1987-04-13

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 Petition Nos. 332-1229, 332-1241, 332-1242, 332-1264, 3321265, 332-1271, 332-1273, 332-1279, 332-1303 to 332-1333 inch, 332-1455, 332-1573 to 332-1611 inch, 332-1625 to 3321627 inch, 332-1675 and 332-1681.
In addition, I move, seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the House now proceed to Motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise Hon. Members that under all the circumstances the Chair is prepared to hear argument on this motion because I anticipate there will be Members wishing to speak to it.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am interested in speaking to the issue whether the House should proceed to Motions, which is only one of the many items before the House. When the House is dealing with Routine Proceedings, it has an opportunity to receive reports from members and from Ministers. It may proceed with various items such as tabling of documents. Ministers' statements, reports of inter-parliamentary delegations, tabling of committee reports and petitions. Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Government, by moving this motion, is trying to prevent us from presenting our petitions. The Government's motion concerns a proposal to proceed with that stage of the proceedings during which the Conservatives will be able to present a motion for time allocation for the debate on Bill C-22.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this Government is so incapable of putting its house in order that it must resort to arguments that are so transparent and so unacceptable to the minority. Indeed, as the minority, we cannot vote in sufficient numbers to threaten or defeat a Government we believe is
incompetent. The Government is short-circuiting Routine Proceedings by moving to proceed with a motion advising the House that the debating time for Bill C-22 will be shortened and that closure will be imposed on the proceedings after a day or two of debate at the report stage and third reading.
Mr. Speaker, the House should realize that if the Chair accepts the motion and it is put to a vote, it means the Chair will have prevented Ministers from making their statements, inter-parliamentary delegations from making their reports, committees from tabling their reports and members from presenting their petitions to the House. We will have prevented Bills from being introduced and we will also have prevented the introduction of public Bills originating in the Senate.
The Acting Prime Minister says it is a fiction. Not at all, Mr. Speaker. It is not a fiction but an extremely unpleasant disposition by the Government which wants to short-circuit debate and, between now and the Easter recess, wants to impose the will of its massive majority. A Government that would have us believe that for the sake of its friends, those people who have been putting pressure on the Government to accelerate the adoption of Bill C-22 . . . Everybody knows the Government's purpose is in essence to proceed with consideration of Bill C-22. Everybody knows that is why it wants to impose closure on the remaining stages of debate, namely the report stage and third reading. And that is why I find it hard to accept that the Government should short-circuit all routine proceedings just to move this motion.
Now exactly what is the meaning of what the Hon. Member just did? We are concerned here with a very important procedural matter, namely whether what we have before the House now is a measure that, with the various measures I mentioned before, including, tabling of documents, Bills, committee reports and petitions, comes under Routine Proceedings. Each, stage of Routine Proceedings is there for a purpose, and it is up to the Government to meet certain commitments on which agreement has been reached with the House. Routine Proceedings may provide an opportunity to table petitions, for instance. And what the Government is doing here, Mr. Speaker, is short-circuiting the whole business and saying, more or less, that "Motions" is what they want to consider today, and forget the rest. In fact I find the Government's attitude rather disagreeable, considering its number of members: they know there will be a division, we will be back here in half an hour to vote and they will win. They have the numbers, 211 members against our 40, and the NDP has only

April 13, 1987
Tabling of Documents
30. What will happen is that we will certainly go on to motions.
What I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, because I think the question is whether this is a dilatory tactic-no doubt about that-to which the Government resorts to achieve its ends, is whether this dilatory tactic is in order, can a member move a motion when the only reason he has the floor is to deal with a daily routine item? This is the point on which I should like to comment.
Under "Daily Routine" we have the item "Tabling of documents", and this is when the Parliamentary Secretary rose to say: I am tabling responses pursuant to Standing Order 106, responses to petitions presented to the House. He took this opportunity to move a motion to go on to the eighth item and have the House proceed with "Motions". Mr. Speaker, I say and I maintain that he does not have the right to do that in the House. He does not have the right in the House to use a daily routine item, "Tabling of documents", to introduce a dilatory motion to go directly to item No. 8, which is "Motions" under "Daily Routine". As I see it, he does not have the right to do that because this particular item can only relate to tabling of documents, statements by Ministers, reports from parliamentary delegations, committee reports, petitions, and introduction of Bills. In my opinion, a member cannot skip over all these items and go directly to "Motions" when he has the floor for a specific purpose. Not anymore than recently when the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) rose in the House, he had the floor to speak about his Bill, to explain to the House why his Bill was intended to restore capital punishment one way or another. Although it was not a particularly attractive piece of legislation, it had to be introduced and we voted to give him leave to do that. He rose in the House and as we so graphically put it in English-
He tried to bootleg in a dilatory motion to go to the next item of business which was against all the rules as far as I am concerned. You sustained that. Indeed, you said that he could not do that. The Chair told the Hon. Member for Mission- Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain) that he could not utilize an item under routine business to bootleg in something else. This morning we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis) again come in, under Tabling of Documents, and try to bootleg another motion, that we now proceed to motions. That is a similar circumstance and just as unacceptable in terms of parliamentary procedure, as far as I am concerned. I submit that if he could not do it last week under Introduction of Bills, then he cannot do it today under Tabling of Documents.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) completes his remarks, I might ask him to address carefully the matter of which he just spoke. It seems to be the memory of the Chair that with respect to the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), the
Chair's ruling was that when it came to Introduction of Bills the Member for Mission-Port Moody did not have the floor until the Bill had been read and introduced and voted upon. It was only after that that the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody had the floor and did make the motion to move to the next item of business, which the Chair sustained.
Of course, the Hon. Member is perfectly right that the Chair insisted that the rubric be followed, but when the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody did have the floor the Chair ruled that he was entitled to make a motion which moved from one rubric to the other within Routine Proceedings. Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to comment on that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for reminding me of that procedure. However, if I recall, that vote was never taken. The motion put by the Member for Mission-Port Moody lapsed at one o'clock, again a circumstance with which I disagree. Our Constitution says that every question put to the House must be resolved by democratic vote. That is Clause 49. I do not want to repeat the arguments I have already given but, unless you rule as to why the Chair has that right to lapse motions, I have some difficulties with that issue. I do not think we resolved the question last week when the Member for Mission-Port Moody moved his motion. The House divided on it but the vote was never taken because the Chair lapsed the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. The point is that that question was not ultimately resolved but the effect of the Chair's ruling at that time was that the Member for Mission- Port Moody did not have the floor to do anything until the Bill had been introduced.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I find this attempt by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader to be offensive to the whole House. There is a procedure in the House whereby we go through Routine Proceedings. That procedure is explained in Standing Order 19(3) where it states:
At 11 o'clock a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, at 3 o'clock p.m. on
Wednesdays, and at 12 o'clock noon on Fridays, the House shall proceed to the
ordinary daily routine of business which shall be as follows:
It lists Tabling of Documents, Statements by Ministers, Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations, Presenting Reports from Committees, Presenting Petitions, Introduction of Bills, First Reading of Senate Public Bills, and then Government Notices of Motions. It is the clear understanding of the House that we go through those items one at a time.
I have not had an opportunity to research one of your previous rulings, but there have been attempts by the Government in the past to skip various of those proceedings. If my memory serves me right, you have ruled on those occasions that we go through the items as they appear on the Order Paper. It is very essential that we be able to do that, otherwise
April 13, 1987

the majority in the House can skip each of the daily items of routine procedure that we are expected to follow in the House.
1 understand the Governments' desire to move to Bill C-22. I understand its desire to impose a motion limiting the debate on Bill C-22. However, more important than the desire of the Government is the ability of this House to go through the various items.
There are procedures which have been used by the Government as recently as last Wednesday in an attempt to get to Government Notices of Motions. There were motions which basically stated that we should move to the next item of business. That is the procedure and the only procedure the Government can use in order to move items along a little faster. That allows the House the opportunity to look at each of the items in order to determine whether it wants to deal with those items, and allows members who have reports to make on behalf of standing committees, petitions to present and who wish to introduce Bills, the opportunity to do what the Standing Orders allows them to do under Routine Proceedings.
There is one exception. It is clearly stated that we can move to Orders of the Day. That is the only exception the rules make. The rules do not say we can move to Government Notices of Motions at any time. They do not say we automatically have the right at any time to move to Petitions. It is only in respect of that one clear case that the rules speak, and they speak only because they recognize the necessity on occasion to deal with Government business and the actual debate. There is no precedence whatsoever given to Government Notices of Motion. If it was deemed by those who made the rules, and those who are responsible for Beauchesne's, to have Government Notices of Motions treated in the same manner as Orders of the Day, then the rules would clearly state that. However, they do not. Because they are silent on that point, I would presume that we should be following the ordinary rules of procedure, and going from one item to the next as they are listed, and if the Government wishes to proceed more quickly it can move the motion, as I indicated earlier, to move to the next item of business.
The Government does have options from time to time but has not always used them. If I can go back to my earlier point, I will quote Standing Order 27:
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any
motion before the House.
That is understood to mean that in that particular case the Government can, at the time the Parliamentary Secretary, did or perhaps under Petitions or Introduction of Bills, skip a number of items under routine proceedings. Standing Order 27 is very clear on that.
However, it does not give the Government that same right, nor the Opposition, with respect to any other item of business. I think it is important that in ruling on this matter, the Chair look at the fact that Standing Order 27 does not give that right
Tabling of Documents
in regard to Government Notices of Motions or any other routine proceeding.
I would argue that the Chair should in its ruling indicate that this motion is completely out of order. Certainly the Government wants to get on with what it considers its priorities but there is nothing indicated in the rules of the House of Commons that that would support acceptance of this motion by the Chair.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the debate on this particular question I felt very moved to become involved, because I recognize that there is a very important principle involved. Let us just look at the background.
The Government has served notice that it wants to limit debate on Bill C-22. It can introduce that motion when it comes to Government Notices of Motions under Routine Proceedings. The principle here is that we have a majority Government with over 200 members. We have an opposition consisting of about 70 members. We have a Juggernaut of a Government with a puny Opposition. What the Government wants to do is use its might to crush what is illegal and what is recognized opposition in this House. It is not prepared to be patient.
The particular rubric the Chair asked us to deal with was whether in fact a Government Member could stand up under Tabling of Documents and, having tabled a document, then move a motion to skip several items of Routine Proceedings to go to what the Government wants, what it is lusting after. It cannot work that way. In a parliamentary process the House of Commons should be the first to practice democracy. Might is not always right.


Philip Derek Lewis: Let's vote.


John R. Rodriguez: I want to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that might is not always right. I have petitions to enter. I recently read a press statement from the Parliamentary Secretary which criticized Members of the Opposition, and particularly my caucus, for delaying the presenting of petitions when in fact this is exactly the process the Government used to deny the rights of ordinary Canadian citizens to be heard through their petitions. This was just so the Government could serve its own selfish and undemocratic principles.
We know the Government wants to get Bill C-22 out of the way. We all recognize why it wants to get that Bill out of the way. In fact, there is trouble in the camp. There is division within the Tory ranks about Bill C-22. It is starting to seep to the surface and the Government does not want this mess to be aired. So the Government wants to crush out any legitimate opposition in the House of Commons to Bill C-22. I think it is an abuse of the rules and we have to stop it in its tracks right now. We have to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that he cannot use these subterfuges. He cannot stand upon the pretext of Tabling a Document, in this case tabling responses

April 13, 1987
Tabling of Documents
to Petitions, and then smuggle surreptitiously into the House a motion to skip several items and go directly to Motions.
I would humbly suggest that the Chair rule the Parliamentary Secretary's motion out of order and let Hon. Members in a democratic way proceed with introducing their petitions and deal with all the other routine business which should never be sacrificed for the unholy gains of the Government with respect to what it wants in Bill C-22.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments on this particular issue. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) argued that the Government cannot short circuit the process. What we have had over the last few days is the Opposition doing just that. The Opposition has, over the course of the last few days, frustrated the ability of the Government to introduce a motion. It is a motion which it has every legitimate reason to introduce, but by virtue of the various dilatory motions, voting tactics and whatnot, has been prevented from occurring.
For several days now the consideration of Routine Proceedings has been subverted by these type of tactics. Therefore the normal and orderly conduct of the disposition of Routine Proceedings has been interfered with. Of course, it seems well and good for members of the Opposition to do that, but when it is done by the Government they cry wolf. They cannot have it both ways.
We know that members of the Opposition are determined at all costs to prevent the Government from introducing a legitimate motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Closure by any other name.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member calls it closure.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: You used it when you sat over here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: There have been numerous discussions with the opposition Parties in an attempt to work our way out of this exercise, to try to provide sufficient time and debate on the issue. But I think the House should be reminded that something over 23 hours have been wasted on dilatory motions and procedural tactics. About 12 hours of debate have been held on second reading of this issue. The standing committee considered the matter for 82 hours at a total of 24 meetings. We have had four days of debate at report stage, as well as two days of waste in the consideration of dilatory motions and various votes. What we have to ask ourselves is the following. Does the Government have a right to introduce a motion?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Sure it does, in proper form.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Absolutely. Why does the Opposition prevent us from doing that? We hear a great argument from members about the fact that they are being denied their right to present petitions. Standing Order 106(3) states that a
petition can be presented orally or it can be tabled with the Clerk. There is no compelling reason which denies them the opportunity of presenting a petition. There is a method by which they can do it. It will be considered in the same way.
I think the fundamental point that has to be taken into consideration is this. If the consideration of Routine Proceedings is to be considered a sacred process, item by item, then we will have to go back and re-examine the dilatory motions and the procedural tactics, as well as the procedural acceptability of some of these dilatory motions.
When the House goes through the process of Routine Proceedings and does not go through it item by item, then the same thing should be held true when one moves to Orders of the Day. When one moves to Orders of the Day every item under Routine Proceedings is missed. That has been done in the past. Thus the sanctity of proceeding through Routine Proceedings item by item has been usurped and has not been applied. I think that is a fundamental principle. If that can be done in the one case, then surely there should be ample opportunity to go to a specific item of business.
I refer Your Honour to page 151 of Beauchesne's, Citation No. 417(2)(b)(ii) which states:
Dilatory motions are designed to dispose of the original question either for the
time being or permanently. They are usually of the following type:
"That consideration of the question be postponed to	
(date)".
"That the Orders of the Day be read."
The third one is the most important one. It is that the House proceed to another order of business. I think that is pretty fundamental because, in my view, it balances the opportunity to deal with a specific item, to skip items, or to skip all the items.
All we are asking for here is some fairness in the application of the rules. If on the one hand one can move to Orders of the Day and skip every item under Routine Proceedings, then surely there has to be some balance. If that were to apply then that could be done every day and, ad infinitum, the Government would be prevented from bringing forth a motion under the way the rules are set up. Surely that was never the intent of the rules.
The Government surely has a right to bring in a motion. Members have the right to bring in motions. But what is happening here, and what we have been experiencing over the last few days, is the denial of the Government to legitimately bring forth a motion. That cannot be, irrespective of the makeup of the House.
I am interested in the pleadings of the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who suggests that the Opposition is being crushed. I think it is the tyranny of the minority that is usurping and subverting the orderly process of debate in the House. I would probably say that even if I were sitting on the opposite side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 13, 1987


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What we are really saying here, and this is the purpose of the motion, is that it is time to look at this issue in its true perspective. If this does not offer a way out of the log-jam that we are in, then I think we are ignoring some of the fundamental principles regarding the way the institution of Parliament should work, namely, the right of the Government to introduce a Bill and to introduce a motion. The Government is now being denied that opportunity. The motion put by the Parliamentary Secretary provides us a way out of that situation.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the issue before us is relatively simple. It is this. Can the Government move a motion which, if passed, will enable the Government to leap over individual headings of Routine Proceedings in order to reach a heading of Routine Proceedings that it wants to get to?
Before dealing with that point at some reasonable length, I have to take issue with what my hon. friend said about petitions. He seems to have said that because the Standing Orders give an option to a member presenting a petition, to either file it with the Clerk or read it out in the House, the two methods are necessarily of equal weight. He seems to state that that would be acceptable to the Hon. Member who wishes to present a petition or to a person signing it if the opportunity to present it orally in the House was not there. I do not think that is acceptable to Members of the House generally, or to individual Canadians who wish to use their right to petition Government and Parliament. There is surely something special about being able to present a petition in the House. I do not think that it should be swept aside so cavalierly.
With respect to what I have defined as the basic issue, that is, can the Government by the type of motion moved on its behalf today leap over the various portions of the Routine Proceedings to arrive at that particular portion of Routine Proceedings it wishes to make use of, the Government House Leader made a great deal of Standing Order 27 which states:
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
First, I want to say that, rather than strengthening his argument, I think his use of this Standing Order as a point in making his case really weakens the argument he wants to make, because the Standing Order is silent on all the other motions that might have been listed there. It mentions only a motion to go to Orders of the Day.
There is a long-standing legal Latin maxim, which I will not attempt to quote here because I have a feeling I am going to get it wrong, the general thrust of which is that if a court judgment or a precedent is silent on a point, then that has some meaning. The meaning is, simply put, that it was intended for example in this case, in the Standing Order that only a motion for reading Orders of the Day shall have preference over any motion before the House.
Tabling of Documents
I think it would be open to you to rule that the wording of this Standing Order does not support the point being made by the Government House Leader, but rather supports the point being made by the distinguished opposition Whip, that if the Government wants to move from one item under Routine Proceedings to another, it must make individual motions dealing with each item of Routine Proceedings. It is not authorized under the rules or the precedents of this House to move a motion leaping over all the items or portions of Routine Proceedings until it reaches the one it wants to get to.
The Government House Leader was good enough to refer you to page 151 of the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's, paragraph 417. This seems to be a quotation from a ruling by a Speaker recorded in the Journals of the House on June 29, 1971, at page 759. It says motions may be divided into several categories. Subparagraph (1) deals with substantive motions, and I am not going to read that. Subparagraph (2) deals with privileged motions, and I am not going to read that. There is subparagraph (2) (a) which deals with amendments and says they are discussed in detail later. Then subparagraph (2)(b) deals with superseding motions. I want to read that because I think it is very relevant to what you are being asked to consider. It says:
Superseding motions, though independent in form, are moved in the course of debate on questions which they seek to set aside. They may only be moved when a question is under debate, and cannot be moved by a Member rising on a point of order... Superseding motions cannot be applied to one another;
It then gives an example, and continues:
Superseding motions are divided into two classes; namely, the previous question and dilatory motions.
Subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) says:
Dilatory motions are designed to dispose of the original question either for the time being or permanently. They are usually of the following type:
One of the examples given is the one listed by the Government House Leader:
That the House proceed to (name another Order).
I am reading all this because I want to make the point that a distinguished predecessor of yours ruled that a superseding motion, and this includes the dilatory motion of the kind my hon. friend says is acceptable, applies, first, only during debate and, second, when the House is being asked to move from one order of business to another.
I submit that when we are dealing with Routine Proceedings, at least at the stage the Deputy Government House Leader moved his motion, we are not in a stage of debate. In fact, a motion of the kind that my hon. friend has moved is not debatable in and of itself. He did not make the motion during a part of the proceedings of the House when something was being debated. He got the floor simply to table the Government's responses to petitions, there was nothing under debate at the time he moved his motion.
Second, the various items listed in the rules under Routine Proceedings, I submit, are not of themselves either Orders of the Day or orders in the sense that they are portions of the

April 13, 1987
Tabling of Documents
whole range of things that are done during the day, so that you can move a motion, for example, and apply it in these circumstances to proceed to Orders of the Day. I repeat, the various portions or items listed under Routine Proceedings are not orders or stages of debate.
If that is the case, then the motion proposed by the Deputy Government House Leader is not in order. Or, putting it another way, you cannot move a superseding motion when there is no item before the House to be superseded. I repeat, a stage of Routine Proceedings is not an item of debate. One could not, for instance, move a motion to extend the sitting under Standing Order 9(4) to consider Routine Proceedings because that Standing Order refers to an item being debated, and 1 am saying that Routine Proceedings are not items being debated. So if an item is not debatable there cannot be a superseding motion because there is no debate to be superseded.
With respect to Routine Proceedings, that daily routine is very important to this House. I think, Sir, you ruled last fall that it was in order to move from one item of Routine Proceedings to the next by means of a motion which, if necessary, can be voted on by this House. However, if that is the case I think it follows that, as I have said, you cannot skip a whole lot of items by a motion supported by the majority of government Members in this House to go to another one further down the line which the Government wants to reach.
So I say with the utmost respect to the ingenious arguments offered by the Government House Leader that they still do not have a persuasive effect, such that you should rule that the motion of the Deputy Government House Leader is in order; but rather that you should, on the basis of the points I and others who have objected to the acceptability of the motion have made, rule that it is not in order. Instead, each item of Routine Proceedings must be reached, and if the Government does not want to have them dealt with it must move a motion as each item of Routine Proceedings is reached to go on to the next one. I think this reflects both what our Standing Orders say, what the precedents say, and also reflects the importance of Routine Proceedings in the operations of this House of Commons and, therefore, their importance in the operation of our parliamentary system.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to make a couple of remarks with respect to the motion now before the House.
As Your Honour will appreciate, the motion was moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader immediately upon the calling of the item "Tabling of Documents". The item "Tabling of Documents" is there for a very specific purpose. It is an item which permits the tabling of documents. It is not an item which permits any form of debate on the tabling of those documents. That is an important point.
Had the Parliamentary Secretary risen and tabled a document, he would not have been in a position to move a motion or to debate anything. He would merely have been in a position of taking a document and presenting it to someone, and that would be the end of it. Surely the first point is that under the guise of "Tabling of Documents", the Parliamentary Secretary has moved a motion which is clearly not in order.
The second point is that the House is governed by precedent. In the absence of very clear direction from the Standing Orders, the House is governed by precedent. What the Parliamentary Secretary is attempting to do today has already been attempted on another occasion, and Your Honour has already made a ruling in respect of the matter.
I draw to Your Honour's attention the proceedings of the House on November 24, 1986. On that occasion, immediately following the presentation of petitions, the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankow-ski) rose in his place to move the following motion, as reported at page 1435 of Hansard'.
That the House proceed to Government Notices of Motions.
That is precisely what the Parliamentary Secretary is attempting to do once again today. Immediately members on this side rose to intervene in respect of the propriety of the matter, but Your Honour, without hearing any representations at that time, said the following:
The motion is that the House proceed to Government Notices of Motions, which means that, if the Chair should rule that it is in order, a number of items that are in the usual order under Routine Proceedings would not be heard. It is the view of the Chair that that would be inappropriate and that we should proceed from item to item. Consequently, I regret to advise the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister that in the view of the Chair the motion is out of order.
The motion was out of order on November 24, 1986, and it remains just as out of order today. There has been no subsequent ruling by Your Honour in any way varying this previous ruling. There has been no change in the Standing Orders which would supersede this very learned ruling of the Chair. In view of the fact that this very important ruling has not been in any way overruled, either by Your Honour or by the House by way of changes to the Standing Orders, surely the longstanding practices and traditions of the House must govern. That would require that this precedent be observed in this case as well.
In response to the comments made by the President of the Privy Council, I want to note what he said. He was looking for a way out of a legislative log-jam. He says that he wants to get on to the debate of Bill C-22, the legislation which would have such a devastating impact upon the elderly, the poor, and the disabled in Canada. He accuses the Opposition of delaying. He accuses the Opposition of trying to avoid debate on Bill C-22. However, the item of business before the House today under Government Orders is listed as No. 22, which is:
Resuming consideration of report stage of Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act-
April 13, 1987

The President of the Privy Council is sucking and blowing at the same time. If he really wants to get to the business of dealing with the Patent Act, let him proceed.
The President of the Privy Council is also saying that his hands are tied, that this tyranny of the minority is blocking the Government from proceeding. I suggest that the President of the Privy Council and his Parliamentary Secretary should have another look at the Standing Orders. Quite clearly there is provision, if the Government wants to accept the political responsibility, for it to ram through the legislation and introduce closure; calling it what it really is instead of trying to bring it in through the back door. They could proceed, if they dared to do so. Despite the overwhelming majority of the people of Canada, they could proceed under Standing Order 57. That is an option with which they have chosen-and I might say quite understandably-not to proceed.
Finally, if Your Honour should overrule the precedent which has been established in that very important ruling of November 24 of last year, what would be the impact upon the rights of Members of the House? Effectively it would mean that the Government could rise at the beginning of Routine Proceedings each day under the first item of Tabling of Documents and move that we effectively proceed to Government Notices of Motions. What that would mean is that the presentation of petitions would be denied.


An Hon. Member:: They can table them.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What more fundamental right is there of Members of Parliament than the presentation of petitions? The Government would deny that right and in the process would overrule the ruling of Your Honour of November 24.
Someone from the other side of the House said that we can always table petitions, that Canadians would not be denied the right to petition the House because they can still table them; they do not have to be presented in the House.
However, there is another important element of Routine Proceedings, that is, the Introduction of Bills. At this time I have three very important Bills on the Order Paper. If the Government's attempt to bulldoze its way through to Government Notices of Motions is accepted today, it effectively means that Your Honour would be accepting a proposal to deny Private Members any opportunity to introduce Bills.


Mr. Althouse:: And the draw is coming.


Svend Johannes Robinson: As the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) has noted, the draw is coming this week for precedence in the Order Paper. Not only are Private Members thus denied the basic right to present Bills on matters of importance to their constituents and, indeed, to the country, they are denied the right to have the Bills included in the draw for precedence. Surely it is fundamentally unacceptable that this basic right of the presentation of Bills should be subverted in this way by the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary. One cannot introduce a Bill the way one can table a
Tabling of Documents
petition in the House with the Clerk or with the Speaker. The only possible way of presenting a Bill is by presenting it in the House. Should Your Honour rule that the Government can simply skip all this, effectively that basic right of each individual Member of the House on both the government side and the opposition side is being denied.
For example, if the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Kilgour) should find that his two-month deadline to the Government has expired and the Government has not moved forward with conflict of interest legislation, and if that Hon. Member wished to present a Bill on conflict of interest, calling upon the Government to move forward in that area, the Government could say to him: "Not only are we going to kick you out as a Parliamentary Secretary and throw you out of the caucus, we won't even let you introduce a Bill in the House". That is the effect of this Government's attempt to railroad Parliament.
I would call upon Your Honour to recognize the longstanding precedent that has been established in this regard, to recognize the attempt by the Government to override the rights of private Members of this House. I would hope that in doing so Your Honour would recognize that this motion is entirely out of order.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the comments of my colleague from the New Democratic Party who was talking about getting thrown out of caucus, reprimands and what have you. I will leave it at that.
On the motion put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis), I could not help but take note of some of the language used by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in trying to defend the indefensible. He talked about opposition Members usurping and subverting. Such language is pretty harsh even for the alleged mild-mannered Deputy Prime Minister.
From a procedural and a substantive point of view it is my contention that the motion put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister is flawed. Some of the reasons have already been echoed and I will not go into them in great detail. It must be remembered by members on both sides that when the Parliamentary Secretary took the floor he was under the auspices, if you will, of Tabling of Documents. The member was on his feet for no other purpose but to table documents. As has been said by other members there is no debate at that point in time.
Second, superseding motions are referred to in Beauchesne's at page 151. The precondition for a superseding motion is that there be debate on the floor. There is no debate on the floor, Mr. Speaker. Again, you have the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister pursuing a flawed procedural motion in my view.

April 13, 1987
Tabling of Documents
Third, let me come to the procedural aspect and your ruling made on November 24, 1986. The individual who so willingly today refers to usurping and subverting was told he was out of order by yourself for trying to do something that he is attempting to weasel in today.
Finally, on the substance of the motion, the Deputy Prime Minister took great pains to tell Members of the Elouse that we have had four days of debate at report stage. But the Deputy Prime Minister very conveniently, for his own purposes, for his own political agenda, to suit the multinational corporations which have written the provisions of Bill C-22, has forgotten to tell Members of this Elouse that there are 47 amendments. The Deputy Prime Minister just brushes that aside. He also fails, on the substance of the motion we are obviously going to get to at some point in time, to indicate that the committee which studied this Bill was prohibited from calling certain witnesses. The committee was limited in the amount of time it had to deal with the witnesses and the committee was limited in its duration by the Government. Now the Deputy Prime Minister has the unmitigated gall to say on the floor of the House that the opposition Members are usurping-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Subverting is the word.


David Charles Dingwall: -are subverting. Shame on the Deputy Prime Minister, with 47 amendments which Members of this Party and Members of the New Democratic Party have put forward and with four days of debate. Yet somehow on a major piece of legislation we are to accept the buffoonery of the Deputy Prime Minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We have had 82 hours.


David Charles Dingwall: Let me come to petitions. The Deputy Prime Minister says that you can table them with the Clerk. I want to inform the Deputy Prime Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that there are a great number of Canadians who want to have their Member of Parliament and other members address the issue of Bill C-22.
I say through you to the Deputy Prime Minister that the motion of his Parliamentary Secretary is flawed in three procedural areas. On the substance of the motion, it does not make any sense whatsoever. In view of the precedent which you laid down in the House on November 24, 1986, Mr. Speaker, I suggest respectfully that you have no other alternative but to rule out of order a motion put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary, the intent of which is to choke off meaningful debate on a very important piece of legislation affecting Canadians.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be very brief and simple. I am not a lawyer. I do not want to talk about the procedures in that sense. I consider that your duty in this, Mr. Speaker, is to give all members equal treatment. My wishes are just as important in this House as the wishes of any member of the Government.
The Government cannot, therefore, take any route which will force through this House of Parliament any of its wishes against those of any other Member in this House, particularly if they go against traditions and precedent and if they are against routines which, for hundreds of years, have been built up as being necessary for the good and the fair operation of this House. I think that is possibly the basis of my intervention.
What is good and fair as far as the operation of this House is concerned? This motion, if allowed to go through, eliminates part of the democratic process of which we are so proud. It is a denigration of the process of the House. Is that really what we want? Is that what you want, Sir? Is that what Members of this House want? Do we want a process that throws away hundreds of years of procedures just because the Government has a Bill which we in the Opposition and which many Canadians think is offensive and which we think requires much more debate than it has had in this House? What I wish, and what many people wish, is to go on debating the amendments that have been proposed to Bill C-22. We do not want to go into a closure procedure which will not allow us to be fully heard.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself surprised and shocked that the Parliamentary Secretary would show such little regard or respect for Parliament as has been demonstrated today. I want to begin by saying quite clearly that what has been done today cannot be directly connected to Bill C-22. If you argue that somehow a particular Bill justifies what the Parliamentary Secretary has done, I would have to say that that in no way relates to the Routine Proceedings of the day, regardless of how the Government feels about the way in which the Opposition has dealt with a particular-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) has raised a point which is of interest. He is saying that the procedural point that is being debated ought to have nothing to do with the fact that there is behind it Bill C-22. I happen to agree with the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior, and I want it made very clear that, so far as the Chair is concerned, the Chair is not the least bit interested in what Bill is behind it. The Chair is interested in the point that is being argued, and that is whether or not it is appropriate for the Government, under these circumstances, to skip matters of Routine Proceedings.
I want that to be understood very clearly by all Hon. Members and the public. It is not the place of the Chair to move government business through the House, nor is it the place of the Chair to take into account the relative merits of any proposal of the Government.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for that intervention. That was the point I wished to make and I will say no more about it. Very simply, my argument is that Bill C-
April 13, 1987

22, or any other Bill, is not relevant to the matter before us today. Your Honour has underlined that and I thank you for it.
The question before us is, is it possible for any Member of the House to short-circuit the routine business of the day? It is very clear in the Projected Order of Business that the daily routine of business is composed of matters which must be dealt with consequentially; one must follow the other. It is the routine way in which this House handles its affairs.
You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that a Minister may be present to make a very pressing statement and an Hon. Member may be present to present a report from the committee. There may be a report from an interparliamentary delegation to be presented. Certainly there are bound to be petitions of some import that Hon. Members want to present. For any Hon. Member to rise in his place to move from Tabling of Documents directly to Motions without the unanimous consent of the House is, I argue, quite clearly an abuse not only of the traditions of the House but of the way in which we conduct our business from day to day.
The Chair will know that it is impossible for the Parliament of Canada to conduct its affairs day by day in a haphazard way. There must be an anticipation of the next item. If that cannot be anticipated, then Hon. Members cannot be prepared to make their contributions to the House, regardless of whether it is a report, a petition or the introduction of a Bill.
I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary, through you, Mr. Speaker, that what he has done today comes as a surprise and a shock. This is particularly so because members of the Party opposite said they would reform the Parliament of Canada and that they had respect for this institution. For the Parliamentary Secretary to attempt to short-circuit the routine business of the day by moving from one item to another way down the list flies in the face of the rhetoric and the views that have been expressed opposite about the need to reform Parliament. I can in no way see that such a motion can be justified or acceptable.
I call upon you, Sir, on the basis of what has been said by Hon. Members on this side of the House, to call this motion out of order and to have us go back to the next item following Tabling of Documents, the routine and regular way in which we do business in the House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be too long because the argument on our side was covered very ably by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).
As to the question of what the House can and cannot do, I hold the view that the rules of Parliament are designed to facilitate the business of the House. When the House makes a decision, it is the decision of the House based upon a motion made. 1 do not believe that the Canadian people sent us to Parliament to remain mired in routine proceedings and for that-


Mr. Axworthy:: What? What?
Tabling of Documents


B. Keith Penner: Never heard such a thing.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I notice some amazement on the part of Hon. Members opposite. Why do they not try it out the next time they go home, try it out on the people who sent them here, the taxpayers. Ask them if they want Hon. Members to spend day after day mired in routine proceedings rather than dealing with the business of Government. Why do they not ask their constituents?
In any event, I wish to deal quickly with the matter of superseding motions. On page 151 of Beauchesne's in Citation 417, several motions are referred to as being superseding motions. All of these motions are designed to enable the House to move from one item of business to another. I suggest that that list is not exclusive.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), referred to precedents. If one argues that the House is governed by precedent, one must also take into account how precedents occur. Precedents occur when things happen. If we follow the argument that the House deals only with precedents, we must ask when the first precedent was created. Obviously the first precedent was created when the House made a decision on a motion. We suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the House has the ability to decide on the motion before it and that the Chair should rule that motion in order.
In addition to the motions referred to on page 151 of Beauchesne's, I would like to add for the Chair's consideration a citation found in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition on page 383. It is referred to as "Forms and Formulae No. 45". The form there is "That the House do now revert to Routine Proceedings", or "to Government Orders", or "to Public Bills and Orders", or "to Private Bills" or "to Notices of Motions". Those are all items which are referred to as headings under Routine Proceedings. Obviously at some time in the past, that type of motion was in vogue. I suggest that we bring it into vogue now.
The question of how one submits petitions to Parliament has been referred to in the debate on this point of order. There is no question that under Standing Order 106(3), Hon. Members have the ability to submit petitions to the Table. Every day as Parliamentary Secretary to the government House Leader I rise to supply responses to those petitions which have been presented to the House. That is definitely in order. However, I would like to deal with something that came up in the course of debate.
There has been a suggestion by the Hon. Member for Burnaby that the Government is preventing the introduction of three very important Bills. For those who are perhaps not aware of this, I would point out that Hon. Members introduce Bills under the heading of Introduction of Bills. The three very important Bills the Hon. Member for Burnaby wishes to introduce on an urgent basis so that they make the next draw are all listed on the Order Paper under the date of February 2, 1987. For two and a half months these very urgent and

April 13, 1987
Tabling of Documents
important Bills have been sitting on the Order Paper. Today we are preventing them from being introduced.
1 am sure that if the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) were here, he would tell us that he has several very important Bills on the Order Paper, but at least the Bills of the Hon. Member for Burnaby are from 1987. The Bills of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap are from 1986. All of these Bills are so important and urgent? The definition of urgency according to members of the NDP is not the same as it is in the rest of the country.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the argument this morning has been very effective and useful. I am sure Hon. Members would want to give the Parliamentary Secretary the courtesy of allowing him to complete his argument.


Philip Derek Lewis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In the interests of making this House work, I advise the House that when I am recognized to reply to questions on the Order Paper I will move the following motion:
That the House do now revert to presenting petitions and continue with the
balance of routine proceedings until they are completed, or 1 p.m., whichever
comes first.
That would allow my hon. colleagues who have important petitions to present to present them. I will also give a Government undertaking that no government Bills will be introduced under Introduction of Bills, which will allow my colleague with urgent Bills to introduce them; and further, that no government notices of motions will be proceeded with; and that government members will move no concurrence motions.
If I were to move that motion under Questions on the Order Paper, upon which motion we certainly would not need a recorded division, my hon. colleagues would be able to present the petitions which they have all claimed they are ready to present. Therefore, I give notice that I am prepared to do that under Questions on the Order Paper.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be of great assistance if the Parliamentary Secretary put his proposed offer in writing so that we could look very carefully at exactly what the Government is suggesting before we proceed.
In response to the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary, it is astounding that a person whom the Government has designated as responsible for handling its parliamentary affairs would express such total disdain for the rights of Parliament. It is incredible to hear a Parliamentary Secretary to the House Leader say that Parliament "gets mired down in routine proceedings". You know, Mr. Speaker, as do Members of this House, that those Routine Proceedings are built upon hundreds of years of tradition and precedent designed to protect the rights, not only of Members of Parliament, but of the constituents whom they represent. For a Parliamentary Secretary to say that we are "mired down" is probably the most, extreme expression of an authoritarian attitude that I have heard in this House in all the years I have been here.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: That says to me that the Government, which has a large majority, has not been able to manage its affairs, is getting frustrated at its own incompetence, and is now lashing out, not only at the press, the Opposition and everyone else, but at Parliament itself. It wants to use the thunderbolt of its own majority to ram things through this House. This is incredible. We have witnessed today a further stage of deterioration in the capacity of the Government to represent any form of civility, any sense of proper behaviour in this House, and any sense of obligation or responsibility as far as Parliament is concerned.
A concession has now been offered. It is interesting that in the last three or four days as the Government has tried to push this Bill through with a large number of parliamentary devices it has only succeeded in seizing up Parliament. We have not been able to conduct the business of Parliament because of the Government's failure in parliamentary intrigue and device. If the Government had allowed matters to pursue their normal course, for debate to continue, amendments to be presented, and routine proceedings to carry forward, we would have made an awful lot more progress than we have until now. It would be unseemly to give any credence to this kind of behaviour and attitude.
It is important that we establish clearly, as Beauchesne's has clearly said, that "the proceedings of the House must be taken up in accordance with the order of business given in the Order Paper". Why does the Government, simply because it has a big majority, think it can overturn those well established rules and precedents? The Government seems to indicate that there is a growing frustration among the Canadian public to get this patent Bill passed. In fact, the representations we have received by way of petitions is so overwhelmingly against the Bill that the Government wants to deny the right of people to have that point of view expressed.


Mr. Speaker:: In order to be sure that there is no misunderstanding, the Chair is not concerned with whether this is a drug Bill or any other Bill. It may be that there are differences of opinion among the Parties as to what motivates one side or the other. That is not the issue before the Chair. Before the Chair is the issue of whether or not the Government can, by one device or another, reach Motions in Routine Proceedings. Most Hon. Members have directed most of their comment in that direction. 1 know the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), who knows this place well, would want to assist the Chair in that regard.


Lloyd Axworthy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly want to assist. I was only responding to the only argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary. The only justification he was able to offer for the motion which was introduced in the House this morning was this demand for some efficiency, from their point of view, in the way in which the system works. I was simply pointing out that in Parliament efficiency is not necessarily the primary objective; democracy and the right of
April 13, 1987

people to be heard is the primary value. That is what we believe is being frustrated by these kinds of motions.
My colleague, the Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), our House Leader, our Whip, and others on this side have all said that we want to deal with this legislation, but that we want to deal with it as it should be dealt with, through the proper rules of Parliament, and that it should not be twisted and turned by the kind of devices which were presented this morning. It is important that we look at the text of what the Parliamentary Secretary said. That is the thrust of my argument.
We have heard the rules of Beauchesne's and others. However, the arguments put forward by the Government have shown clearly that the Government is frustrated and wants to use its majority to end its frustration. That is hardly a good reason for overturning the well-established wisdom of the ages which is incorporated in our orders of proceeding and the precedents of this House.
Mir. Speaker: I want to thank all Hon. Members; the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), the Parliamentary Secretary and all the others who have entered into this debate because it is a matter of some interest and some concern. I say to all Hon. Members and to the public which is watching that the Chair does not view this procedural debate lightly. The tradition of Parliament has been that procedural matters are always a legitimate means through which an Opposition can express its concern with any piece of legislation or a motion. There is, of course, the absolute tradition of the use of procedural matters as part of the cut and thrust of parliamentary affairs. I want Hon. Members to know that, because I respect that, I have listened with great attention to the comments which have been made.
I took down the comments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry. He said, "-efficiency is not necessarily the primary objective, democracy is-I have certainly seldom heard it put better. It will fall to my obligation and duty to decide just how the particular matter before me is determined. Certainly in principle, I think the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has put a long, vibrant and useful history of Parliament in very succinct terms. I thank him for it because that is very helpful.
I propose to defer my decision on this until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. It would be my disposition, unless there is consent in the Chamber to do something else, to move directly to Questions on the Order Paper. However, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary was saying that if any members seem to be aggrieved at not having been able to go through the other items in the Routine Proceedings this morning, he would be prepared to move that we revert to Routine Proceedings. I think that was the intention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
I do want to say that the practice has been that a reversion back is done with consent. I am not saying, because that is the
Tabling of Documents
practice, that it may always necessarily be the law, but I am pointing out that that has been the practice in this place. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has made that suggestion and, of course, I am in the hands of the House. If the House decides to consent to that, then that would be perfectly appropriate.
I do not want to have to make a ruling at this time on whether or not that can be done with a vote and without consent. However, if there is consent the Chair would be happy to do that. If there is not consent, then the Chair will move to Questions on the Order Paper. Perhaps I could have some indication as to whether the other side would consent.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, of course, we would like to go back and complete Routine Proceedings but we cannot agree that the motion be put to the House, because you will understand that that would destroy the argument we have been making to you this morning, that there cannot be a motion that supersedes . .. This would be a superseding motion and I do not think that would be acceptable in terms of procedure. The House can do those things with unanimous consent, but I do not want it to be done by way of a motion because I believe it would destroy the arguments we have been putting this morning. However, by consent, I agree.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, 1 will also give unanimous consent on the part of the New Democratic Party to begin with Petitions at this time. However, I suggest that it only be done with the caveat of all the preconditions listed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could help the Chair. There seems to be consent to go back to Petitions, if that is what the Parliamentary Secretary was suggesting.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I want to advise the House that we will be answering Questions Nos. 78 and 79 today. I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You have not got consent.


Philip Derek Lewis: I have not asked for it yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can help. The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that that is what he would be doing. 1 think it is understood that we are not at that point yet. I am anxious to know what is the will of the House and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could help in that respect.


Philip Derek Lewis: Now that I have tabled the questions, I would be prepared to move, seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the House do now revert to Presenting Petitions and continue with the
balance of Routine Proceedings until they are completed or 1 p.m., whichever
comes first.
I suggest that the Government will undertake that no government Bills will be introduced under Introduction of

April 13, 1987
Order Paper Questions
Bills, that no government Notices of Motions will be introduced under Government Notices of Motions, and no government Member of Parliament will proceed with a concurrence motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion. There are certainly caveats there by which the Chair would obviously be bound. Is that acceptable?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the caveat that myself and the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) put on unanimous consent is that there be no motion, but that we would automatically be on Petitions by unanimous consent. We do not want this motion adopted by the House because we believe that it sets a precedent for the very thing we have been arguing against for the last hour and a half.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair can settle that. I am not prepared to get into a procedural argument over the motion.
Let us put it this way, if it is acceptable to the government side, a suggestion has been made to revert. That is all it is. If there is the consent the House can do anything. It does not bind anyone procedurally, and it certainly does not bind me.
If it is the will of the House to revert to presenting petitions, I will simply clean up the business of Questions on the Order Paper and we will revert.
I can assure you that under no circumstances will this be taken as a precedent which would create any of the difficulties suggested by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I think the concern on this side is that the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to move halfway back up the daily routine order of business from where he actually wanted to be. He is seeking to do that by way of motion. We are saying that if he is seeking unanimous consent of the House to do that, then such unanimous consent will be granted. The point is that we do not want the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to proceed in this way by motion, because by moving halfway up the Order Paper by a motion he is doing exactly what he was trying to do by moving to the very bottom. That is what we object to.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has put the point and that is why the Chair is suggesting that if the House wishes to revert back, as a consequence of arrangements between both sides, the Chair is quite prepared to do that. If it is a question of having to argue whether or not a motion under these circumstances is appropriate at this time, the Chair is not prepared to enter into that because I already have a serious matter to decide.
Perhaps both sides can settle this, because we are running out of time anyway.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since there does not seem to be unanimous consent to what we thought was an honourable
suggestion, I suggest that we proceed with Orders of the Day, which is the next item on the Qrder Paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair nearly worked out a solution. Perhaps that cannot always be done.
The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary, Questions on the Order Paper. He has tabled the questions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He could not have done that. We are not there yet.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have delivered them to the Table already.


Mr. Speaker:: It is true that they have been delivered to the Table but the Chair wanted to make the position clear. Strictly speaking, the Parliamentary Secretary was not at that stage. In order to make it easy for the Chair, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could just rise and go through it again.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I, along with many of my colleagues, am just trying to follow exactly what is happening here. There was a motion which was debated for about an hour and a half. You have given us the undertaking that you will read the submissions and come tomorrow with a ruling. In my opinion, that motion was not put to the House. Therefore, I take it that it lapses at this time because nothing has happened to it, I submit that we cannot leave a motion to lapse like that, unless the Government wants to drop the motion that we proceed to Motions.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I can clarify this. I am reserving on the motion of the Parliamentary Secretary this morning. We have heard argument and that argument is now over with. There has been some suggestion, which has not reached a point of consent, with respect to reverting back to Petitions. In the process there was perhaps some misunderstanding and no doubt it was the fault of the Chair. The Parliamentary Secretary did rise on the matter of Questions on the Order Paper, to which the Chair had indicated it would proceed after announcing it was reserving on the motion.
The position of the Chair is that we are at the point of Questions on the Order Paper. I want to ensure that matter is properly dealt with, and I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to rise on Questions on the Order Paper, and we will deal with that.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the following questions will be
April 13, 1987

answered today: Nos. 78 and 79. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Ms. McDonald: 1.	In the last year, has the Canada Student Loans Program directorate received any complaints concerning Schedule 2 of the loans form and, if so, how many?
2.	Are full-time post-secondary students being charged interest on their student loans because of errors in completing Schedule 2 and, if so, in how many instances?
3.	Since September 4, 1984, has the Secretary of State used his ministerial discretion to forgive interest accumulating on a Canada student loan as a result of Schedule 2 not being completed when the debtor remains a full-time or part-time student and, if so, how many times?


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: 1. The
Canada Student Loans Program receives a great volume of telephone inquiries and correspondence on a daily basis, including complaints concerning Schedule 2. However, because records are not kept by subject matter, the number of complaints concerning Schedule 2 are not available.
2.	No.
3.	No.


Ms. McDonald: 1.	On VIA rail facilities are provisions for non-smoking passengers made for
(a)	completely smoke free air (6) designated but not separately ventilated nonsmoking areas and, if so, what are they and (i) on which passenger train routes (ii) in which train stations do they apply?
2.	Does VIA rail cancel its scheduled non-smoking train services and, if so, how frequently?
3.	To the knowledge of the Government, have health and safety chairmen been appointed to promote smoking and to work against the establishment of a smoke free work environment and the protection of VIA rail passengers from side-stream smoke?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: 1. (a)
Completely smoke free cars operate on all VIA trains serving the following routes: Montreal-Quebec City (South Shore), Montreal-Ottawa, Ottawa-Toronto (except the overnight train), Montreal-Toronto (except the overnight train), Toronto-Windsor, Toronto-Sarnia, Toronto-London and Toronto-Havelock.
(b)	Designated but not separately ventilated non-smoking areas are provided: (i) on all other routes operated by VIA; (ii) in the following stations: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Windsor, Chatham, London, Woodstock, Stratford, Kitchener, Brantford, Toronto, Kingston, Belleville, Brampton, Guelph, Sudbury, Moncton, Sussex, Saint John, Campbellton, Bathurst, Sackville, Charlottetown, Truro, Sydney, Antigon-ish, Port Hawkesbury, North Sydney and Halifax.
2.	VIA does not cancel non-smoking train services.
3.	A health and safety committee has been established at VIA to work for, not against, the establishment of a smoke free environment. VIA is committeed to improving the
The Budget-Mr. Penner
protection against side stream smoke for VIA's passengers wherever possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary would be kind enough to indicate when I may expect a reply to Question No. 63?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that under notice and get back to my colleague as soon as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair should advise Hon. Members that we are, therefore, now on the item of Orders of the Day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should advise Hon. Members before we proceed with debate that because this is a Budget item there will be no Private Members' Hour or Adjournment Debate this evening.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, the Budget which was presented to the House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on February 18, I would submit, is in many ways a most curious document. It is reported to have been said by some that it is an economic report card. If that is the case, it is certainly a report card which I would not want to take home to my parents, if I were a student.
The Minister said this Budget represents a breathing space prior to tax reform. Perhaps it gives the Minister of Finance and the Government a breathing space, and it certainly gives a breathing space to corporations which continue to enjoy tax benefits prior to tax reform, but it gives no breathing space to those who are required to pay more as a result of this Budget and the Minister's preceding Budgets. If one belongs to that class of persons called "the working poor", if one has no job at all, or if one lives in a region of Canada where economic disparity is its most apt description, there is no breathing space, because the tax burden is a little heavier and there is no relief in sight.

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Penner
The Budget seems to say in places that the Government understands our problems, it is sympathetic, but there is nothing it can do to help. In fact, the Budget seems to say that the problems of the Government are bigger and more serious than those of the working poor, those without a job or those who live in one of the regions of economic disparity. The Government is saying it is sympathetic, it cares and understands, but it cannot help because its problems are bigger than our problems.
Members of Parliament might be able to get away with that in talking to each other in Parliament, but to those living in regions of economic disparity, those who are part of the group known as the working poor or those who are unemployed, it is not very convincing at all to say "My friend, you think you have problems. Do you not know that the problems of the Government are bigger than your problems? Do you not know that the Government is sympathetic and cares but there is nothing it can do to help?"
The Budget seems to say in places that the Government knows that what it is doing is not right, but it is going to do it anyway. I will give an example of that. One part of the Budget says that the federal sales tax is unfair and inefficient, that it is a silent killer of jobs. Few parliamentarians would argue with that. But having given this accurate analysis of an inappropriate tax, the Government goes on to impose further sales and excise taxes, digging a little deeper, to the tune of some $700 million, into the pockets of consumers.
It is true there are some consumers who can bear that burden, but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that those who belong to that group called the working poor, those who are without jobs and depend either on unemployment insurance or provincial and local welfare, or persons who live in one of the disadvantaged regions, cannot bear this additional burden.
In his agenda for economic renewal the Minister states that Canada's prosperity depends upon drawing on the strength of all regions of this country. When the Minister wrote this, or when it was written for him, what was in mind was the nature of Canada, that all of the regions have their part to play in the total national well-being . We cannot depend on just a few regions which are bursting their seams with prosperity. The Minister says that Canada's prosperity depends upon the strengths of all regions, and he is right. What we are saying is that we want what he preaches put into practice.
The same Minister who used that marvellous text, that the strength of Canada depends on all of its regions, goes on to say that the renewed health of the national economy masks a number of regional problems, particularly in regions dependent upon primary resources. So the Minister recognizes that there is a problem.
I know from first-hand experience whereof the Minister speaks, because the region of northern Ontario which I represent, along with other regions, looks to its natural resources for its economic health. It looks, for example, to the
forest industry and to the mining industry. It looks to agriculture and to tourism. Those are all sectors which depend upon natural resources for the health of those industries.
I want to report to the House and to you, Sir, that those four areas in the region I represent are not doing well at all. We have problems. Those problems are serious.
Again, the Minister of Finance is fair enough to recognize that. But, though he recognizes that there are problems, he offers no remedies. In fact, instead of offering some hope, even some token help, he compounds the problem. He makes it worse with his various budgetary measures and proposals. He writes in the document which I call his "agenda", "The development of resource industries demands our close attention, as does the challenge of enhancing regional development".
What is the nature of the challenge about which the Minister of Finance speaks? According to him, it is to help cushion the impacts of depressed prices and help producers adjust to market realities. That is very appealing to the people of northern Ontario, the people I represent who depend on the natural resource sector. It is a very appealing argument. All of the texts in this magnificent sermon are on target. They are all right. But then we have the practice which is so different from the texts.
In his Budget Speech the Minister notes, at least in passing, that the benefits of our current economic performance have not been equally shared across the country. Then we have this honest and forthright admission from the Minister, "Some regions are hurting". Yes, I can say to the Minister that some regions in the country are hurting, and they are hurting rather badly. I have already told Members of the House that northern Ontario is in this category, as is, most particularly, northeastern Ontario where unemployment is approaching the level of 15 per cent at the present time. Youth unemployment across northern Ontario is around 22 per cent.
In order for the forest products industry to remain competitive in a very tough world, and in order for it to stay in business, it has been forced to modernize, to introduce new technology. But that has meant a reduction in the workforce. Human labour has been replaced in many pulp and paper mills by machines. The need to introduce efficiency measures in order to remain competitive has also meant some additional lay-offs. Pollution control orders, as necessary and as important as they are, mean further expenditures and therefore cuts somewhere else in the industry. The cost of getting wood to where it can be transformed into a marketable product is in this region of Canada very, very high. In circumstances such as those the return on investment and the profit margins are not at all exorbitant. They are not high. In fact, in many cases they are minimal.
April 13, 1987

These are facts. They do not represent news to Members of this Elouse, not at all. I think we understand that this particular sector is in some difficulty. We recognize that the steps it has taken, even though they have increased unemployment, are necessary so that towns do not close down completely.
I now want to ask the House what the Government has done to cushion the impacts. To use a phrase directly from the Minister's sermon, what has the Government done to cushion the impacts on this industry in a region which is hurting? As unbelievable as it may sound, it has imposed a 15 per cent federal export tax on the shipment of softwood lumber to the United States. For many operations this 15 per cent represents the margin of profit, and then some.
How did this come about? How is it that the industry suddenly finds itself with a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber which it ships to the United States? It happened as a very direct result of the bungling interference of the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). She bungled into a situation which was well in hand by the industry itself. It was dealing with the threat of a U.S. countervailing tariff. Its legal counsel were well briefed. The funds were in hand in order to deal with this situation through the judicial process in the United States of America. But the Minister for International Trade bungled into a realm in which she was totally at a loss.
The result is that we are now faced with a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber. As a result of this, millions of dollars are being extracted from regions such as northern Ontario. Some sawmills have been forced to close. Plans to open others have been shelved. Many small, independent sawmills are operating so close to their tolerable limit of costs that they too may be compelled to fold.
I ask Hon. Members, is that not a strange and unusual way to cushion the impacts in a region which is hurting? This is what the Minister said: "The Government recognizes that certain regions are hurting". The Minister has said that the Government recognizes that certain regions are hurting and that we must move to cushion the impacts. Yet what do we get? We get a 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber.
If that is not enough, the Canadian National Railway is also there. Never a friend of developing regions, this Crown corporation, especially in northern Ontario where it has the reputation of being one of its worst corporate citizens, decided as of January 1, 1987, to add a further burden on softwood lumber by imposing an additional 3 per cent freight rate on all shipments.
I wish to report to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other Members of the House, that in northern Ontario we are hurting. Nothing has been done to cushion the impacts. 1 want to ask, where is the Minister of Finance now that we need him?
In 1984-85, which was the year the Conservative Party took office, the annual expenditures for economic and regional development amounted to nearly $15 billion. The very next year, one year after the Party opposite had been in power, in 1985-86, that sum was reduced to under $12 billion. Then, in
1986-87, it was at the same amount of about $12 billion. It is anticipated that in the current fiscal year it will fall to about $9 billion. Altogether that means that somewhere in the neighbourhood of $12 billion that would have been spent on economic and regional development has not been there. It is no wonder the regions are hurting. This is a sizeable amount of money that would have been invested in the regions. This is the money that would have cushioned the severity of the economic situation, but it is not there.
The Minister boasts in his Budget about the number of new jobs which have been created. But he did not tell us the nature of those jobs.
I would like to continue my remarks when you recognize me again, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, over the week-end the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) said the Government's poor performance is due to its failure to get its message out. I disagree. The Government's problem is the fact that Canadians do not like the message going out. The Government cannot even sell the message to its own caucus members.
There is growing dissent in Tory ranks. The Hon. Member for Calgary East (Mr. Kindy) is even quoted as saying, "The Prime Minister hears but doesn't listen". In the past the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has blamed the Ottawa-based media for his problems. Last year he said he was going to bypass them altogether and go directly to the regional press. Like his other plans, that one also backfired.
Members of the press deemed unfriendly are either gagged by head office or shipped to points unknown. No doubt a new program is in the making, aptly called "Critics in Exile".
Maybe I can end with this short verse:
The Prime Minister is filled with joy to see the last of Claire Hoy. For other scribes, especially those at the Sun, keep in mind what is happening to Hodgson.

April 13, 1987
5. O. 21 THE MEDIA



COALITION FOR FAMILY VALUES-CHILD CARE RELEASE IGNORED

Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I think media people would describe themselves as objective and fair in reporting news. Yet a news release put out by the Coalition for Family Values was greeted by the media with silence.
This release supports the Report of the Special Committee on Child Care. Since it has not received any media attention I would like to put their comments on record. They complimented the committee for bringing "a refreshing perspective and common sense to the child care debate". They went on to say that "no one apart from federal Health and Welfare Minister Jake Epp, and a few others, has bothered to ask what is in the best interest of the children themselves or who is best equipped to meet their needs".
What the Coalition for Family Values likes about the report is that, "unlike the universalists, the special committee recognizes the diversity of Canadian families and that the primary responsibility for raising children is with the parents". I congratulate the Coalition for Family Values for their insight. I know the news media would not want this one to slip by.



HOUSING


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, a report released last week by the Canadian Advisory Council for the Status of Women points out how poorly Canadian housing policy is serving single women, especially mothers.
Although households led by women are the largest group living in public housing, project plans rarely take into adequate account needs for child care, public transport, shopping centres, or even a safe environment.
Owning a home means security, but if you are a woman heading a family you are far more likely to be a renter. That means insecurity, fluctuating rental markets, low vacancy rates, the changing winds of government policy, and the loss of inexpensive housing to gentrification. Some 62 per cent of female-headed households are tenants, compared with only 30 per cent of households headed by men.
The report also looks at the special problems of native, immigrant, and disabled women as well as teenaged mothers and battered women, and finds government policy wanting. I urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised in this report and take concrete action to correct them.



NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION WEEK


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity today to say a few words about National Soil Conservation Week, being held from April 13 to April 17.
Mr. Speaker, soil erosion is a problem that ought to be a concern not just of our farmers but of all Canadians who want to ensure that their children and grandchildren will be able to depend on our land for food.
Mr. Speaker, although most Canadians will find this hard to believe, because of soil deterioration, Canada's ability to feed its population will decline unless we start making more prudent use of chemicals and other products that are largely responsible for the deterioration of about 20 per cent of the arable land in this country.
I would urge all Canadians to participate in this week's activities and, above all, to consider conservation when they start getting their garden plots ready this year. Soil conservation must become a priority with us all, and in concluding, I wish to commend Agriculture Canada for this initiative, and I hope that with the provinces, the Department will find a way to maintain the quality of our soil, that great national resource.



CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, organizations such as the Toronto-based Community Coalition on the Canadian Jobs Strategy are directly involved in delivering federal job training programs and are knowledgeable about how the programs are working. A major concern is that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is increasingly geared to training by profit-making enterprises, although the not-for-profit sector has an established track record in providing effective training for those identified as employment disadvantaged.
A second concern is that eligibility requirements are rigidly applied and more restrictive than in the past, with the result that people in need of job training-immigrant women and sole-support mothers in particular-are shut out of the programs which could help them.
We all want to see more Canadians participating fully in the job market, with more of the skills Canada needs for a strong economy.
April 13, 1987

The Government should accept that improvement is always possible and consider implementing some of the recommendations it has received from those directly involved in delivering programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy.



TOURISM


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, economic renewal in Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia remains my top priority. I have worked with members of the Cabinet and my constituents to put in place an economic strategy which requires the enhancement of our indigenous resources and the attraction of investment in the manufacturing sector.
Cape Breton is world famous as one of Canada's most beautiful areas. It is also the home of Canada's richest cultural milieu, boasting a wealthy Acadian, Scottish, and native heritage. Such cultural and physical beauty represent an opportunity for tourism development.
Last week a $14 million amendment to the Canada-Nova Scotia Tourism Agreement was signed. This agreement was signed at Cheticamp, a picturesque Acadian community in my riding. The amendment introduces the Cape Breton Attractions Program, a program to identify and develop major top quality tourism attractions on the island.
This program underscores the commitment of two Governments to developing a strong Cape Breton economy, and recognizes the significant role tourism must play in the process.
I congratulate the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Valcourt) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) for their continuing commitment to enhancing the economic opportunities of the people of Cape Breton and eastern Nova Scotia.



AGRICULTURE


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, debt servicing is the number one input cost for agricultural producers in Canada today. This debt crisis, tied to the desperately low commodity prices farmers are receiving for their crops, will result in the bankruptcy of thousands of our younger, more progressive farm families. These farmers are being driven off their land, not because they do not know how to farm, but because they expanded their operations or entered farming at what now turns out to be the wrong time.
Recent government farm income assistance programs have been welcomed by farmers and have helped somewhat. Unfortunately, however, the Government has not been doing much to address the very basic problem of farm debt.
New Democrats call upon the federal Government to take up its responsibilities to find a solution to the problems of farm debt and inter-generational farm transfers. Swift action is necessary to save as many of these farmers as possible.



DISCRIMINATION IN GRANTING LEAVE FOR BIRTH OF CHILDREN

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, an employee with the Customs and Excise Branch of the Department of National Revenue was denied a request for paid leave upon the birth of his child. He had asked for 17 weeks' leave with pay in July, 1986, but his request was denied, and he was allowed only the usual one day's leave with pay granted fathers at the birth of a child. The employee filed a complaint with the Public Service Staff Relations Board and the Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Speaker, by denying a father parental leave, this Government seems to be suggesting that only the mother should take care of children at birth. Mr. Douglas and his wife are both parents, but according to the Government, the mother bears full responsibility for her children. This policy discriminates against both men and women, because it suggests only the woman should leave her job to take care of the child at the time of birth. Since this Government has repeated many times that it believes in equality between men and women, I think this is an opportunity for the Government to act accordingly.
I would therefore ask the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to evaluate the general policy of parental leave and I would also ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) to review this case and to let the father take the parental leave to which he is entitled.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, 1987 marks the fortieth anniversary of Canadian citizenship, and the week of April 12 to April 18 has been declared the first ever National Citizenship Week by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

April 13, 1987
Prior to the enactment of the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1947 there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship; there were no such persons as Canadian citizens. As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, we were all British subjects in those days. With the passage of that Act of Parliament we took a great leap forward in affirming our uniqueness and independence among world nations.
I remember very well when the value of that citizenship was shown to me. I was much younger and backpacking my way through France. One day, as I sat by the side of the road in Calais, I was approached by a middle-aged Frenchman. He asked me if I had a place to stay, if I was hungry, and if everything was all right. I asked him why he showed so much interest in a traveller. He then pointed to the red maple leaf on my packsack, Mr. Speaker, and said: "During the war, I had a Canadian friend".
Our soldiers fought for Canadian citizenship and all that it represents. We have much to be thankful for. This week, during National Citizenship Week, we have much to celebrate.



FINANCE


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the February, 1986, Budget extended to all permanent residents of isolated posts an additional tax deduction in respect of housing costs. According to a December, 1986, release the Finance Department considers Treasury Board guidelines, which have been used for many years for providing northern benefits to federal employees, to be the appropriate criteria for ascertaining which locations qualify for the new benefits.
The December list of isolated posts included several prairie towns in populated areas within a few miles of the U.S. border. Area farmers and residents of other nearby towns are asking why they would not also qualify, while residents in the designated posts remain uncertain as to whether they really are eligible. Everyone wonders why federal government employees should have a special deduction not enjoyed by other residents.
Clearly, the intent of the February, 1986, proposals is good but the criteria for designating what is an isolated post need a thorough overhaul. I call on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to issue clarification at an early date.




Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in July, 1984, the former Fiberal Government approved a special $1 billion tax remission for Dome Petroleum which was confirmed by the Conservative Government in February, 1985.
The Auditor General said that he was disturbed by this remission because the House of Commons was neither informed nor given the opportunity to debate the matter. He said: "There is something very wrong with a system that allows a $1 billion policy decision to be made by way of a tax expenditure with Parliament having so little information on the transaction".
We have now learned that Dome Petroleum has received a takeover bid from TransCanada PipeFines which will be worth between $4 billion and $5 billion and which is likely to involve new and major concessions from the Canadian taxpayer.
I call on the Government to turn its back on past practices, to heed the advice of the Auditor General, and to ensure that all the details of any proposed multimillion dollar corporate tax ruling be laid before Parliament and the people of Canada. We must not give billions of dollars for this particular takeover without Parliament being informed and having a chance to give its consent.



HARBOURFRONT


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, Toronto Harbourfront Park property is an exciting public resource, treasured by all of the people of the Metropolitan Toronto area. Although Harbourfront is federally owned, the City of Toronto through its official plan, its zoning and building bylaws, controls construction, density, heights, and building permits on the property.
For many months now residents have been extremely concerned about the city's planning and development process. Forty-storey buildings are proposed where 10-storey buildings were planned, densities are shifted from one site to another, minor variance approvals increase building sizes by as much as 15 per cent, and construction has been proceeding on some sites without building permits. Because of this, residents welcome the Government's announced construction moratorium pending a federal review. Hopefully this means a total freeze and a review, with full public input and participation.
April 13, 1987



DISASTERS


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, shortly before dawn on Saturday, April 11, 1987, 200 volunteer American servicemen and servicewomen boarded trucks and jeeps at Loring Air Force base in northern Maine and made an historic 20-kilometre journey to help flood victims in Perth-Andover, New Brunswick.
Volunteering their off-duty time, the servicemen and servicewomen put in an unmeasurable effort in assisting residents of this small New Brunswick community ravaged by the floodwaters of the Saint John River some 11 days ago.
On behalf of the 1,900 residents of Perth-Andover and all the people of the Province of New Brunswick, I would like to extend my deepest appreciation as well as my sincere thanks to all of the American servicemen and sevicewomen who not only offered a most needed helping hand but also valuable moral support and a shining ray of hope to a community victimized by this destructive natural tragedy.
It is this kind of international co-operation that touches deeply the hearts of all Canadians while leaving a fond memory that will never be erased in the hearts of the people of Perth-Andover.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 1986, in attacking the Budget, the Liberal finance critic stated that he certainly would not be surprised to see the dollar at 68 cents. That prediction, along with all predictions made by the Liberal Party on financial matters, is wrong. On Friday the dollar closed at 76.7 cents U.S. and at one point it was trading at 76.92 cents U.S.
Bryan Griffiths, Vice-President of Trading and Treasury Services with the Royal Bank stated on April 11, 1987, that the firmness of the dollar indicates that capital is leaving other jurisdictions and flowing into Canada and that it is a question of confidence building confidence.
The building of confidence is exactly what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has accomplished. His policies have given Canadians the lowest interest rate in the past 10 years. The deficit has been reduced for the third year in a row. The inflation rate has been at 4 per cent over the past two and a half years. Over 700,000 jobs have been created.
Oral Questions
The Minister of Finance deserves our congratulations for giving Canada sound economic management which has resulted in international confidence in the Canadian economy.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on July 5, 1984, in Prince Albert, the Prime Minister promised a western economic strategy. On February 18, 1987, in the House of Commons in Ottawa, the Deputy Prime Minister promised a western economic strategy. Three years after the Prime Minister's promise there is a growing political crisis in western Canada.
I would ask the Deputy Prime Minister why there have been no public hearings leading to a western economic strategy. Where is the action the Prime Minister promised three years ago?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to respond to that question. Prior to the federal election of September, 1984, the Prince Albert declaration was unveiled containing some 52 specific commitments to western Canada, ranging from agriculture to energy, to mining, to forestry, to transportation. Forty-two of those specific commitments have been fulfilled already.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Action on the others is currently being undertaken.
The Hon. Member knows very well that there has been a dramatic decline in oil prices, agricultural commodity prices and prices in the resource sector. Those declines were actions taken outside the influence and bounds of the Government.
The Government is responding in the best possible manner. For example, we undertook to dismantle the NEP and FIRA and to bring in a $500,000 exemption on capital gains. Those are just a few examples. We have acknowledged that more needs to be done, and the second chapter is due to be unveiled very soon.


WESTERN PROPOSAL TO REFORM SENATE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we would be glad to take a look at those commitments and responses. If there had been more than a patchwork response in the provinces of western Canada, the Deputy Prime Minister would not have felt it necessary to announce again a month or so ago, three years after the fact, that there would be a western economic strategy.

April 13, 1987
Oral Questions
In that announcement, the Deputy Prime Minister said, and I will use his words, that it will contain a framework for federal decisions affecting western Canada.
Last weekend the Minister of Transport was in western Canada, with the knowledge of the Deputy Prime Minister I am sure. He rejected out of hand the proposal for an elected Senate. Will proposals for an elected Senate be included in the Deputy Prime Minister's plan for a western economic strategy, or was the Minister of Transport speaking on behalf of the Government when he rejected that proposal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members that we have done more for western Canada than was proposed by the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry when he announced a $4 billion package for western Canada which disappeared rather quickly. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was not very involved in the Liberal Party at that particular time. He was speaking very harshly against the policies of the Liberal Government. I suspect he has not changed now.
With regard to the Liberals' suggestion for improving the western economy, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry unveiled a policy the other day which suggested that, to bring the west back into Confederation and restore the economy, they were going to hold a federal-provincial conference. That is really earth-shattering. I would have thought that after the disaster and fallout from the WEOC conference they would not engage in that sort of titillating stuff.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister is a little agitated this afternoon. I can understand that. He was in western Canada this weekend. It is too bad he could not have kept his eye on the Minister of Transport who was also out there. The Minister of Agriculture has been or is going out there. The Minister of the Environment has been out there, as has the Minister of International Trade. Everyone is a little disturbed about what is happening to the Government in western Canada.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: At least we get bigger crowds than you do, John.


John Napier Turner: Oh yeah? I'll help you make a crowd any time, Ray.


INITIAL PRICES FOR GRAIN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. While westerners are cooling their heels and farmers are going bankrupt waiting for the Prime Minister to fulfil that three-year promise, will the Government give a commitment today that the 1987-1988 initial prices for grain will be announced immediately? Will the Government guarantee that those prices will at least equal the prices of last year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that question has been answered in the House before. As is the custom, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board will announce those prices on the appropriate occasion at a time which will be appropriate for the producers.
In response to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition's condemnation of what we have done, I would like to remind you of what he said about some of the things which were put in place by the former Government which we have undone.
He had the following to say about the National Energy Program:
This policy has curtailed production, savaged investment, killed mega-projects,
ruined investor confidence, profoundly damaged relationships with the United
States and spawned even further federal-provincial tension.
We have reversed that, Mr. Speaker.


John Napier Turner: Table that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I would be very glad to table that, Mr. Speaker, with your permission and the permission of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ANNOUNCED CLOSURE OF MANITOBA SUGAR COMPANY PLANT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister as well. With regard to public consultation, the only initiative we have seen from the Government has been that taken by the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. It is too bad the Government has not listened more carefully to some of its back-bench members with regard to western Canada.
I will ask a specific question of the Deputy Prime Minister. The NDP Government in Manitoba and the Conservative Government in Ottawa have been at total loggerheads with regard to developing a support program for the sugar farmers in the Province of Manitoba. As a result, the Manitoba Sugar Company has announced the closing of its plant, which will put a $90 million industry out of business and will wipe out 300 or 400 farmers and 400 or 500 jobs.
In light of these very serious circumstances, can the Deputy Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board to undertake immediate negotiations with the Province of Manitoba to resolve the stalemate within the week in order that those farmers can seed their crops and we can preserve that industry in Manitoba?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I believe I am correct in saying that the Hon. Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board responded to that question. I think he indicated at the time that Manitoba was offered an opportunity to participate in a program to be shared by the federal and provincial Governments. The Province of Alberta undertook to
April 13, 1987

become a party to it and I believe the Province of Quebec did as well. I think the problem lies not with the federal Government but with the Government of Manitoba in this respect.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SEEK AGREEMENT WITH MANITOBA
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in 1985 the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board indicated to the Province of Manitoba that as a condition of agreement there would be a sugar policy announced and that the federal Government would cover debts going beyond 1987. Neither of those commitments have been met or been offered.
Unless an agreement is made within this week, the sugar-beet industry of Manitoba will be wiped out. Would it not be appropriate for the Government to take the initiative with the Government of Manitoba to see if some agreement could be found before those dire consequences are met and a $90 million industry is wiped out in a very important western province?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member would share the view that the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who has taken a leadership role in this area, is always interested in resolving an issue of this serious magnitude.
I repeat that on the basis of my information there has been an attempt to negotiate a deal with the Manitoba Government. Given the Hon. Member's representation, I will speak to the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board again. I want to assure him as well that an offer was placed on the table and, for some reason, the Manitoba Government refused to become party to an arrangement that was agreed to by other provinces.


FINANCE
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Dome Petroleum has charged that a takeover by TransCanada PipeLines would lead to a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue. This is likely true of any takeover since Dome had a loss of some $2 billion last year, a loss that can be carried forward for seven years. According to one study, it also has tax credits of some $2.4 billion.
Press reports indicate that TransCanada PipeLines has asked for an advance tax ruling. Will the Minister confirm
Oral Questions
that Dome's losses are transferable and will cost Canadian taxpayers a billion dollars or more?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, at this point I am not in a position to comment on that question. The specific offer by TransCanada is just in the course of being made. We do not have the details of all the elements of the proposal. Once they are made available we will be able to determine what the position of the federal Government should be in connection with that particular aspect of the proposal.


TAX REMISSION ORDER-REQUEST FOR REPORT TO PARLIAMENT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister's Government carried through the Liberal Government's decision to give Dome Petroleum a $1 billion tax remission in February, 1985, the Auditor General commented: "There is something very wrong with a system that allows a $1 billion policy decision to be made by way of a tax expenditure with Parliament having so little information on the transaction". Given the staggering scale of Dome's unused tax losses and deductions, and given the Auditor General's comments regarding the Dome tax remission order, will the Government bring all the details of the tax implications of any takeover before Parliament?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, when the information is available to us I will be in a better position to respond to the question. These matters are of some urgency when there is a takeover offer on the table, so I am not sure I would be able to fulfil the requirement the Hon. Member has put to me. However, we will review the position that TransCanada puts before us if a tax ruling is involved, and will make the decisions known according to the rules set out in the Income Tax Act.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, we understand that in certain situations there might be some urgency. I give the Minister our assurance that we will help facilitate in any way possible the Government's introduction of any proposed package so that at least Parliament can have an opportunity to pursue a matter that will potentially cost taxpayers billions of dollars.


POSSIBILITY OF FOREIGN TAKEOVER
Simon Leendert de Jong: My final supplementary question again concerns Dome. There is no question that Dome remains one of the major energy players in this country. Apparently, foreign offers are being considered by Dome and a green light to a foreign takeover has been given by the Government. In view of the strategic importance of the Dome reserves and in view of the massive taxpayer subsidies paid to Dome in the past, will the Government give its assurance that the company will remain in Canadian hands?

April 13, 1987
Oral Questions


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is allow this process to run its course. We have said all along there should be a private sector solution and we are looking to see whether there are other bids which might in fact materialize. If that is the case, we will review them under the terms of Investment Canada, and if there are other elements of the offers which do require a Government response, we will be in a position to do that. However, these questions at this point are hypothetical. We have to allow the process to work.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The lobbying activities of a Mr. Pratt, President Reagan's chairman of the Trade Advisory Committee and chairman of the Pfizer Inc., one of the largest multinational drug manufacturing companies in the world, coupled with an affidavit submitted by Mr. Bill Haddad describing a conflict of interest and, in particular, the pressure the Canadian Government has come under from the United States, have now resulted in the United States Congress initiating an investigation of Mr. Pratt and his activities, particularly his discussions with our Canadian Ambassador in Washington.
Can the Minister explain why he said Mr. Haddad's affidavit was patently false? And if he so believes in his statement of some weeks ago, would he not do the honourable thing, drop the parliamentary immunity he now has, step outside the Chamber and repeat those allegations?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Opposition is so preoccupied with what happens in the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, Oh!


Harvie Andre: I have just come from Montreal where I participated in announcements by Burroughs Wellcome, a United Kingdom multinational, and Rhone-Poulenc, a French multinational, of S39 million worth of research and development in this important area in Montreal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: However, that is conditional upon the passage of Bill C-22, because, like anyone with common sense, they recognize that one does not make investments in research if the law provides that someone can come along and copy the results as soon as they are discovered.
I would put to the Hon. Member that instead of being preoccupied with what Mr. Haddad or Mr. Pratt has to say,
why does he not think about Canadians, particularly those Canadian researchers who want to get to work in Montreal and other parts of this country?


David Charles Dingwall: I say to the Minister that the reason we are preoccupied with what happens in the United States is because the multinational corporations in the United States have drafted Bill C-22. That is why we are concerned.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET MR. HADDAD
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not have the intestinal fortitude to step outside into the foyer to begin some sort of discussions with Mr. Haddad, who is in the Chamber today? Does he not have the intestinal fortitude?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, apparently, after some weeks and months of examining Bill C-22, the Hon. Member is not aware that 25 of the 63 companies of PMAC are in fact European. In fact he is apparently not aware that every single one of our industrial partners has been after Canada since 1969 to get in step with the rest of the world and provide the same kind of patent protection provided by the rest of the world.
The Hon. Member may think there is some merit in participation in a debate with an American generic manufacturer. I do not. I think we should get along and do what is right for Canada, in Canada's interest. I wish the Opposition would take the same point of view.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the question of the future of the sugar-beet industry in Manitoba with the Deputy Prime Minister. In an earlier answer the Deputy Prime Minister went on at great length about the commitment of the Government to western Canada. However, many western Canadians know, Winnipegers in particular, that many promises to western Canada have been broken. Why was the promise of the Government to Manitoba and, in particular, to the Government of Manitoba, that no more provincial moneys would be required for the support of the sugar-beet industry, why was that promise to Manitoba, among others, broken?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member would like to outline some of the so-called broken promises because I think this Government has a very distinguished record. I alluded a little earlier to the fact that, out of 52 specific commitments, 43 have been fulfilled and the others are being acted upon.
April 13, 1987

I remind the Hon. Member that we inherited a legacy of high interest, high debt, and high unemployment. We are acting on all three fronts and making progress, I might say, on all three fronts, which is very important to western Canadians-without, I might add, the support of the New Democratic Party.
I can only add, further to my response to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, I tried to respond as best I could and I think I gave an undertaking that, as soon as the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board returns, I will take it up with him and see what can be done. However, I repeat that there was a proposal, as I understand it, put before the Manitoba Government. The Manitoba Government was not prepared to be a party to an agreement, and the Province of Alberta and the Province of Quebec were.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time under the Standing Orders of the House to go into all the promises made to Winnipeg and to Western Canada which have been broken.


An Hon. Member:: Name one.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The VIA Rail shop in Winnipeg, the Manufacturing Technology Centre. I could go on for some time, Mr. Speaker, but you would not let me.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Where is the CF-18?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We won't even get into the CF-18.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


PROPOSAL MADE IN 1985
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A proposal was made to the Government of Manitoba, a proposal which involved breaking the promise of the Government that no more provincial moneys would be required. That was a promise made in 1985. When will the Government live up to its promise made in 1985? Never mind what the Government of Alberta does. It lets itself be pushed around by the Government, but not the Government of Manitoba. The Government of Manitoba wants the Government to live up to its promises.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want the Hon. Member to get the New Democratic Party promises mixed with Progressive Conservative promises because there is no question we have no intention of fulfilling some of the foolish promises put forward by the New Democratic Party before this House or during the election campaign, either.
Oral Questions INDIAN AFFAIRS


SETTLEMENT OF NATIVE CLAIMS IN YUKON-MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would like to direct his attention to Yukon. He will know that in November of 1985, three parties, namely, the Council for Yukon Indians, the Government of Canada and the Government of the Yukon reached something which is known as the "Memorandum of Understanding". This Memorandum of Understanding sets out the guidelines for negotiating and settling native claims in the Yukon.
Why is it that the Council for the Yukon Indians has signed, the Government of the Yukon has signed, but so far the place for the signature of the Government of Canada remains blank? I ask that question because in June of 1986 the all-party Committee on Aboriginal Affairs recommended that this Memorandum of Understanding be signed.


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it was not carte blanche from the Standing Committee that that be signed. There were some provisions which were made by the Standing Committee so that the memorandum could be signed. Those provisions, as the Hon. Member well knows, have not been met.


B. Keith Penner: Well, the Minister knows that the main provision, as outlined in the Minister's response, was that the Coolican Task Force report be responded to by the Government, and that has been done.


INSTRUCTIONS TO FEDERAL NEGOTIATOR
B. Keith Penner: Why does the Minister leave the federal negotiator standing waiting in the Yukon without his instructions? When will the Minister get busy and issue the marching orders to that negotiator, incorporate this Memorandum of Understanding in the mandate, and allow him to get down to work in this important matter in the Yukon Territory?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I also recognize, as the Hon. Member does, that the settlement of land claims in Yukon not just for Indian people but for all Yukoners is a very important matter. The mandate is proceeding through Cabinet with respect to the Dene-Metis claim. The CYI claim will proceed. I have already had discussions and will be having further discussions with the Council of Yukon Indians. In due course the mandate will be put forward.
I remind the Hon. Member that there was a mandate in place for over a dozen years. I ask the Hon. Member to allow the Government, which has had from December, to come forward with a mandate sometime this spring, a mandate which we hope will provide settlement of the Yukon claims.

April 13, 1987
Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION


CODE OF CONDUCT-MORTGAGE ON OTTAWA PROPERTIES- MINISTER'S ALLEGED ROLE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister regarding the Code of Conduct and conflict of interest guidelines for Ministers of the Crown. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that on February 18 of this year the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport gave a $354,000 subordinated mortgage loan on two investment properties in downtown Ottawa at 494 and 504 Albert Street which are currently the subject of a controversial redevelopment application now before City Hall, and that on the same day he filed a statement with the official responsible for the Code of Conduct which makes no reference to this $354,000 mortgage and gives no indication that it was handled through a blind trust?
In view of the risky nature of this investment can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether speculative commercial mortgage lending is a permitted activity under the Government's Code of Conduct for Ministers of the Crown?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look into this issue briefly. I am advised, and I would like to inform the House, that the Minister had a 50 per cent interest in this building. It was sold. An interim mortgage has been arranged until August. However, the transaction for the sale has been completed. When the full payment is made in August the Minister will have no further interest in the building in question.
I do not think that this is a matter of hiding anything. Everything has been revealed to the ADRG. My understanding is that this particular transaction is fully consistent with the rules that have been outlined and that the Minister has complied with the spirit of the letter of the rules.


COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY QUERY
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, 1 would remind the Deputy Prime Minister of the section of the code that specifically tells cabinet Ministers that outside of their official duties they must not actively manage or operate a business or commercial activity. While I appreciate the Minister's answer he must also be aware-and perhaps he is not-that the properties in question appear to be grossly overmortgaged, except in light of a speculative effort by the new owners to redevelop them.
When a cabinet Minister makes a $354,000 second or third mortgage loan, is that not a commercial activity which is in fact prohibited by the code? What action does the Government intend to take to enforce the code with respect to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister declared his interest. He has turned around and sold
the property. The corresponding notification has been put in place. As I said, I have looked into this matter in a preliminary way. I am advised that he is complying. But I will check further again and get back to the Hon. Member. I think that the Minister himself may wish to comment on the matter and raise it in the House himself when he returns.


MINISTER'S COMPLIANCE WITH CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the two loans about which we are speaking. One thing that is important to know in order to ascertain whether the Minister complied with the conflict of interest guidelines or not is whether these two loans were entered into by a blind trust on behalf of the Minister, or whether the Minister himself lent the money directly with respect to these two buildings on Albert Street.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think I have indicated that I would attempt to ascertain all the facts. I also indicated that I am sure the Hon. Minister would be in the House to make any comment that he may wish to clarify the issue.
I only hope that the Hon. Member who has posed the question will abide by the guidelines and the code of conduct that have been suggested by his Leader, that is, before one starts suggesting wrongdoing and allegations-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just asking questions. If you can't answer them, sit down.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -Members should try to determine the facts.


Mr. McDermid:: Nothing but innuendo!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You really should not have to go on the defensive.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Is it not funny, Mr. Speaker, these people ask questions but are not prepared to listen to the facts? They are not even patient enough to Find out the facts. I have undertaken to find out the facts-


Mr. Rossi:: You are not giving any facts.


POWER OF ATTORNEY ALLEGEDLY GRANTED TO MINISTER'S WIFE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, in view of the good intentions of the Deputy Prime Minister to obtain more information and to come back to the House with details, I would ask him while he is at it to check whether it is right that on February 18, 1987, the Hon. Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport granted a power of attorney to his wife, a certain Leata Jelinek, to act on his behalf in some of these matters, and whether she used this power of attorney to
April 13, 1987

enter into an agreement-postponing mortgage whereby the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce mortgage would have precedence over the Minister's mortgage? Could he check that, too, while he is at it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the Hon. Member is implying. It is obvious that Members opposite are leading up to another series of accusations based on suspicion, innuendo, and unfounded rumour. I might say that they are obviously doing this with the full blessing of their Leader.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Willowdale.


John Carnell Crosbie: Sleazebag Incorporated!


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


John Napier Turner: That is why we had to put
the Mounties on the last one, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: He's apparently at it again.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It's your own guy who is going to ask a question.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to point out that on Friday, in an attempt to give every opportunity to members to ask questions, Question Period was extended for some minutes. We cannot do that every day. I know that Hon. Members will respect the fact that there are other Hon. Members who will want to be heard today. The Hon. Member for Willowdale.


WAR CRIMINALS
John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Members of the Congregation B'nai Torah and myself are very concerned that the United Nations is currently holding some 38,000 closed files on World War II war criminals. Has the State of Israel approached Canada for its support in being able to examine these files? If so, will Canada give its permission?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, this was the subject of questions in the House two or three weeks ago. The State of Israel and other Governments and, indeed, judicial and quasi-judicial bodies of other Governments, have the right of access to those files. The right of access by individuals is denied. I think the House will understand that that makes sense, given the fact that those files contain many
Oral Questions
allegations that are not in a position to be verified. Thus we have not been approached by the State of Israel. But I do believe that there would not be any need for an approach to occur since Israel, under a decision by the Secretary General, has as a state that right of access.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport concerning VIA Rail. On Thursday when I questioned the Deputy Prime Minister he was unable to give me a specific answer with respect to whether or not the Government has decided not to purchase new Canadian-built rolling stock for VIA Rail. Will the Minister please advise the House and the people of Canada whether the Government is planning to go ahead with this project or not?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise the Minister because we have not made any final decision yet. But a final decision will be made certainly in a few days or in the next several weeks as to whether or not the Government can provide the additional funds that are needed in order to acquire this equipment, or just what other steps will be taken. I hope to get back to the Hon. Member shortly on that.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for the promotion.


PROPOSAL TO BUILD AND LEASE CARS TO VIA RAIL
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is the following. Is the Government prepared, if it decides it does not have the capital money to do this project, to consider seriously and accept the proposal of Transconsortium, Bombardier and UTDC, that it will finance and produce the cars and lease them to VIA Rail for 20 years?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to consider any proposal that the consortium makes. If the proposal does not involve any expenditure of money by the Government or VIA Rail, it will of course be even that more much attractive. As you know, the cars still have to be paid for and leasing is just another method of financing. However, I would look at any proposal they wish to make.

April 13, 1987
Oral Questions HARBOURFRONT


MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AT TORONTO WATERFRONT
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Public Works and concerns the Government's conflicting statements about how it intends to deal with Toronto's Elarbourfront. On Friday the Secretary of State announced a total freeze on all new development. On the same day the Minister of Public Works announced some projects would be allowed to proceed. Would the Minister please clarify which Elarbourfront developments are affected by the moratorium and why?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken note of the question and I will ensure that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, is able to follow up the matter.


TYPES OF PROJECTS INVOLVED
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, at the same time she gets that information would the Minister please confirm specifically, since there are different types of projects involved, whether the luxury condominiums are being allowed to go ahead and whether the co-op and senior citizens units are being allowed to go ahead?
[ Translation]


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that whatever the information turns out to be, it will be comprehensive.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAYS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Much of the rail rehabilitation work being done by CP is the result of federal Government initiatives. Given that, does the Government not believe that the orders for steel tie plates should be done by Canadian firms? In other words, why was an order which has traditionally gone to Stelco now gone to Japan? Why are Canadian jobs being lost?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member might provide me with more detail on this particular issue and perhaps I can get a complete response to it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Rodney Edward Murphy: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will give the Deputy Prime Minister the information. I would hope someone on the government benches, perhaps a Conservative MP from the Hamilton area, has given this information to the Government already.
The problem is that the order has traditionally gone to Stelco. CP is getting money from the federal Government. What is the federal Government going to do to make sure those orders are placed in Canada so that Canadians have jobs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, Canadian Pacific is privately owned. I believe even the Opposition would certainly be able to testify to that fact. I will have to check, just as the Deputy Prime Minister would have to check, to see whether they called tenders or just what the circumstances were or what the reason was. Canadian Pacific is a shareholder-owned private company and we are not responsible for it. We are prepared to answer for CN or other government Crown corporations.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and concerns the Prime Minister's pet prison in his riding which is costing Canadians $68 million. The Solicitor General knows that the Auditor General states unequivocally that there was no need for that prison in Port-Cartier. To add insult to injury, 25 other Correctional Service projects throughout the country have been cancelled.
Will the Minister stand up and explain to Atlantic Canadians why the $28 million prison in Newfoundland, the $18 million capital project in Westmorland, New Brunswick, and the $6 million capital project in Springhill, Nova Scotia, were cancelled? Can he explain to Atlantic Canadians where the fairness is when the Prime Minister gets a $68 million prison and those projects are cancelled?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the construction of the prison in Port-Cartier and the construction or non-construction of other projects in Canada, whether it be western Canada or eastern Canada. Correctional Service Canada is attending to the needs of all Canadians in all parts of the country.


AUDITOR GENERAL'S COMMENT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, the Solicitor General is not
April 13, 1987

answering the question. The question is why is the Prime Minister permitted to have a $68 million prison built in his riding when the Auditor General says it is not needed, while at the same time 25 other capital projects in Correctional Service have been cancelled? Answer the question. How can you justify the Prime Minister's prison while at the same time cancelling the other projects?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member does not have his facts straight. What the Auditor General was saying was that he was concerned about the location. He never at any point said there was not a need for a new prison in Quebec. As a matter of fact, it was that Hon. Member's Government which decided there should be a new prison in Quebec, at Drummondville. What we did was to build it in Port-Cartier to alleviate a socioeconomic problem in that area which required attending to.


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He knows about the cash flow problems most farmers are having. Canadian grain farmers are expecting to receive the final deficiency payment, and western grain farmers expect to receive the western grain stabilization interim payment this spring. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the Government will be making these payments before seeding begins so that farmers can pay for their essential supplies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the Hon. Member and the House that these payments will be made soon.


LOW PRICES-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, if those payments are not too late they will help with the seeding. However, future cash flow depends on the return from grain generally. Will the Government give western farmers some commitment that there will be some special assistance to counter the low prices for grains being suggested for the next crop year?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture said in this House on many occasions that he is meeting with the leaders of the farm organizations, has been meeting with them, and the method by which the payment under the $1 billion Special Grains Program is being distributed was arrived at during the course of those discussions and consultations. I think there is a recognition that there will be a serious shortfall and to that end the Minister and leaders of
Oral Questions
the farm communities are going to be looking at various ways and means to determine how that might be offset.
I am pleased that the Hon. Member and his Party have finally come around to supporting the $1 billion special grain initiative. When it was announced they certainly did not seem to be very much onside and it is nice to know that we have their support now.


FINANCE
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the February, 1986, Budget the Minister of Finance promised to table at an early date what he called a concrete proposal on the business transfer tax. That promise was not fulfilled in 1986. In the February, 1987, Budget he repeated this promise and said that it would be included in the comprehensive tax reform proposals.
Will the Minister of State for Finance advise the House of a date he will table his long-promised White Paper on tax reform, and will it include his proposal for a business transfer tax?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot announce that on behalf of the Minister of Finance. He will announce it in due course, but he has indicated that he hopes to do that before the House rises in June.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF BUSINESS TRANSFER TAX
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, many people are concerned about the Government's lack of policy in this respect. Furthermore, the delay is creating all kinds of problems. Could the Minister inform the House whether the new business transfer tax will include goods such as food and essential commodities? In other words, will the business transfer tax announced by the Minister apply, as some people have said it will, to bread, milk and doctors' fees?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is rehearsing his arguments against this tax before it has even been introduced. Those arguments can be put when the tax is suggested, if it ever will be.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: "If it ever will be", oh!

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Penner FINANCE


HOUSING TAX DEDUCTION APPLICABLE TO ISOLATED POSTS
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the criteria for designation of isolated posts which qualify for the new tax deduction in respect of housing.
The Minister will know that there are some problems with the present list which includes some prairie towns but excludes other towns some six miles down the highway.
Since it is clear that the existing, old Treasury Board guidelines are inappropriate, will the Minister re-examine the criteria for determining exactly what is an isolated post, and make an announcement of clarification at an early date?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to tell the Hon. Member that the criteria are being re-examined. I thank him for his interest, because there are problems with the criteria and the way in which they are being applied. I am very glad that he has brought the matter before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I must advise Hon. Members that the time for Question Period has expired.



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.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) had the floor.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, at one o'clock 1 was reminding the House that in his budget address the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stressed that all regions in the country were important to national prosperity, and I agree. He said that those regions which depended upon the resource sector were in some difficulty. The words he used were that "some regions are hurting". Then the Minister of Finance added that action must be taken to cushion the blow.
I was telling the House at one o'clock that we in northern Ontario, particularly northeastern Ontario where the unemployment rate is approaching 15 per cent-and across northern Ontario the youth unemployment rate is 22 per cent-were still awaiting some cushion against the economic blows we have been receiving. So far there have been no cushions at all. In fact, the Government has been introducing some additional blows. 1 was reminding the House about the 15 per cent export
tax on softwood lumber and about CNRs 3 per cent hike on the shipment of lumber into the American market. All these things were blows, not to mention additional sales and excise taxes. We are still awaiting the cushion, as promised by the Minister of Finance, for the economic blows we have been receiving.
There are regions which are hurting, and those regions are still awaiting some good news from the Minister. In his Budget address the Minister bragged about the number of new jobs which have been created. It is true that new jobs are always being created, but the Minister failed to tell us about the number of jobs which have been lost, which no longer exist.
For example, in a vigorous endeavour to remain competitive we in northern Ontario in the forest products industry have had to introduce major and very expensive new technology. However, we have lost jobs in the process.
Also, the Minister did not tell the House what kind of jobs were being created. He did not tell the House that a very large percentage of jobs, especially those for women, are now simply part-time jobs at the lowest possible wages and without all the usual benefits.
We in northern Ontario have long depended upon government assistance for job creation. We had the program under the previous administration called Canada Works. Under this Government it has been renamed the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program.


Mr. Blenkarn:: That is a good program.


B. Keith Penner: Yes, Canada Works and the Canadian Jobs Strategy are good. They help the region. However, we are noticing that the number of dollars which the Government is allocating for the program is regularly declining and decreasing, so that fewer and fewer dollars are available while unemployment remains unacceptably high and well above the national average.
I should like to remind the House once again about a program for native people, an area of the economy where unemployment is particularly high. In 1984 the Native Economic Development Program was announced. It was to spend $345 million over four years in order to assist native people to cease being the recipients of social assistance and be able to have economic development programs which would make them self-sufficient.
Since that time only a fraction of the amount of money approved by Parliament has been consistently spent year by year. For example, in 1984-85, the first year of the present administration, Parliament approved $110 million for that program. Out of that $110 million, $102 million was allowed to lapse and only $8 million was spent. Obviously the Government is not even carrying out the will of the House in respect of where unemployment is highest, where people are suffering the most, where people are relying upon social assistance, hand-outs, and welfare, and where there is an opportunity for economic development. The Government allows a substantial
April 13, 1987

amount of money to lapse, and the people continue to be in the same state as they were before.
The point I want to emphasize in conclusion is that we agree with what the Minister of Finance said, that all regions of the country are important to our prosperity, that some regions are hurting, and that this blow needs to be cushioned. However, so far we in northern Ontario have been waiting patiently for a cushioning of those blows. We have been promised a northern Ontario recovery package, and nowhere do we get the details. There has been no action at all to date on what constitutes the northern Ontario recovery package.
Coming out of a meeting in Sudbury, the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) once said to the news media, or is reported to have said, "This statement had better be something more than philosophical in nature; it better have substance". I have urged the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mazankowski) who announced the program to give us the details. Week after week I have asked, and so far I have received nothing, only silence. I want to know when we will get what the Minister of Finance promised-a cushioning of the economic blows in regions like northern Ontario, which is hurting very badly.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for his excellent speech. To us he is always the person with heart, the man who puts his region or constituency in first place and knows best how to present problems in a very concise and understandable way. I have a question for the Hon. Member on regional development, to which he alluded.
The regional development envelope has decreased by $3 billion since the Government took over in 1984. That is alarming, Mr. Speaker. The concept of Canada from the east to the west and the development of our regions requires very careful and considerate attention. It also has a north-south dimension which is very important. And I know the member agrees with me, that when we talk about Canada we also talk about a mix of the private and public sectors. The Liberal fiscal approach, of encouraging a mix of the private and Government sectors, in certain regions is the only solution.
1 know the member alluded at the end of his speech to the importance of Government participation in regional programs. The privatization program favours high employment centres, mostly in the golden horseshoe and the other highly industrialized sections of our country. When I refer to industrialized sections, we have areas which are not as industrialized as they would wish, areas which are possibly underdeveloped as far as industrial capacity is concerned. Does the Member for Cochrane-Superior not feel that this reduction of the envelope by $3 billion in less than three years has had a very direct serious impact on his area of northern Ontario?


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I detected that there were actually two questions posed by the Hon. Member for
The Budget-Mr. Penner
Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Before one o'clock I had talked about the decline in actual dollars in the regional development envelope. The decline is very serious. If you look at the Estimates you will find about a $3 billion decline which has been consistent since 1984-85.
As well, there is a cumulative effect. We have noticed in northern Ontario that for initiatives of various kinds, and we used to look to the regional development program for assistance, those dollars are no longer available. Some economists looking at our region have said that we really have to forget about having so much emphasis on big industry, on our forest sector, which is in some difficulty, to which I alluded, and on mining, which is in some difficulty because of depressed base metal prices throughout the world. The only exception is gold. I am grateful that we do have the Hemlo gold fields in the constituency of Cochrane-Superior, which is the one bright aspect, economically speaking. Economists have said that we are not looking at the existing possibilities for tourism in our magnificent region. We should be promoting tourism.
I am glad my whip asked me the question because I am going to extend an invitation to him in the next several weeks to join me on a fishing trip. If the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) behaves himself, I may even let him come along as well. I am inviting the Whip on a fishing trip and I will show him how great is the potential for tourism.
Here was a chance for the Minister of Finance in his Budget to have done something to encourage tourism in a region like northern Ontario. He could have said, "Yes, we want to encourage it". But what did he do? The Finance Minister added another 1 cent a litre to the price of gasoline; in addition to the previous 3 cents a litre we had in the last Budget. We have had a total of an extra 4 cents a litre or an extra 18 cents a gallon put on the price of gas when we already had the highest gasoline prices of any of the provinces of Canada. It is true that prices are higher in the far north. So, how is that an incentive for people who want to have a Canadian holiday somewhere in the great Canadian Shield? It is a disincentive.
If you want to fly on one of the charters at one of the main airports to a remote area for fishing-on a scheduled flight- you are stuck with another $4 on top of the ticket price. That is the contribution of the Minister of Finance to the encouragement of tourism in northern Ontario.
I repeat my theme once again. It is a simple one. We agree entirely with the Minister that some regions of this country are hurting, that the blow ought to be cushioned, but he gave us nothing at all to cushion the blow except a lot of sympathy, a lot of understanding, a lot of goodwill and many promises. But so far, Mr. Speaker, nothing in the way of action.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to have heard the invitation to go fishing in northern Ontario. I accept publicly. I will do my best when I come back to tell Canadians across this country how great the area is. I hope that my colleague and my friend, the Hon. Member for Mississauga

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Penner
South (Mr. Blenkarn), can accompany us and get to know Canada better, as well as what Canadians are all about.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying that the Minister of Finance did brag in his speech that we should all take satisfaction from the fact that the rate of inflation at least is down to 4 per cent, and isn't that something we can all be happy with because now we have more money to spend? But what he did not tell us is that the rate of inflation was the highest of any of the G-7 countries. He did not tell us that of that 4 per cent increase in the inflation rate, two to three points are directly due to the tax burden he has imposed on the citizens of Canada.
He argues in his speech that Canadians now have more disposable income. He does not say that Canadians, since he became the Minister of Finance, have been faced with a 52 per cent increase in their taxes. I am talking about the average Canadian family. The argument about the inflation rate being to the benefit of Canadians is also hollow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing from the Opposition with respect to this rather good Budget of February 18. Indeed, comments right across the country have been about the quality of the Budget and the competent administration of our Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I can only say that while the Opposition may not see any good news in the Budget, it was a Budget of a responsible Government.
The Budget indicated that our deficit in relation to the Gross National Product is down 39 per cent, our borrowing requirements in relation to the Gross National Product are down 42 per cent. The Fiscal Monitor issued March, 1987, followed up on the Budget, and I will read from three paragraphs:
For the first nine months of fiscal year 1986-87, (April to December), the budgetary deficit stood at $20.6 billion, down $3.5 billion from the level registered in the first three-quarters of fiscal year 1985-86. The year-over-year improvement in deficit continues to reflect the growth in the economy, restraint on spending and the impact, and timing of past budget measures- financial requirements, excluding foreign exchange transactions, were down $8.8 billion compared to the same period a year ago-total financial requirements, including foreign exchange requirements, stood at $18.2 billion, down $6.4 billion from that registered in the first three-quarters of 1985-86.
That is remarkable management, and it ought to be acknowledged by the other side as remarkable. The harping we have heard is not proper or fair.
We have not had an easy time in Canada during the last year or year and a half. We have seen oil prices decline from $32 a barrel down as low as $10 a barrel, at one point, and I am talking of American dollars. That resulted in a loss of some $1.5 billion in tax revenue from oil companies. It also resulted in a great-retraction in the drilling activities of the oil industry.
It has not been easy in the oil fields, and it has not been easy in the mines. Copper prices are lower than they have been since the Great Depression. Lead, nickel and zinc prices are down to almost unbelievably low levels. The grain trade, not only in wheat but in other grains, is faced with massive competition throughout the world. The effect has been that we have had to sell grains at a world price far below that which should reasonably be expected for the products. As a result, things have not been easy.
I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians have always been described as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Our wood and our water-our raw resources, our soil, timber lands and mines-have not been producing the returns they should have produced, the returns we could normally have expected. Despite that terrible performance in the resource sector and the commodity sector, the GNP has managed to increase over 3 per cent. Indeed, the growth rate was in excess of that of any other country in the OECD, and that is a remarkable performance. That remarkable performance ought to be congratulated by Hon. Members on the other side.
Our remarkable performance has been recognized by the exchange rate. The value of the Canadian dollar has increased significantly since the first of the year. Our remarkable performance can be demonstrated by the interest rates which are down to 1972 and 1973 levels. Over 200,000 homes will be built this year alone. That is remarkable. Yet we hear Hon. Members from the other side grouse, put Canada down and say how terrible things are.
It has been tough in parts of the country. It has been hard in parts of the country that rely on resources and there is a significant unemployment rate in some of those areas. That is a problem we will have to address, but we recognize the problem and we are getting at it. That is why the Government just recently committed $350 million to Alberta's oil industry. That is why the Government spent $1 billion of its funds trying to reinvigorate and help farmers in the production of grains. We are not doing nothing about the situation; we are in fact acting to try to ameliorate the problem in the commodity market and in those parts of the country where growth has not been up to snuff.
Hopefully international markets will improve. It is not the fault of the Government, however, that international markets are soft. The Government is doing what it can to ameliorate the problems of soft markets, but that is all it can do. We will try to do what we can to improve conditions, but conditions cannot be improved by government action alone. We need new international agreements on resources so that countries do not continue to compete with each other by giving away their heritages.
I would like to speak for a moment about the reforms of the House of Commons because I think those reforms are important to Parliament and I think the Budget debate should emphasize those important reforms. I am particularly
April 13, 1987

impressed with the way the committee system has operated. It has given Parliamentarians a better handle on how Ministries are operated.
It is important that we as Members of Parliament exercise our review function and exercise it more diligently. It is important that we examine and cross-examine Ministers and their officials on how they are performing their jobs. Surely when a Government is the size that it is, and represents the invasion into the lives of individuals that it does, it is imperative that we as representatives of the people cross-examine those officials to ensure that the programs they are supposed to be delivering are giving us full value for the money expended. Where those programs are not giving full value, we must as sensible Members of Parliament suggest the removal of, or change in those programs so that Canadians get full value for their tax dollars.
In that respect, may I commend the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) for the way she has conducted the Public Accounts Committee, and members of other committees that have tried to find out how programs are carried out and administered.
I think it is also important that the Government continue to do the things it has been doing in terms of asking directly and indirectly that committees exercise their powers under Standing Order 96(2) to make inquiries into programs and anticipated programs of Government so Members of Parliament will have input before those programs are put into legislation. It is that first look at an idea that gives us as Members of Parliament an advantage. We can have our say in how the country should be governed and how the new activities and thrusts of Government should be put forward.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has made an effort to ensure that we as Members of Parliament have the freedom to express ourselves, through the committee system in particular. However, we ought to take a look at the other rules of the House. For the last week the House has been stalemated by one procedural motion after another. In Great Britain, a debate on a complicated piece of legislation can be finished in one day's sitting. There is no reason for delaying and delaying pieces of legislation that are brought before the House, particularly when there is provision for a committee system to allow in-depth analysis of the problems envisaged in Bills and procedures.
The House must reform its rules on debate. We cannot allow important pieces of legislation to be held up while a war takes place across the aisle over whether or not a piece of legislation demanded by the Government is essential. Surely to goodness the voters will eventually decide that; surely to goodness the whole country should not be held for ransom because of procedural delays.
From the point of view of the Finance Committee, it is essential that the Government get ahead with Bill C-42. That Bill deals with combining the Inspector General's office and
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
the office of the Superintendent of Insurance. That recommendation was made by the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs a year and a half ago, and it is essential that it be implemented.
Included in that Bill are powers to be given to the new office of the Superintendent of Insurance so that he may discipline and keep in line the trust companies, banks and insurance companies under the aegis of his powers. With some of the things that are happening in the real estate market, particularly in the greater Toronto area, I think it is essential that the Superintendent of Insurance have those powers contained in that Bill. Yet while the House debates Bill C-22 and holds it back, we cannot get at that important piece of legislation.
It is important that before the end of June the House come to the realization that we require rules of procedure that will enable matters to come to a vote, and come to a vote quickly. We cannot be held up any longer by delays and delays. It is bad for Parliament and it is bad for the democratic process, and in a country that is supposed to be progressive and able to come to grips with problems quickly, the causing of one procedural delay after another makes a mockery of democracy.
I would like to deal with the very important matter of tax reform. Our Income Tax Act is unbelievably complex. It is so complex that even leading chartered accountants have indicated that they themselves cannot understand the provisions and ramifications of it. Mr. Don Hugget appeared before the Finance Committee and, addressing me as chairman said, "I cannot understand the Act myself'. He indicated that he had to have someone else help him with his own income tax return.
Tax returns are complicated so badly that despite every effort by Revenue Canada to produce a simplified and easily read form, Dian Cohen indicated the other day on Canada AM that before people even attempt to fill in their income tax returns they ought to buy one of several books which she recommended on how to fill out tax forms.
The Income Tax Act, which contains at least 100 separate allowances, deductions and provisions of benefit in one form or another, creates such complexity that the fairness in allowing these various deductions and allowances is lost. When average people read on their tax forms, "deductions, other", they wonder whether they are getting the benefit to which they are entitled in the tax system. When people believe a tax system is unfair, it is unfair. Because it is unfair it must be simplified to the point where reasonable people with reasonable intelligence can file their tax returns.
To that extent you may recall that last June the Finance Committee filed a substantial report on tax simplification. It is our hope and indeed our requirement that the tax reform package contain provisions of simplification to make the filing of a tax return far easier than it is today. It should be simple

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Blenkarn
enough that ordinary people can complete their tax return without any professional assistance. That is not the case today and it must be one of the prime requirements of tax reform.
Not only does the present system seem unfair to individuals, but indeed it may well be unfair in itself. The New Democratic Members of Parliament have suggested that certain companies do not pay tax. To some extent they are right. Companies do not pay tax if they are not taxable. When the insurance industry was before the Finance Committee we asked why it did not pay tax. When the trust companies were before the committee we asked why they did not pay tax. When the banks were before us we asked why they did not pay tax. We asked the big real estate developers why they did not pay tax.
They do not pay tax because the present rules are such that they are not taxable. If they are not taxable, they ought to be taxable. The tax reform package ought to make them taxable. I expect that the reform package as presented by the Government will in fact make them taxable so that the unfairness complained of by the other side will no longer exist and Canadians will no longer believe that they are not being treated with the elementary justice to which they are entitled.
Through tax reform, provision should be made for married couples to file joint returns. I believe that all of the attribution rules presently in the system which allow for the transfer of deductions and income from one to another ought to be disposed of. Those are an exceptionally complicated series of provisions. A provision for joint returns would greatly simplify this.
The most important element of tax reform is to ensure that those people who live in poverty, who earn less than the minimum required to put bread and salt on the table, do not pay income tax. That, surely, must be one of the principal thrusts of tax reform. The tax system must reduce tax rates for the poor and lower income people while reducing the over-all personal rate. The over-all personal rate in itself discourages legitimate investment activity. In the current income tax system we have high rates and a whole series of fool deductions. If you take advantage of the deductions you can wind up with a very low rate. Surely we can get rid of the deductions and have a median rate ensuring that everyone pays a fair share. We can have two or three gradations to simplify matters rather than having 14 or 16 different levels. Such a method of taxation would ensure that people are not forever trying to find loopholes or hideaways in the Income Tax Act in order to pay less tax.
I think it is essential that we have a new sales tax system. We cannot continue with the present system which deliberately bonuses importers and deliberately penalizes exporters. If a business transfer tax can be organized to do that, I believe that would be the best form of taxation to have. I hope that when the Government presents its tax reform it will deal with a business transfer tax on goods in order to get rid of the horrendously complicated and unfair sales tax system we presently have to ensure that we come to grips with the problem of imports and exports.
Finally, I think it is important that we deal with capital gains tax. I think all capital gains ought to be tax free, but very few things ought to be considered as capital gains. A capital gain is a long-term gain made by a farmer on his farm over a lifetime, made by a homeowner over a long period of time, or made by someone who started a business, ran it for most of his life, and then sold it. It is not a short-term trade in commodity futures.
That is the kind of thing which is considered a capital gain today and that ought to be fully taxable. A capital gain is not the profit on a strip bond. That is income and ought to be taxed at full rates. We should have capital gains relief for true capital gains and taxation for true income. Activities in the nature of trade are true income, not capital gains, and ought to be taxed at full rates.
I note that my time is up. I would like to speak longer. However, I would like to say that this is a good Budget, and the tax reform promises to be a good tax reform.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I came back from my office to listen to the speech of the Hon. Member. As you know, he chaired the very interesting Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs where he and I have discussed many of the issues concerning tax reform.
I want to make sure that I understood what the Hon. Member just said about capital gains. It seemed rather new, coming from the Hon. Member who fought for total exemption of capital gains. I am very interested in what he said from a technical point of view. How is it possible to distinguish the true capital gain from the one he just mentioned? The Hon. Member gave, as an example of true capital gain, the farmer who inherited a farm from his father 25 or 30 years ago and sells it to his son or another individual. What happens if that same person kept the farm for five years? Is capital gains determined by time or another mechanism? I would be interested to hear more of what the Hon. Member had in mind.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Income Tax Act could have a series of rules built in that would indicate what is a capital gain and what is income. It seems to me that the prejudice ought to be in favour of income as opposed to gain. It would seem, then, that a gain made in less than five years ought to be presumed an income gain, unless the taxpayer can prove to the contrary. It would seem to me that a gain made in over five years ought to be a capital transaction, unless the Government can prove to the contrary.
It would seem, though, that with certain transactions involving the market, such as the strip bond where the built-in gain already exists, that clearly is a situation where money was put up to buy a defined fixed return. That is a designed return on a particular asset over a particular period of time. Transactions such as that which now pass as capital gain ought to be treated as income.
April 13, 1987

However, the general theory is that there ought to be a reverse burden of proof on a period of time. Determining what period is fair or unfair is another matter, but surely that ought to be the theory behind what I am talking about.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, it may be possible to design a mechanism in that respect. After listening to the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), I feel that he is increasingly becoming a red Tory. We are not used to that.
I am very interested in his proposal to eliminate from the tax roll all those who are under the poverty line, although he has not defined what the poverty line is. Would he accept the definition of the poverty line given by Statistics Canada, or does he have another definition of the poverty line?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) is absolutely right. It is difficult to determine what is the poverty line. A number of people have indicated the poverty line as being $8,000 on a single basis and $12,000 for those who are married without children. It is difficult in a country like Canada to define poverty. What is a poverty situation in some parts of Ontario, for example, is affluence in other parts. For example, the poverty line in Mississauga would be very much higher than those figures, whereas the poverty line near my cottage might be substantially less, simply because it is a trading economy with such things as farm products and so on where cash income is perhaps not as important as income from land and trading.
It is always difficult to determine a poverty line in a country like Canada. I believe we ought to be considering it as something like $8,000 on a single basis, $12,000 for married people without children, and an additional amount for families with children. That is always subject to change and what is fiscally possible.


Mr. Ravis:: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the suggestion that my colleague, the Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), is a red Tory. I am beginning to wonder if the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) is a blue Liberal.
I want to compliment the Hon. Member for Mississauga South because I believe he told the story as it is. He gave credit where credit is due in the Budget while admitting that there are some inequities which must be addressed, hopefully in the upcoming tax reform.
That leads me to my question. In his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, will he comment on what time frame is required for a Government which came to office in 1984 to deal with all that is happening, especially with respect to something as complex as the tax system? The Liberal Party seems to be very impatient for our tax reform package. The New Democratic Party is also impatient, and I notice that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has been sending requests for financial assistance to his Party so that it can try to bring on this tax reform sooner than it can be done by the Government.
Budget-Mr. Keeper


Mr. Keeper:: Make a donation.


Donald Paul Ravis: I will not make a donation, but I will ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee to give us a realistic time frame. One would think that it is not a matter one would jump into without knowing all the answers or fully understanding the questions.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the tax reform problems are much more difficult in Canada than perhaps in most other countries. We have an income tax system federally and provincially in which the federal Government collects income taxes on a personal basis from nine of the provinces and on a corporate basis from seven of the provinces. Our tax system is generally integrated with the provinces in terms of transfer and so on, which means that it requires a great deal of consultation and effort to work out an equitable system that will return to junior levels of government their appropriate share of revenue while not causing any undue displacement of investment in one part of the country compared to another.
The Government has been working very diligently on this problem. I am sure it would like to have been able to present the full tax reform package in the February Budget. I suppose the work is far more complicated than one would realize at the outset, but I am reasonably convinced that the Government will be able to come forward with an equitable package before the end of the spring. That package will have to be examined by Canadians, and it is essential that Canadians from across the country have their input in that package. To the extent that what the Government suggests will not wash with Canadians, I would think that the Committee on Finance ought to listen to Canadians and be able to come up with recommendations for perhaps even further change.
Tax reform clearly must be a matter of consensus. It must be a matter where no one part of society is unfairly injured. I say "unfairly injured" because some people are perhaps not paying the taxes they should. Some organizations perhaps are not carrying the tax burden they should. However, we must ensure that in asking them to carry a larger tax burden, we do not so upset their activities in the country as to injure the country over-all. It is not an easy matter but it is a matter the Government is dedicated to complete. I am sure the Government will be calling upon all Hon. Members of the House for their co-operation, efforts and energies.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to enter into this debate. I must say I have just about forgotten what this Budget is all about. It has been a while since the Budget came before the House and the time of the House has been taken up with other matters. I welcome the fact that we are back on the Budget debate. It needs to be completed. The Budget needs to have the debate that it deserves.
I am also glad that the legislation with regard to generic drugs is not before the House today, because that is an unjust

April 13, 1987
Budget-Mr. Keeper
project the Government has undertaken and to which it has committed itself and the Government should have time to reflect. 1 hope the Government uses the opportunity today to take another look at its attempt to give a sweetheart deal to the pharmaceutical drug companies, thereby taking money out of the pockets of ordinary Canadian consumers, particularly elderly people who have a hard enough time to make their dollars meet their expenses. I hope the Government will use this time to reflect and will find its heart when it has an opportunity to take a look at what it is doing.
As I said, it has been a while since this Budget was presented in this House, and I had to go back and reflect on just what it is all about. After having looked at some of its provisions, I have come to the conclusion that this Budget is a do-nothing Budget. It has no major initiatives. It takes very little action. Therefore, it is very understandable why I had forgotten the contents of the Budget. It is a Budget that shows the Government cares very little about the average Canadian family, about the hardest hit regions and the poor, whether those poor are here in Canada or in the Third World.
I want to elaborate on my conclusions. I want to comment about what I see as the impact of the Budget. What could the Government have done instead of doing nothing? Can we afford to act? Do we have the money to do some of the things that I would like to suggest we should have done? To begin with, I say the Budget is a do-nothing Budget because it does very little or nothing for the average Canadian family. I think we should take note of the fact that over the last couple of years under a Conservative Government, taxes on the ordinary Canadian family have been growing. In fact, over the last couple of years, taxes have risen by some $1,350, so that the average family is now paying $1,350 more a year in taxes than it did two years ago before this Government was elected. Obviously, the majority of Canadians who elected this Government, hoped for much better. They hoped their condition would improve. They hoped to be able to face their financial responsibilities a little better today than a couple of years ago. Canadians are not unrealistic. They do not expect miracles overnight. However, they did expect some improvement in their condition. What in fact they received was a whopping increase in taxes. We might say this was fair if we were able to conclude that everyone had to pay more taxes because we were trying to dig ourselves out of a massive debt hole created by the previous Liberal Government. Obviously, there is a massive debt created by that Government. The argument could be made that it is fair for everyone to pay more taxes because we have to get rid of this debt. But is it fair?
At the same time that the average Canadian family is paying $1,350 a year more in taxes, wealthy Canadians have been given a tax break through changes in the lifetime capital gains exemption. If one owns property, and if that property rises in value to the extent of $.5 million, one would not have to pay taxes on that. Therefore, if one is wealthy, there is a tax break. At the same time, average Canadian families had their
taxes increased. So I contend that it is unfair. I suggest that the average Canadian would consider that an unfair approach to raising revenue. Canadians recognize that in order to have services, they must pay, but they want these services to be paid for in a fair manner, but when they have to pay vastly increased taxes at the same time that wealthy Canadians get a tax write-off, they must conclude that it is unfair.
Another aspect of fairness with regard to taxation in this Budget has to do with those Canadians who live in poverty, which is fully a fifth of the Canadian population. Obviously, we could have some debate about just exactly how many people are poor or how many are not poor, but I think there is a general consensus that at least a fifth of the population could be considered poor, to put the estimates in modest terms. What we note about taxes is that Canada's poorest individuals and families have to pay taxes on incomes of less than half the poverty line. So not only can one be poor living below the poverty line, having less income than it takes to provide for one's own basic human needs, but at the same time one can be asked to pay taxes. Individuals who are really in difficult circumstances are still being asked to pay taxes. It strikes me as unfair to ask people, who are earning less than half of what an income would be if they were at the poverty line, to pay taxes, at the same time that wealthy Canadians who have large capital gains are being told their taxes are forgiven. That is unfair. When a Budget does nothing about that kind of situation, it can justly be called a do-nothing Budget.
Canadians are not only concerned about the poor in Canada. We are concerned about all the poor because we have a sense of justice and compassion. In fact, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was campaigning referred to Canadians' compassion and really sought to gain support from Canadians by indicating that he shared that value. But what have the Conservatives done in the Budget? They have reduced the amount of official development assistance by $150 million this year. They have reduced the amount of aid which goes to the poorer countries in this world. That is unfair. We can all remember the terrible famine that took place in Ethiopia. We can remember the graphic pictures of starving children that we saw on television. Canadians responded to the need. They gave from their own pockets. To give the Government credit, it also responded in those moments. But it is to these types of situations that we have to respond on an ongoing basis. This means that we need to place a higher priority on the assistance we give to the Third World rather than a lower priority. I say "priority" because I think it is possible for Canada to raise the revenue to do the things it needs to do and at the same time to have enough revenue to help globally, to help bring about greater justice in the world.
In fact, what the Government has done through this Budget is to reduce the amount of money that we spend on development assistance. I call that doing nothing since there are changes in policy with regard to development aid that the Government could have undertaken. It could have accepted
April 13, 1987

some of the long-standing recommendations from the development community which calls for aid to be on time. In other words, when we undertake an aid program in a given country, the resources should respond to the priorities of the country rather than to our own priorities in terms of our economic development or in terms of the types of goods our companies sell. It has been well documented that giving aid to another country while tying it to that country's purchasing goods from Canada can distort the aid. Thus we end up not helping the country. While on paper we are claiming to help, in reality we are not helping at all. In fact, we are wasting our own money. If we want to spend money on development aid then we want it to be spent effectively. We want it to result in development. While the Government could have done something in this area in fact it has done nothing.
The Budget has postponed the whole question of tax reform. There is a growing consensus in the country that the tax system is unjust, that it is too complicated, that there are too many loopholes in it and that we have to find a more fair way to raise the revenue we need in order to deliver the services which the Government has the responsibility to deliver, However, the Government has postponed any efforts at tax reform. Rather than bringing forward something with respect to tax reform in this Budget, which was an opportunity for the Government to take action, it chose to do nothing. It chose to put off the day when we will see tax reform. One can speculate as to why it did that. Perhaps it hopes that it can have a tax reform package prepared for the next election and announce it just before it in an attempt to curry public favour, in an attempt to seek to improve its own political fortunes. If I wanted to be cynical about the whole matter I would say that it would announce such proposals at a time approaching the next election but too late to give Canadians an opportunity to experience the impact of such a measure. In this way the average Canadian would have no real way of evaluating the impacts of such measures and whether they really lived up to the promises made. Instead of acting on tax reform, the Budget has further increased taxes on the average Canadian family by $65 to $100 per year.
So taxes have been increased in the Budget, inclusive of taxes on gasoline, airline tickets, cigarettes and snack food. We have all heard of heartless Governments before. However, a Government that increases taxes on children's candy, on granola bars and chocolate bars, is truly heartless. I must say that I try to discourage my children from eating chocolate bars because I know that they are not good for their teeth. I know that sugar can decay teeth. However, I am not always successful in this end and, of course, a child can buy a granola bar rather than a chocolate bar.
Why has the Government chosen to pick on little children while giving tax breaks to wealthy Canadians? It has chosen to impose taxes on snack foods, thus taking candy out of the mouths of babes. That is heartless. While it imposes taxes on children's candy it does nothing in terms of child care. The
Budget-Mr. Keeper
Government postponed action on child care. This is a key area in which there is a growing consensus with respect to the need for action. It is one of the most important areas of public policy in which Governments will be constantly pressured for action until we arrive at a point at which there is adequate child care. Because of demographic changes and because of changes in work habits we need day care in a way that we have yet to face up to. The Government has chosen to tax children's candy and do nothing about child care-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: I hear laughter from members of the Government. I understand that they do not like having the shortcomings of this Budget pointed out. I am sure their laughter is a result of their embarrassment. Perhaps they have failed to read the Budget which was presented to the House.
The Budget is not only unfair to the poor and the children but it is also unfair to the regions of Canada, to the Atlantic region, to British Columbia, parts of the Prairies, and parts of Quebec and Ontario which have unemployment rates of 15 per cent to 20 per cent.


An Hon. Member:: Not on the Prairies!


Cyril Keeper: My Conservative colleague says: "Not on the Prairies". I know that in Manitoba we have a very low unemployment rate. In part that is due to the initiatives of the New Democratic Government which is in office in that province. However, it is also important to know that it is time the Government woke up to the fact that Manitoba needs respect as a region, that Manitoba needs industrial economic development. It is not enough for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to quote our low unemployment rate since it does not reflect the whole of the province. It does not reflect the fact of the need for development in Manitoba. We are still not at an equal level with Toronto, which is the impression the Government seeks to put forward.
What I really wish to say about the Budget is that it is a lost opportunity. It is a do-nothing Budget. It is a Budget that did nothing for the poor, nothing for the hardest hit regions of the country, and nothing for average Canadian families.

Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair Budget. It is a Budget that does nothing for the average Canadian, for the regions or for the poor. Mr. Speaker, it is time this Government took action and did something for Canadians. It is not enough to increase taxes. Canadians need services such as daycare and regional development programs.
This Budget, however, does nothing for anyone.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments.

April 13, 1987
Budget-Mr. Keeper


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I think my friend made a remarkable speech. I was really impressed. I was also wondering if he had even bothered to read the Budget, let alone the Estimates.
At the outset he talked about foreign aid, but forgot the fact that we have increased aid to underdeveloped countries by $450 million. He does not even give us credit for that. He talked as if it were cut back. Then he went on to the question of chocolate bars. Chocolate bars have been taxed all along. Did he not know that? Did he not know that we felt that if we are going to tax chocolate bars, then peanuts and potato chips ought to be taxed as well? After all, they are snack foods. Why, in the interest of fairness, would he not want chocolate bars to be taxed when peanuts and granola bars are taxed? Why would he not want the tax to be spread equally?
In his remarks he went further and talked about child care. He ought to know, if he has been around this House at all, that a very important committee report was tabled concerning this issue. He ought to know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is negotiating with his provincial counterparts to create a Canadian child care program. Yet according to him this should be included in the Budget even before there is any federal-provincial conference on the issue. Most unbelievable of all, he talks about tax reform as if it were never going to happen. He knows the Minister has undertaken to produce the report as soon as he can this spring.
I just want to know from the Hon. Member if he bothered to read the Budget or the Estimates.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure my friend that I read the Budget. I remember sitting here in this House listening to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) deliver the Budget. I appreciate the rhetorical flourish of the Hon. Member. He has a nice turn of phrase and, being a man of experience, knows how to do it.
The point I was making with regard to foreign aid is the same point 1 made about the Budget. It is a do-nothing Budget.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: A $450 million increase is to do nothing?


Cyril Keeper: To illustrate that I made the point that official development assistance will be adjusted to save $150 million this year. The Government reduced planned spending by $150 million this year for official development assistance. I was not saying that the absolute level of development assistance had dropped, but the money to be spent had been taken out of the Estimates. That means a reduced commitment to development assistance. This comes at a time when we could be increasing our commitment and making our policies more effective. At present development assistance is tied to other things, and if we untied it then we could make it more effective and responsive.
The Hon. Member mentioned chocolate bars. He says we taxed snack foods because we already taxed chocolate bars. That is an interesting notion of fairness. It is kind of like
saying if I kick you once, maybe I should kick you twice. I can understand that this might be the Tory definition of fairness. However, I was simply pointing out that to tax children's candy at the same time that the Government fails to take any concrete action to provide the services children need is what I consider to be a do-nothing and unfair approach. The Hon. Member says we have to wait for the committee report on child care. We have to wait for the federal-provincial conference. Why bring in a Budget if it contains no plan of action? Why not take some action in the Budget? You do not have to develop the program fully in one Budget, but you could take a few steps forward, or maybe even one step forward. Why not put in this Budget some start-up funds for daycare? Why not take that first symbolic step to show good faith on child care?
The Hon. Member says I talked about tax reform as if it would never happen. Maybe it never will. We have heard about tax reform time and time again and so far there has been no action. How do we know there will be action? The Government has continued to raise taxes in an unfair way on ordinary Canadian families. Over the last couple of years it has raised taxes by more than $1,350 per family, and this Budget does it again. How can we accept the Government's promises of tax reform as being credible when it is raising taxes on ordinary Canadians while reducing taxes for the wealthy and promising reform in the future?


Mr. Winegard:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague two specific questions.


Mr. Oberle:: Keep them simple.


William C. Winegard: By what percentage did official Canadian development assistance increase in the Budget? As well, does he not agree that, all other things being equal, we should use Canadian goods and services in our official development assistance?


Cyril Keeper: I will deal with those questions in reverse order. Yes, all other things being equal, we should use Canadian goods and services. Why not? The problem is that the Government has failed to deal with the problem, indeed it is being exacerbated, because it has introduced into development assistance a commercial motive. It has even advertised this in the annual reports and booklets it sends to the business community. It tells them that this is their chance to get a contract involving development aid. The Government is emphasizing the economic benefit to Canadian firms of development assistance. The problem with that approach is that we have allocated that money to help the poor areas of the world. That is why Canadians support the expenditure. When you tie that aid to the requirement that it be spent in Canada, you distort the development process and priorities in the Third World country you are trying to assist. The aid has to be untied in order to be effective. Of course, if we preserve the priorities of development in the Third World countries so that our help is effective and the money well spent and at the same time we use Canadian products, great, we will celebrate that.
April 13, 1987

However, we need to have a change in policy so the emphasis is more on how the aid can be effective rather than on the commercial advantage to Canadian firms.
What I find disturbing about the Budget and the Government's action on development aid is that it continues to put off reaching the target of .5 per cent of GNP for development aid. In other words, the Government continues to put off an internationally agreed upon goal for development assistance at the same time that it reduced the amount of planned spending on official development assistance by $150 million. I think that shows a lack of priority for official development assistance.


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on the Budget. Of course, this is the third complete Budget presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and really the fourth major economic statement if we count the one in the fall of 1984.
It is quite clear that the Minister of Finance has undertaken a major restructuring of the economy, a major restructuring of social systems, including pension systems, and has now embarked upon a major restructuring of the tax system, the details of which are just hinted at in the Budget.
I should like to start by reviewing the success which the Minister of Finance has had over his term, because I believe he will go down in history as one of the great, or possibly the greatest, Finance Minister our country has had. Given the situation which he took over, and given the disaster and chaos in the Canadian economy in 1982, 1983, and 1984, the turnaround has been truly remarkable.
Since the Minister of Finance was appointed in September, 1984, employment growth in Canada has averaged 2.5 per cent. It is a little difficult for people to recognize just what that represents. It represents being first in the world in terms of employment growth among all major OECD countries. Some 700,000 jobs have been created in Canada since the Government took power.
To give an idea of the magnitude of that figure, in 1986 alone more jobs were created in Canada than in all western Europe combined, which of course has many times our population base. However, I will admit that those jobs have not been created uniformly across the country. My particular riding is one which has benefited, but I remember well in 1982, constituents coming to me who had lost their jobs or were losing their houses because of high interest rates. There was a tremendous sense of despair and depression as people were laid off or forced to meet rapidly increasing interest rates.
Now York-Scarborough is booming. We believe that we have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. We have the fastest rates of job expansion, housing expansion, and population growth. It is obvious that these policies are now working in the rest of the country as the employment picture continues to improve. For example, in the first two months of this calendar year, some 30,000 jobs were created in Quebec,
The Budget-Mr. McCrossan
principally in Montreal. Montreal is beginning to see the benefits of the policies brought in by the Minister of Finance.
I mentioned mortgage interest rates. Interest rates in general have fallen faster in Canada than in any other part of the world since September, 1984. It is important to recognize that the prime rate of interest is close to a 10-year low. It is now possible to obtain mortgages with single digit interest rates.
I remember when I bought my own house in 1970. I was paying 10.25 per cent on a five-year mortgage at that time. Interest rates are below that now. They are down into single digits. In fact, for those who want short-term mortgages, they can now obtain them for 8 per cent and change.
Let us compare that with the chaos caused under the policies of the previous Government where mortgage interest rates hit 22 per cent. I remember being invited by an entire condominium association to visit their houses, to advise them on what to do with their mortgages, and to develop personal financial plans because they were afraid of losing them.
However, things have changed dramatically in five years. Obviously 90-day commercial deposit rates are down at 10-year lows. Credit card interest rates have started to fall. If the Minister of Finance had not created an environment in which the cost of money was falling, credit card interest rates would not be falling as well. Certainly in the last two weeks to three weeks we have seen every major bank fall in line and reduce credit card interest rates by almost 3 per cent. It is an enormous drop and is credit to what is happening in the economy.
We could look at all kinds of economic indices, but let us look at the dollar. It started declining shortly after 1976 when it was well above par. It declined in a ratchet manner to a low of 71.5 cents just before the last election. There is no doubt that we have had a considerable problem turning around the dollar, but it is now sitting on the verge of 77 cents. This means an enormous increase in the purchasing power of Canadians when they buy food from the United States or take U.S. vacations. It certainly represents a very important step for people such as my mother who, because of her health condition, finds it very difficult to live through our cold winters. These are important economic developments for Canadians.
The growth in Canadian output in 1986 at 3.3 per cent topped that of all major countries. If we measure the growth in real output since September, 1984, we see that Canada is second only to Japan. Most of us would agree that Japan is the economic miracle of the world and has been through the 1980s. However, how many of us stop to think that since the election we are running neck and neck with Japan, and last year we actually passed Japan and were first among all countries in the world?
The employment growth we have seen has led to a steady fall in unemployment as the last 2.5 years have gone by. Unemployment rates are now down by almost 2 per cent. The

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. McCrossan
effects are being felt across the country with the majority of jobs being created being full-time ones.
The last Government had a cost of living plan. Somehow it hoped to get down to as low as 6 per cent and 5 per cent. I guess they were nice objectives for the day, but through the actions of the Minister of Finance we have seen the cost of living in Canada settle down in the 3 per cent to 4 per cent range, almost half what the previous Government thought was achievable.
The deficit, another important measure of international economic activity, has shown a dramatic fall. It is important to recognize this not only in national terms but in international terms as well. In national terms there was a steady and dramatic increase in the deficit between 1980 and fiscal 198485. The deficit rose from around $10 billion to $11 billion up into the high thirties, through just plain economic mismanagement. We have seen a steady decrease in each of the first three years covered by the first three Budgets of the Minister of Finance. This year it will be down to the same level as that in the United States in terms of the deficit as a proportion of the Gross National Product.
Let us put that in perspective in international terms. When we took office in September, 1984, our deficit was almost twice as large, as a percentage of the Gross National Product, as that of the United States. It is quite clear that next year or the year after that we will be below the U.S. deficit as the economic plan comes into full fruition. This has been done primarily through program expenditure reductions. This fiscal year represents the first year in which there are actual reductions in program expenditures since the Korean War. No other Government has had the courage to do what the Minister of Finance has done in his three Budgets.
As I said, we have had a major turn-around. For example, the reduction in interest rates has prompted a boom in housing construction across the country. I remember when the predecessor member for my riding was the Minister responsible for housing and talked about maybe constructing up to 120,000 housing units per year. We will have 200,000 new houses constructed in Canada this year. That is primarily a tribute to the improving economic environment and to the very low rates of interests available for people to finance their houses.
To listen to the Opposition, you would think that all this was an accident, that we were exceptionally lucky or that somehow we were catching up with the rest of the world. I know one thing, Mr. Speaker, it is possible now and then to fluke in to a lucky gain in one area. Look at the areas that I have enumerated. We are number one in the world in so many different areas that it cannot conceivably be argued and dismissed, as the Opposition seems to, as being some sort of accident or some sort of blind luck. I am reminded of the Canadian humorist Stephen Leacock who once said: "The harder I work, the luckier I get". That really is the true explanation for
sustained luck. Sustained luck may appear as luck to those who do not work hard. It may appear as luck to those who do not have a plan, who do not understand how to produce good fortune, but sustained good luck is the result of planning and hard work.
I mentioned in my introductory remarks that in his Budget the Minister of Finance has had a record of continuously improving the environment for pensions and annuities, particularly in the private sector. That trend has continued in this Budget. Important restrictions were removed in this Budget that were introduced in the 1981 MacEachen Budget. In 1981 Mr. MacEachen introduced severe tax penalties for those people who were trying to save for their retirement through the use of single premium deferred annuities. He said, in effect, that if you retire before age 60, you would pay the full tax immediately upon seeking retirement or you would pay the full tax at the end of six years and you could not build up money for retirement. The Minister of Finance in this Budget has changed the rules to provide a fair system of taxation for the single premium deferred annuities so that people can elect to retire before age 60. This is a follow-through on the changes that the Minister brought in with Bill C-90. He provided in his May 1985 Budget that pension plans must provide for early retirement within 10 years before normal retirement. The Minister has eliminated the nonsense introduced by Finance Minister MacEachen that you cannot retire before age 60, and if you do you will have tax penalties. That is not in line with current thinking. The measure in this Budget is an important one for tens of thousands of Canadian savers.
Also the Minister of Finance has introduced rules for splitting CPP pensions. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the Canada Pension Plan Bill passed last June there were provisions so that a husband and wife could decide to rearrange their Canada Pension Plan payments. If the husband's payment happened to be higher or if the husband happened to have the only CPP pension, the couple could split the pension between the husband and the wife. Under the old income tax attribution rules, while people could physically transfer payments, one could not transfer the tax effect of the payments. Our Finance Minister has brought in progressive measures in this Budget so that now families can rearrange their CPP payments between the two spouses so that they can not only split the payments but also share the tax advantages of re-arranging the payments. Similarly, in the Minister's pension reform legislation, he has been very conscious of the fact that women, spouses, have been hard done by in the past. In the legislation following from this Budget we will see special provisions for the next seven years to allow the roll-over of pensions into spousal RRSPs of up to $6,000 a year, so that those spouses who were not adequately provided for through retirement pension plans and through having participated in the workforce can have money built up in their own names. It is important that these tax measures will primarily benefit single women-single not in the sense that they are single now but in the sense that as women outlive men they are widowed-and the major poverty problem in Canada over the last
April 13, 1987

10 years has been the plight of the widow. By setting up these income tax incentives, the Minister is taking direct steps to attack poverty.
We also have a number of measures in the Budget with respect to tax avoidance and tax reform. Revenue Canada now has a new service orientation, which includes opening up offices in new areas of the country, such as in my riding. In addition to providing better service, we are tending to provide a fairer service. Fairer service means not only ensuring that people get good advice but that we can track down people attempting to avoid tax. This Budget provides for an increase in the Revenue Canada staff allocations as well.
In the Budget general rules for tax reform are set out. It is important to recognize that tax reform will be presented this year, before the summer recess. It will be studied by the House of Commons Finance Committee and brought back to the House in the form of concrete legislation toward the end of the year or in next year's Budget. It will result in a dramatic change in the fairness and the progressivity of the tax system in Canada, for example, personal income tax. It is obvious that we have all read the stories of the many high-income Canadians who have avoided paying tax. At the same time many financial commentators have mentioned that you virtually cannot prepare a tax form now without reading three or four books to prepare yourself for it. Things are getting more and more complicated. We need a simpler tax system which has lower rates of taxation so that people do not have the same incentives for tax avoidance. We need one which ensures that the personal tax base is as broad as possible so that people cannot avoid tax. Last year we introduced temporary measures with the special minimum tax provisions. It is obvious these were temporary measures and that the real solution is to recast the whole income tax system. The alternative minimum tax will not be needed because the tax system itself will ensure that the proper rates of tax are collected from those high-income Canadians.
Another thing dealt with through tax reform is the tendency over the last 30 years for the proportion of government revenues provided by personal income tax to increase. In 1960, during the days of the Diefenbaker Conservative Government, only one-third of total tax collections came from personal taxes. That level has risen just about each and every year on a fairly steady basis. By 1986, personal income taxes accounted for something like 50 per cent of total tax collections, which is too high. We want to see the reliance on the personal tax base reduced. It has to be reduced because middle and low-income Canadians deserve a better tax system.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: At the same time as we are bringing these new taxes to bear on the high-income Canadians who have been avoiding them, we want to ensure that low-income Canadians, particularly those below the poverty line, are largely removed from the tax rolls.
The Budget-Mr. McCrossan


Cyril Keeper: You must be a red Tory.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: I am a Progressive Conservative.


John R. Rodriguez: There is no such thing.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: We also have to look at the other main sources of tax revenue. The manufacturer's sales tax used to provide, if we go back to 1960, one-third of our total tax revenue. The base has been narrowing substantially, both as a result of the exemptions given and as a result of the fact that the growth in the economy has been in the non-manufacturing sector. That means the revenues from sales taxes have dropped from one-third of revenue to one-fifth of revenue. We need to look at a broader based tax. Not only are we not collecting tax from the economy as a whole in proportion to its ability to bear the tax, but the current sales tax as it has been allowed to deteriorate over the years provides an incentive for imports, a disincentive for home production, and a disincentive for exports. It is obvious that if we have a tax system that significantly deters the incentives for exports in an international trading world, we are crazy. We have to change that.
I would like to deal finally with corporate tax reform. We have all heard the stories of the very profitable corporations which have made profits through the late 1970s and the 1980s but have not paid corporate taxes. As the Minister has clearly stated, any meaningful tax reform must result in these profitable corporations paying taxes so the Canadian taxpayer can once again have confidence that the tax system is fair and the right people are paying their taxes.
In conclusion, it is obvious that in his four Budgets, the Minister of Finance did a superb job in restoring the Canadian economy and introducing in the tax system a fairness that we all felt existed 30 years ago but had disappeared in the intervening years. It is for these reasons that the Minister of Finance will be regarded as the most important Finance Minister in Canada's history.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Hon. Member who just spoke. When he began, he went on at some length about what a fantastic job the Government had done by bringing down interest rates. He attributed the drop in inflation to the great job the Government had done.
When the Government was first elected in 1984 and interest rates and inflation were still high, answers to questions put by the Opposition were repeatedly answered by Government Members using the same line the Liberals had used when they were in office. They said that there was nothing the Government cottld do about lowering interest rates or about bringing inflation down because our economy was so closely tied to the American economy. They were not prepared to take the responsibility for bringing those rates down.
American interest- rates and American inflation rates have come down and we followed them downward. Why is the Hon.

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. McCrossan
Member so hypocritical as to rise in the House to take credit for the drops when he was not prepared to take the responsibility for the high rates? One cannot suck and blow at the same time, or is that synonymous with Conservatives? They talk through both sides of their mouths at the same time.


William Paul Joseph McCrossan: Mr. Speaker, I would not have phrased the question that way but if I had planted it, I could not have done a better job. The question gives me a chance to talk about something that was happening during the early 1980s but has changed now.
As we built up very large deficits through the 1970s and the 1980s, the dollar was under tremendous downward pressure. The only choice the Government had in the face of these runs that occurred on the dollar was to maintain wider interest rate spreads than those that had been traditional between Canada and the United States. Traditionally, those spreads had been at the .5 per cent to 1 per cent level. Gradually those spreads grew to several percentage points. The important change that occurred and the reason the Minister of Finance can take credit for this is that he took the pressure off the dollar.
By reducing the deficit, indicating to the world that we are determined to have a stable currency and a solidly expanding economy and taking the pressure off the dollar, Canada has become the preferred place in which to invest and create jobs. The deficit is falling. The last run on the dollar was a year and a half ago. We are now facing a steady increase in the dollar and as a result of the economic policies we brought in, the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada have been able to allow interest rates to fall very abruptly. These interest rates have fallen as a direct result of the Government's approach. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with taking credit for it because we got ourselves out of a problem the Liberal Government had built up for us over the last 15 years.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech of the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. McCrossan). I could not help but wonder why, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Government is doing such a fantastic job, no one in Canada knows about it. As we travel around Canada, we certainly do not hear that message from the taxpayers.
At the beginning of his speech, the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough did say that interest rates have changed drastically in five years. I would remind the Hon. Member that five years ago, the mandate of the Liberal Government had more than two years to go. I think the Hon. Member should have thanked the previous Government rather than criticizing it in the way he did because it was obviously the Liberal Government that laid the foundation for this Government to move on the good things that are happening today in the area of interest rates.
I recognize the fact that Conservative Members do not wish to believe the truth when they hear it, but the Hon. Member did say that interest rates have changed in five years. I cannot help but agree with him. The severe depression of the early 1980s was handled superbly by the Liberal Government compared to the way the Conservative Government handled the worst depression ever before that, the depression of the 1930s. We know what happened to many people then. Government Members had better keep remembering that.
I think every Canadian across the nation realizes what the Liberal Government did in the early 1980s. It supported people on old age pensions without any cuts, it supported low and middle-income people, it supported unemployment insurance programs because it was a tough time for the unemployed, it supported people on family allowances, and it supported hospitalization. All these programs were brought into Parliament by Liberal Governments over the years.
There have been some fantastic Ministers of Finance in Parliament in past years. I would like to tell the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough that I certainly would not want to compare the present Minister of Finance with the Ilsleys and Abbotts of this world. They were truly Ministers of Finance at a time when Parliament faced tremendous challenges, not only nationally but internationally through the war years.
When the Government is praising itself for what a tremendous job it has done and at the same time it is condemning the Government of past days, I think the statement that was made earlier about not sucking and blowing at the same time is appropriate. By the way, that is an old Ottawa Valley saying. It originated in the Ottawa Valley, as did many other famous sayings. If the Government is going to take credit for the positives, it had better take the blame for the negatives.
The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough said that Scarborough is booming. That is great. There is nothing wrong with that at all. However, it is too bad that some of that has not spread across to other parts of the country. Rural Canada is not booming these days. This is the Government that said it would have all the problems of rural Canada solved in no time at all.
The Budget the Government brought in a few weeks ago is a perfect example, and indeed a perfect reflection, of the policies of a Government that has no original ideas and no perception of how it should attack the difficult problems of our time. It is quite obvious that the back-benchers in the Conservative Party had no say in this Budget, or did they? The man from Bay Street-the Finance Minister-had everything his own way. He knew of only one way to go and that was to increase taxes on the lower-income and middle-income people in the country while ensuring that he protected his wealthy friends and the large corporations. One need only look at the figures in the Budget to prove that.
April 13, 1987

I want to say a word this afternoon about defence measures. In a National Defence Committee meeting on March 17 the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Dick) replied, in answer to a question I put to him about where the 6 per cent increase in defence that they had promised throughout the election campaign was, "We have no record of having made that promise. If you can find anything, I wish you would let me know".
Well, I found it, Mr. Speaker, and put it on record in this House by way of a statement under Standing Order 21 on March 27. I told my research person at the time that I would wait a few days until the Government had one of its members reply to that because it could not allow that to stand unanswered. Sure enough, last Wednesday the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) got up in the House. I was surprised that that member got up and made the statement that he did, because I know him as a man of integrity. He is a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces. In reference to me, the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi said:
When he referred to three newspaper articles, the Hon. Member implied that they contained mention of, to use his words, promises and commitments. These words are nowhere to be found in direct connection to anyone involved with the Government.
I will begin by referring to The Toronto Star of July 31, 1984, which was about five weeks before election day. There is an excellent picture here of the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). The article reads:
Under a Tory government, defence spending growth "should be 6 per cent for the next few years," Andre said.
Further on the article says:
The national defence budget is estimated at $8.78 billion for 1984-85-
The article goes on to list the other budgets. I will now refer to the London Free Press of August 6 in which an article reads:
Last July, Conservative defence critic Harvie Andre suggested that not even four per cent would suffice. Annual increases after inflation of up to 6 per cent would be required, in his judgment, to bring existing level of armed forces up to a reasonable degree of combat readiness.
Surely these reporters in Toronto and London are not making all this up. The article continues:
In last February's federal budget, defence expenditures were projected to total $11.15 billion in 1987-88, up 27 per cent over last year.
That did not happen, Mr. Speaker.
In the Chronicle-Herald from Halifax the following statement is to be found:
Dartmouth Tory MP Michael Forrestall said that if a federal Liberal government needs cash, one of the first places it will look to get that cash is its defence budget, adding a Progressive Conservative government would look lastly at its defence budget for funding of other programs.
The article continues:
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
Mr. Forrestall said in an interview Friday that defence spending is an
important priority of the Tories, and the PCs would look at a defence budget
increase of 6 per cent.
There is nothing wrong with that. He was only repeating what the defence critic of the day said.
After reading these quotes from the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre who was the defence critic during the last election, from the Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), and from the Associate Minister of National Defence, how can the Hon. Member for Northumberland Miramichi get up in this House and say that "these words are nowhere to be found in direct connection to anyone involved with the Government"? Is the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre not involved with the Government? I thought he was in the Cabinet. I believe I have made my point on that issue very clearly. Why are Hon. Members spending their time denying election promises which they did in fact make? It is on the record.
The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi must have been embarrassed to be asked to stand up in the House and defend his Party's pathetic record on defence policy. I know it must be difficult for such an honest man to tell Canadians that the great rhetoric of the Tory Party in the 1984 election campaign with regard to national defence and many other items has remained that, just plain rhetoric. After listening to the Hon. Member for York Scarborough I know it is still going on.
Let us look at the actual record of the defence budget because I want to make it very clear in the record. In 1980-81, the real growth in the defence budget was 3.2 per cent after inflation. In 1981-82, the real growth was 3.1 per cent. In 1982-83, the real growth was 5.3 per cent. In 1983-84, it was 6.4 per cent. That is what the Tories promised, but that was done under the Liberal Government which was castigated by the Tories for it.
In 1984-85, the real growth was over 8 per cent. In 1985-86, the first fiscal year for which the Tory Government was responsible, the real increase in national defence fell to minus .2 per cent. In their first year in office they had a decrease of .2 per cent after having run all over the country the year before promising members of the Armed Forces, veterans, Canadian business people, and Canadians at large that there would be a 6 per cent real increase after inflation.
In 1986-87, there was about a 2.75 per cent increase. In the present year, the increase will be no more than zero per cent and may even end up being a negative increase. There is a great possibility that there will be negative growth in the defence budget for two out of three years the Government has been in power and only a 2.7 per cent increase in the other year. Yet, throughout the summer of 1984 the Government duped Canadians by telling them that it would provide a real increase of 6 per cent. Every Canadian, and certainly those in the Armed Forces, will remember that promise.

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
In case people do not want to believe newspapers, let me read some history that has been written about the Government. It is from an excellent book entitled "Canada and Collective Security: Odd Man Out". It is written by Joseph T. Jockel and Joel J. Sokolsky. Mr. Sokolsky was one of the researchers and advisers a year ago when the then Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence was preparing its study on NORAD. He is an excellent student. This work was published with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies at Georgetown University, and is extremely credible.
On page 11 of the book, Mr. Jockel and Mr. Sokolsky say regarding the campaign of 1984:
-the Conservative spokesperson on defence issues, Harvie Andre, a Member
of Parliament from Calgary, called for the party to commit itself to real
increases in the defence budget on the order of 6 per cent a year for five
years-
Not one, but five years:
-thus doubling the rate of increase of the past several years.
One can only imagine what the increase will be in the next two years when we consider that in the first three years there has been a real increase of less than 2.75 per cent in total. The Government will have quite a challenge in meeting that budget, and the reality is that it cannot do so. I simply want to put to rest all the rhetoric about what the Government is doing for national defence in this country.
The House will note that the Liberal Party that was defeated in 1984 not only met the NATO commitment of 3 per cent every year until it left office as well as in the fiscal Budget for which it was responsible after it left office, but in two of those years it more than met the Conservative promise, and almost met that promise in the third year because the increase was 5.3 per cent.
Let us consider what the Government has done for our Canadian Armed Forces and people in the private sector in terms of pension income and severance pay. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) recently made a statement in the House simply because of the tremendous pressure that has been brought to bear on him by the Liberal Opposition, as well as Armed Forces organizations, pension organizations, the RCMP, public servants, Crown corporation retirees and others.
In 1985, the Government began a procedure whereby it announced that pension income and severance pay would be considered as income for the purpose of paying unemployment insurance. It did not matter whether members of the RCMP or the Armed Forces had paid from its inception in 1970 until they retired in 1985. They suddenly discovered that they were unable to collect unemployment insurance. In some cases some got as much as $5 a week and others had their premium payments cut simply because the Government had brought in a policy which considered their pension income and severance pay as income. When we questioned the Hon. Member for
Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), who is now in another portfolio, she rose in the House to defend it with great fervour, saying that it was a tremendous policy. The former Minister of Employment and Immigration was shifted to what is supposed to be a quieter Department but one that I suspect will become more controversial soon.
The new Minister was appointed and realized something had to change. The other day he rose in the House to withdraw some of these measures. We must recognize the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who rose in the House on March 18 to say, as reported at page 4306 of Hansard:
After a year and a half of questions in this House, demonstrations outside the House, Opposition Days, Statements Pursuant to Standing Order 21, and visits to the Minister's office, in short, an onslaught of attack on the Government, it has finally seen the light. The Minister has been dragged kicking and screaming to recognize that the policy which his predecessor introduced a year and a half ago is wrong with regard to those who applied for unemployment insurance after being preretired before January 5, 1986.
He went on to give credit to all those groups who fought that battle. The Government has been insensitive to those pensioners, the retirees of the Canadian Armed Forces, RCMP retirees and others, for the duties they have performed. The Government is nickel and diming them when they retire and when they need the money the most in order to prepare for a new way of life.
I only wish that I had enough time today to tell the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) exactly what I think of his policies and the Government's policy on transferring first-class technology.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member's time has expired. I am sure the House would not mind giving the Hon. Member an extra minute to conclude his speech.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to say that it is a sad day for Canada when the Government closes down a $50 million telescope and observatory situated in the quiet land of eastern Ontario. The Government does not know how to mothball it because no country has ever had the audacity to mothball a telescope. People will have to remain there to look after it or it will be destroyed in many ways.
The worst insult to the science community of Canada was the Government's announcement that it will buy a 25 per cent share in a foreign telescope situated on a mountain peak in Hawaii, where Canadian scientists will have to travel to do the same things they would have done here on our own doorstep if the Government had spent a few million dollars to upgrade the telescope and observatory. Indeed, such upgrading was planned through Treasury Board but was cancelled. Now our scientists are being sent offshore while these excellent facilities in our own country, which could have attracted many international scientists, are being destroyed. I thank the House for its consideration in extending my time.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member indicate that it was a sad day for Canada when we could not
April 13, 1987

spend $50 million on a telescope. How sad does the member find it that the taxpayers of this country are paying some $27 billion-that is twenty-seven thousand million dollars in interest-on a public debt which he helped create by supporting previous Ministers of Finance, including the current Leader of his Party? How sad does he find it? Can he do the mathematics and tell us how many telescopes we could buy if we did not have to pay that interest on the public debt? Can he do the mathematics on that and still feel sad about the enormous amount of $27 billion to pay interest? That is why we do not have $50 million for a telescope.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, we have heard those statements in the House before. I could come back to the Hon. Member and simply say that we all know that the national debt has increased considerably under this Government. What is it, $100 billion more or $75 billion more? What will it be by the time we get that Party out of power? Who is going to pay the interest rate for its blunders? People in this country realize the Government has made blunders. Who is going to pay the interest on the millions of dollars which was spent on the prison in the Prime Minister's own riding? That must be borrowed money if the Government is still in debt and is still deficit budgeting. The Government is not balancing the Budget in this country, and it should not try to tell Canadians that it is.
The Hon. Member says we cannot find $50 million for a telescope. It just goes to show that he does not know what he is talking about. We were not looking for $50 million for any telescope. What we were looking for was $12 million to upgrade the observatory and the total complex we already have. We were not going to go offshore and spend another $10 million or $12 million buying into a foreign-owned telescope which is not even on Canadian soil. What is wrong with the Government? Is it not happy with science and technology and the way Canadians have developed it in this country? I think the Hon. Member should be ashamed of himself for creating this kind of debt and scandal by going offshore to participate with someone else. We do not even have the observatory in this country now to invite our scientists back.
I want to repeat before I sit down again, because I do not think the Hon. Member was listening, that during the early years of the 1980s in this country and in the western world we saw the worst depression in 50 years.


Mr. Lanthier:: Provoked by you.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Listen to the Hon. Member. He has opinions of grandeur if he thinks we created unemployment and recession in the United States, in Great Britain, West Germany and Japan. How silly can the Hon. Member be to think that. He will then stand up and say that Canada has no influence. He stands up in this House-I am sorry he does not, he speaks from the seat of his pants. He is saying Canadians are causing all this destruction. Come on.
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins


Claude Lanthier: You created the situation.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It was an international problem. If the Hon. Member wanted to be honest, he would admit it was an international problem. If the Hon. Member for York-Scarborough wanted to be honest, he would say it was an international problem with which we had to contend. The Liberal Government did contend with it, but it did not do so by riding on the backs of the poor and middle-income earners and the unemployed of this country. We looked after those people and that is why we are paying part of that interest today.


An Hon. Member:: $200 million worth.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Let us have some order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have 10 minutes for questions and comments and there is a deliberate filibuster by the original speaker to stop us from asking very pertinent and relevant questions. The Hon. Member brings up the prison in the Prime Minister's riding. That prison is being built for two-thirds the cost per cell of the last prison built by the Hon. Member's Government in the Province of New Brunswick. He does not want that fact laid on the Table. He does not want to give us an opportunity to stand up and say that the Auditor General spoke about his sense of panic that the previous Government had created a situation where spending was out of control. Those are the things the Hon. Member is trying to filibuster about, and I think, on a point of order, he should be cut off and not be allowed to do that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We are going to pursue the question and comment period with the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney).


Mr. Daubney:: Mr. Speaker, there are many matters on which I could comment in the Hon. Member's address. However, I would just like the record to be clear on the last point he made during the extended minute given to him with respect to the telescope.
He certainly left the House with the impression that it was a decision of this Government to participate in the Hawaiian telescope. That is not the case at all. I can tell him as a member of the Standing Committee on Science and Technology that that was a decision taken by the Government of which he was a supporter for many years, that of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I think it was in 1978 or 1979 that the then Government decided that Canada would participate in this very state of the art telescope high on a mountain top in the Hawaiian Islands. It is an excellent location from which to observe the stars, and I am not questioning the decision made by the Government of the day. However, I just want to point out to the Hon. Member that this was not an initiative of our Government. It was an initiative of the Government which he supported, and if he had concerns about it, he should have raised them at that time.

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Rodriguez


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member accused me of going on for too long, but I would point out to him that the indecency of his own colleagues speaking from their seats, shouting and putting comments on the record, was not going to go unnoticed. Perhaps if he had some rapport on his side of the House my speech would not have taken so long.
I say to the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) that plans were in fact under way to upgrade the Algonquin Radio Observatory, and he knows that. He knows that this proposal was before Treasury Board. But the Government was not going to cancel one and do the other. Was the Government going to cancel its own Canadian technology and go offshore besides? The Hon. Member knows very well that we can buy into another telescope or take an interest in another telescope, but that does not mean we have to destroy our own technology at home in order to do so.
If the Hon. Member wanted to be square on what he said, he would have said that the Government made a choice. It made a choice to cancel the Algonquin Radio Observatory to go offshore. That is what the Minister told us. If the Hon. Member refutes that, he is refuting his own Minister. Here we are destroying our own technology at home, but we are quite willing to put our bucks into a foreign country, have a share in something on foreign land, yet at the same time the Government talks about mothballing an observatory here at home which is in an area which needs the employment and does business with many businesses throughout the area and is known world-wide for its excellence. But the Hon. Members' Government not only refused to upgrade the observatory but decided it was going to close it down and go offshore and say no to Canadian-born technology.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I listen very carefully to the speech of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins). Even though I am finance critic, I have not had the opportunity to look into all aspects of the Budget, so I would like the Hon. Member to comment on the percentage of increase in defence spending. I understand that the Tories promised during the election campaign to have a real increase of 6 per cent, and the Hon. Member gave us a figure of an increase of only 2.75 per cent in the second Budget, .2 per cent in 1985-86, and zero in 198788. Can the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke tell us how it would affect our defence? Could he give us a concrete example of how such a decision by the Tory Government, in contradiction of its promises, will affect people in the Hon. Member's riding or in any other place in Canada?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. Perhaps it will be more realistic if we did not only talk in percentages. I said that in the first year the Government was in power, it had negative growth in real defence spending in its Budget. In the second year, it went up by 2.75 per cent, but this year it may well again have negative growth in the defence budget. So that will be deducted from the 2.75 per cent in the second year. It is a pretty dismal showing.
With respect to the long-term and, indeed, the short-term effects that this will have on the defence community of Canada, the Armed Forces, if we will be increasing the reserves, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) says we will be doing, then why did he say it would be done over a period of 15 years? It is because there will not be enough money to do it beforehand. Why is the Government putting off the purchase of submarines for such a long time? Because it does not have the money to purchase them. Why are military bases in the country going without maintenance funds for buildings and the simple things they need? It is because there is no money to do the job. This means that we will have continued deterioration where there is no money to upgrade military bases across Canada and those outside Canada. It will cost more in the long run to fix up these buildings and carry out the maintenance work that needs to be done.
In terms of the Budget I spoke only about personnel. The Government promised that it would greatly increase the personnel of the Armed Forces. The present numbers differ little from the number of three years ago when the Conservatives came to power. That is another promise that has not been kept.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, it simply means that everything will be put off for down the road. I hope that we do not have any wars or rumours of wars taking place before then, because if there are it will involve an awfully fast step-up job to get anything done.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to add my two cents' worth to the debate on the Budget of February 18.
One thing I can recall vividly is the feeling in the country after Pierre Elliott Trudeau ascended to the Prime Ministership of Canada in 1968. One of the hallmarks of his first four years in office was to do with how divided the country was and the fact that the regions of the country were split. He destroyed the fabric which held Canada together. In looking at the election results of the 1974 election we see that the representation in the House of Commons reflected that division. It reflected the disunity in the country. For example, by and large, western Canadians supported the Conservative Party. Every Member of Parliament Alberta sent back was a Conservative Member of Parliament. Ontario was split. Quebec sent back a preponderance of Liberals. The Atlantic region was split. There was an accepted belief that the Liberals had split Canada. They did not have a consensus. They did not reflect equal representation. Indeed, between 1980 and 1984 the Liberals were shut out of western Canada, not only federally but oftentimes provincially. At that time one could not give a Liberal away. They had split the country.
Then, in 1984, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) returned here with 211 seats. Everyone said: "Look at that. This is a broadly representative Government. We now have
April 13, 1987

representation from coast to coast. Look at the unity that we have created". During the first few months in office the polls reflected the Government's popularity. The honeymoon was on. In terms of popularity the polls showed the Conservatives at 55 per cent and then 50 per cent. In just two and a half short years where has it gone? Where is the unity in the country? The Conservative Government is wracked by dissension. The Elon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) pointed out that the Government is not paying attention to the problems of the west. As one travels across the country one senses the feeling that the country is as divided now as it was in the time of Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I wish to point out that in the rhetoric contained in the Budget when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) brought it down he said that some regions are hurting. Ele then went on to say: "We intend to ensure that our program of economic renewal works for all Canadians". He promised and offered to work with the provincial Governments and industry to find ways to develop a sound base for improved sustained growth in all regions of the country. Let us take a look at that.
He did not say where the growth was taking place. In fact, I would like to offer one statistic to the House which gives a little insight into where the growth has taken place. Between January of 1986 and January of 1987 the total number of jobs in the country rose by 137,000. However, only 5,000 of those jobs were created outside of Ontario.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member says: "Shame". I want to point out that very few of those 137,000 jobs were created in the northern part of the province. The vast majority of those jobs were created in the Golden Horseshoe, specifically in Toronto. I recall in the mid-1970s when young people who were experiencing high rates of unemployment approached the then Prime Minister when he was speaking at a university. They asked Prime Minister Trudeau what he intended to do about job creation and jobs for young people. Do you know what he said to them, Mr. Speaker? He said: "You have to be prepared to leave Canada and go to find a job somewhere else". He was roundly and correctly criticized for having said that. What is the Government now saying to young people? What it is saying is that people have to go to Toronto to find jobs. That is what it is saying.
In spite of that the Government persists. The Minister talks about more growth, more jobs and more opportunities in his Budget. How can he say that when, in fact, that growth is very narrow and limited to Toronto and a small geographic area of southern Ontario? There is a saying that one can go to the east or to the west and immediately form a connection with other people by hating Toronto. Is this the unity the Government has created? Is this the unity that the Minister of Finance and the Government talks about? This is the Government of Toronto.
The Minister of Finance appeared before the Finance Committee soon after his Budget was tabled. He pointed out
The Budget-Mr. Rodriguez
that 675,000 jobs had been created across the country. He admitted that 356,000 of them were created in Ontario. That is over 50 per cent. It seems to me that the common belief is that the Government is low in the polls because of scandals. I suggest that we have to look again. I do not think that being low in the polls is attributable totally to scandals. I think it has to do with the fact the Government has abandoned the regions of Canada.


Cyril Keeper: That is a scandal.


John R. Rodriguez: That is scandalous. The Government talked about jobs, jobs, jobs. As I pointed out, when we look to the regions we see 5,000 jobs created outside of Toronto from January to January. What about the other Canada? What about the regions forgotten by the Government? Between 1981 and 1986, unemployment in Atlantic Canada increased from 11.5 per cent to 15.3 per cent. The difference in the unemployment rate between Ontario and Atlantic Canada increased from 6.3 per cent in 1981 to 8.2 per cent in 1986. Today we have 125,000 unemployed in four Atlantic provinces alone. The unemployment rate ranges between a low of 13.5 per cent in New Brunswick to 20.1 per cent in Newfoundland. That does not even count the thousands who have given up looking for non-existent jobs. Average family income in Ontario is 40 per cent higher than in Atlantic Canada. Some 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the region's income is dependent on social payments. That is the other Canada. That is the Canada forgotten in the Budget of the Minister of Finance. It would have been better had the Minister not brought that Budget down. Someone in my riding called it the "budgie Budget" because one of the tax increases applied to pet food.
What is the Conservative Government's record on the question of job creation and regional development? As I pointed out, 90 per cent of all the new jobs were created in southern Ontario. Spending on regional economic development has fallen almost S3 billion since the Tories took power in 1984. Some 70 per cent of DRIE funds are spent in Ontario and Quebec. The private sector in the Atlantic region has said it will reduce investment. Tory tax credits and tax reforms are a total failure. For example, we have the Cape Breton tax credit. It is being used by investors to invest in fly-by-night operations in the same way as the SRTC scam. What have the Tories done about the Moncton shops and the Trenton car works? Jobs have disappeared. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Atlantic Enterprise Program are caught up in red tape. Do the Budgets do anything about the fishery in Atlantic Canada? We all know about the fishery deal that France and Canada signed. We know the way that deal was fixed. What is the Government doing about the offshore? What about development programs? Are there any increases in transfer payments? On the contrary, there are cutbacks. Are there any increases in equalization payments? On the contrary, there are cut-backs.

April 13, 1987
The Budget-Mr. Rodriguez
Keeping in mind that three out of four of the Atlantic Governments are Conservative, how have they reacted to the third Budget of the Tory Government? Premier Buchanan of Nova Scotia said:
I was quite frankly very, very disappointed that the Budget didn't address what I thought was going to be one of the major items, and that was the Atlantic provinces agency . . . There is very little in the Budget for the Atlantic region at a time when we needed (something) very badly . . . Ontario is doing very well, thank you, but the Atlantic Provinces are not doing that well, and it's most unfortunate that the Budget didn't address that.
He went on to say:
Unfortunately-restraint is having a rather devastating effect on the Atlantic Provinces ... The remedy they're using to cure a problem in Ontario is causing pneumonia down here.


Cyril Keeper: We need a new doctor.


John R. Rodriguez: We need to fire the doctor. No one can accuse The Telegraph-Journal of being a socialist paper, yet it had this to say in its February 20 editorial:
"There's nothing there for Atlantic Canada,'' said Normand Corno, president of the New Brunswick Chamber of Commerce.
"Something of a non-event" said Donald Hackett, president of the Saint John Board of Trade.
Tim McCarthy, president of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour, said: "I think the minister ignored regional disparities."
Even Yvon Poitras, chairman of the New Brunswick government's Board of Management-and a politician of the same PC stripe as Mr. Wilson-was openly critical. He agreed with business and labour that the Wilson budget "does nothing" for New Brunswick.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald said, in its editorial of February 20, 1987, that:
-Mr. Wilson did not even reaffirm the government's commitment to the agency in the budget speech.
So far, the AEP has been bogged down by bureaucratic red tape and unworkable guidelines, according to both the business community and independent economists.
The AEP has generated publicity, but only because Millie's Chips became frustrated with its dealings with the AEP bureaucracy, and decided to locate a new plant in Ontario instead of Port Hawkesbury.
What does the editorial of the St. John's evening Telegram
say? It says:
Two areas of concern for this province, the fishery and the offshore, were not addressed. There were no announcements on prospects of reducing regional disparity nor was there anything to indicate the province's horrendous jobless rate would be reduced.
Mr. Wilson describes his budget as a breathing space budget prior to proposals for major tax reform later this year.
It sounds to me not like breathing space but like strangulation. It is strangling the Atlantic region. The headline on the St. John's evening Telegram editorial was: "Atlantic area must wait". The editorial goes on to point out:
Help is on the way, he said, but he considers Atlantic Canadians to be unreasonable for having expectations that it would come in time for the budget.
It is central Canada which is booming and the Finance minister insists Atlantic Canada will benefit from that boom.
In other words, what's good for central Canada is good for all Canadians.
It is called the trickle down theory. Remember, this Government was supposed to bring unity. The Government has representation in the Elouse. It has 211 seats from coast to coast.


John V. Nunziata: And what has it brought?


John R. Rodriguez: It has brought nothing but division and disunity to the country in 2.5 short years. The Conservatives wonder why they are low in the polls. I want to reiterate that it is not the scandals. It is their ignoring of regional disparities and their willingness to focus only on where there is already economic development, which is basically in southern Ontario.
Northern Ontario remains a source of raw materials, as do Atlantic Canada and the West. The trickle down theory of stimulating southern Ontario and hopefully some crumbs will fall to the east, the west, and the north is not acceptable.
At some point the revolution is coming. We in Atlantic Canada, we in northern Ontario, and we in the west will say that we are not satisfied with the crumbs. We want to share in the meal. We will take our chairs and draw ourselves closer to the table so that we can participate in the meal, not accept the crumbs.
I am not here to convert the Tories. I am here to preach the word that unless the Government repents, the day of judgment is at hand. They should pay close attention to what Canadians are telling them.
I have quoted the reactions in Atlantic Canada. They are not from New Democrat oriented editorials and leadership in Atlantic Canada. They are from people of their own stripe.
I say to the Government that the time has come. It must put aside its concept which sees southern Ontario, particularly Toronto, as the hallelujah for all Canada. I say right now that the Government must pay attention to regional disparities which exist in Canada and do something about them now before it is too late.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there any questions or comments?
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the question is the following one.
Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre), seconded by Mr. Mazan-kowski, moved:
That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
April 13, 1987


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion 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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. [Translation]
It being 6.10 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, April 14, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers