ICAO standards which apply to airports in respect of fire protection have been observed. Canada is one of the leaders in the world in that respect. As a matter of fact, we ensure that the standards are observed at all airports, not just large international airports. Their job is to provide a fire-free corridor to an aircraft if there is an accident. The standards deal with the capacity to deliver water for foam production, and those standards are maintained everywhere. The hon. gentleman should not get too upset. The quarrel is about overtime, when people have to be called in for overtime performance. There is a savings of $1.5 million. No safety standards are being breached or lowered.


An Hon. Member:: Wrong.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is absolutely correct. That is the information I have from the professionals in my Department. I do not propose to interfere, because I will be accused of interfering with my Department, just as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been accused of interfering with his Department. Imagine, a Minister actually interfering with his Department!


GOVERNMENT POLICY
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, today we see the outrageous situation of the fire-fighters-


An Hon. Member:: You are a clown, George.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: I will get to that in a minute. Today we see the outrageous situation of the fire-fighters requesting and receiving waivers to sign to "relieve them of responsibilities for the consequences they fear could result from these government cuts", and the Canadian Airline Pilots' Association saying certain pilots of jumbo jets may refuse to land at certain Canadian airports. I ask the Minister of Transport, speaking of interfering with his Department, whether this is the policy of the federal Government-to freeze employees, to have 657 persons with no overtime or no replacement if they are sick?
Can he explain to the House why one airport in Canada received a 20 per cent increase in employees, and that airport happened to be in his own riding? Is it to make up for the international traffic which he hijacked from Gander last year to prop up his own popularity?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is shocking news which the Hon. Member has just given me about St. John's. This must have slipped through without my notice.
With reference to the CFR service there are various categories. Category 9 is the highest, and it depends upon the length and the size of aircraft. Toronto is a category 9. St. John's was a category 6 but is now changing to a category 7 because a year and a half ago, when my predecessor was there
with his usual scrupulous fairness, they noticed larger aircraft and more traffic going into St. John's airport. Therefore, they are changing from a category 6 to a category 7. I did my best to oppose this, but I was overruled by the Department!
When it comes to waivers, I wonder who will get a waiver from the hon. gentleman on his irresponsible statements.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the Prime Minister on the question of the report by American officials that President Reagan might be seeking to alter Canadian defence policy in return for living up to his commitments on acid rain. The Prime Minister made a semi-forthright statement in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition. Could the Prime Minister assure the House, if such a linkage is sought by the President, that he will speak up forcefully against any kind of blackmail of that nature and reassert Canada's right to have the United States do the right thing on acid rain because it is the right thing, not because we do anything in return?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already made it abundantly clear that there is no linkage between Canada's position on acid rain and our intentions with regard to defence. We expect the Americans to act on acid rain because it is the right thing to do. We intend to defend Canada, after so many years of neglect, because it is the right thing to do.


NEW BRUNSWICK'S COMMITMENT
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with another form of blackmail that he has been experiencing with respect to acid rain, namely, the position being taken by the Government of New Brunswick concerning its commitment to live up to the agreement made in 1985. Can the Prime Minister tell us that he will not accept, on behalf of the Canadian Government, any linkage which may be suggested by the Premier or the Government of New Brunswick either with respect to Point Lepreau, the second reactor proposal, or with respect to moneys that were never in the original agreement in 1985?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think the position of the Government of Canada could not be clearer on this subject. We have said that we will not countenance any such linkage. We do not want our negotiations with either the Americans or with the provinces on acid rain to be reduced to horse trading. I understand that
March 17, 1987

the sub-committee of Parliament on acid rain, of which the Hon. Member is a member, will be issuing an invitation to Premier Hatfield to appear before the sub-committee to discuss some of these concerns in tandem with my own negotiations with New Brunswick. I am sure the Hon. Member will use that occasion to pose a similar question to the Premier.


THE CONSTITUTION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister has to do with the constitutional negotiations and a possible solution as he had hoped designed to make Quebecers want to adhere with honour and enthusiasm to the Canadian Constitution. I wish to direct to him a specific question. During this conference, will the Prime Minister of Canada back up the Quebec Premier, Mr. Robert Bourassa, in his efforts to convince his counterparts that the power now enjoyed by Quebec on immigration matters under the Cullen-Couture Agreement should be entrenched in the Constitution? Can the Quebec Premier count on the support of the Prime Minister of Canada in this endeavour?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, can anybody count on the Official Opposition's support? Can anybody count on the Ontario Government's support? Perhaps. We shall see. It is important that we should consult in an effort to find an appropriate formula for Quebec to join the Constitution. At the moment there is a precise formula which requires the provincial Premiers' preliminary approval. Senator Murray has initiated a very productive dialogue with all the Ministers, and I intend to do likewise with the provincial Premiers in order to speed up the process somewhat.


QUEBEC'S DEMANDS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is forgetting that he has a leadership role to play. He is no longer a mediator, but a sort of fireman with hoses but unfortunately, no water. Would the Prime Minister . .. The Prime Minister has promised Quebecers to do everything possible for them to adhere with honour and enthusiasm to the Canadian Constitution. The Quebec Government, through its Minister, has made very concrete recommendations. Now, could the Prime Minister indicate first whether he will support the Bourassa Government which is seeking first the power to select immigrants and second full compensation, should it decide to opt out of the new established programs? What is the Prime Minister's thinking on this? What is he planning to do during the constitutional conference?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is not a constitutional conference. It is quite a regular meeting. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East exclaims: "Ah"! Well, she should read the press release. It is quite a logical follow-up on the provincial Premiers' conference which was held last year in Edmonton. I have asked the Premiers to meet to seek their support and their views on a possible formula which would be acceptable to them and to the Parliament of Canada. We are looking for a solution. Under the previous Government, it took several years. Here, in Canada, finding an appropriate formula took 120 years and now we are precisely seeking the right one for Quebec.
I am questioned about my commitment to Quebec. I make this unequivocal commitment: I can promise you that Quebec will not be sold out deep into the night and kept out of the Constitutional process.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS ACT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whose answers to questions posed by the Hon. Member for Hamilton East I listened to very carefully. I have the statement of claim that she has. Does the Minister deny that on May 5, 1986, an application was made for an investigation, or is he denying that after that application for an investigation was made no investigation was pursued?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Neither, Mr. Speaker. There are no provisions under the Act for a formal request for an investigation. The attorneys or whoever prepared that document seem to have that director confused with the director of investigation and research in the Combines Branch. There is within my Department a civil servant responsible for the Hazardous Products Act who reports to me. We had a request to exclude tobacco advertising under the Act. As I reported to Dr. Pipe who heads Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, in a letter of last September, an over-all tobacco policy is being developed under the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and that we are perfectly willing within that context to have the Hazardous Products Act used for those purposes. There was no investigation that I can either turn on or turn off.


REQUEST THAT TOBACCO BE DECLARED HAZARDOUS PRODUCT
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister would agree that something that kills 30,000 Canadians a year is a hazardous product. My question is very simple. Would it not contribute to a comprehensive policy against smoking to declare immediately that tobacco is a hazardous product?

March 17, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I suspect that more people are killed by cars each year. Should we outlaw them? There has to be a consideration of all the factors. Yes, advertising is one factor. Another factor has to do with the agricultural sector, another one has to do with the small business sector, yet another one has to do with the tax and revenue implications.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Apparently the New Democrats would rather talk than listen, Mr. Speaker. It involves a number of factors and, therefore, there will be a comprehensive program brought in by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As I have just said, I have indicated the willingness in our Department to have it included.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Do it.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the Canadian Single Industry Communities Report that was tabled last week. Could the Minister tell this House after reviewing the report, which indicates 20 years of mismanagement by the Liberal Government, on 800 communities, what steps our Government will be taking to try to address the concerns of single industry communities across the country?
[ Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is a very good question. Indeed, last week, I received a copy of a report by the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council on singleindustry communities. Within the framework of the Employment Strategy, one of the main components for which we are providing $80 million in funding this year deals especially with high unemployment communities, where the development of new economic initiatives is essential. I therefore think that we are carrying on in the same direction, and already the results lead us to believe that the thrust of those community development programs is excellent.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the Minister knows, an independent commission headed by the distinguished Justice Rejean Paul has charged the Government of Canada with the legal and moral failure to live up to its financial obligations related to the Cree-Naskapi Act, an agreement which was passed by this House in 1984. How does the Minister of Indian Affairs respond to these charges of immoral and illegal behaviour by the Government of Canada in relation to Indian people and an agreement passed by this House?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I refer the Hon. Member to the statement I tabled along with the Cree-Naskapi Commission report. Given that the Cree indicated today they intend to bring this case before the courts, further comment would be inappropriate at this time.


MINISTER'S POSITION
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the Minister's statement with respect to the report. I am asking him when he will stop manufacturing excuses and begin to carry out his constitutional responsibility to the Cree people of northern Quebec?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that he is putting me in a very difficult position given that the case is now proceeding to court. I again refer him and other Hon. Members to the statement I tabled with the Cree-Naskapi report.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in order for the forthcoming First Ministers' conference to succeed the Government must be seen as respecting its obligations, will the Prime Minister undertake that Canada's first self-government agreement, namely, the Cree-Naskapi Act and the agreements made under it, will be honoured in future by his Government?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, my reply to the Hon. Member has to be the same as I gave to the Hon. Member preceding him. I would like to comment on it, but I can only refer him to the statement which I tabled in this House along with the Cree-Naskapi Commission report.
March 17, 1987


HONOURING OF AGREEMENT
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, since that argument indicates the Government's strategy regarding negotiations with the aboriginal people, namely, as soon as they have devolved to get away from them as far and as fast as possible, is the Government committed in principle to honouring the Cree-Naskapi Agreement?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member is aware, he again puts myself and the Government in a very difficult position. I cannot comment when there is an intent to take the Government of Canada to court. Once again I refer him to the actions taken by this Government over two and a half years regarding assistance to aboriginal people, and I refer him to the statement tabled with the Cree-Naskapi Commission report.


Mr. Speaker:: The Member for York Centre, one question, please.


WAR CRIMINALS
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. The Deschenes Commission itself commissioned a study on how Nazi war criminals got into Canada in the first place. Mr. Justice Deschenes recommended that report be given the widest possible circulation, yet the Government has not made it public. Does the Minister intend to make it public? If so, when?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the report referred to is one of the research documents turned over by Mr. Justice Deschenes to the Government. As a matter of fact the Department of Justice is not yet in possession of these documents. I am informed that the Privy Council Office has the documents and is reviewing them in accordance with the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. This is an open Government-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -I may add, unlike the previous Government. We are quite interested in this very sensitive issue and I understand the purpose of the Hon. Member in asking the question. We are very interested in making sure there is disclosure as far as legally possible. This will be reviewed in that context and I think the Hon. Member yesterday, according to press reports, acknowledged that there are areas which might have to be removed from the report.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. The Hon. Member for London East.
Oral Questions HEALTH


AIDS DISEASE-BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS-TESTS RECOMMENDED IN UNITED STATES
James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of Health. Yesterday we learned that the U.S. is recommending voluntary blood tests for any individual who had blood transfusions between the years 1978 to 1985, particularly for those who are "sexually active". Can the Minister tell this House whether or not the Government is contemplating a similar recommendation?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in looking at the press reports of the U.S. action I would say that almost all those who had blood transfusions prior to the start of blood products being heat tested, or examined for the AIDS virus, would have had a blood test. There might be some who were not covered by that medical action. The National Advisory Committee on AIDS is meeting in Ottawa, I believe right at this time. These points are on its agenda. If it makes a recommendation from the point of view of health and professionalism, I will obviously consider it. However, I would think that in most cases Canadians would have been covered because of medical procedures undertaken for recipients of blood or blood products.


WORDING OF MEMBER'S QUESTION
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to bring to the attention of Hon. Members a matter which occupied the Chair about a week ago as a consequence of a question asked by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy). Because of the words used in that question, the Chair felt it necessary to intervene and caution all Hon. Members to be very careful in the words they used in case they might be imputing racist motives to another Hon. Member. In that particular case the Hon. Member whose statement was referred to by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville was the Hon. Member for Willow-dale (Mr. Oostrom). Since that intervention the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville has very courteously come to see the Chair and we have had a discussion. I should also say that the Chair has had the opportunity to have a discussion with the Hon. Member for Willowdale. I want Hon. Members to accept that I am completely satisfied that in the question posed by the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville, which I am quick to point out was rephrased at the request of the Chair, there was no intention whatsoever to impute racial motives to the Hon. Member for Willowdale or any other Hon. Member. I want that on the record. As well, I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville and the Hon. Member for Willowdale for their conduct and co-operation throughout this matter.
I should advise the House that there are two rulings which I must now deliver. The first concerns a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin).

March 17, 1987
Question of Privilege-Mr. Hamelin [Translation]


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On February 19, 1987, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix rose on a question of privilege concerning the application or lack of application of the Official Languages Act to Parliament, in particular to the House of Commons.
May I begin by stating that the function of the Speaker is to preside over the House of Commons and to decide upon procedural questions whether they be interpretations of the Standing Orders or matters relating to privilege or order.
What the Hon. Member for Charlevoix raised on February 19, 1987, is, I submit, not a procedural question but a question of legal interpretation. The extent of the application of any law is a question that the courts should be asked to decide and not the Speaker. The Honourable Member quoted several legal opinions when raising his question, which adds emphasis to my point that this is a legal matter, not a procedural one.
Beauchesne's 5th Edition, page 61, Citation 71(5) states: "The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law". The reason for this is obvious. A court may very well have to rule on the same question of law someday and clearly a court would not be bound by a Speaker's interpretation of the general or constitutional law of the land. The Speaker's duty is confined to interpreting the procedures and practices of the House of Commons.
In his presentation the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) did not establish how his privilege had been infringed by the application or lack thereof of this law. In other words, the fundamental right to speak freely in the House of Commons has not been abridged.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) pointed out that Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867, states:
Either the English or the French Language may be used by any Person in the Debates of the House of the Parliament of Canada-and both those Languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses;
It goes on to say:
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada-shall be printed and published in both those Languages.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary read those sections to the Chamber during the intervention. In addition, the Hon. Member for St. Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) stated:
It is ironic that the application of the Official Languages Act to the House of Commons is being debated, because certainly this is the most bilingual of all federal institutions.
I concur totally with the Hon. Member for St. Jacques on this point.

Whether the Official Languages Act applies to the House of Commons in law or not, clearly and unequivocally, the intent of the Act is being applied. Let me briefly expand on this point.
As most Hon. Members will know, the Commissioner of Official Languages regularly conducts studies of federal institutions to determine the degree to which they apply the Official Languages Act. Such studies have regularly been done of the House of Commons. Indeed, the Chair has recently met personally with the Commissioner to discuss whether activities in the House of Commons are, in fact, adequately conforming to the spirit of the Official Languages Act.
In his most recent audit of the House dated June 1986, the Commissioner of Official Languages stated:
"The linguistic situation at the House of Commons has improved significantly since our earlier audit in 1979. In a relatively short time, the House Administration has successfully carried out an ambitious program of reform. The program's most notable achievement has been to make the face of Parliament bilingual by rendering all public signs, including engravings in stone on the historic buildings, in both official languages.
The House of Commons' official languages program is complete and forms an integral part of managers' administrative responsibilities."
He went on to state:
"Service to the public is available and spontaneously offered in both languages with few exceptions since a good proportion of House employees are bilingual ... English and French are both widely used as languages of work at the House."
It should be clear from Mr. D'Iberville Fortier's report that the intent of the law is indeed being followed.

Several Hon. Members who participated in the debate on this question pointed out that all House documents are published in both languages, debates are held in both languages, and simultaneous translation is provided in both the House and in committees. Every care is taken to ensure that all Hon. Members are served in the House in their language of choice and can participate fully in either or both languages. If it were demonstrated that this was not the case in a particular circumstance, then the Chair might be required to intervene, but this is not the point that the Hon. Member for Charlevoix is making in this situation.
From a procedural point of view, the contention of the Hon. Member for Charlevoix that if the Official Languages Act does not apply to the House of Commons his privilege is infringed, is clearly not founded in precedent or practice. Whether or not the Act applies is a legal issue which the courts should decide, not the Speaker. It is clear, however, that Section 133 of the Constitution Act is applied and it is clear that the practices of the House adhere to the intent of the Official Languages Act. The second point, that privilege has been infringed if the Act does not apply, has not been demonstrated. Because of the Constitution Act, and because of the way the House operates, all Hon. Members are assured of their right to participate in debate in their language of choice.
March 17, 1987



Whether the application of the Official Languages Act should be clarified, or whether or not this Act should be amended or revised, is a question for the House to address and not for the Speaker to dictate.
I thank the Hon. Member for Charlevoix for raising this extremely important issue and I also wish to thank all those who participated, for their useful commentary.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly comment on something which flowed from the argument that was made very ably by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), and which I decided to study. I thought it would be more appropriate to raise this matter when you brought down your judgment. You quite properly outlined the role of the Speaker in such a case and suggested that it was a question of legal interpretation and not one of procedure.
I ask your direction, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the role of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in the future. During the course of his argument on the question of privilege, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix quoted from a legal opinion given to the committee by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. I refer to page 3617 of Hansard. I read the Standing Orders to determine exactly what was the duty of the Law Clerk of the House of Commons. Standing Order 126 states:
It is the duty of the Joint Law Clerks of the House to assist Members of the House and deputy heads in drafting legislation; to prepare bills for the Senate after they have been passed by the House; to supervise the printing and arrangement and extending of the Statutes year by year as they are issued at the close of each Parliamentary session; to revise, print and put marginal notes upon all bills; to revise before the third reading all amendments made by select committees, or in Committees of the Whole; and to report to the several Chairman of the various select committees, when requested so to do, any provisions in private bills which are at variance with general Acts on the subjects to which such bills relate or with the usual provisions of private Acts on similar subjects, and any provisions deserving of special attention.
Citation 144 of Beauchesne states:
The Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel is appointed by Letters Patent under the Great Seal. He has the principal duty of advising the Speaker and officers of the House on all legal matters which do not fall within the sphere of procedure.
Naturally, I have no objection to any Member of the House seeking the best legal counsel available. However, I suggest that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel may find himself and his office in a position of conflict of interest if he or members of his office give advice to a Member of Parliament outside the Standing Orders, which is then used in the House of Commons to support an argument upon which the Chair is called to rule. I suggest that the prime client of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel is the Chair and the House of Commons.
I suggest that in future the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel might be well advised to seek leave from the Chair to
Question of Privilege-Mr. Hamelin
advise on matters outside the Standing Orders since the Chair and the House are the prime clients. If there is a possibility that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel will be called upon by the Chair for advice, it is incumbent upon the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel to decline to act for the Member or the committee, and the Member or committee can then, under the budget of the House of Commons, seek counsel elsewhere.
I suggest again that the prime client of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel is the Speaker and the House of Commons. There is a definite risk of conflict of interest if the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel gives advice which is then brought into the House and used in argument upon which the Chair, the prime client, must rule. I wanted to raise that problem for future reference.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments because I question ...


Mr. Hamelin:: Me too!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: ... this argument made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I have been working in this House for perhaps 14 years now, and from time to time I have had to consult the Law Clerk about the draft of a legal text I wanted to present to the House. I think this text dates back to a number of years but it is still topical. Its purpose was to make the Official Languages Act clearly and specifically applicable to the House of Commons, the Senate and the Library of Parliament.
At that time, when the text was being drafted, of course we had discussions with the Joint Law Clerks and the Law Clerk of the House. I remember very well having many discussions with Mr. Beaupre, for example, who was Joint Law Clerk. Naturally these discussions related to the application of the proposed legislation, its drafting, the objectives its sponsor wants to propose to colleagues in the House. It also had to do with this very important question, namely whether the Official Languages Act, in its normal interpretation, applies to this institution, the Canadian Parliament. I must confess that in 1976-77, when I began to be interested directly in the very specific question of whether the act applied to the House, the Senate and the Library of Parliament, I learned from a reliable source that it was debatable, that the arguments for and against were probably just as strong, and that the Law Clerks of the Senate and of the House and a number of other legal experts had different views about it. I admit that the decision made by the Chair this afternoon is one which I would qualify as being weighted and very enlightened because, in fact, the Speaker of the House did not rule on this question but said clearly that he is the servant of the House and that all legislation must apply to it.
But I should like to get back to the point raised by the Parliamentary Secretary. In these discussions, in these drafting

March 17, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Penner
projects, the Law Clerk of the House is the servant of the House of Commons. Our Standing Order 126 makes that clear: "It is the duty of the Joint Law Clerks of the House to assist Members of the House and deputy heads in drafting legislation."
The first question which comes to mind is this: Is there a law to correct or take such problem under consideration? When I asked this question in 1976, Mr. Speaker, the answer was: We do not know. Have all the statutes of Canada been checked to see if some of them refer to obligations concerning, for example, the application of the Official Languages Act to the House of Commons? The answer was: We do not know. This is when it was discovered that with a computer he had at home the Law Clerk could check all the statutes and pinpoint all existing anomalies in legislation concerning the application of the Official Languages Act. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, in 1974, 1975 and 1976 your humble servant introduced Bills to correct these anomalies. The Government did accept a few. One of the anomalies which still remains, Mr. Speaker, is what the Law Clerk can or cannot do with respect to his professional advice. Contrary to my colleague, I maintain that the Law Clerk is the servant of Parliament, that parliamentarians are of course one of his constant preoccupations because it is his duty to examine and help us draft the Bills we introduce on a regular basis. And if the Chair-I must confess that I did not have time to research Beauchesne or none of the other well-known authors-but if the Chair wants to take the matter under advisement, namely what is the specific role of the Law Clerk and must he work only for the Chair or, as the Hon. Member has suggested, very closely and particularly in drafting certain parliamentary texts, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this definition will have to be the subject of an in-depth study by the House of Commons in an appropriate committee, and that today we should not conclude, as did the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Law Clerk works only for the Chair, that he does not work for us Members of this House.


Charles-André Hamelin: Mr. Speaker, 1 would also like to support the position taken by my colleague that we should certainly not be deprived of the services of the Chair which are also available to this House and therefore to its Members. Any attempt to reduce the role of our Law Clerks would deprive us of invaluable expertise, since they are knowledgeable in a very specialized area, namely this House and similar legislatures. Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to consider the points raised by my colleague, and perhaps we could expand on that. But I would strongly urge you, if not to rule now, not to take the position of the Parliamentary Secretary under consideration, but perhaps to expand and make even more readily accessible to us the exceptional services of the Law Clerks who work for you, therefore for us as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank Hon. Members for their interventions, especially the Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and the Hon. Member for
Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin). The question is important. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Counsel who recently issued guidelines which would specifically define the obligations and duties of a lawyer in such a situation . . . Anyway I will give the problem careful consideration and after some time, perhaps next week, it will probably be possible to make a comment, if not a ruling, concerning the situation. Again I thank all Hon. Members for their contribution.


POINT OF ORDER
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to a response to a question which I received from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight).
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development related to a document entitled, "The Report of the Commission of the Cree-Naskapi headed by Justice Rejean Paul". It is a public parliamentary document. I asked the Minister for his response to this document. In replying, the Minister said that Hon. Members in the House should refer to a response that he tabled along with the document. I am advised by my office, after it checked with Distribution and Internal Mail Services, that there was no such document tabled with the commission's report.
I do, Sir, have a statement by the Minister, but it is not a public document. It is a statement given by the Minister at the federal-provincial meeting of Ministers on aboriginal constitutional affairs and is dated March 13. This is not a public document. It came to me through the courtesy of participants of that conference who thought I should be aware of its contents.
The purpose of my point of order is to have the Chair or Parliamentary Secretary inquire whether the Minister inadvertently made an error, or, if there is such a document that was tabled as a companion piece or response to the commission's report, Hon. Members who are interested in this matter would like to know where it is.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we will contact the Minister and determine the exact state of affairs with respect to that point of order.
Would it be in order for me to make a point of order with respect to your ruling?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner) have no further comments?
March 17, 1987


B. Keith Penner: Do you wish a response to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary?


Mr. Speaker:: You may take it that the Chair has the point and I will consider it.

[ Translation]


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I now have a very important ruling to make on a subject raised a few days ago by the Elon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).
On March 9, the Elon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) raised a question of privilege arising out of certain remarks made by the Honourable the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) in giving an interview to the press. The essence of the Hon. Member's complaint was that the Hon. Minister's remarks imputed motives to members of the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration, that he questioned the right of the committee to put witnesses under oath, and that he appeared to be counselling a senior civil servant to defy the standing committee and the House.
I think I have caught completely the tenor and direction of the comments of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.
A day or so later when it was possible for the President of the Treasury Board to be in the Chamber, he rose and agreed that he had been correctly reported in The Globe and Mail. I should perhaps repeat the exact words which form the subject of the complaint:
It is a terrible precedent. I would never ask a public servant to testify under oath. The committee is really saying he is a liar. I do not believe that... 1 would have liked to see Gaetan Lussier walk right out of the room.
There appears to be no argument that the Hon. Minister used those words.

The Hon. Member for Calgary West and the Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Hawkes and Mr. Jourdenais), the Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, both contributed to the discussion and defended the committee's right to conduct its proceedings in the way it had. They also made it quite clear that in requiring certain witnesses to testify under oath, the committee was not implying that they were untrustworthy.
I must say, at the outset, that any parliamentary committee has the power to require witnesses to be sworn. I would also agree that in using this power, a committee is not reflecting adversely on the character of a witness. I can make the analogy with a Court of Law where all witnesses are examined
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
under oath. This necessary practice does not imply that all witnesses are dishonest.

I think it is important to emphasize, in case there should be any misconception in any quarter concerning the powers and functions of parliamentary committees, that committees appointed by this House are entitled to exercise all or any of the powers that this House delegates to them. These powers include the right not only to invite witnesses to appear but to summon them to appear, if necessary. They include the right to examine witnesses on oath should the committee deem it necessary. The powers of standing committees to initiate investigations have recently been extended in the spirit of parliamentary reform. Standing Order 96 sets out in some detail the extent of these powers, which include the power to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of departments of government. The scope of operations of standing committees has thus been considerably widened and the power to summon public servants as witnesses is essential to the effective performance of their tasks. It can be expected that this power will be used more, not less, frequently in the future, and I think it is salutary to alert all those concerned to this fact of parliamentary life. I can therefore say in answer to the question raised by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), that a witness once summoned by a parliamentary committee would be ill-advised to walk out because of an unwillingness to be sworn.

With regard to the existence of a question of privilege, I would remind the House that Parliamentary privilege is breached by any action which threatens freedom of speech in the House or which otherwise obstructs Hon. Members in the fulfillment of their duties. The Hon. Minister used certain words in his remarks to the press which expressed in forceful terms his opinion of a certain action by the committee. There is no doubt that these words were critical of the committee. However, it was not apparent to the Chair that the freedom of action of the committee or of any Hon. Member had been restricted by anything the Minister said. He was expressing an opinion, not giving an order to his public servants. In fact, the Hon. Member for Laprairie applauded the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) for defending his employees in such a spirited manner.

The Hon. Minister's words, which were no doubt delivered spontaneously, did nevertheless reflect upon the committee's actions. The limits of parliamentary privilege are very narrow and have never been precisely defined. Privilege should never be interpreted in such a way as to be an obstacle to the free expression of opinion. At the same time, we all need to be careful in our choice of language when speaking of the legitimate proceedings of the House or its committees.

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Dingwall
Although the Chair finds no prima facie evidence of a question of privilege in this case, it is always wise to avoid offending those susceptibilities which can lead Hon. Members to raise complaints of this nature.
I want Hon. Members to take note of the fact that the Chair has very carefully examined the context in which the words of the Minister were spoken. On close observation I think that it is clear that-and I repeat this because it is important-the Minister was not giving any orders to any members of the Public Service. I hope that Hon. Members will review carefully this judgment and that the committees of the House will examine carefully the reiteration that has been set out in it of the powers, obligations and duties of committees of this place.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Garneau (p. 3594).
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to participate in the budget debate this afternoon. In examining the record with respect to those speakers who have gone before me I note that we have not yet heard from many Members across the way who represent the Province of Nova Scotia, the province in which my constituency is located. I hope that in the days that remain for the consideration of this motion we will have an opportunity to hear firsthand how Members of Parliament, and in particular members of the Government, view the Budget and the effects it will have on the residents, not only of Nova Scotia but, indeed, of Atlantic Canada and the country as a whole.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in previous Budgets, and indeed in previous statements in the House of Commons, has stated clearly that it was not his intention to raise taxes. I believe he made that statement in March of 1985. If ever there was a contradiction or a breach of that undertaking or commitment, it is found in the recent Budget of the Minister of Finance. I say that not in a gloating way to point out another mistake or another broken promise of the present administration, because there have been so many, but because this Budget has great ramifications for ordinary Canadians who look to the national Government for assistance, leadership and, indeed, some sense of compassion and understanding.
I wish to point out that from 1984 to 1988 total government revenues will increase by $22.3 billion. That is a significant amount of money. Individual taxes will increase by $22.8 billion during the same timeframe. That is a phenomenal increase with respect to individual taxes. During that same period of time corporate taxes will drop, and drop significantly. They will decrease by $2.2 billion. In effect, the corporate tax base is eroding. The Minister of Finance has recognized that, and in his Budget Speech he said that corporate income tax collections for 1985-86 were approximately $1.2 billion below the level expected at the time of the February 1986 Budget. On the one hand we have average, ordinary Canadians facing an additional tax burden of $22.8 billion over the timeframe 1984-88, while on the other hand we have corporations which will see a reduction of approximately $2.2 billion.
The Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition stated in Toronto some months ago before a massive crowd of supporters and admirers that the growing gap between the rich and the poor is significantly on the increase and that power is becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of a select few Canadians. There is evidence for this which I have not taken out of the air. There is specific detailed evidence which is contained in the Budget Papers tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance. So we can see that there is a major gap, and the gap is widening, between the rich and the poor.
In 1984-85 individual taxpayers provided upwards of $43.3 billion in revenues. In 1987-88 they will provide $66.1 billion, whereas corporations will provide only $9 million. Again, this is clear and unequivocal information provided by the Minister of Finance in his budgetary papers which show very clearly that individuals in Canada are paying substantially more while corporations are paying substantially less. Knowing your interest, Mr. Speaker, in percentages and how they work in this great country this means that, as a result of this Budget and previous ones, individual Canadians, whether they live in the Province of Newfoundland, Ontario, Quebec, any of the western provinces or, indeed, any of the remaining Atlantic provinces, will be paying a significant increase in individual taxes amounting to 52.5 per cent.
I had hoped that Members opposite would have attempted to try to see some equity in the way in which the Government carries out its operations. When one looks at the corporate side, what does this mean in terms of percentages? It means a reduction of 18.1 per cent. This points to a clear and unequivocal gap between those who have and those who do not. The budgetary measures of the Minister have contributed remarkably to that situation.
With regard to the imposition of federal sales tax and the effects it will have on individuals in the country I wish to quote the following:
The federal sales tax is unfair and inefficient. It is a silent killer of jobs. It levies a higher tax on average, one-third higher on domestic manufacturers than on competing imports. This leads to plant closures and lost Canadian jobs. The base is narrow and similar goods can have very different burdens of tax. The sales tax is coming under increasing pressure and reform is increasingly urgent.
March 17, 1987

Perhaps you would have thought, Mr. Speaker, that those were the comments of a member of the New Democratic Party or, better still, a member of Eler Majesty's Official Opposition, the Liberal Party of Canada. It was neither. They were the words of the Minister of Finance, talking about the federal sales tax.
From where was the quotation taken? It was taken from the Budget Papers as tabled by the Minister of Finance. What has the man from Bay Street done with regard to the federal sales tax? Has he attempted to reduce it, as one would logically think as a result of the statements in his Budget? No, he is extending the federal sales tax to kiddy snacks.
He said to the young people of the country that it was a terrible, unfair, and inefficient tax, that it was a silent killer of jobs. However, what is he doing? He is extending it to kiddy snacks. I find the hypocrisy of such action to be quite alarming. In fact, it is appalling that the Minister of Finance would want to do that in light of the statements in his Budget. Unfortunately, we have come to recognize and to accept this type of behaviour from the Government of Canada, we have seen it in so many areas of the Government's operations.
Other matters were addressed in the Budget of the Minister of Finance. On December 11, 1979, I attended a conference in Toronto. On that particular evening I turned on the television only to see the Government of that day being defeated, because it introduced a Budget on the floor of the House of Commons which resulted in an 18 cent per gallon increase in the price of gasoline. Canadians in large numbers rejected it, as indicated by the subsequent seats won by my Party and by the New Democratic Party and the loss of seats by the Party opposite. They did not want to see the price of gasoline rising to the extent the Conservative Government of the day suggested.
What do we have in the present Budget? What has been the cumulative effect of the Budgets of the Minister of Finance? On the one hand he increased gasoline by one cent per litre. Days later, not weeks, months, or years, the industry turned around and increased the price of gasoline, which had an effect upon motorists and various sectors of the economy.
The increase in the fuel sales tax has been approximately four cents per litre or about 18 cents per gallon since the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took office in September, 1984. Hon. Members opposite laugh. They find some intrinsic joy in the fact that there have been increases in the price of gasoline. I want to share with them that Canadians in different regions of the country recognize that increases in the price of gasoline will not only have negative effects upon our farming and fishing industries, but they will have devastating effects upon a sector of the economy, in which all political Parties agree there is an opportunity for huge economic growth, that is, the tourism sector. Mr. Speaker, 75 per cent of our neighbours to the south who travel to Canada do so by automobile. What have we as a
The Budget-Mr. Dingwall
nation said to them? What has the Government said to those individuals? It is throwing up road-blocks. It does not want tourists to come to our country. If that were the case, the Government would certainly not be supporting such tremendous increases in the price of gasoline.
It can be fairly argued that there was only a one cent increase in the present federal Budget. I agree. However, it triggered the private sector to leap-frog in terms of increasing the price per gallon of gasoline. Petro-Canada, which is in existence to serve Canadians and be a window on the oil and gas industry, increased its price per gallon of gasoline. The Government had every opportunity pursuant to the Financial Administration Act-and probably the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) would have liked to have done it if he were the Minister responsible for Petro-Canada-to issue a directive saying very clearly, "Do not proceed with a two-cent increase in the price of gasoline".
I would have hoped Hon. Members opposite would have seen the tremendous effect which that increase in the sales tax per gallon of gasoline would have on various sectors of our economy and on people. Jobs will be affected negatively by this particular Budget.
The Budget made some substantive cuts with regard to expenditures in CIDA amounting to $150 million. This is the same Government which advocated only yesterday, through a number of musings or sentences given by different Ministers, that it had a concern not only for bilateral trade but for multilateral trade. When someone says one is concerned about multilateral trade, and when we examine carefully the cuts which have taken place in CIDA and in other aspects of that federal Department, we can fairly and objectively question the hypocrisy of the Government of the day.
Other budgetary measures ask Canadian employers to pay bi-monthly unemployment insurance and CPP premiums. This is a change from the past. We know it is a very slick way, an accountant's way, of fooling with the deficit.
There has been a $200 million cut in national defence by the same Party which advocated that there would be major additional expenditures. Perhaps the greatest reduction

and I underline it for Hon. Members opposite-has been the one in the regional economic development envelope of 39 per cent. On the one hand the Government has said that it is concerned about regional economic development and that it wants opportunities for people in various regions of the country. When it comes to putting money and putting forward innovative programs to assist people in poorer regions, what do we have? We have a 39 per cent reduction in the regional economic development envelope.
The Minister of Finance has ruled time and time again that he has given a tax credit to eastern Nova Scotia, that he has provided the Atlantic Opportunities Program and the Atlantic Enterprise Program and that he has provided assistance under

March 17, 1987
Message from the Senate
employment and immigration. But we know those things are not working because the Prime Minister said on August, 1986, as reported in The Globe and Mail:
A humble Prime Minister Brian Mulroney acknowledged last night that the Government has made its share of mistakes and has not yet found a way to allow Newfoundland to share in Canada's wealth.
"We've made mistakes as we shall-mistakes being made by men and women trying to do good for you," he told a partisan crowd of 1,500 people.
That admission by the Prime Minister that his policies are not working was made in August, Mr. Speaker. Ele reiterated it in October, 1986. And now we have the Budget and find that there is a 39 per cent decrease for the regional economic development envelope. There are no new programs. There are no new solutions being offered whatever.
1 find it rather unsettling that members of the Government would rise in their places and extol the great virtues about the economy of Canada when we know that seven out of ten provinces have higher unemployment than before the recession of 1982. You can, therefore, understand my reasons for not supporting the Government in this particular venture, Mr. Speaker. I would have liked to do so if the Government had provided some real leadership in providing equal opportunity for Canadians regardless of where they may live. That is not to suggest that I, as an Atlantic Canadian, want to see the wealth of Ontario eroded at my expense. That is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is that the wealth of Canada be shared and shared fairly. Those of us who represent ridings in the peripheral regions of Canada must have the same opportunities as other Canadians regardless of one's geographical birthplace. By the evidence of the Minister of Finance's Budget, that objective has not been met by the Government. That is why I will not be supporting the Government in its economic thrust in the tabling of its budgetary documents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-12, an Act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, without amendment.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general
the budgetary policy of the Government; and the amendment of Mr. Garneau (p. 3594).
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in the budget debate and to speak to the people of Canada on behalf of the residents of the Pembina constituency. As an Albertan and a proud Canadian, I am honoured to represent the great constituency of Pembina.
At the outset, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the voters of Pembina who bestowed this great honour upon me. Over the years, as residents of Pembina, we have enjoyed remarkable representation and leadership by our elected members. No Member of this Chamber worked harder or more diligently than my predecessor, Peter Elzinga. As a member of the agricultural fraternity, I am especially pleased that he has been charged with the responsibility of serving as Alberta's Minister of Agriculture. I know that all Members of the House of Commons would want to join with me in extending our best wishes to Peter.
I would like to thank all those Members who so graciously welcomed me to this House and the members of the Alberta caucus for their excellent counsel. I would be remiss if I did not pay special tribute to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for his untiring support. It was during the Pembina byelection, when there were those who attempted to deny the Prime Minister and myself the right to freedom of speech, that he demonstrated to me what it takes to be a leader.
To my good friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who encouraged me to seek the Conservative nomination, I extend my thanks for his continuing support and encouragement. All of this is comforting to me as a rookie Member of Parliament. I look forward to serving my constituents and working with my colleagues, the Members of the House of Commons, to build a better Canada.
In 1984, Canadians gave this Government a mandate to get the economy back on track. Albertans and, in fact, all Canadians, can give assent to this Government's accomplishments in taking control of federal spending; in taking a skyrocketing deficit of S38 billion and in two short years reducing it by $6 billion with an anticipated further decrease next year to $29.3 billion. Interest rates have been reduced to less than half of what they were two and a half years ago. Inflation is under control. This Government is providing sound financial management.
However, there is the problem of regional disparity. While parts of Canada are flourishing, others are not. Alberta, with unemployment in excess of 12 per cent, is hurting. The February 18 Budget was not one of policy or sweeping change. Rather, it was a summation, an accounting of what our Government's actions have provided to date, a firm plateau from which we will meet the challenges of addressing regional disparity, economic renewal and tax reform.
March 17, 1987

The Budget was positively received by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
Pembina is a large, diverse constituency, stretching from the small rural communities in the North through the fertile farmlands surrounding Clyde, Legal, Morinville, Thorhild, Radway, Bon Accord, Gibbons and Bruderheim, with the Town of Westlock as the centre of a thriving agricultural area, through the industrial areas of Redwater and Fort Saskatchewan to the densely populated metropolitan area surrounding Edmonton.
Pembina has many resources. Our greatest resource is people. Pembina, with a population in excess of 160,000, includes the municipal districts of Westlock, Sturgeon, part of Thorhild and the county of Strathcona, Alberta's newer cities, St. Albert and Fort Saskatchewan, the Alexander Indian Reserve and the world's largest hamlet, Sherwood Park.
The growth of Pembina is an interesting saga. Like the rest of Canada, adventurous explorers, fur traders and missionaries heralded the development of a new land. Father Albert Lacombe is perhaps the best known of western Canada's missionaries. His influence spread throughout the northwest as he fearlessly and relentlessly preached the word of God to the Indians and European settlers. In 1861, Bishop Tache named the new mission St. Albert after Father Lacombe's patron saint. The Grey Nuns arrived in the area in 1863 and have maintained a presence in the fields of education and health services.
Over the years Alberta has been known for its agricultural products. Only in recent times has the production of gas and oil come to the forefront. Pembina was developed by pioneers looking for a new start. The homesteaders were French, English, Ukrainian, Dutch, German and countless other nationalities. My parents emigrated from Belgium to this land of opportunity. All of these settlers have contributed to the cultural diversity of Alberta and our nation.
Ours is a heritage to be proud of. Canada is a great country, the envy of nations throughout the world. The people of Pembina are much like the citizens of each part of Canada. They are young and old, urban, rural, but most of all they are proud to be Canadians. We want to belong. We want to be part of the mainstream of Canadian life. Their dreams are to be self-reliant, free to choose a place to live and raise their families. They want security of person and community.
Albertans are pleased with our Government's initiatives to introduce reforms to the criminal justice system dealing with pornography, drug use, soliciting, computer crime and sexual abuse of children. We do not see ourselves as hewers of wood and drawers of water to serve other parts of Canada. That is part of the past. Albertans look with vision to the future. We see ourselves in a partnership with thousands of Canadians working together for the betterment of Canada.
The Budget-Mr. Van De Walle
As great as our nation is, it does have its challenges. Transportation and communications are two of the most significant. The average Canadian has not travelled through Canada extensively and has limited knowledge of our vast country. What do Maritimers have in common with folks in British Columbia? What do Albertans know about the complexity of the industrial sector of Ontario? Do the people of Quebec really understand the oil and gas issues of Alberta? If as a Member of Parliament I can play a small part in improving Canadians' understanding and knowledge of Canada I will consider my participation successful. I am firmly convinced that by understanding and knowing one another we can build a better and a united Canada. An excellent way to contribute to this unity, and one which Pembina residents fully support, is an elected Senate. The Senate must provide equal representation from each province. It could effectively become a respected House of sober second thought.
What do the people of Pembina want? They want peace. They want law and order. They want less Government. They want jobs and they want opportunity. Most of all they want to belong. If Members of this House think about it they would probably find that their constituents want exactly the same things. How do we achieve these goals? First we must understand each other's needs and aspirations. Our agricultural industry is suffering. Canadian agriculture production figures are substantial. However, in world terms the numbers are small. In spite of the challenge, our industry has done well over time. We have become more efficient, crop varieties have improved and new crops have been developed. High quality and the assurance of delivery has enabled Canada to compete in a very competitive world market. Now a new monster has arrived. It is called the subsidy. It is a game played by the Treasuries of the EEC and the U.S.A. Massive subsidies have made it economically possible to produce crops in areas heretofore thought unproductive. Subsidies have resulted in the EEC becoming an exporter of grain. In addition, subsidies reduce the sales price to ridiculously low levels. The U.S. responded by subsidizing its exports to maintain its market share. What happens to Canada? The game is played at our expense because we cannot afford to play. We have to take every opportunity to convince the players that the game is senseless. Discussions initiated by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board with other producing countries are encouraging. At the GATT negotiations Canada must take a strong position. Too often in the past our Government has compromised its position. We have to ensure that Canadian agriculture receives the attention it deserves.
A viable agriculture industry is imperative to the economy of our country. The Minister of Agriculture's announcement of the $1 billion assistance program to supplement the cash flows of grain farmers affected by the dramatic drop in world wheat prices was good news for a suffering industry. This, coupled with the elimination of the fuel tax, reduced interest rates, the establishment of debt review boards, and the $500,000 capital gains exemption, along with the western grain stabilization

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Van De Walle
payments, will help many western farmers remain in business. While the international mess is being sorted out, the economy of our country will benefit from this assistance program.
Elowever, other programs will have to be considered, for example, equity financing and more flexible repayment schedules. Yet that is not the long-term answer. Canadian farmers do not want subsidies and hand-outs. They want dependable markets and a reasonable price for their products, just like any other businessman. As a Government we must create an economic and international environment which will enable our agriculture industry to do what it does best, produce massive quantities of high quality food products to be sold competitively on world and domestic markets. In this context the importance of research, innovative market development and efficient transportation cannot be overlooked. In this vast country only 5 per cent of the land is fertile, ideal for growing food. Proper land use and soil conservation are essential to our nation's well-being. Diversification and processing of our agricultural products must take place if Alberta is to reach its full potential. Canadian consumers recognize the importance of our food production and the need for a strong agriculture industry in Canada. They will support future government incentives in the field of agriculture.
Many residents of Pembina depend on the oil and gas industry for their livelihood. They work in oil fields, gas plants and for hundreds of small companies which provide goods and services to the industry. It is frustrating for those who are unemployed because they know that Canada needs the energy, and exploration and development must continue if we are to have security of supply.
During the past decade the National Energy Program, instituted by the previous Liberal Government and supported by the socialists, siphoned billions and billions of dollars from Alberta. It was a devastating tax, not on profit but on production. Today Alberta's oil economy is hurting. I call on the Government to assist the oil and gas sector. We ask nothing more than what other sectors of the economy are receiving, such things as flow-through shares and earned depreciation allowances. I do not have to remind the Members of this House that all Canada benefits from a healthy energy sector in Alberta.
The downturn of the economy in Alberta has dramatically affected the construction industry. Residential and industrial construction is grinding to a standstill. Trades people, construction workers, and related supply industries have felt the brunt of this disaster. Only immediate action by the Government in co-operation with the Province of Alberta will get the construction industry rolling again starting with the expansion of industries, building of roads, construction of homes, and development of our tourist attractions.
Employment is a federal responsibility. I am confident that in the spirit of fairness and national unity these regional disparities will be addressed. Economic diversification is the
key to long-term vitality in Alberta. Major opportunities exist for development of our coal industry. Low-sulphur coal is ideal for industrial use in Ontario. It minimizes the acid rain problem and makes pollution control much easier. I challenge the Governments of Alberta, Ontario, and Canada to get this project moving. It is in the interest of our nation.
These days "high tech" is the word. Many communities in Alberta are trying to attract the best in computers and electronics. I am pleased that the Government recognizes the future of the electronics industry.
One great opportunity comes in the form of tourism as a national renewable resource. Every part of Canada is a tourist attraction, no matter how small the community. We have it all; scenery, mountains, lakes, wildlife, the arts, language, culture and recreation. We just have to seize the opportunity, advertise our advantages, and welcome the tourists in a manner they will not forget. We want them back again and again. As we say in Alberta; "Smile, you're a tourist attraction".
Canada is a trading nation. A large amount of what we produce is for export. Trade means jobs. I would like to commend the federal and provincial Governments for their united efforts in the field of international trade. We must move in the direction of processing more of our raw materials and exporting semifinished or fully manufactured goods. Albertans welcome the Government's free trade initiatives. In view of the growing protectionism in the U.S. these trade negotiations are paramount to the future of our country. The members of the European Common Market have negotiated an agreement as have Australia and New Zealand. Why not Canada and the United States? It will mean wealth and jobs for Canadians. Alberta welcomes the opportunity.
I would like to stress the support of Pembina residents for the free enterprise philosophy. Governments should not be in business but, rather, should create a constructive environment so that business can flourish on its own. Albertans recognize the steps taken by the Government to date in the area of privatization of Crown corporations. When will we get some action on PetroCan and Air Canada? The Government is to be commended for its initiative in becoming a facilitator and regulator rather than a competitor in the business community.
Like the residents of Pembina, Mr. Speaker, I am very positive about our future. We have much to be thankful for. Canadians have a strong, proud heritage. We have unlimited resources and opportunities. We have the youth and vigour to make us leaders. Canada is a land of opportunity, a country of challenges. Alberta is determined to play a role in the destiny of our nation. Let us work together to understand one another and help make Canada an even greater country.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate on the Budget I must record my very grave disappointment with the Government's spending and taxation proposals. This Budget is certainly a missed opportunity to do some good for Canadians, to promote job creation and fairness. The Government is utterly failing in
March 17, 1987

imagination. There are no bold initiatives in the Budget to deal with unemployment. The area from which I come, Toronto, Broadview-Greenwood, is one of the better off areas of the country with regard to jobs, but we know that people in other parts of the country are suffering greatly. They cannot look to the Government or this Budget for any relief or hope that job creation and regional equality will be a priority.
The Government could be bringing forward positive measures in terms of improving the productive capacity of our country, in terms of developing our primary and manufac*ur-ing resources, and in terms of investing in science, research, technology, post-secondary education and job training in order to promote economic opportunity for Canadians. However, the Government has failed to do that in this Budget.
There is no tax reform in this Budget. That has been put off to a later date. We are not sure what that date will be. We suspect that any measures along these lines will be brought in as a pre-election goodie to be handed out by a cynical Government that has not done very well and will be looking for ways to earn back the esteem of the Canadian public.
I note that the Government completely missed the opportunity to deal with the child care issue in this Budget. There is not a penny more for child care in it. We have a hypocritical Minister responsible for the status of women who is also responsible for privatization. Her heart is certainly more in her responsibilities for privatization than in the promotion of the status of women. She said that rather than putting the wrong amount in the Budget it is better not to put in a dime. That means that there are zero dollars for child care while we all recognize that there is a crisis in that area.
Families across the country have been asking the Government to deal with it and get on with the job of sharing the responsibility of parents for the raising of children. Our Party recommended an immediate infusion of $300 million for child care while awaiting the long term and gradual development of a national child care system. This infusion of funds has been demanded by the organizations concerned with child care and the professionals involved, yet there is not a dime in the Budget for that purpose.
I note also that the Government claims to be reducing the deficit with this Budget. Let us be clear about what the Government's precise intentions are. Let us be very clear that the accumulated deficit is growing. When government Members talk about nibbling away, picking away, chopping away or chiselling away at the deficit, they are not talking about the accumulated deficit and actually reducing the debtload which Canada bears. The accumulated deficit continues to increase. The only point they can make is that it is accumulating at a slightly slower rate than it had been during the last couple of years under the previous Government.
If we use the figures for net public debt from the Department of Finance using a public accounts basis, which is a very conservative one, in 1981-82 we had a net public debt or accumulated deficit of just over $100 billion. It rose to $128
The Budget-Ms. McDonald
billion in 1982-83. That was the beginning of the recession and the reason for an increase in the accumulated deficit. The effects of that recession were felt very strongly in 1983-84, when the accumulated debt went up to $160.7 billion; to $199 billion in 1984-85; and to $233 billion in 1985-86. That is what I call a growing deficit. The best the Government can say about the annual deficit is that it has not done as badly as the worst years of the previous Trudeau regime.
The Government's record is not impressive and one must still refer back to the example of Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan when one talks about reducing the deficit. Saskatchewan had the largest per capita accumulated deficit in the country when the CCF took over in Saskatchewan in 1944. Under a CCF Government, the deficit gradually reduced year by year until it was eliminated completely 20 years later. That was accomplished by Tommy Douglas and Woodrow Lloyd and CCF Governments.
Last year the Government predicted an annual deficit of just under $30 billion, which is the predicted deficit for this year. We know that the Government had to raise that estimate to $32 billion last year and it can only predict an annual deficit of under $30 billion this year because of the projected sale of Teleglobe. It is selling off the family jewels, or the family silver, as that profitable Crown corporation has been referred to, in order to come under the magic figure of $30 billion.
The annual deficit in 1984-85 was $38 billion, $34 billion in 1985-86, and $32 billion for 1986-87. The projected deficit for 1987-88 is $29.3 billion. We do not consider that as chiselling away at the deficit.
Budget restraint is another key word in the Government's rhetoric. Let us consider what spending restraint means. While the Government certainly has changed its spending priorities, in my opinion those changes are not for the good. We should not be under the illusion that there is general budget restraint because there is no decrease in government spending over-all. While it is decreasing spending in some areas, including some which are very important to people, it is increasing spending in other areas.
Total budget expenditures in 1984-85 were $96.5 billion. In 1985-86 they were $103.6 billion, and for the current fiscal year 1986-87, they are $107.4 billion. Such an increase every year is not budget restraint and reduced spending.
The Estimates for 1987-88 show $110.1 billion, which is a 5.1 per cent increase over last year. It is idle to talk about budget restraint and reduction in expenditures when there is an increase greater than the cost of living and greater than the increase in Gross National Product. That is not budget restraint.
However, there has been restraint in areas of low priority. The Government wanted to reduce spending even further by cutting old age pensions. We know that it cut family allowance in its partial deindexation and plans to cut the child tax credit.

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Ms. McDonald
It is neglecting major areas of support for families, such as child care.
The major components of the Government's Budget show increases rather than restraint. Program spending for 1984-85 was S86.8 billion. In 1985-86 it was $85.8 billion, and in 198687 it was up to $89.4 billion. The next projection in program spending is $94.5 billion.
The interest on the public debt, the accumulated deficit, is also rising. In 1984-85 the Estimates indicated it at $20.3 billion, although the actual expenditure was a little higher. In 1985-86 it was $25.5 billion. For this fiscal year of 1986-87 it is $27 billion, and for next year it is $28.2 billion. When we consider the interest on the public debt and program spending we see that restraint does not exist. Instead, the Government has other spending priorities such as a penitentiary in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding, and is even spending millions more so that it can be completed before the next election.
The Government is spending more money for contracting out. The Government is cutting back on the Public Service through firing and attrition. There is a projection of a loss of 15,000 jobs in the Public Service in the next three years, some of which have already been lost. However, cut-backs in the Public Service do not mean there will be savings in public expenditures because those services are being provided by contracting out. Instead of paying an employee a reasonable wage and providing reasonable job security and working conditions, services are contracted out to small companies which may or may not be making donations to the Party in power and certainly will be making a profit.
In order to do that, it will either have to boost the price of the contract substantially or reduce the wages of the employees. We know in the case of contracting out for cleaning services that the cleaners have seen their wages, which were already low, drastically reduced. In some cases there is a reduction in wages and increased cost to the Government. I submit that this does not represent restraint. The Government is not saving the taxpayers any money, but is only making public expenditures in a different fashion. Yet it does mean a loss in job security and a loss of good job opportunities. Women especially are concerned about being hired last and fired first in the Public Service. They see many of their jobs as the ones which will not survive the cuts in the Government's planned reduction in the Public Service.
Since the Government is not reducing its over-all spending, it is trying to lower the annual deficit by increasing revenues. It is doing this largely by increasing hidden taxes such as the sales tax, gasoline tax, tax on snack food, tobacco, airline tickets, and increasing a number of other taxes. Since the Conservatives formed the Government, the average family, being the family with a $35,000 income and two dependent children, have had a tax increase of $1,384.
There are other ways to increase revenue. The Government could have eliminated the $500,000 lifetime capital gains tax
exemption for wealthy persons. That is a major loophole that was introduced into a tax system which already had far too many loopholes. The Conservative Government could eliminate that loophole and increase revenues. It could eliminate the increased Registered Retirement Savings Plan limits which are primarily utilized by wealthy people. They will be favoured with yet another tax loophole. The Government could eliminate tax loopholes by which 79,000 profitable Canadian corporations pay no income tax. This would be a very effective way to raise revenues.
It is interesting to note that the Estimates predict a 25 per cent increase in corporate profits for the next fiscal year, yet the Government does not plan to collect 25 per cent more in profits from corporations but a mere $365 million while planning to collect $7.5 billion more from individuals. It is shameful that heavy taxes on individuals and families continue to accelerate while corporations, even those that are profitable and expecting higher profits, will get away with very low taxes. Individual taxes are going up from $37.8 billion to $43.3 billion. Corporate income taxes are going up from $9.4 billion to $9.8 billion. That is a very pathetic increase in comparison. Corporations used to pay half the income tax revenue in the country. They are now only paying a very small proportion. The slide started under the Liberals and it went on for a long time, but it has accelerated under the Conservatives. In 198485, the last year of a Liberal Government, personal income tax raised 41 per cent of total revenues. Now it is at 43 per cent. Corporations paid 13 per cent of total revenues and now pay 9 per cent. With respect to personal income tax, this represents a 48 per cent increase over the last Liberal year. With respect to corporations, it is only a 4 per cent increase. These are massive changes. This acceleration in unfairness has continued.
Unemployment insurance contributions have gone up 34 per cent. Sales taxes have increased even more dramatically at 62 per cent. The taxes which are not so visible continue to go up and the unfairness increases.
I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the area for which I am particularly responsible and that is the area of culture. In the Government's Estimates for the cultural agencies, we see there are winners and losers. Over-all spending is down. It has not kept up with the cost of living, which was a promise of the Conservative Government. Unfortunately, the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) issued a seriously misleading statement on the Estimates after they were tabled. I would like to quote from the news release:
In a statement issued in Ottawa today. Communications Minister Flora MacDonald said she was pleased that the monies available to the CBC for the fiscal year 1987-88 would increase by $50 million and resources of the Communications portfolio would increase by $82 million.
The Minister also noted that although the resources available for the
operation of her department will decrease by $2 million, the following cultural
agencies will see their overall resources increased by $34 million:
March 17, 1987

She then listed those agencies; Canada Council, $5 million; Telefilm Canada, $3 million; CRTC, $2 million; National Film Board, $1 million; National Library, $1 million; National Museums, $19 million; Public Archives, $1 million; and the National Arts Centre, $2 million. Unfortunately, these figures are fraudulent. The Minister has made up a totally new category called "resources", and people would be misled into thinking that this is what the taxpayer is providing these agencies. That is not the case. What the Minister has done is to add up the parliamentary appropriation plus other moneys available. Therefore, if the National Arts Centre increases the price of its food and drinks, and it is doing so, then its resources go up and it makes it look as if the Government were giving it more money, which is simply and totally untrue. Instead, the National Arts Centre is actually receiving a 4.1 per cent decrease in real terms in its parliamentary allocation. Instead of a $2 million increase, it has received no increase in money. In real terms, that is a decrease. The Minister claimed a $5 million increase for the Canada Council. In fact, it is about level. It turns out to be a 0.1 per cent decrease, a very slight decrease. I note that the moneys the Canada Council will have available to give out in grants will actually be $2 million behind next year as compared to this year. That is not an increase and it means that artists will have less money available to them.
There have been increases for some areas such as museums, but, of course, they are moving into two new museums and so there are expenses regarding that. Of course, the CBC, our major cultural agency, suffered a very major decline of 13 per cent in its spending since the Government took office. The amount of money available to the CBC today is only 87 per cent of what it was in real terms when the Government took over and, of course, the Government promised at least cost of living increases. We see this as a really tragic loss to our cultural agencies.
[ Translation]
The Government must be condemned for its lack of imagination and initiative in this Budget. It had an opportunity to promote job creation and investment in the future of this country. It could have supported post-secondary education, vocational training, and technological research and development. Unfortunately, instead of resolutely looking to the future, it failed miserably. Instead of boosting economic renewal, it chose to protect its friends the private companies. Instead of doing justice to families and ordinary Canadians, it saw fit to raise their taxes even more, directly and indirectly. The measures which benefit the rich, such as capital gains tax exemptions, are still there. It is not a realistic Budget, it is not a practical Budget, it is not a fair Budget, it is not a Budget- it is a scandal.
[English)
Why do we have such a stand pat, do nothing Budget? I suggest there is a reason. The Government has other fish to fry. It has other priorities. It thinks the way out of our economic difficulties is to rely on the economic renewal of
The Budget-Ms. McDonald
another country and to hitch our star to the United States in a free trade agreement. Of course, historically both Liberals and Conservatives have looked to trade as a panacea. There was the scandal in the 1930s in the midst of the Depression when both Parties advocated trade as a panacea. They were not prepared to spend. They were not prepared to put money into job creation or unemployment insurance or any other of those practical measures. They both vied for the title of being the Party most in favour of trade. So we have seen in the past that this issue has been treated as a panacea and, of course, it has not worked.
I am very proud of the record of the Government of Manitoba and of Yukon, both NDP Governments which have actually reduced unemployment. They have done this not by relying on illusory measures such as trade, but by making job creation a real priority, by developing measures of import substitution, by local purchasing plans, by very concerted practical, detailed plans to get their economies moving and to get people back to work, and of course they start to receive tax revenue and can support in a stronger way than ever before the social programs we need.
The New Democratic Party has positive, concrete proposals for economic renewal. Until we have the opportunity to implement them, we will be working as much as we can in opposition to advance those ideas. We will be favouring fair measures over unfair measures, job creation over acceptance of the status quo of a high rate of unemployment. This Budget is not in the interests of average Canadians. It is not in the longterm interests of our country. For these very good reasons, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party will be voting against this Budget.
Mir. Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) and the position she put forward on behalf of the New Democratic Party. It has me just shuddering to think of that Party ever coming to power. With the type of attitude the Hon. Member expressed today, I wonder that she could even consider putting a government together with any kind of a policy.
She made some mention of Mr. Tommy Douglas and what he once did in Saskatchewan. I thought she was purposely going to avoid talking about Manitoba. However, toward the end of her speech she said that Manitoba is doing the right thing. I am proud of Manitoba. We do have the lowest unemployment rate in Canada, but it has a lot to do with the federal Government as well. If the Hon. Member had paid any attention to Manitoba she would have looked at the recent Budget of the Minister of Finance of that Province. We all know how the NDP represents the ordinary Canadian. As a result of the Budget in that Province someone earning $18,000 a year will now have to pay $400 per year in taxes. That is how the NDP Government looks after the interests of the average person in Manitoba.

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Ms. McDonald
It has been reported on the front page of Winnipeg newspapers that the NDP has made a record tax grab in Manitoba. The Province now has the highest per capita debt in Canada. Manitoba, under an NDP Government since 1981-something which the Hon. Member praises-will now have to cut programs.
The Hon. Member says that her particular interest is with respect to culture. She criticizes the Government for reducing expenditures in culture. However, she also criticizes the Government because the national debt is going up just a little too high. How in the dickens can one spend more here and save more there and criticize us for saving and not spending? The Hon. Member says that she knows what she would do. She would tax the rich some more. She would tax the corporations. In every speech made by a member of the New Democratic Party over the last two-and-a-half years they have criticized every program that we have ever cut. They would rather that we increased spending in those areas. On the basis of that type of rhetoric instead of a proposed $29 billion deficit we would probably be looking at a $75 billion deficit. They would go to the Canadian public and say: "We will tax the rich a little more to get that money back".
How can the Hon. Member stand in her place and talk about Manitoba with its tremendous deficit per capita and its reductions in programs when the administration of the Province since 1981 is now making all sorts of tax grabs? Is that the way her Party would operate if they were to come to power, God forbid?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a chance to expand on my remarks. The Hon. Member for Selkirk- Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) expressed great horror about a Party such as the New Democratic Party coming to power federally. It seems I need to remind the Hon. Member, since he is not very aware of the fact, that our sister Parties in European countries have been in government for years-in fact, decades. They are in government in countries in the industrialized world where there are high levels of prosperity. These are advanced welfare states, countries with good educational systems and good medicare systems. These countries also happen to have astonishingly low rates of unemployment and great economic growth. They have been extremely successful. Sweden comes to my mind in this respect. Even during the recession Sweden managed to keep unemployment far below the rates we experienced without having a recession. Parties with policies such as my Party have formed Governments and have proven to be successful.
With respect to Manitoba the Hon. Member railed away about how miserable it is to be in Manitoba. Why has business investment increased in that Province? Why has it had the highest per capita business investment in the last few years when compared with other provinces? Evidentally, investors think the climate is good. The low unemployment which exists in Manitoba is good for business. It means that there are
people with jobs, people with incomes who are buying things. Indeed, the Government of Manitoba has raised taxes. However, I note that taxes for lower income Manitobans, those earning $11,000 and under, are actually being decreased because they are the people who are in the toughest straits. The Government recognized the need to increase taxes if it wanted to keep up its spending in the areas of social programs and economic investment.
There is a jobs strategy in Manitoba, an economic plan, into which the Province has continued to put money. As well as supporting social programs it has expanded programs in the areas of child care, women and medicare. The Province has not cut back in the area of social spending, something which the federal Government wants to do. Given the alternative of cutting back or raising taxes, the Government of Manitoba chose to raise them. I think it did so in a very fair way. The taxes of those who are better off have been raised while those who are not so well off have had their taxes decreased. The federal Government is increasing the taxes of lower income Canadians. Indirect taxes are regressive taxes. Sales tax falls on all people. Even the implementation of the tax credit, which is a good idea, does not make up for the fact that, proportionately, poor people pay higher taxes.
With respect to the idea that corporations cannot pay more, I remind the Hon. Member that there are 79,000 corporations in Canada which make a profit and which do not pay a dime in taxes. There is obviously money there to collect. Obviously companies such as that in other countries pay their taxes. We are letting them off the hook. We could use that money. The Auditor General estimates that $30 billion to $50 billion a year goes by without being taxed because of various loopholes and exemptions. That is an enormous amount of money. It is more money than is used in our universal social programs.
We have alternatives. It is possible to have spending priorities which are fair to people in terms of taxation and fair to people in terms of how the Government spends their money.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to the comments of the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) who pointed out some of the contents of the recent Budget introduced in Manitoba. I wish to quote from an article which appeared in this morning's The Globe and Mail which states:
In his budget address to the provincial Legislature last night. Finance Minister Eugene Kostyra said the measures are designed to "bypass" the federal tax system, which he described as "riddled with deductions, exemptions, exclusions and loopholes."
My hon. friend from Selkirk-Interlake will know that Canada is the only country in the world which allows $500,000 capital gains tax-free from any source possible, whether it be money made on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange or elsewhere. The article in the newspaper with respect to the Manitoba Minister of Finance goes on to state:
He complained that Ottawa's budgets since 1981 have increased taxes by $695 for a family with an income of $25,000, while reducing taxes by $2,677 for a family earning $150,000.
March 17, 1987

Just to keep the record perfectly clear, federal Conservative Budgets have resulted in tax breaks for upper income earners while heaping on taxes for the average Canadian family. What the New Democratic Government of Manitoba is trying to do is to equalize this. The federal Government has brought so much economic pain to the people of Manitoba and western Canada generally that the Governments of Yukon and Manitoba have had to do whatever they could do to rescue themselves from this very serious situation. I am glad the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake made the point that, thank goodness, we have an NDP Government in Manitoba, otherwise things would be at a point of desperation.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to respond briefly to an observation she has made on a number of occasions in the recent past with respect to a number of economic policies that the present Government has introduced which have caused the wage gap between working Canadian men and women to increase. As of late that situation has actually worsened in terms of bringing about equality in pay returns between men and women. I ask the Hon. Member to respond in that regard.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to comment on this sad fact. This is the first year that Statistics Canada reports that the gap in wages and salaries between women and men has actually increased. Those of us who seek fairness for Canadians, and fairness for women in the workforce, have been very impatient with the progress we have seen in this area. It has been made bit by bit. Sometimes it has amounted to no more than a percentage point, but at least it was going in the right direction. We now see that this trend of painfully slow progress has actually been reversed. Certainly one reason for this of which we know is the lack of access for women to better paying jobs. The ghettoization of women continues. Many of them are confined to part time jobs and cannot get full time jobs. However, we see cut-backs in the areas where women have made their best gains. The Public Service has been a good employer of women. The gains which women have made have been largely in the public sector, in service jobs, and in female professions. They have been good jobs. Women have had unions which have protected them. They have made enormous gains in the last 10 years to 20 years. However, the Government is cutting back in the job areas in which women have made the best gains. Naturally the impact of that is that women are beginning to fall back.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the remarks of the Hon. Member. She was highly critical of the Budget, the Government's approach to the economy, its fiscal policy, its employment initiatives, its expenditures, and its taxing policy. I understand that the Hon. Member is a member of the Opposition. Of course the role of the Opposition is to be critical, to be negative, and never to agree with the Government. However, there is another duty on the part of the
The Budget-Mr. Holtmann
Opposition, that is, to put forward some positive and constructive alternatives to the policies of the Government, if it honestly believes that the Government's approach is wrong and can be justifiably criticized.
At the recent convention of the New Democratic Party, I believe her Leader took a very positive stand that what was needed in the country was more jobs. He indicated that that would be an election issue, as far as the New Democratic Party was concerned, in the next federal election.
I would be interested in hearing from the Hon. Member not just generalities that jobs are needed and that what the Government is doing is wrong. Notwithstanding that unemployment has come down very substantially in the last 2.5 years, notwithstanding that interest rates have come down substantially in the last 2.5 years, and notwithstanding that the annual spending deficit has come down very substantially and is still on its way down, the Hon. Member said that our approach was wrong and that other things should be done. I would be interested in hearing the specifics. What would the New Democratic Party do to address the problem of unemployment in such a way as to continue to reduce the budget deficit, or perhaps leave it as it is but, hopefully, not increase it? What specifically would the NDP do in that regard?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the question. Of course I could go on for a very long time answering it, but I know it is not possible.
The New Democratic Party has outlined and continues to outline in a very positive and concrete way alternative measures. We did this last in a very substantial document entitled "Canada Unlimited", which was our job creation strategy. It outlined all kinds of schemes. There are pages of them. I cannot go into the details at this time, but they included such things as municipal infrastructure spending. Also they included a proposal by the Canadian Federation of Municipalities for an infusion of funds into all kinds of road, sewer, and park improvements. As well, they included community diversification funds for single-industry towns to develop jobs and to keep investment of profits from resource towns to develop spin-off jobs in those communities. They referred to expansion of services, for example, a child care program which would produce a large number of jobs. Cultural spending produces far more jobs. Estimates indicate that there is six times the job spin-off in culture than in other forms of job investment.
These are just a few examples from a very long list which we have outlined. I can certainly see to it that the Hon. Member has a copy of the document, if he would like to have one. Incidentally, these are all costed, and this enormous infusion of jobs into the economy is possible without increasing the deficit at all or with an extremely modest increase in the deficit.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the Budget presented recently by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). I enjoy debating in the House of Commons the

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Holtmann
position of the Government, especially the position of the Minister of Finance, in view of the very difficult situation with which we were faced when we came to power.
I must go back somewhat in history and refresh everyone's memory. Do you remember when, Mr. Speaker, things were pretty rotten in the country? I was a farmer back in the 1970s. Farmgate prices were not too bad.
I would like the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) to stay and listen to my comments. She would want to know how things were under a Liberal administration and how they affected many of my colleagues in the House and many of the constituents I represent.
After some 22 years of Liberal Government we had nothing more than a massive conflagration of negative proportion not experienced in the modern world. It was absolutely incredible. For example, when the interest rate jumped two percentage points from week to week and sometimes into the next month, until it hit as high as 20-some per cent at the bank, there was no hope if one wanted to start a small business. Although bankers were lending a little money, it put many people in jeopardy. We must look back to see what was the cause of the devastated Canadian economy and the tremendous debt which had developed.
It started off with the now Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) when he was the Minister of Finance back in 1972. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, the country had a surplus of $700 million in its current account. We have never seen that since. He started the country on a road to pure destruction, yet the Liberals managed to cling to power. When he left in 1975-and I guess he was even frustrated with his actions- there was a deficit of almost $5 billion. When the Conservatives took power, on a yearly basis it was $38 billion.


Mr. Attewell:: And on its way to $40 billion.


Felix Holtmann: Yes. We must remind the Canadian public of some of the terrible things that happened in the past. Much like the wars of this nation, they must be reminded of what happened under that Government of this nation. I do not think this Party will ever let Canadian people forget. I do not think Canadians will ever forget the devastation which was caused at that time. We as a national Government are certainly doing what we can to try to bring some sense to the economies of scale and to the economies of purpose.
Under that Minister of Finance the net debt grew from $18 billion to $28 billion or a 50 per cent increase in only four years. That is what happened when the Leader of the Official Opposition was the Minister of Finance, the man who would like to be the Prime Minister. He is an awfully scary person to have as a leader of the country based on his past record.
Let us take a look at unemployment while he was in office. At the time he was given a mantle in January, 1972, there were 544,000 people out of work. When he left office, there were 732,000 people out of work. Unemployment under the
now Leader of the Opposition when he was Finance Minister sky-rocketed. Yet he has aspirations to lead this country.


An Hon. Member:: What a joke.


Felix Holtmann: Imagine how devastating that would be. Let me talk a little bit about inflation when he was the Finance Minister. He took inflation from 5.1 per cent at the time of his appointment to 10.6 per cent where it was at the time of his resignation. He finally got fed up with it all and resigned. That is what he did, he resigned. During that period the New Democrats supported that action of our now Leader of the Official Opposition. Let me tell you just what that inflation rate meant. During the Leader of the Opposition's term of office as Finance Minister prices rose in total by 38 per cent for food, 61 per cent for housing, 32 per cent for clothing, 24 per cent for health, 32 per cent for personal care and 31 per cent for transportation costs. All these things increased under the now Leader of the Official Opposition, but he wants to lead the country.
When the Budget of the Minister of Finance was presented, a very interesting thing happened. I have an editorial from the Winnipeg Free Press here. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the Winnipeg Free Press is very critical of the Government in Ottawa. Not too often does that paper say very nice things about us. I do not know whether that is because it has some left-wing leanings or whether the paper is trying to bolster opposition Parties. Maybe it is just trying to be as polite to us as it can in a way that sometimes angers us. It is important to read what was written on the editorial page of the Winnipeg Free Press for February 20, 1987, a few days after the Budget was brought down by our Minister of Finance. Under the heading of "Opposition Nonsense" we read:
Opposition politicians have a problem when they are faced with a . . . Budget such as the one presented on Wednesday by Finance Minister Michael Wilson. They find themselves faced with television cameras and newspaper reporters all demanding comment. Custom and ritual demand that they say something damning. If they can find nothing sensible to say, they will feel compelled to say something silly. Thus, on Wednesday night, Canadians heard comments such as these.-
I want to remind my Liberal colleague just what is in this editorial:
Liberal Leader John Turner: "There is not one new single job contemplated in this Budget."
That is the first thing he said.


Lucie Pépin: It is true.


Felix Holtmann: It continues:
Wrong. There are tens of thousands of jobs contemplated.
"Our rate of job creation this year is expected once again to exceed that of any other major industrial country", Mr. Wilson said in his Budget speech. "Strong employment growth will be accompanied by large numbers of new entrants to the labour force." Even with those new entrants, the Finance Minister predicted the unemployment rate would drop from 9.4 per cent to 9 per cent.


Lucie Pépin: I want the facts.
March 17, 1987


Felix Holtmann: These are the facts. The article continues:
Mr. Turner, of course, is perfectly free to challenge Mr. Wilson's projections and present his own analysis to show that employment will not increase. Canadians then could judge between the two assessments, keeping in mind that, so far, Mr. Wilson's estimates of job creation have been a lot nearer the mark than Mr. Turner's. But Mr. Turner's flat statement that no new jobs are contemplated is simply false.
In other words, people across Canada have recognized that the statements made by the Leader of the Official Opposition, the man who would like to be the Prime Minister, were totally false. That is from the Winnipeg Free Press and that is what we found out from average Canadians who listened to our Budget and listened to what had to be said. Let me now go to the New Democratic Party and continue with this editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press:
Lome Nystrom of the NDP: "There is nothing there for the resource industries, for western grain farmers, for farmers in general".
In fact, there is something for grain farmers-next year's share of $1 billion in Government assistance. The complaint about the lack of more help for the oil industry sounds strange coming from the member of a party which has complained shrilly against the help that the Government has tried to give that industry in the past.
Manitoba Finance Minister Eugene Kostyra:-
Mr. Kostyra, by the way, just brought down his Budget and I will refer to that a little later. Let me continue:
"Apparently he is not serious about bringing in a fair tax system in this country... He could have given clear messages that the system is unfair and closed some of the more blatant loopholes."
Wrong again. The Minister did give a clear message that the present system is unfair and he did say he was determined to bring in a fair tax system. He said, among other things: "A fairer and more efficient tax system will implement and reinforce economic opportunities for individual Canadians ...
Our Finance Minister said exactly that. Let me continue:
The federal sales tax is unfair and inefficient . . . Our proposal for tax reform will make our system more fair, less complex and more understandable. It will reflect our commitment to economic progress and social justice."
That was said exactly like that by our Minister of Finance, and yet here we have the Finance Minister for the Province of Manitoba saying that the Minister did not even refer to it. 1 wonder whether these people can listen, hear and comprehend. Apparently they cannot. Let me go on because I find this editorial very interesting and I know Members in the Opposition would like to hear more although it is shattering to their point of view:
Mr. Kostyra knew before the Budget was delivered that the tax reform proposals were not ready to be included in it. He knew that those proposals would be presented to Parliament within the next few months. When they are presented, he may well determine that they do not bring about the kind of reform he would like. Until they are implemented, he can argue that the Government should be doing more to close existing loopholes. He has no grounds at all, however, for declaring, in the face of Mr. Wilson's statements and on the basis of no evidence, that the federal Minister is not interested in tax reform.
I think that is a fairly balanced statement made by the editor. It indicates precisely what our Minister of Finance is dealing with in terms of tax reform. He never shied away from it. He is prepared to face it head on at the appropriate time.
In the concluding part of this editorial it reads:
The Budget-Mr. Holtmann
Mr. Turner and Mr. Nystrom are members of the federal Opposition and, as such, are regarded as free to display a moderate looseness with the facts. Mr. Kostyra is more than simply an Opposition hack. He is Manitoba's Minister of Finance. As such, he is expected to work co-operatively with the federal Government in pursuit of this province's interests. Part of his duty is to denounce federal policies when they clash with the interests of the province. But calling his federal counterpart in effect a liar, without providing a single shred of evidence to support the charge, is cheap and irresponsible politics, not a responsible defence of the provincial interest.
Here we have a point of view expressed by somebody in Manitoba, an editor, and it clearly illustrates that we are on the right track. We are dealing with problems that were handed to us. We would like to move into a more positive approach to the whole economy.
In my riding when I ran for election I was new and anxious to help an area. I made statements. One promise I made is to see what I could do to bring back some economic activity to the then dead commercial parks that we have, one in Selkirk, an industrial park with more than half of the buildings sitting empty. There is no activity of any description. There were, I believe, two buildings out of about eight or nine in which some activity was taking place. Today, with interest rates where they are, with renewed investor confidence in our economy, that industrial park is filling up and employing more people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Where is it?


Felix Holtmann: In Selkirk. The Hon. Member might want to check it out. There was an article in the Selkirk paper just recently about how that industrial park is starting to flourish. Quite frankly, how could anything be done with interest rates at 22 per cent? We have now strengthened our economy so that people have the confidence to invest. They see a Government with a policy of good money management. Our deficits are starting to come down. We do not like deficits any more than anyone else, but we cannot just wipe them away. Sound money management will gradually bring the deficit down and maintain investor confidence. That, I am quite happy to say, is what is happening in my riding today. There is a renewal of private job creation, not the government job creation that we heard about before. The NDP attitude towards job creation is basically to get the Government to hire all the unemployed. I bet that if they had the opportunity, they would hire every one of the people who are still unemployed and put them on the payroll and say, "Look at what we did". The Liberals tried that.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You pay them unemployment insurance, is that any better?


Mr. Fennell:: The NDP does not like unemployment insurance.


Felix Holtmann: The Liberals ran the national debt up to $160 billion and still could not get everyone working. Let us look at what was said by some of the NDP Members about this Budget. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) said:

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Holtmann
Mr. Speaker, I have had 20 years of experience in watching Budgets both as a journalist and as a politician in both this Chamber and in the Ontario Legislature. I venture to say that this is the emptiest and the most insignificant Budget that I have seen in all those 20 years of experience.
Where the dickens was he when the Liberals were bringing in Budget after Budget and unemployment and the deficit both went up? He thinks this Budget is bad! We are creating jobs with this Budget. We are bringing the deficit down. Where was he when the Liberals were bringing in those Budgets? I can go on reading this, it is as comical as heck. He went on to say:
The Minister's agenda for economic renewal is not working yet for us.
That is the NDP talking. We created 705,000 jobs, so what is wrong with that agenda?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Where have you created those jobs? In B.C? In Alberta?


Felix Holtmann: If you want to defend what he said-


Nelson Andrew Riis: I will tell you where, in downtown Toronto.


Felix Holtmann: What else did the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre say? In his review of the Budget he said:
We got an acceleration of tax payments by larger employers, which will affect the cash flow of the private sector to the benefit of the cash flow of the public sector.
Can you make out what the dickens that is? That is what he got out of the Budget. I never heard of such a mishmash. Then he refers to how important the Budget would be to his constituents in Ottawa Centre. Ottawa is the richest place in this country. Civil servants earn so much and the National Capital Commission is looking after the City of Ottawa. I think this is a pretty good place to be.
Let us go back to the Minister of Finance of the Province of Manitoba and see what he has done. He is a member of the NDP and I suppose the Hon. Member would do what he has done. To collect more money they recently increased hydro rates for everyone, rich and poor, by 4.7 per cent. That hits the poor guy, and they stand up for the poor guy. At least they say they do. Then they turn around and if you are making 518,000 you are going to pay another $400. That is standing up for the little guy? Can the Hon. Member stand up in this House and still say he stands up for the little guy?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Are you a little guy?


Felix Holtmann: No, but you defend the little guy, the poor fellow. Then they hit smokers. Did you hear today how they kind of laughed in the House about taxing smoking? Yet the NDP in Manitoba taxed smokers. So did we. They should not be critical of it because it is done by the NDP as well as the Conservatives and Liberals. It is a natural thing to tax. The NDP cannot jump all over the fence.
Get a load of this. There is an article here that says fast food junkies will have to fork out more for take-out foods over $6. Do you remember when we brought in a tax on piggy-puffs
and crunchies? We brought in a little tax on those things you get at drive-in theaters for kids. The NDP turns around and does the same thing and then criticizes us.
I realize that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but I think the Members to my left should put the proper perspective on things. They have supported Budget after Budget which drove this country into devastating economic chaos. They should support this Government for putting things back together.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend from Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) would not want to mislead the House inadvertently. He just said the NDP has been supporting these Budgets over the years. I want to make it perfectly clear-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In 1970, 1972, 1973.


Nelson Andrew Riis: -that the NDP has never supported a Liberal Budget.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Yes, you did.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The NDP has never supported a Liberal Budget or a Conservative Budget.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Oh, yes, you did.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let us just clear the decks of that comment.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Nelson, 1973, minority Government. I was here.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I also want to clear up a misconception left by my hon. friend. He was talking about all these jobs being created. He will remember that a Statistics Canada labour report a few weeks ago identified the permanent jobs created in 1986 and found that 96 per cent of those jobs were created in the Province of Ontario, most of those within 100 miles of the CN Tower in downtown Toronto. Let us be clear: Jobs have been created in the greater Toronto area, but there is another 99.9 per cent of Canada which was overlooked.
If the Government has done all these wonderful things towards building confidence, why has there been a net outflow of hard-core investment money totalling $8 billion over the last two years? When you take into account the money that has come into Canada for investment and that which has left for investment in the U.S., Hong Kong or elsewhere, there is a $10 billion deficit.


Thomas Scott Fennell: How much came in?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Can the Hon. Member explain how that reflects confidence?
While he is on his feet, does he agree with this statement uttered by no less than Sir John A. Macdonald, the Leader of
March 17, 1987

the Conservative Party and founder of the nation of Canada, when he said on March 7, 1878, in this Elouse:
There are national considerations, Mr. Speaker, that rise far higher than the mere accumulation of wealth, than the mere question of trade advantage; there is prestige, national status, national dominion,-and no great nation has ever risen whose policy was free-trade.
John A. Macdonald probably sat in the area where the Hon. Member sits now. Does the Member agree with Sir John A. MacDonald's comment? How does he explain the outflow of $10 million of investment from Canada over the last two years?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I will tackle the latter question of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) first. The Member said that a country will never prosper by entering into free trade. I believe the Member may misunderstand what free trade is. The countries in the EEC to which the Member referred have some social elements to them. They seem to prosper quite well in the unified trade agreement which they set forward. It would certainly not be a negative force for Canada to do something similar with our neighbour to the south in terms of our ability to manufacture, export and import, because trade is exactly that, a two-way flow.
I am sure that during his time Sir John A. Macdonald was a very capable person. However, I am sure that the parameters which affect world trade today are different from those that existed during his era. I will not dispute that in his era he was correct. That is pretty difficult for me to say.
With regard to inflow and outflow, the fact that corporate money has been flowing out of this country demonstrates that our corporations want to perform internationally. There is nothing wrong with corporations going afield. Americans have come to Canada and built up such corporations as General Motors. I think it is very healthy for Canadian corporations to expand their businesses elsewhere as well.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have money flowing in, which it does, and have none flow out. What kind of an imaginary attitude is that? Based on the premise of his questions, the Member would want no funds to leave Canada but would want everyone with an investment dollar to invest it here. European companies have invested in Canada and now Canada has the opportunity to reciprocate. I think that is a healthy attitude. We would like more of our money to stay here, but it is proper to spend money in Third World nations which are trading here. Canadian companies have great expertise which should be exploited elsewhere.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's comments relating to the Budget. I would like to compliment and commend him on his very worthy and wise comments in that regard. I have also been listening to the comments and criticisms of the opposition Parties, particularly the NDP, with respect to the Budget and government expenditures. Opposition Members have said specifically that the
The Budget-Mr. Holtmann
Government, in cutting expenditures, has cut out things which are important to ordinary Canadians. I am sure the Hon. Member noticed, as I did, in the spending estimates for this year that the spending for old age security, guaranteed income supplement and spouses' allowance will be increasing by over $900 million in the coming fiscal year. There will be almost a $1 billion increase in the Government's spending on behalf of senior citizens.
Would the Hon. Member give us his views on how this ties in with the criticism of the Opposition? How can the Opposition seriously say that the Government is not spending more money on senior citizens and those who truly need more assistance in our society?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to respond to that. Through many of their statements opposition Members would have us believe that the Government has no interest in the seniors of the country, that the Government would cut back on seniors in many areas. I must admit that we attempted to do such a thing and found that we were in error. We made no bones about the fact that it would have been a mistake to have proceeded with the deindexing of the old age pension. We decided not to proceed with that and since then have maintained the high road. Since then we have continued to do more to help those who built this country.
No government can tax away a deficit. We have to be better money managers. We have to cut out the spending of federal funds in areas where it is very wasteful. There are still many areas in the Government where money is being wasted. We have to cut back in those areas in order to help those who need help.
With regard to day care we must be very careful to ensure that the assistance goes only to those who need it. We must take that route in order to be good money managers. The Government cannot continue to spend more money than it takes in. That cannot continue because eventually the dollar will be totally devalued. Some day there has to be a balanced Budget. I believe that even the Opposition agrees with this. I believe that had the Liberal Party stayed in power, although it would have been devastating, it would have stopped spending money. 1 really believe that.
We are now spending 33 cents of every dollar to pay the interest on the debt. That would increase to 50 cents of every dollar as the debt escalates. When we have to pay 90 cents of every dollar, what kind of service can we provide? That is the danger we have to avoid. We were elected for good money management skills. Although there are ups and downs, if we can avoid bad errors we will be able to keep the economy on the good and healthy track which it is on today.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to compliment the Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) on his comments. I appreciated the way in which he outlined the track record of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). It is a terrible record of deficit after deficit, be it good years or bad. I did not mean to correct the Hon. Member when

March 17, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Holtmann
he said the deficit was $38 billion in 1984, but I am sure it would have hit the $40 billion mark had we not taken over.
I am distressed from time to time, as I know my colleague is, about the misleading statements and inaccuracies which come out of the mouths of the opposition Parties. I want to commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) for his super record in his three Budgets. Not only has he gotten the deficit down but has done a number of different things to help Canadians. One is setting the target that there will be a Budget in February of each year. In the past, people had to guess when the next Budget would come down, but we have removed that uncertainty and given the process some stability.
Another area where there have been misleading comments is transfer of payments to provinces. The Opposition says that these payments are being reduced when we know they are climbing from $65 billion to $90 billion in the next five years. That is a $25 billion increase to the provinces for higher education and health care.
My question concerns another area about which there have been misleading comments. It is regional development. I believe my colleague would agree that if Canadians believed what they heard from the Opposition, they would think the Government is insensitive to regional development. Are we insensitive to regional development?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member raised the question of regional development. Unlike past Governments, our Government has representation from every province coast to coast. 1 am sure Hon. Members in the Liberal Party have wondered how we achieve that.


Mr. Lapierre:: We will do it next time.


Felix Holtmann: The Hon. Member says that they will do it next time, but that is how to get regional representation and concerns expressed by people from all parts of Canada.
The Member is correct that Atlantic Canada requires much more assistance, perhaps even more attention than we have given it at this point. There is no denying that. However, the Government has limited funds for job creation. It cannot happen overnight.
The Hon. Member talked about the strength of the economy as a result of the Budget. Let me say something about our Minister of Finance. A good friend of mine, Mr. Robertson, told me that he overheard some opposition Members saying: "If we could only have a Michael Wilson among us. If we could only have a man like that, compared to all the former Finance Ministers we have had to change so often over 15 years, we would take him tomorrow".
As a matter of fact, those sentiments are being expressed in the opposition lobby. The fact is that the Minister of Finance has the economy moving as a result of his Budgets.


Jean-C. Lapierre: He should help you with the polls.


Felix Holtmann: The economy is growing and investment is growing because interest rates are remaining low as a result of the option by the Minister of Finance.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It does not show in the polls.


Felix Holtmann: The Hon. Member says that it does not show in the polls. He is absolutely right, it does not show in the polls, but it will in time.


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question I thought the Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Holtmann) admitted that indeed regional development spending was down and in fact the Government was not doing enough for regional development. That seems to concur with what Premier Peckford said in answer to the Budget. He said:
They are still re-emphasizing a market-driven economy completely when, in the context of Newfoundland or Manitoba or P.E.I., that will not work if we're going to get the kinds of things we need to be a market economy some day.
He went on to say:
We haven't gotten our message through that here regional economic development is extremely important and some of that growth that's happening in Ontario and Quebec can only be translated down here through federal intervention.
How does the Hon. Member respond to the comment on the Budget by the Conservative Premier of Newfoundland?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to what was said by the Premier of Newfoundland. I think no one better than the Premier of Newfoundland knows the economic crisis his people face in that province. I also agree, although perhaps not totally, that the Government has looked at the problem and is always working on ways to help Newfoundland. Certainly a total influx of money alone is not the answer. 1 am sure the Premier recognizes that there are certain resources in the province he would like to develop.
We must remember that we have been in office only two and a half years. No one promised that we could turn the economy around in two and a half years. I also believe that we will continue to address the problem by using every means the Government has at its disposal to work with provinces such as Newfoundland. I believe we have the dedication.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 84(7), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.

Accordingly, the question is as follows: Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, has moved:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
And in amendment thereto, Mr. Garneau, seconded by Mr. Johnston, has moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"this House condemns the Government for:
March 17, 1987

-presenting a budget that increases taxes on individual
Canadians for the third year in a row, totalling billions and billions of dollars;
-widening the gap between the rich and the poor by their ill-advised and heartless fiscal policy;
-cutting the crucial Regional Economic Development budget, for the third year in a row; and
-once again delaying the long promised essential tax reform programme thereby postponing any attempt to create more fairness in our tax system which is being eroded under the present conservative administration."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
CANADA-U.S. BILATERAL TRADING AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 16, consideration of the motion of Miss Carney:
That this House supports the negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States, as part of the government's multilateral trade policy,
[Stage Direction]
March 17, 1987
Bilateral Trade
while protecting our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry, and our unique cultural identity.
And the amendment of Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra)(p.4158).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra) moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "arrangement" and by substituting the following:
"or arrangements with the United States, as part of Canada's multilateral trade policy, while protecting Canadian sovereignty through the application of the following conditions,
Namely that:
There not be an all-inclusive free trade arrangement with the United States since such an arrangement would undermine Canada's political, economic and cultural independence; and would jeopardize Canada's regional development policies, agricultural policies, cultural industries, financial and service industries, and the Auto Pact;
And that:
Any such negotiations are designed to gain greater access to U.S. markets by limiting the operation of contingency protection and non-tariff barriers such as current U.S. and State government procurement regulations and restoring previous access for softwood lumber in U.S. markets;
While at the same time:
Ensuring Canadian independence for domestic programs, policies and legislative authority in areas such as: social policy, agricultural marketing, supply management and support programs; subsidies and assistance for regional and industrial development programs including high technology development; the Auto Pact; the environment; bilingualism (including labelling); culture (including cultural industries); financial and service industries;
And that:
The Government of Canada tables transitional adjustment assistance proposals to protect those workers, sectors, firms and businesses which may be adversely affected by such a trading arrangement or arrangements;
And that:
The Government of Canada secure an immediate standstill of U.S. trade harassment including such matters as agriculture, energy, fish, potash, and steel."
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr.		Turner, Vancouver
Quadra), which was	negatived on the following division: (Division No. 74)
 YEAS Members	
Axworthy	Guilbault	PennerBerger	(Saint-Jacques)	PepinBoudria	Henderson	Prud'hommeCaccia	Hopkins	RompkeyCopps	Isabelle	Rosside Corneille	Johnston	TardifDingwall	(Saint-Henri-	(Richmond-Wolfe)Foster	Westmount)	TobinFrith	Kaplan	TurnerGagliano	Killens	(Vancouver Quadra)-33Garneau	Lapierre	Gauthier	Malepart	Gray	Marchi	(Windsor West)	Nicholson	Grondin	(Trinity)
NAYS Members	Althouse	Crosbie	HnatyshynAndre	(St. John's West)	HockinAttewell	Crouse	HoltmannBeatty	Darling	HornerBernier	Daubney	HovdeboBertrand	de Cotret	HowieBinns	de Jong	JacquesBlackburn	Della Noce	James(Brant)	Desjardins	JardineBlackburn	Desrosiers	Jepson(Jonquiere)	Dick	JewettBlaikie	Domm	JohnsonBlais	Dorin	(Bonavista-T rinity-Blais-Grenier	Duguay	Conception)Blenkarn	Duplessis	JoncasBlouin	Edwards	Jourdenais
Bosley
Bouchard
Bourgault
Boyer
Bradley
Brightwell
Broadbent
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Carney
Cassidy
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clinch Coates Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Cote
(Langelier)
Crofton
Crombie
Ellis
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Fulton
Gagnon
Gass
Gerin
Gervais
Girard
Gormley
Graham
Greenaway
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gustafson
Halliday
Hamelin
Hamilton
Hardey
Harvey
Hawkes
Heap
Hees
Keeper
Kelleher
Kempling
Kindy
King
Ladouceur Langdon La Salle Lawrence Layton Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacKay Mailly Malone Manly Mantha Martin Mazankowski McCuish McCurdy McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) Mclnnes McKenzie
March 17, 1987

McKinnon	Ravis	TowersMcKnight	Redway	TremblayMcLean	Reimer	(Quebec-Est)McMillan	Ricard	TremblayMinaker	Riis	(Lotbiniere)Mitchell	Robinson	TupperMoore	Rodriguez	TurnerMulroney	St. Germain	(Ottawa-Carleton)Murphy	St-Julien	Van De WalleMurta	Schellenberg	VankoughnetNicholson	(Nanaimo-Alberni)	Vezina(Niagara Falls)	Scott	VincentNickerson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WaddellNystrom	Scott	WarnerOberle	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WeinerO'Neil	Shields	WilsonOostrom	Sparrow	(Etobicoke Centre)Orlikow	Speyer	WinegardParry	Stackhouse	WisePennock	Stevens	Young -185Peterson	StewartPietz	TardifPlamondon	(Charlesbourg)Price	Thacker


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Miss Carney) which was agreed to on the following division.
(Division No. 75)
++YEAS
Members
Andre	Blouin	CarneyAttewell	Bosley	ChampagneBeatty	Bouchard	(Champlain)Bernier	Bourgault	ClarkBertrand	Boyer	(Brandon-Souris)Binns	Bradley	ClinchBlackburn	Brightwell	Coates(Jonquiere)	Browes	CollinsBlais	Cadieux	ComeauBlais-Grenier	Caldwell	CookBlenkarn	Cardiff	Cooper
Bilateral Trade
Corbett	Hnatyshyn	NicholsonCossitt	Hockin	(Niagara Falls)Cote	Holtmann	Nickerson(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Horner	OberleCote	Howie	O'Neil(Langelier)	Jacques	OostromCrofton	James	PennockCrombie	Jardine	PetersonCrosbie	Jepson	Pietz(St. John's West)	Johnson	PlamondonCrouse	(Bonavista-Trinity-	PriceDarling	Conception)	RavisDaubney	Joncas	Redwayde Cotret	Jourdenais	ReimerDella Noce	Kelleher	RicardDesjardins	Kempling	St. GermainDesrosiers	Kindy	St-JulienDick	King	SchellenbergDomm	Ladouceur	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Dorin	La Salle	ScottDuguay	Lawrence	(Victoria-Haliburton)Duplessis	Layton	ScottEdwards	Lesick	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Ellis	Lewis	ShieldsEpp	Lopez	Sparrow(Provencher)	MacDonald	SpeyerFennell	(Kingston and	StackhouseFerland	the Islands)	StevensForrestall	MacDougall	StewartFraleigh	(Timiskaming)	TardifFretz	MacKay	(Charlesbourg)Gagnon	Mailly	ThackerGass	Malone	TowersGerin	Mantha	TremblayGervais	Martin	(Quebec-Est)Girard	Mazankowski	TremblayGormley	McCuish	(Lotbiniere)Graham	McDermid	TupperGreenaway	McDougall	TurnerGrise	(St. Paul's)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Guilbault	Mclnnes	Van De Walle(Drummond)	McKenzie	VankoughnetGustafson	McKinnon	VezinaHalliday	McKnight	VincentHamelin	McLean	WarnerHamilton	McMillan	WeinerHardey	Minaker	WilsonHarvey	Moore	(Etobicoke Centre)Hawkes	Mulroney	WinegardHees	Murta
NAYS Members	Wise-160Althouse	Gray	MurphyAxworthy	(Windsor West)	NicholsonBerger	Grondin	(Trinity)Blackburn	Guilbault	Nystrom(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	OrlikowBlaikie	Heap	ParryBoudria	Henderson	PennerBroadbent	Hopkins	PepinCaccia	Hovdebo	Prud'hommeCassidy	Isabelle	RiisCopps	Jewett	Robinsonde Corneille	Johnston	Rodriguezde Jong	(Saint-Henri-	RompkeyDingwall	Westmount)	RossiEpp	Kaplan	Tardif(Thunder Bay-	Keeper	(Richmond-Wolfe)Nipigon)	Killens	TobinFoster	Langdon	TurnerFrith	Lapierre	(Vancouver Quadra)Fulton	Malepart	WaddellGagliano	Manly	Young -58Garneau	Marchi	Gauthier	McCurdy Mitchell	
March 17, 1987
Bilateral Trade


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.33 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, March 18, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers